Time Reborn: a new theory of time

[Rav]

you want to embrace some sort of reverse solipsism where your wavefunction can only be collapsed by other instances of consciousness because your own just isn't really 'present' or 'actual' enough to get the job done).

Now you are getting it.

There's nothing to get, because you're not proposing anything that is particularly complex. This is all quantum mechanics 101 repackaged by you as quantum woo. And quantum woo, far from expanding the frontiers of metaphysical philosophy, is just woo.

We may think we are in a collapsed state because we are aware, but are we?

This is where the woo comes in. Either an act of subjective perception collapses the wavefunction, or it doesn't. You can't defer the collapse to another observer further along the chain without treating your own act of subjective perception as non-real, which is absurd. The only way a logically consistent argument could be made for that is if you were the one further along the chain. But then you essentially have to promote a solipsistic take on the consciousness causes collapse interpretation. Feel free to go ahead with that if you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

Wikipedia can give you rough outline of where it stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem

Clearly it's you who needs to do some further reading. Although it probably wont help because people like you only ever see what they want to see.

This means that if there is no observer in your bathroom at the moment, people subscribing to this Interpretation will tell you it does not exist in the form of matter. Many people cannot grasp the Spooky thoughts we are now discussing, and very few people are even aware of The double Slit Experiment or its Interpretations.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the manner in which I am criticizing your wildly speculative ideas. Second of all, only if you spend the bulk of your time conversing with those who aren't well-read on the topic we are discussing could you possibly feel like you have gained any special insight that is beyond the comprehension of everyone around you.

Honestly, you're a bit like a kid who thinks he's a genius just because he's played a few games that made him feel like one. And like some of these kids, you don't seem to understand that a huge number of other people aced those games as well. In fact it's a given that many did it even faster, and even better, than you. Welcome to the real world. The world beyond your delusions of grandeur, where the truly smart people put themselves and their ideas in the proper context.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Rav,

This is where the woo comes in. Either an act of subjective perception collapses the wavefunction, or it doesn't. You can't defer the collapse to another observer further along the chain without treating your own act of subjective perception as non-real, which is absurd.

From this one statement alone it is extremely clear you do not understand the concept of Wigner's Friend. You seriously should reconsider your stance in this debate as you clearly are not in the least bit familiar with the topic.

which is absurd.

Yes. Many people think the idea of Wigner's Friend is absurd, but you are arguing against the idea of Wigner's Friend here, and not my own idea.

Let me dumb down the idea a bit to see if I can get you to understand.

Let's pretend your name is Eugene Wigner, and you have a friend who carries out a real "Schrodingers Cat in The Box" experiment while you are away.

Now you return to the lab and the door to the lab is closed (like a box).

OKay Now compare this situation to the Schrodinger cat in the box experiment.

Inside the lab is your friend who has already opened the box and has determined that the cat is "A - Dead" or "B - Alive".

Now Wigner knows that his friend has already "collapsed" (possibly) the wavefunction of the cat into actuality ( If you subscribe to that Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

So now he compares the experiment with the door in front of him. Perhaps his friend who opened the box is himself still a wavefunction in need of a collapse.

You can argue this is absurd, but this is the idea of Wigner's Friend (albeit dumbed down a bit). The idea suggests that none of us are really collapsed, although If and when we are collapsed (by the end consciousness in the chain) we would not realize we were ever in juxtaposition.

So now he opens the door and collapses his friend who thinks he collapsed the cat.

This can be expanded further.

Now Wigners wife drives to the lab and collapses Wigner who believes he has collapsed his friend and the cat, and collapses Wigner.

This can be expanded to every person they meet. An entire city can exist as a wavefunction based on the idea of Wigner's Friend (if it were true).

Now I will paste your quote below here again so you can see why it demonstrates you are not familiar with the subject of "Wigner's Friend"

This is where the woo comes in. Either an act of subjective perception collapses the wavefunction, or it doesn't. You can't defer the collapse to another observer further along the chain without treating your own act of subjective perception as non-real, which is absurd.

Let's break it down ...

This is where the woo comes in.

Ouch. Tough words from someone who does not understand the subject in the least ("Wigner's Friend").

Either an act of subjective perception collapses the wavefunction, or it doesn't.

Yet Wigner felt he might be collapsing his friend and the cat who were (according to idea of Wigner's Friend) living in superposition behind the laboratory door (The lab can be compared to a larger Schrodinger Box).

You are allowed your opinion, but it is the Wigner's Friend concept you are arguing against here, and not anything I have proposed.

You can't defer the collapse to another observer further along the chain

This is THE ENTIRE POINT of Wigner's Friend, despite your ignorance of the subject. The concept of Wigner's Friend is exactly deferring collapse further along the chain. You nailed it exactly if you were on opposite world and you meant the exact opposite of what you said.

The Wigner's friend thought experiment posits a friend of Wigner who performs the Schrödinger's cat experiment after Wigner leaves the laboratory. Only when he returns does Wigner learn the result of the experiment from his friend, that is, whether the cat is alive or dead. The question is raised: was the state of the system a superposition of "dead cat/sad friend" and "live cat/happy friend," only determined when Wigner learned the result of the experiment, or was it determined at some previous point?

You can say the Wigner's Friend concept is hogwash, and cannot exist, but do not credit me with the concept when you should know better.

So your statement clearly shows you are not even aware of the subject material, or at least lack comprehension of it.

Earlier you said,

It's a thought experiment. No-one really knows what happens inside the box, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate that a cat can be both alive and dead simultaneously. In fact the sheer scale at which the events of our lives play out combined with the many billions of interactive observers makes any suggestion that our individual narratives could exist in some sort of superposition of possible states beyond ridiculous, especially when you extend that to past events.

which is fine because this was the way Einstein and Schrodinger thought, and the experiment does pertain to past events (if it proved to be a true concept instead of a argument against The Copenhagen Interpretation), as it deals with the gas or explosion that would have occurred previous to the door being open.

Some will argue (like Bohr, Bell, etc.) that the cat would not exist as matter while enclosed in the box, but only as a possibility wave. If you want to argue with them then do so, but it is not my concept.

The ONLY thing I have added to existing belief (by many still), is that it is expectation/belief that influences collapse as opposed to simple measuring or observing. I can also see why many would object to this, but I feel correct and this idea is in real discussion groups (not here). Belief/faith does enter the Parapsychology debate quite frequently and is the underlying principle in many religions.

http://archived.parapsych.org/sheep_goat_effect.htm

While some subscribe to the fact belief is contributing to these results, I would say that it is also the expectations of those collapsing the participants, and the expectations of those analysing the results, and the expectations of skeptics arguing against psi that all need to be factored.

 

[Write4U]

@ Write4U,

You also do not seem to grasp this experiment or The Wigner's Friend thought experiment. Try browsing Youtube for videos or lectures on these topics.

i.e. The cat's observation is not considered in the experiment, the Copenhagen Interpretation (or one interpretation of that interpretation as will be argued) suggests that the cat is not even really in the box until measured. This may seem hard to grasp so I suggest reviewing the second video I posted in post 33. The idea is that matter does not collapse into particles until measured/observed. This was ridiculed by Einstein/Schrodinger, and the Cat in the box thought experiment was meant to show the ridiculousness of the claim, but yet many still think The Copenhagen Interpretation to be correct. Many think that the cat is really non existent in either form until the wave is collapsed into a particle (matter/life/cat).

OK, from Wiki,

Objective collapse theories,

According to objective collapse theories, wave function collapse occurs when a superposed systems reaches a certain objective threshold of size, complexity etc. Objective collapse proponents would expect a system as macroscopic as a cat to have collapsed before the box was opened, so the question of observation-of-observers does not arise for them.

Consciousness is not required for an object to exist. When a rock falls on another rock, it bounces off the existing rock, regardless of the presence of a conscious observer (this can be demonstrated after the fact). It might be argued that the wave function of both rocks collapses when they collide. This happens also when particles collide and scatter in sets of derivative (or combined) wave functions (also measurable after the fact).

The wave function of the system named "cat" does not disappear regardless if the cat is dead or alive. Placing the cat in the box is transferring the wave function of the entire system in the box. If the cat dies it ceases to exist as a conscious cat, but its system remains an expression of wave functions, i.e. a (lifeless) cat. At no time is consciousness required for physical expression of any kind, either for the cat or any number of observers, although each observer will see the system differently from their point of observation.

As far as I am concerned, Schrodinger's experiment deals with "future uncertainty" and has nothing to do with consciousness.

I am really conflicted about the concept of "collapse" of a wave function during observation. As a photographer I am familiar with "fixing" the image at a given instant in time, i.e. stopping time and movement of the wave functions of the ensemble, at which time all particles are "frozen" in their particular configuration, which is recorded by the camera. When the shutter speed is too slow, the wave function becomes visible by the 'blurring" of the image.

IMO, except for individual particles, which may be smeared out over an indeterminate area, a cohesive system (such as a solid object)restricts particles to function in a narrow well defined shape and direction. I believe that is contained in the law that requires all particles of a single system to have synchronization in time and direction.

IMHO, we do not conjure up an object from a set of random wave functions. We merely "fix in time" the shape of an existing synchronized system, regardless how many friends are present to observe the event or the observers.

I understand the "thought experiment" in Schrodinger's cat, but Wigner's thought experiment seems woo to me.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Write4U,

You had quoted the Wigner's Friend experiment in your previous reply so I thought that's what you were describing. I misunderstood that you were actually arguing against the viewpoint. Einstein also shares that deterministic view.

But now you went and said,

When a rock falls on another rock, it bounces off the existing rock, regardless of the presence of a conscious observer

This would also occur if the objects were possibility waves. It does suggest that you might find more information about this to be a learning experience.

 

[Write4U]

@ Write4U,

You had quoted the Wigner's Friend experiment in your previous reply so I thought that's what you were describing. I misunderstood that you were actually arguing against the viewpoint. Einstein also shares that deterministic view.

But now you went and said,

This would also occur if the objects were possibility waves. It does suggest that you might find more information about this to be a learning experience.

I did not mention Wigner in any prior posts except the one you are responding to here. I loathe to say, I had never heard of Wigner until someone else mentioned it, so I did a little reading on it, which prompted my response. I like the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment because it deals with the collapse of probabilities into a single expression in reality. Wigner's experiment makes no sense to me at all. Perhaps it belongs in Psychology, not in physics, IMHO.

If you read the next sentence you will find that I stipulated to the wave function. I tried to make the point this "collapse", which actually means the reinforcing potentials "select" one actual expression, which "collapses" all other probabilities. I am not arguing that the wave function does not exist, I am arguing that it makes no difference if there is an observer. Does the sun shine outside when I am locked up in a room without windows. Of course it does, I am just not able to observe it.

Unless one argues that a rock "knows" it is a rock, conscious observation has nothing to do with gross manifestation of the collapse of any wave function, except when the observer controls the reinforcing potentials (intercepts or adds other potentials to the wave function) and thereby influences the event. In the double slit experiment, the photon strikes the target plate even without an observer (as can be established after the fact). We just cannot predict where with any accuracy until the event has happened and all probabilities have collapsed in favor of a measurable event. But I can roll a bowling ball (a gross wave system) and walk away and if the throw was accurate enough I can come back later and discover that I threw a strike. I need not be there for one system to collide with another system and create a physical event. After I throw the ball I can try to use my mind and body language to influence the roll, but alas, not much chance of that happening.

Even a photon, a single particle with zero mass exhibits kinetic energy, just like a dynamic system of particles exhibit kinetic energy. Witness the universe itself, where we can look back in time and see the results of the interaction and collapses of the wave functions. A supernova in the past is measurable in the present, even as no human or any other observer was there and then to observe it. But of course, when we observe a supernova from then, we intercept and collapse the remaining wave functions of that event by observing them now.

 

[Write4U]

@ Write4U,

You had quoted the Wigner's Friend experiment in your previous reply so I thought that's what you were describing. I misunderstood that you were actually arguing against the viewpoint. Einstein also shares that deterministic view.

But now you went and said,

This would also occur if the objects were possibility waves. It does suggest that you might find more information about this to be a learning experience.

I did not mention Wigner in any prior posts except the one you are responding to here. I loathe to say, I had never heard of Wigner until someone else mentioned it, so I did a little reading on it, which prompted my response. I like the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment because it deals with the collapse of probabilities into a single expression in reality. Wigner's experiment makes no sense to me at all. Perhaps it belongs in Psychology, not in physics, IMHO.

If you read the next sentence you will find that I stipulated to the wave function. I tried to make the point this "collapse", which actually means the reinforcing potentials "select" one actual expression, which "collapses" all other probabilities. I am not arguing that the wave function does not exist, I am arguing that it makes no difference if there is an observer. Does the sun shine outside when I am locked up in a room without windows. Of course it does, I am just not able to observe it.

Unless one argues that a rock "knows" it is a rock, conscious observation has nothing to do with gross manifestation of the collapse of any wave function, except when the observer controls the reinforcing potentials (intercepts or adds other potentials to the wave function) and thereby influences the event. In the double slit experiment, the photon strikes the target plate even without an observer (as can be established after the fact). We just cannot predict where with any accuracy until the event has happened and all probabilities have collapsed in favor of a measurable event. But I can roll a bowling ball (a gross wave system) and walk away and if the throw was accurate enough I can come back later and discover that I threw a strike. I need not be there for one system to collide with another system and create a physical event. After I throw the ball I can try to use my mind and body language to influence the roll, but alas, not much chance of that happening.

Even a photon, a single particle with zero mass exhibits kinetic energy, just like a dynamic system of particles exhibit kinetic energy. Witness the universe itself, where we can look back in time and see the results of the interaction and collapses of the wave functions. A supernova in the past is measurable in the present, even as no human or any other observer was there and then to observe it. But of course, when we observe a supernova from then, we intercept and collapse the remaining wave functions of that event by observing them now.

Aside from that, I believe that the concept and function of physical determinism only applies to events in the present (@ quantum) and their fixed expression in the observable past. But the future is as yet indeterminate (uncertain) by the very complexity and sheer number of other probability wave functions in play, all of which need to collapse before an event can become Explicate in reality. However the future is amenable to conscious influence. We can build a dike to prevent a future flooding of a city. Thus at high tide our dam collapses the probability of flooding and save the city from water damage.
But I admit, here I am in over my head.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ write4U,

The problem with saying a rock would hit another rock and bounce off even if nobody was looking as you had suggested previously is that even as waveforms, the objects within the probability waves would follow physical laws, but just be in every possible state. If the rock had been a monkey then perhaps it was picking its nose while another probability would be that it was looking for a banana simultaneously, and it is not until conscious observation that it falls into one act or a myriad of others.

The idea that the sun does NOT shine if you are not looking outside although you think it is ridiculous was at one time one of the most accepted versions of reality among quantum physicists (not anymore), with something called The Copenhagen Interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
The wikipedia piece is not bad.

I will again point to the wolf video, as it most easily explains the wave particle duality we are speaking of and should help you understand decoherence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

 

[Write4U]

@ write4U,

The problem with saying a rock would hit another rock and bounce off even if nobody was looking as you had suggested previously is that even as waveforms, the objects within the probability waves would follow physical laws, but just be in every possible state. If the rock had been a monkey then perhaps it was picking its nose while another probability would be that it was looking for a banana simultaneously, and it is not until conscious observation that it falls into one act or a myriad of others.

The idea that the sun does NOT shine if you are not looking outside although you think it is ridiculous was at one time one of the most accepted versions of reality among quantum physicists (not anymore), with something called The Copenhagen Interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
The wikipedia piece is not bad.

I will again point to the wolf video, as it most easily explains the wave particle duality we are speaking of and should help you understand decoherence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but after rereading the Copenhagen Interpretation and re-watching the video to refresh my memory, I see nothing that contradicts my posts. You did mention that Copenhagen was no longer in vogue.

I did however notice that David Bohm was mentioned in the Wiki article, albeit that Heisenberg dismissed his work. And in the video Dr Quantum mentions "quantum potentials", which I cited in my posts. IMHO, I do understand the concepts involved and this is why I am a fan of Bohm, who offered a new and "inclusive" theory of the Implicate #potentials# becoming Explicate #collapsing# in reality in a series of steps from the infinitely subtle to the gross expression we can observe.

I cannot get behind the concept that the past, the present and the future can exist simultaneously in the same universal system. There is this little obstacle called time which keeps things from happening all at once and keeps the past, present, and future separated.

I am also not saying that the phenomenon of quantum behavior is easily understood. But I do believe I understand the gist of the interference patterns and collapsing probability wave functions. The one single counterintuitive action is when the interference pattern is observed when the photons are fired successively through the "double slits", unobserved. To me this confirms that particles do in fact travel as probability waves and may select slit 1 or slit 2. That they still form an interference pattern is truly astounding and well above my ability to analyze.

I read somewhere that this selection follows a precise pattern in selecting each slit in turn, which is truly amazing. I cannot help but speculate that every previous particle left a disturbance in space which affects the selection of alternate slits for the subsequent photon. Perhaps it might possibly have something to do with "field theory" which might explain both the selection of slits and maintaining the interference pattern.
I wonder what would happen if we fired the photons with long intervals in between in order to erase any field disturbance caused by the prior photon. Has anyone tested that?

Back to the rocks,
If I see a dead monkey and blood on the rock on which it fell, I can say that the quantum system of the monkey #and its banana# collided with the quantum system of the rock and caused the untimely end of the monkey as a sentient quantum system #regardless of what it was doing while falling#, while in my example the falling rock's quantum system was somewhat similar in potentials #except for kinetic energy# to the stationary rock on which it fell.

However if we were observing the falling rock or the monkey while falling, we might see the monkey choking on the banana or observe a miniscule deformation in the rock due to its speed and air resistance. The rock consists of a wave system, but all the wave functions are well defined within the system and there is no randomness within the rock system except for shedding energy and decomposing as a rock (half life?)

I just read another very interesting articles in wiki which might be pertinent.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/estatics/u8l4a.cfm

 

[Rav]

You can't defer the collapse to another observer further along the chain

This is THE ENTIRE POINT of Wigner's Friend, despite your ignorance of the subject. The concept of Wigner's Friend is exactly deferring collapse further along the chain.

What you are failing to comprehend here is the difference between a first person and third person analysis. And the nature of the consciousness causes collapse interpretation of QM along with the manner in which you are trying to co-opt the idea to support your "theory" makes this a critical distinction. I will explain further below.

You can say the Wigner's Friend concept is hogwash, and cannot exist, but do not credit me with the concept when you should know better.

I'm not ridiculing Wigner's Friend. It is, after all, simply a thought experiment designed to pose some interesting questions about the nature of reality. What I am ridiculing is your adoption of a literal interpretation of it as an accurate description of the nature of reality for the purposes of lending credibility to your own pet "theory" about the status of past events. That's quantum woo in a nutshell.

Let's be specific:

With respect to the events of our lives we're not cats trapped in a box, we're cats roaming around the neighborhood interacting with other cats, and the greater physical system we all inhabit. While there are of course von neumann chains in effect, the real world is more like a von neumann "web". In other words, if we are indeed assuming that consciousness causes collapse, then we need to accept that not only are we collapsing our own cat states, they are being collapsed, either directly or indirectly, by an innumerable number of other individuals as well. In fact this web spreads out to encompass the entire world eventually, and perhaps to some degree at least even the universe at large. What room is there, then, within a world where events are so multitudinously determined, for them to be undone and redetermined according the manner in which an individual projects their desires out into the universe, or whatever?

Oh, that's right. Because the entire system is a cat state! The entire ballgame could be determined one way, or another, right? Perhaps by praying to God, who's most primary and potent act of observation is ultimately the be all and end all of determining factors, right? But what is the ontological status of the past you remember if it can be rewritten as the past you desire? For that matter, what is the ontological status of the now absent memory of that altered past, and the person who possessed it? And don't try to pretend this isn't an issue when you are insisting that we can't invoke many worlds, because if we can't invoke many worlds then we really do necessarily have a situation where it is not only the past that is rewritten, but you as well (not to mention everyone else). Furthermore, what is the ontological status of an act of subjective perception collapsing a cat state, as an event, if such an event can essentially be undone and redetermined by a subsequent act of subjective perception, again in a singular world? Do you see now how problematic it is to suggest that the manner in which our cat states collapse could be determined by subjective acts of perception other than our own, or that those of other people could be determined by ours? It may superficially appear to make sense when you examine things from a third person perspective, but when you put subjectivity back into the equation by doing a first person analysis (again, assuming a universe in which acts of subjective perception really do do the collapsing) everything becomes utterly absurd, at least within the constraints you have established.

And I speak of absurdity here beyond that which I generally ascribe to the premise that I have accepted for the sake of argument. In other words, the consciousness causes collapse interpretation seems absurd to me already, so I'm actually favouring your position before examining it.

 

[wegs]

@ kwhilborn; you say a page back that you don't believe time is constant. That the past can change. Do you mean from the view of subjective consciousness? Sorry, I'm just trying to understand your assertions.

As more research continues on the subject of time not being a constant and consciousness being thought of as two paths: objective and subjective, can someone explain what "objective consciousness" is?

I've researched it on my own and come away a bit confused.

Your thoughts on it would be appreciated.

 

[Secret]

Here's something to throw into this discussion
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm


More quantum weirdness and possibilities
If I understand correctly, it seems to suggest both cause and effect are in a superposition
However, IMO, attempt to generalise this to complicated system such as consciousness naively will result in issues (best not to do that unless you have clear idea on what you are doing)
For the journal article, see beneath the sciencedaily article for a link

 

[Rav]

Here's something to throw into this discussion
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm


More quantum weirdness and possibilities
If I understand correctly, it seems to suggest both cause and effect are in a superposition
However, IMO, attempt to generalise this to complicated system such as consciousness naively will result in issues

Indeed. There's no reason to expect that quantum temporal weirdness, if it really is a feature of the quantum world, doesn't get averaged out in essentially the same way all other quantum weirdness does at large enough scales.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Rav,

Yes you do seem to understand my point, and I can see where a lot of people would disagree. I have taken it literally. I have replaced consciousness with expectation. These are because I endorse psi / "Law of Attraction" / Jungs Synchronicity.

n his book Synchronicity (1952),Carl Jung tells the following story as an example of a synchronistic event:
A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream, I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from the outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab one finds in our latitudes

With Prayers/Miracles/Law of Attraction/Synchronicity sometimes the miraculous part of the event was triggered prior to the prayer/affirmation/visualization.

i.e. A boat alters course a few degrees on the whim of the navigator. It stays this course for a full day and finds a drowning man praying for a miracle. The boat saves him. Anyone familiar with prayer power/Law of Attraction/Synchronicity/Miracles may notice that a lot of "syncs" (no coincidences only syncs) were scheduled prior to the affirming thought or prayer.

If this is true (Many of course can never accept this), then it means our past does change. Only the present is real.

@ Wegs,

I have taken the double slit experiment and applied the Bohr/Bell style of interpretation which is not popular. It is an interpretation that states Matter (cats and people included) does not exist unless it is observed/measured by a conscious entity like another person. So like the cat in Schrodingers box that does not exist as alive or dead while unobserved (if you took it literally, and not as the criticism it was intended as), We also do not exist until we are observed and we live much of our life in possibility waves.

This is a concept some argue is real, and many argue is absurd. I argue it is real and have replaced consciousness with expectation. I think that if we expect/believe/have faith the cat is alive, then the schrodinger cat will be alive. This concept is further subject to the belief of others, because if you report those findings you will be subjecting them to the belief/faith/expectations of skeptics who are expecting a more random outcome. So even if you could convince the person opening the box the cat was always alive, the cats fate could be redetermined in the future by those knowing that cat only had a 50/50 chance.

I do not care if people disagree, as I expect that of many here, but I am glad people at least understand what decoherence is and that it is a consideration among many.

 

[Sarkus]

I argue it is real and have replaced consciousness with expectation.

You argue for the unscientific, as it is wholly unfalsifiable: if an event happens as you expect you will claim it is evidence in favour; if the opposite happens then you will just claim that more people were obviously expecting that result.
It is unscientific and the only interesting part of it is in the why people believe such when there is no evidence that rationally supports it.

 

[brucep]

@ write4U,

The problem with saying a rock would hit another rock and bounce off even if nobody was looking as you had suggested previously is that even as waveforms, the objects within the probability waves would follow physical laws, but just be in every possible state. If the rock had been a monkey then perhaps it was picking its nose while another probability would be that it was looking for a banana simultaneously, and it is not until conscious observation that it falls into one act or a myriad of others.

The idea that the sun does NOT shine if you are not looking outside although you think it is ridiculous was at one time one of the most accepted versions of reality among quantum physicists (not anymore), with something called The Copenhagen Interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
The wikipedia piece is not bad.

I will again point to the wolf video, as it most easily explains the wave particle duality we are speaking of and should help you understand decoherence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

The idea you could understand the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, or any interpretation of QM, is a huge stretch as evidenced by your knucklehead evaluation of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Brucep,

I had said earlier although not every time that The Copenhagen Interpretation has been viewed in different ways. I believe I called it an interpretation of the interpretation.

However ...

It is you that is a knucklehead if you deny many have used to interpret the Copenhagen Interpretation to state "Matter does not exist unless it was observed". In fact; the entire Schrodinger Cat in the Box Thought experiment was meant to show how ridiculous The Copenhagen Interpretation was.

I would suggest you are the Knucklehead here and should re examine what The Copenhagen Interpretation actually means.

I also understand that many here do not grasp it (and I am including you in that group), so care little about your wrong standpoint. There are many who just see it as a blank spot for calculations (obviously you), and others who view it as "Matter cannot exist unless it is observed"

In the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics can only be used to predict the probabilities for different outcomes of pre-specified observations. What constitutes an "observer" or an "observation" is not directly specified by the theory, and the behavior of a system after observation is completely different than the usual behavior. During observation, the wavefunction describing the system collapses to one of several options. If there is no observation, this collapse does not occur, and none of the options ever become less likely.

an observer observing a quantum superposition will turn into a superposition of different observers seeing different things. Just like Schrodinger's cat, the observer will have a wavefunction which describes all the possible outcomes. Still, in actual experience, an observer never feels a superposition, but always feels that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. This apparent conflict between a wavefunction description and classical experience is called the problem of observation (Measurement problem). The founders of quantum mechanics were aware of this problem, and had varying opinions about its resolution. These views reflect different stances on an argument which is anything but resolved today:

Although I'm sure Brucep will resolve it for us.

"Consciousness causes collapse"[edit source | editbeta]

In his 1932 book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann argued that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows for the collapse of the wave function to be placed at any position in the causal chain from the measurement device to the "subjective perception" of the human observer – the notion of such a chain, more specifically a chain of interacting systems in which the values of one system is correlated with that of the immediately following system, has since become known as the von Neumann chain. In 1939, F. London and E. Bauer argued for the latter boundary (consciousness).[25] In the 1960s, Eugene Wigner reformulated the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment as "Wigner's friend" and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line which precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. See Consciousness and measurement. Very technically, Wigner identified the non-linear probabilistic projection transformation which occurs during measurement with the selection of a definite state by a mind from the different possibilities which it could have in a quantum mechanical superposition. Thus, the non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.[11] This interpretation has been summarized thus:
The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.[11]
Henry Stapp has argued for the concept as follows:
From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe... Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become...parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation...[26]

@ Brucep,
There is a difference between accepting an interpretation and understanding the interpretation itself. There was a later amalgamated version of the Copenhagen Interpretation similar to the views of Max Born, Heisenberg and others, which became the standard view.

"mysticism"/"Consciousness causing collapse has been a HUGE perception. Denying it is just wrong Brucep.

Not only was consciousness introduced hypothetically at the birth of quantum physics, but the term ‘mystical’ was also used by its founders to argue in favour and against such an introduction. In private conversations,at least as early as the 1927 Solvay Congress, the founders discussed ideas about quantum theory, mysticism and consciousness. It was also around this time when Einstein accused Bohr of introducing ‘mysticism’ into physics. I would argue that it was not Bohr but Pauli who conceived of a ‘mystical’ hypothesis that found a fertile ground in a ‘scientific mysticism’ already developed and later made popular by Arthur Eddington. Nevertheless,Einstein accused Bohr of mysticism, igniting a controversy that by the time of the 1936 Copenhagen Congress for the Unity of Science had moved beyond the physics community into the international media. Attitudes towards this proposal of giving mind a role to play at the physical level, a role then labelled as ‘mystical’ and now defined as such in this paper ad hoc,shaped the way physicists understood quantum mechanics even at the level of fundamental equations. Paislaments in his Bohr biography[5]: ‘[We may know]what Einstein’s objections were but not why he objected. I have often wondered about that but have no good answer.’We can begin to answer Pais’ dilemma once we realize that the controversy led to much misunderstanding in the Bohr–Einstein debate. Once Schrodinger joined the fray, his own equation would incite a new battle that would last at least until he published his last work, his lectures on ‘Mind and Matter’

I could go on for a thousand pages, but it is clear Brucep was wrong although I doubt he will admit it as is so often the case in these forums.

Oh and for the road....

Here is what Bohr himself said about what he wrote after he penned The Copenhagen Interpretation...

It invokes the impression of an underlying mysticism foreign to the spirit of science; at the above mentioned[Copenhagen] Congress [for the Unity of Science] in 1936 I therefore tried to clear up such misunderstandings.
...
. I am afraid that I had in this respect little success in convincing my listeners, for whom the dissent among the physicists themselves was naturally a cause of skepticism.

We can attribute popularizing consciousness in this Interpretation with Wigner, Bell, and many more.

I gave an interpretation of an interpretation. I stated this before. Anyone that cannot grasp this lacks literacy or comprehension (including Brucep).

 

[wegs]

"Scientific mysticism?" Hmmm...

From what I know about mysticism...it's a spiritual principle.
Mysticism is more than an alternative view on consciousness. There's no grey area.
Its foundation is spiritual.

 

[Write4U]

Here's something to throw into this discussion
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm


More quantum weirdness and possibilities
If I understand correctly, it seems to suggest both cause and effect are in a superposition
However, IMO, attempt to generalise this to complicated system such as consciousness naively will result in issues (best not to do that unless you have clear idea on what you are doing)
For the journal article, see beneath the sciencedaily article for a link

I would modify the term "switching cause and effect" to read "switching active and permissive causalities"

IMO, the relationship between cause and effect may be a function of the Implicate, in which the image is formed of that which will become Explicate in reality.

It is the probability of a future event, which already is metaphysically implied before an event, but all other potentials have to reinforce each other before an event is selected from all other probabilities and receives permission (passes a treshold) to become Explicate as a physical event.

 

[Write4U]

"Scientific mysticism?" Hmmm...

From what I know about mysticism...it's a spiritual principle.
Mysticism is more than an alternative view on consciousness. There's no grey area.
Its foundation is spiritual.

Perhaps it is the difference between science and philosophy. One deals with facts, the other with subjective experience. Both work just fine as long as one does not contradict the other, in which case science can and does prove its claims which includes the concept that natural law cannot be broken. But in science there are a lot of mysteries yet to be uncovered, ain't nuttin wrong with scientific mysticism. It is unscientific mysticism I have a hard time understanding.

 

[wegs]

Perhaps it is the difference between science and philosophy. One deals with facts, the other with subjective experience. Both work just fine as long as one does not contradict the other, in which case science can and does prove its claims which includes the concept that natural law cannot be broken. But in science there are a lot of mysteries yet to be uncovered, ain't nuttin wrong with scientific mysticism. It is unscientific mysticism I have a hard time understanding.

Well said, agree!
I commented as I did about mysticism, because I noticed that kwhilborn used the word "prayer" in one of his replies.
That threw me off a little.