|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Foundations of ID | |||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Notice how he says, "so says the Copehagen Interpretation." There is no reason to think the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct. The only reason it is so widely accepted is because it was the first interpretation that could be made to work and it was forcefully promoted by Neils Bohr. Also, John von Neumann wrote a authoritative proof that an alternative theory, the pilot wave theory, couldn't be true. His proof was false but influenced the fate of the interpretation of QM. The pilot wave theory is only recently (past 20 years) being taken seriously. The Copenhagen Interpretation leads to so many absurdities, such as Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, that a lot of physicists only use it tentatively as a way to think about what's going on. So keep in mind that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't the only game in town, and there's no reason to accept it over other interpretations. All we can say is that for a certain experimental setup, certain results occur. By the way, I learned a majority of the information in this post from Gribbon's, "Schrodinger's Cats and the Search for Reality." From what I understand, Gribbon no longer accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation but opts for a pilot wave type theory. He also says that the value of the interpretations should be judged not on their ability add insight into the reality of the phenomena but on their ability to help people think about the phenomena. I don't think he believes there is one true interpretation on the phenomena. That's how I understood the book. This message has been edited by JustinC, 04-29-2005 12:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be using the interpretation to imply that there is a ultimate intelligent being collapsing the wave functions. I just think the caveat should be included which states, "if the CI is correct," which is by no means certain.
quote:Again, I think the caveat should be added, and I think that really takes away from the heart of the argument. Other consistent models have been made(e.g. pilot theory and multiple universes). quote:I highly recommend the book. I enjoy reading Gribbin more than any other author of QM. quote:I don't see that as being a downfall. It's no different than proposing some sort of "probability wave" and supposing wave particle complementarity. These are taken as justified since they can explain the results, but there is no direct evidence for either of them, just as there isn't direct evidence for the quantum potential. quote:Just as the probility wave hasn't been discovered experimentally. They're all ad hoc explanations for results, and I don't see the one being more reputable than the other just because it has been around longer. If von Neumman hadn't made that mistake, the pilot wave theory would probably be just as developed and would have been apart of the QM orthodoxy. quote:The main reason Einstein disliked pilot wave theory is because it assumed non-locality, which goes against his theory of special relativity. But, with the Aspect experiment breaking Bell's inequality, you have to abandon either locality or reality (i.e., local reality cannot exist). This is the case no matter which interpretation you take. (I have admit that I don't understand the details of this experiment or inequality, but take the word of several authors, including Gribbin.) And just in case it isn't clear, "local" means no communication faster than light and "reality" means the world existing outside of observation. I'll try and dig up that book to see what else it has to say about the issue. The last chapter introduces his preferred interpretation which is definately not CI, but I forget the details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Nothing in science is ever certain. But there's a difference between the caveat, "and since it is science, it may not be true as scientific knowledge is tentative" and the caveat, "there are competing interpretations for this phenomena and as of right now we can't rule any of them out or say one is more supported than others." quote:It really hasn't been shown experimentally to be true. What has been proven is that if you assume the existance of probability waves, which CI proposes, then an observer be needed to collapse them. This way of looking at phenomena can predict the results. But other interpretations can predict the same results. quote:I actually prefer Feynman's "sum-over-histories" approach to QM. It's a way of doing calculations that gets the results, but makes no attempt conflate the way they are getting the results with some actual physical process. It only deals with probabilities of events happening. So, in the two holes experiment, adding a detector in one of the holes adds another history you have to sum into the equation to find out where the photon is likely to go. When this is done, an interference pattern is unlikely. I reallly think this is as far as QM is right now. We know that if you have an initial experimental setup, you have a probability of getting a certain results.
quote:You should think about whether the Copenhagen Interpretation is proven mathematically, or whether it is one way, of many, to predict results. Do we "know" everything exists as a superposition of states when there is no observer? Do we "know" probability waves are actual physical constructs as opposed to a mental scaffold?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
John,
After reading up on QM, I realize I've been misrepresenting CI. I've been saying it says there are physical probability waves. This is not true, it is the exact opposite. It conflates the state vector with "knowledge" and thus avoids the nonlocality associated with physical waves. It doesn't avoid nonlocality, though, since it still has what Einstein referred to as "spooky action at a distance" or entangled quantum particles. But the other tenents of CI are just as unprovable as the quantum potential of pilot wave theories. What we are talking about are interpretations of the mathematical formalism. As I said before, the CI does not trump other interpretations just because it was one that was first worked out. Pilot wave theories, multiples universe theories, and the Transactional interpretation have all been proposed. Yes, they have their share of metaphysical baggage, but no more so than the CI. This is what Gribbin was referring to in his book when he said the value of an interpretation shouldn't be whether it is "true" since there is no way of knowing. It should be whether it illuminates the phenomena for one trying to understand it. Gribbin's prefers the Transactional interpretation, which doesn't inflate the conscious observer to some special status, and offers other insights into the nature of the nonlocality in QM. For more information on the Transactional interpretation, you should check out the author's, John Cramer's, article at http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html. If that is too long or too indepth (which it was for me at some points), there is a link to a shorter article on that sight which sums it up. The site also have a fairly large section on CI and its implications and short comings. I hope that from reading about this more, you realize that the CI isn't a "proven" or "highly supported" view of QM, and that using it as a justification for supposing ID is correct is pretty tenuous. This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-01-2005 02:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Those who develop the formalism have no trump over how to interpret it, which you seem to be implying by your constant appeals to authority and lack of reasoned argument. You should read that other link to Cramer's paper on the Transactional interpretation(in my previous post)and a lot more on QM and its history if you really want to understand what the Copenhagen Interpretation is and how it relates to the mathematical formalism of the science. Or, as you will probably do, you can go on using the same tired old argument "an ultimate observer collapses wave functions" without understanding how that interpretation came to be or understanding the science of QM in general. I'll leave you with two quotes from my favorite science teacher, Richard Feynman.
What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.
and
Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . . Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
I appreciate you allowing me to take up your precious time, and hopefully one day, if I'm lucky, you will grace me with your attention once more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
I'll give you some advise Jerry. Don't act so condescending asshole because you obviously aren't knowledgable enough on the subjects of which you speak to justify it, and even if you were you'd still come off as a condescending asshole.
STOP IT. WE'RE TRYING TO CUT DOWN ON THE CRANKINESS AROUND HERE, AND SUCH IS NOT HELPING THE EFFORT. ALSO, THIS IS OFF-TOPIC. NO ONE SHOULD REPLY TO IT. - Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-03-2005 02:06 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
This has been mentioned in previous posts, but I'll try and clarify.
There are two concepts in evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradulism. The main difference between these two hypothesises (sp?) is the rate of evolution. PE supposes that major evolutionary changes occur during speciation events, and are punctuated by periods of stasis in terms of evolution. Phyletic gradulism supposes the rate is constant throughout a lineages time, and that speciation is the result of this constant changing. These are extreme ends of a spectrum. I don't know one phyletic gradualist or one pure punctuated equilibrist. Everyone, including Gould and Eldridge, admit that there are cases in the record which show constant evolutionary change. For instance: Sheldon, P.R. (1987) Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature, 330, 561-563. The arguments are for which rates are more prolific, not if they exist or not. Directional, disruptive, and stabilizing selection were known before Gould and Eldridge, along with allopatric speciation. In light of this, I don't think G & E's paper was a huge revelation, and many evolutionists didn't think so either. There is an equivocation going on with the word gradualism. There is phyletic gradualism (above) and "gradualism", i.e., evolutionary changes mainly occur through small changes in the genome which build up to a larger changes over time. Gould and Eldridge both support that kind of gradualism, but not phyletic gradulism, i.e., the rate of evolutionary change is constant throughout time. Gould isn't referring to marcoevolutionary jumps occuring in a few generations between periods of stasis. The jumps are short geologically speaking, in the order of 10's, 100's, or 1000's of thousands of years. They are not so short to preclude gradualism. I have the Ridley textbook you refer to, and it clearly states the equivocation of phyletic gradulism and gradulism in it's chapter on the rates of evolutionary change, so I wouldn't go quoting him in support of your position. I also apologize to the admin's for my previous post. This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-04-2005 03:26 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024