Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   schrodinger's backside
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 1 of 45 (372149)
12-25-2006 5:17 AM


the copenhagen interpritation of quantum mechanics suggests that an observer is required for any quantum event to have a definite outcome. the classic example is schrodinger's cat...
the cat is in a box, an unpleasant box with a poison capsule attached to a trigger. the trigger is based on some radioactive particle, which has a 50% chance of decay (this being the quantum possibility). if the particle decays, the trigger breaks the capsule and the cat dies. by the copenhagen interpretation, this box contains both a live and dead cat, which are the same cat, which is/are actually a probablity feild that encompasses both possiblities, not to be resolved into one real living or dead cat until someone looks inside to find out.
no one points out that the cat has awareness and thus cannot (by any means i know of) disolve into a probability field, so we will not notice that sticking point either. what i would like us to notice is what this could mean about the universe in general, the people in it, and how it relates to what many people think of as god.
specificly, i am often noticing that the world exists, (or atleast it sure seams like it is existing to me). this is very important, because if this fairly rigourous physical theory is correct, if no-one was noticing the universe, it wouldn't be there. which begs the question, who was noticing things before life existed?
i am taking it as granted that the western scientific viewpoint of natural history is approximately correct, what with a big-bang and evolution and all. intelligent design people like to point out how very convienient our universe seams, from physical laws that allow for complex chemistry (or any chemistry for that matter) to our big, weird, tide-giving moon, to the giant asteroid and comet vacuume cleaner that we call jupiter. they say it seams an awful lot like someone gave us a very friendly place to grow up.
now of-course if reality were unfriendly we wouldn't be here asking the question, but that doesn't make it any less remarkable. or does it? what exists if no-one is looking? probability. probability can and does include some pretty wacky stuff, including the spontaineos leaping into existence of whole universes, provided said universes are not infinite (it is infinitely improbible that infinity would leap into being).
but no probability can become reality without someone there to notice it. there-for, the only universes that can be created in a big-bang are ones that living observers will exist in. the universe is (or could be, atleast) so convienient precisely because it could not be real without us, or someone, here to see it.
if the omnipresent, omnipotent god exists, we could have any old universe he/she/it/they desired. guys with pitchforks and pointy beards underfoot and krishna squaredancing with jesus inside every cumulonibus cloud. but what it seams like we have is a universe fine tuned to our existence, which intelligent designers point to as the signature of somebody doing some very serious civil enginering. what i would like to point out to them is that these triats are PHYSICALLY REQUIRED for any universe to exist at all, and given the nature of probablity the spontanius and authorless generation of such a universe is exactly what you would expect.
that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist, or even that he/she/it/they didn't create the universe and puts us on the path we are on. what it does seam to suggest to me is that whatever happened, it wasn't on purpous.
maybe it would be more fruitful to consider the future instead of the past if we are to have a relationship with an intelligent designer. maybe we should build one.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 12-30-2006 8:41 AM meese has replied
 Message 7 by Nighttrain, posted 01-06-2007 8:41 PM meese has not replied
 Message 8 by Nighttrain, posted 01-06-2007 8:41 PM meese has replied
 Message 9 by Nighttrain, posted 01-06-2007 8:41 PM meese has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 45 (372953)
12-30-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by meese
12-25-2006 5:17 AM


Hi Meese,
I'm guessing no one has replied to your thread proposal yet because it is difficult to unravel what it is you want to discuss. Thread proposals can be infinitely variable, but at heart they are the opening broadside in a debate, which usually begins with a statement, e.g.: Asserted: that evidence exists indicating the earth is less than 6000 years old.
Now thread proposals do not need to make such explicit statements, but moderators approving proposals seek to boil down a proposal to just such a statement within their own minds. The problem for me is that I can't make one for your post.
I think your general position on the issues regarding quantum mechanics and its implications for intelligent design is clear, and if you can just post a reply that makes it more clear what it is about this you want to discuss then I can promote this.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by meese, posted 12-25-2006 5:17 AM meese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by meese, posted 01-06-2007 8:54 AM Admin has not replied

  
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 3 of 45 (374894)
01-06-2007 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
12-30-2006 8:41 AM


concision
in short, if the copehnahagen interpretation is correct, an "intelligent observer" was/is required for the begining of the universe to exist, big bang or otherwise.
subpoint: perhaps this observer could be removed in time, i.e. us right now.
conjecture: what if god, in this all powerful creative facet of the begining of everything, could just as easily be the combined consciousness of us here and now (and in the past and future).
is that intelligent design? i don't think so. but it sure give a lot more room for a god like entity to be neccisary to our scientific understanding of the universe. seams like the universe can't exist without such an entity, not by faith but by math. i bring it up because i do believe that god must exist for exactly this reason, but the math says nothing about this being the god we are all used to, and flatly contradicts the idea that the world is 6000 years old. i would really like some people to wonder if maybe everyone is half right (which seams to be preaching to the choir on this site). this seams like a good tool for reasonable people to all get on the same page and move on to more important things like the future.
i don't know what response i want to this idea though. maybe tell me i'm wrong, so i can convince you? or maybe i put this forward as a totally acceptable way to introduce the idea of intelligent design in a science class. would a fundamentalist of the stripe that would like to pass of the more traditional intelligent design arguments as science agree to this as a sort of compromise? is it okay to teach intelligent design if it "proves" (or rather strongly suggests) that there really was such a thing as dinosaurs and homo erectus? yes. please put this in the education section. i appologise for my verbosity, i'm working a night shift as i write these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 12-30-2006 8:41 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by cavediver, posted 01-06-2007 9:58 AM meese has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 45 (374897)
01-06-2007 9:17 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 5 of 45 (374899)
01-06-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by meese
01-06-2007 8:54 AM


Re: concision
in short, if the copehnahagen interpretation is correct, an "intelligent observer" was/is required for the begining of the universe to exist, big bang or otherwise.
No. The CI does not posit an "intelligent observer", "conscious observer" or even just "observer". There is a measurement provcess, and it is in extrapolations of this measurement process that some have suggested the neceesity of a conscious observer. It has nothing to do with the CI of QM, and has no solid foundation.
I think it is safe to say most physcists do not believe that an "observer" is necessary in QM. Decoherence is one way of formalising the measurement process as part of QM and actually leads to a very aesthetic, natural and sensible realisation of the CI.
perhaps this observer could be removed in time, i.e. us right now.
The Particpatory Anthropic Principle... I still have a soft spot for it But even if there is something to it (definitely a meta-physical/religious belief) I do not think it is involved in the measurement process of the CI.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by meese, posted 01-06-2007 8:54 AM meese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by meese, posted 01-07-2007 7:30 AM cavediver has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 6 of 45 (375003)
01-06-2007 6:46 PM


Found at the website of my favorite s.f. author:

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 7 of 45 (375016)
01-06-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by meese
12-25-2006 5:17 AM


esigned universe
minor bungle
Edited by Nighttrain, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by meese, posted 12-25-2006 5:17 AM meese has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 8 of 45 (375017)
01-06-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by meese
12-25-2006 5:17 AM


Designed universe
Never thought much of the notion of a fine-tuned universe. While an active erosional surface on Earth tends to remove signs of impactors, most stellar bodies show the evidence of a Designer with a penchant for throwing rocks. Big rocks.
Edited by Nighttrain, : interference from Planet #Q7*u

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by meese, posted 12-25-2006 5:17 AM meese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by meese, posted 01-07-2007 6:27 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 9 of 45 (375018)
01-06-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by meese
12-25-2006 5:17 AM


The snafu continues
Edited by Nighttrain, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by meese, posted 12-25-2006 5:17 AM meese has not replied

  
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 10 of 45 (375084)
01-07-2007 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Nighttrain
01-06-2007 8:41 PM


big rocks
could it not be though that throwing big rocks is a good way to evolve a robust and intelligent species? i mean, who survived the dinosaurs rock? rats and birds, no? neccesity is the mother of invention... especially when it comes to interesting evolution.
and really, big rocks yes, but not really out of control huge rocks that destroy whole planets, atleast not lately. jupiters really does do a pretty good job of keeping house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Nighttrain, posted 01-06-2007 8:41 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 11 of 45 (375088)
01-07-2007 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by cavediver
01-06-2007 9:58 AM


no professional
first off i'd like to ask the world in general how i quote someone. clearly i'm no new world pro.
but you talk about decohernece, which i just looked up. huh. well i still want to salvage this thing somehow, but i feel like i'm grasping at straws now...
drat. i got nothing. time for a little think.
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by cavediver, posted 01-06-2007 9:58 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2007 1:26 PM meese has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 45 (375119)
01-07-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by meese
01-07-2007 7:30 AM


Re: no professional
type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
There are other ways as well.
quote:
When you reply to someone you can use the {peek mode} button to see how they formated things.
I like to us the qs style for quoting the post I'm replying to and the [quote]style[/quote] to quote material from an outside source
Welcome to the fray.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by meese, posted 01-07-2007 7:30 AM meese has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 45 (385619)
02-16-2007 12:55 PM


A fine-tuned Universe?
Two nice subjects I want to address in this thread.
First, Quantum Mechanics, Dr. Heisenberg and Dr. Schrodinger’s poor little cat.
Not an issue in anything other than the quantum realm. When you look at the math you find that the uncertainty in position/momentum or time/frequency become increasingly smaller for increasingly larger numbers of particles to the point that such uncertainties become negligible for something the size of a dust mote let alone a planet or a Universe. Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation, which Schrodinger originally devised his cat to refute, does not apply outside the sub-atomic. This is another instance of philosophers taking a scientific principle out of context and trying to find some kind of grand universal meaning.
Second is this notion that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for the production of life. But what do we really see in the fine-structure constant, the mass/charge of the electron, the speed of light, the various Planck constants and all the other Universal constants we have come to know and love?
If these constants were fine-tuned, by God or Nature, for the evolution of life then we should see prodigious life throughout the galaxy. The Drake Equation, even constrained by the Fermi Paradox, would have to exhibit some rather aggressive values. We do not see this.
What we do see are stellar objects. Lots of them.
The number of data points showing life equals one. Even an aggressive extrapolation of Drake equals but a few tens of thousands. The number of data points showing stellar objects is in the hundreds of billions.
It would appear that if this universe was fine-tuned by some god, Spinozian or otherwise, it was fine-tuned to produce stars. We just happened to hitch a ride on a large moving train. In this fine-tuned Universe, life is but a minor postscript.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 02-16-2007 2:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 14 of 45 (385643)
02-16-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AZPaul3
02-16-2007 12:55 PM


Re: A fine-tuned Universe?
Not an issue in anything other than the quantum realm
But what do you call the quantum realm? We see quantum effects extend to the molecular level, and way beyond to classical distances in the case of entangled particles. The trick seems to be avoiding the environment - other particles. If you can do this at classical scales, then your quantum realm should extend to classical scales.
One idea of which I am particularly fond is that the ubiquitous gravitons are the great reducers of quantum to classical behaviour - not that there is anything magical about the graviton compared to say the photon, just that they are everywhere and interact with everything (unlike the photon).
It would appear that if this universe was fine-tuned by some god, Spinozian or otherwise
When we (physicists) talk of fine-tuning, we do not imply any entity. We are looking for reasons why the constants are such that they are comptaible with our existence. The usual explanation is some large enough population to create all possibilities, and then we simply apply the Weak Anthropic Principle. However, there are interesting mechanisms such as inflation that actually produce some level of fine-tuning without having to become boring (applying the WAP).
it was fine-tuned to produce stars
Exactly, and no small feat. In fact stars are more of mystery of fine-tuning than almost anything else. Of course, neatly explained by large population and WAP, dull as it is...
If these constants were fine-tuned, by God or Nature, for the evolution of life then we should see prodigious life throughout the galaxy
Why? If all that is required for the Universe to exist is sentient life existing somewhere in its (4d) expanse, then surely we should see the minimum effort expended in producing that sentience?
Or to put it another way...
a universe with an abundance of life requires a far tighter tuning than one with minimal life
only universes with life are observed
an essentially infininte number of possible universes are provided
the probability is very high that we live in a universe where we are alone/very far away from other sentience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AZPaul3, posted 02-16-2007 12:55 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AZPaul3, posted 02-17-2007 7:50 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-18-2007 12:18 PM cavediver has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 45 (385881)
02-17-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by cavediver
02-16-2007 2:47 PM


Re: A fine-tuned Universe?
If these constants were fine-tuned, by God or Nature, for the evolution of life then we should see prodigious life throughout the galaxy
Why? If all that is required for the Universe to exist is sentient life existing somewhere in its (4d) expanse, then surely we should see the minimum effort expended in producing that sentience?
Or to put it another way...
a universe with an abundance of life requires a far tighter tuning than one with minimal life
only universes with life are observed
an essentially infininte number of possible universes are provided
the probability is very high that we live in a universe where we are alone/very far away from other sentience.
I have an issue with requiring an observation by any kind of sentient being to bring the Universe into existence. The Universe existed from (we presume) the big bang on, well prior to the materials necessary to create and sustain life. No sentience needed for the Universe to exist.
For a Universe to be said to be "fine-tuned" for life, in my opinion, requires an abundance of life as evidence of such. Your observation that "the probability is very high that we live in a universe where we are alone/very far away from other sentience" is a data point against such fine-tuning. Since we see so little life the proposition fails.
My point being that if some insist that the Universe was/is in some why fine-tuned by whatever mechanism, the preponderance of the evidence at this time indicates the fine-tuning produced prodigious stellar objects not life. Life, apparently, was an incidental aftereffect.
Further, I find the very idea of any kind of "fine-tuning" untenable. Until we have more comprehensive cosmologic theories that may explain why the constants have the values they do, we cannot make any valid assumptions about any fine-tuning for stars, life, chocolate pudding or otherwise. We may find that this Universe, and any other Universe, had no other option.
But, then, maybe not.
I understand physics does not invoke any determining "fine-tuning" entity. That is why I cited Spinoza in my message.
Finally, as a physicist (I've watched your posts, Spelunker, and I know and respect your abilities) outside of the smallest distances and the smallest timescales can any particle avoid the environment in the reality of this universe? And since distance is irrelevant to entanglement can you really say it extends the quantum realm into classical distances?
Edited by AZPaul3, : Cuz I wanted to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 02-16-2007 2:47 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by cavediver, posted 02-17-2007 9:24 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024