Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
31 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric, vimesey (6 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,902 Year: 1,650/23,288 Month: 1,650/1,851 Week: 290/484 Day: 66/42 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have quantum interpretations been experimentally verified?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 5 of 62 (793229)
10-24-2016 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by AlexCaledin
10-24-2016 8:42 AM


quote:

Dr. Henry Stapp's writings are extremely interesting. He seems to prove, analyzing the brain research, that the quantum choice is coming "from nowhere", from some transcendent "world of mind".

Surely brain research could only show that the "choice" (if there is one - I would think that the "many-worlds" interpretation denies it) does not come from the brain. Which would hardly surprise those who think that it has nothing to do with the mind at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AlexCaledin, posted 10-24-2016 8:42 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2016 11:59 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 7 of 62 (793233)
10-24-2016 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
10-24-2016 11:59 AM


If the "choice" is what is more often called "collapse" then:

If "many-worlds" is true every possible outcome happens so there is nothing that could be called a "choice"

Brain research can only show that the presumed "choice" is or is not caused by something in the brain. If it shows "not" then I cannot see how we can jump to a cause coming from "some transcendent world of mind". Not when we don't know that there is a cause or even a "choice". Brain research in itself cannot even rule out causes outside the brain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2016 11:59 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AlexCaledin, posted 10-25-2016 6:52 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2016 3:29 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 14 of 62 (793293)
10-25-2016 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by AlexCaledin
10-25-2016 6:52 AM


I don't assume that quantum uncertainty is at all relevant to human choices. You seem to be confusing two different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AlexCaledin, posted 10-25-2016 6:52 AM AlexCaledin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-13-2016 1:42 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 16 of 62 (793319)
10-25-2016 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
10-25-2016 3:29 PM


I think you missed the point. In that post I equated choice to the collapse of the wave function. Human choices didn't enter into it. And, as I said in a more recent post, I don't believe that there is a significant relationship between the two.

Edited by PaulK, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2016 3:29 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 20 of 62 (794272)
11-13-2016 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by AlexCaledin
11-13-2016 1:42 PM


No, it does not appear to be relevant.

The point was that I explicitly identified the "choice" as the collapse of the quantum wave function and you misunderstood it as a reference to human decisions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-13-2016 1:42 PM AlexCaledin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-14-2016 8:14 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 24 of 62 (794297)
11-14-2016 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by AlexCaledin
11-14-2016 8:14 AM


That is irrelevant to your misunderstanding - and I will point out that we can certainly deal with individual cases of collapsing wave functions without considering the entire universe. The brain is not so special that we can consider it entangled with "the entire universe" in any sense that does not apply to other systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-14-2016 8:14 AM AlexCaledin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-14-2016 8:45 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 26 of 62 (794299)
11-14-2016 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by AlexCaledin
11-14-2016 8:45 AM


Even if you are correct that would only mean that isolated atoms and particles in experiments are special in NOT being connected to everything else - and then only for a time. And I don't think that you are correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-14-2016 8:45 AM AlexCaledin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-14-2016 12:35 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 28 of 62 (794308)
11-14-2016 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AlexCaledin
11-14-2016 12:35 PM


Re: A Werner Heisenberg's quote
In fact I do agree with it. Note that it states that the only significance to human observation is the change in the observer's knowledge. The shift from an ensemble of possible states to one actual state occurs in the interaction with the measuring device.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-14-2016 12:35 PM AlexCaledin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-15-2016 5:53 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 30 of 62 (794443)
11-16-2016 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by AlexCaledin
11-15-2016 5:53 PM


Re: A Werner Heisenberg's quote
Quantum mechanics dictates the probability distribution, having effects at the macroscopic level apparently causes the shift. The nature of the shift is unknown (which is where we find the interpretations of QM)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AlexCaledin, posted 11-15-2016 5:53 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15850
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 44 of 62 (826012)
12-20-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Thugpreacha
12-20-2017 9:39 AM


Re: The Cosmic Toothpaste Tube
Offering my hopefully-informed layman’s point of view.

It’s highly plausible that there are multiple (local) universes, likely with variations of physical law.

The idea of diverging timelines is about as good as any other interpretation of QM, possibly a little better than most. So, still plausible.

If there are multiple universes, and the number is insanely huge there would be someone like you. Whether they would be you - even if identical - is a philosophical question.

With multiple timelines you would definitely exist in more than one. The timeline would diverge many times during your lifetime.

Mathematics let’s us construct models of reality. We can use statistics to show how those models reflect reality (if they’re so good that the differences from our measurements are likely to be problems with the measurements then we usually say that the models are true.).

Also, the models can have features that we can’t observe - but if the model is good and the features aren’t tacked on then that is pretty good evidence for those features. That is the case with the “loads of different universes” multiverse, which follows from most versions of Inflation (in the cosmological sense).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-20-2017 9:39 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020