Syamsu writes:
schroedingers cat
I have been waiting for you to say this. I was going to bring it up myself. I thought this is what you have been dancing around when you talked of "observer" in
Message 91 Message 147 and
Message 151
What you are really describing is
Different Interpretation of Quantum MechanicsYou are saying that in anticapatory terms the coin flipping system observes itself....this is
Objective Collapse TheoryYou are saying that the standard interpretation,
Copenhagen Interpretation, which says that you pick the state merely by observing it, is
fudged. You are saying this(i think) because a deterministic, classical equation is applied to a nondeterministic theory.
So let's see what mainstream scientist have to say about this:
Physics Today, November 2005 "Einstein's Mistakes":
Steven Weinberg writes:
The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wavefunction, the Schrdinger equation, to observers and their apparatus
and here is the culmination of what you have said about it:
Syamsu msg 91 writes:
So throwing heads or tails probalisticly leads to 50/50 observation of heads or tails, the observer being the scientist, but in anticapatory terms the coin flipping system observes itself, it decides it's own state, but the result is basically the same.
Syamsu msg 147 writes:
As far as I know in standard quantum theory the decision is with the observer (or actually the issue of decisionmaking is fudged with the scientist as an observer, as explained before 50/50 uncertainty of the scientist, instead of indeterminacy of the system itself), and therefore there is no indeterminacy in quantum theory
Syamsu msg 151 writes:
When you put an observation - or measurement device on light in a wavestate, then the wave does not collapse. So it is not observation that is key, but decision. But like I said, this issue is dropped with the observer in quantum theory, and there fudged
Now Syamsu:
-1- You a have failed to show evidence how anticipatory theory usurps natural selection as your title suggests.
-2- You have failed to answer how anticipatory explains my question in Message 101.
-3- You have failed to answer pretty much any question asked.
-4- You answer in somewhat cryptic handwaving. You rely on vagueness to argue your point. You do not explain what you mean. Just simply mentioning thought experiments like schroedingers cat is not an example for anticipataory theory.
-5- You are equivocating Science with Philosophy. It seems you believe in either panpsychism or hylozoism. You annoint inanimate objects with the freedom to choose and the ability of morality.
But when you agree freedom is real, then you might want to think about what decisions went into the creation of the species of organisms that we see today. That is how creationists think fundamentally.
This is how creationist think fallaciously.
Edited by dokukaeru, : removed double bullet 5
™ Version 4.2
