The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by whoguy423

Kepler,

Thanks for the paper... but it is still no closer to answering the problem of consciousness affecting the quantum world.

You have to understand that measuring by any sort of way, whether by recorder, or by direct observation always, always affects the position or momentum of any particles which are in motion!!!!

There is no other way of detecting them!!! You either know position and give up momentum... or you know momentum , but have no idea about position... but rather just a statistical probability on it's position.

In lay man's terms... when using a light amplifier to observe particles... the particles must give up some of it's momentum(energy) to the detector and hence would affect it's flight path. If you put a mesh to detect it's in flight position, it will give up it's momentum when passing through the mesh.

If you allow the particle to maintain it's momentum, then it's position can only be predicted.... although very accurately statistically.

It is a dichotomy... and you can never have both which would in essence have given you absolute detachment from the experiment!!!

Quantum de-coherence of snapping into one reality or another is the Multiple universe idea.

The Macro effects of de-coherence can be explained using the Multiple universe theory.... although me myself, do not prescribe to this theory simply because of the ever expanding universes which arise out of all conscious thought!

Cheers

whoguy,

i got a question.

imagine a still pond of water. Then let there be an observer that throws pebble one at time in the pond. These pebbles will create ripples that will constantly create destructive and constructive interference. Note that as long as there are ripples, there is no final state for these resultant waves because it is constantly changing.

Now the observer decided to look for a standting wave, how would he do that?

[whoguy423]

Originally Posted by Kepler

For me to make an observation, I must be conscious of it, yes. But a particle detector making an observation of an electron's momentum does not need to be.

That is what I thought to be the case as well... But further researching about Schrodingers dead cat proved otherwise... When the detector detects the particle say... even after the fact... the result in the detector is still a wave... until upon you look at it and it collapses into a result. To see what the result is without being conscious of it is impossible, because you cannot look at it without actually looking at it.... Crazy I know... but that is the analogy... or the reality... depending what you believe.

Originally Posted by Kepler

You seem to be assuming to be true the thing this whole thread is about: that consciousness causes wave function collapse. As I have said, there is reason to believe that this is not true. If you think consciousness does cause wave function collapse, and you'd like to put forth an argument why, I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

As per your paper... consciousness is not required for quantum collapse to occur... at the beginning of the universe where no life existed... QM phenomena still occurred and the universe carried on as normal.

As to whether consciousness affects does cause wavefunction collapse... Yes in my view.

As to the effects of consciousness on the Macro world or universe... very very weak in order of magnitude of mass as compared to a particle.

As to why... in my previous post... That's all i gotta say really.

Cheers Kepler

[whoguy423]

Originally Posted by hybrid

whoguy,

i got a question.

imagine a still pond of water. Then let there be an observer that throws pebble one at time in the pond. These pebbles will create ripples that will constantly create destructive and constructive interference. Note that as long as there are ripples, there is no final state for these resultant waves because it is constantly changing.

Now the observer decided to look for a standting wave, how would he do that?

According to quantum de-coherence... the consciousness of the observer would actually cause the waves to all snap into one place which would result in showing the exact location of where the pebble entered the pond.

The pebbles would be the equivalent of an electron being fired one after the other at say... a tiny tiny dart board.... without looking at the dart board... it would just be statistical probabilities or where it would hit the dart board. You could model these probabilities as waves and interference patterns. E.g. single slit experiment.

I'm not sure what you really mean by looking for a standing wave? To me, I'd interpret this as the target pattern created by the pebbles over time.

Is this okay Hybrid?

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by whoguy423

That is what I thought to be the case as well... But further researching about Schrodingers dead cat proved otherwise... When the detector detects the particle say... even after the fact... the result in the detector is still a wave... until upon you look at it and it collapses into a result. To see what the result is without being conscious of it is impossible, because you cannot look at it without actually looking at it.... Crazy I know... but that is the analogy... or the reality... depending what you believe.




As per your paper... consciousness is not required for quantum collapse to occur... at the beginning of the universe where no life existed... QM phenomena still occurred and the universe carried on as normal.

As to whether consciousness affects does cause wavefunction collapse... Yes in my view.

As to the effects of consciousness on the Macro world or universe... very very weak in order of magnitude of mass as compared to a particle.

As to why... in my previous post... That's all i gotta say really.

Cheers Kepler

Shrod cat is a thought experimet in an attempt to explain the measurement problem.

You got it in reverse, because you use an illustration as proof.

[whoguy423]

Originally Posted by hybrid

Shrod cat is a thought experimet in an attempt to explain the measurement problem.

You got it in reverse, because you use an illustration as proof.

I'm not using the thought experiment as proof... I'm using it to illustrate... as you said... the measurement problem...

I did write ... an analogy or reality... depending on what you believe...It is by no means proven.

When I say... In my view... that is my own personal belief... It is not a proven view.

The reason for my view is that I keep thinking about the pseudo science experiments whereby random dices or marbles or whatever is rolled dropped or whatever ... and their patterns examined.

First done without someone in the room... then done with someone watching... and some experiments have shown signs of conscious influence... this is by no means acceptable proof... even for me... but I have an open mind.

Cheers Hybrid

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by whoguy423

According to quantum de-coherence... the consciousness of the observer would actually cause the waves to all snap into one place which would result in showing the exact location of where the pebble entered the pond.

Decoherence says the opposite. Consciousness is not required and the collapse is only apparent.

The pebbles would be the equivalent of an electron being fired one after the other at say... a tiny tiny dart board.... without looking at the dart board... it would just be statistical probabilities or where it would hit the dart board. You could model these probabilities as waves and interference patterns. E.g. single slit experiment.

I'm not sure what you really mean by looking for a standing wave? To me, I'd interpret this as the target pattern created by the pebbles over time.

Is this okay Hybrid?

yes. But how do we measure it.
First we have two options. . .
1. Using wave mechanics we can calculate the sum of all the ripples to see where a standing wave would occur. But this require a very complex calculation and we may not have the math for it.
2. Using wave equation, we can use statistics to predict where the standing wave would likely to appear. This is a more practical approach.

How do we confirm thru measurment if our prediction is correct?
Since we know already where and when in the pond a sw will likely to appear what we have to do is to take a camera and capture it in a picture frame. Why do we have to do that? Because we want a definitive answer of its location with exact coordinates.

Without freezing the standing wave in time, the sw will always be in the move, now you see it now you dont .iowto simply say its on then off is not an answer to the question where is it.

So the act of measurement or observation is akin to taking pictures of the standing wave.
We interfere to make exact measurments and thought it is us that created the standing wave measured

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by whoguy423

I'm not using the thought experiment as proof... I'm using it to illustrate... as you said... the measurement problem...

I did write ... an analogy or reality... depending on what you believe...It is by no means proven.

When I say... In my view... that is my own personal belief... It is not a proven view.

All im saying is that you cant say consciousness collapse the wave function because of shroddinger cat paradx.

The reason for my view is that I keep thinking about the pseudo science experiments whereby random dices or marbles or whatever is rolled dropped or whatever ... and their patterns examined.

First done without someone in the room... then done with someone watching... and some experiments have shown signs of conscious influence... this is by no means acceptable proof... even for me... but I have an open mind.

Cheers Hybrid

Im not aware of actual experiments where consciouness has significant influence on the physical outcome of the experiemnt.

[whoguy423]

Originally Posted by hybrid

Decoherence says the opposite. Consciousness is not required and the collapse is only apparent.

I'm not saying that de-coherence needs consciousness to occur... but consciousness causes de-coherence or seems to... (the seems to, cannot be proven either way).

What is your stance on this Hybrid?

Does consciousness play a role in QM, .... just let you know... All answers are correct in my opinion... it's just a matter of statistics.. he he

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by whoguy423

I'm not saying that de-coherence needs consciousness to occur... but consciousness causes de-coherence or seems to... (the seems to, cannot be proven either way).

What is your stance on this Hybrid?

Does consciousness play a role in QM, .... just let you know... All answers are correct in my opinion... it's just a matter of statistics.. he he

nope i don't think so.

I am more intrigue with the hard and soft problem of consciouness. And qm in my opinion has no answer to it also

[JaysonR]

A thought.

A microorganism.
To go inside of a microorganism, the most non-intrusive devices must be employed; so as not to contaminate the observation - to not alter it from prior to observation.

Water.
Moving in it moves it around you.
If you are part of that world, then some of it moves into you as well.

We are made of this stuff that we are looking at.
Everything is.

But we're looking at the ether of existence; the breath of the gods.
There are many names.

But they all have one thing in common: subtlety.

Just as I cannot stick my hand over the crest of a wave without effecting it.

Air pressure is easily affected, and it is several times the magnitude larger than the particle layer.

We are, in a sense, looking at the minuscule pieces of the crest of the waves of masses.

It will move independent, yet entangled.
It will react to observation, because the increase and location of concentrated matter in its area has been provided.
This will change the lighter-than-air currents of the particle crests of the universe.


It's like the drawing sequences of the 80's video, "Take on me":
http://youtu.be/djV11Xbc914?t=1m43s

At least...this is how I see it.

And as such, I don't see a difference between what either of you are saying. ;)