Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

I get a kick from cocaine...

Post by henry quirk »

:wink:
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

Hoffman’s claims struck me as very much in line with those of Kant. In this paper, he comments as follows:
Conscious realism is not the transcendental idealism of Kant. Exegesis of Kant is notoriously difficult and controversial. The standard interpretation has him claiming, as Strawson (1966, p. 38) puts it, that “reality is supersensible and that we can have no knowledge of it”. We cannot know or describe objects as they are in themselves, the noume-nal objects, we can only know objects as they appear to us, the phenome-nal objects (see also Prichard 1909). This interpretation of Kant precludes any science of the noumenal, for if we cannot describe the noumenal then we cannot build scientific theories of it. Conscious realism, by contrast, offers a scientific theory of the noumenal, viz., a mathematical formulation of conscious agents and their dynamical interactions. This difference between Kant and conscious realism is, for the scientist, fundamental. It is the difference between doing science and not doing science. This fun-damental difference also holds for other interpretations of Kant, such as that of Allison (1983).

Many interpretations of Kant have him claiming that the sun and planets, tables and chairs, are not mind-independent, but depend for their existence on our perception. With this claim of Kant, conscious realism and MUI theory agree. Of course many current theorists disagree. For instance, Stroud (2000, p. 196), discussing Kant, says:

It is not easy to accept, or even to understand, this philosophical theory. Accepting it presumably means believing that the sun and the planets and the mountains on earth and everything else that has been here so much longer than we have are nonetheless in some way or other dependent on the possibility of human thought and experience. What we thought was an independent world would turn out on this view not to be fully independent after all. It is difficult, to say the least, to understand a way in which that could be true.

But it is straightforward to understand a way in which that could be true. There is indeed something that has been here so much longer than we have. But that something is not the sun and the planets and the mountains on earth. It is dynamical systems of interacting conscious agents. The sun and planets and mountains are simply icons of our MUI that we are triggered to construct when we interact with these dynamical systems. The sun you see is a momentary icon, constructed on the fly each time you experience it. Your sun icon does not match or approximate the objective reality that triggers you to construct a sun icon. It is a species-specific adaptation, a quick and dirty guide, not an insight into the objective nature of the world.

One reader commented that conscious realism and MUI theory entail not just that the objects of our experience are created by subjects, but also that particles and all the rest are so created. Eventually the theory will claim that natural selection and time are a creation of the user interface. It is more noumenic than Kant.

This comment is correct, pace Kant. Space, time, particles, and there- fore natural selection are all within the user interface. But this claim comports well with recent attempts in physics to construct a theory of everything – including space, time and particles – from more fundamental constituents, such as quantum information and quantum computing (e.g., Lloyd 2006), loop quantum gravity (Smolin 2006), and others (e.g., Cal- lender and Huggett 2001). Space-time, classically conceived as a smooth manifold, appears untenable at the Planck scale. Instead there appear to be “pixels” of space and time. The intuition that space-time is a fundamental constituent of an observer-independent reality seems destined to be overturned by theories of quantum gravity.
Are there any non-trolls here who would like to have a serious discussion about this paper?
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

Noax wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:50 pm The live cat cannot be aware of its dead version, so in effect, the alternate outcome is a different universe even if the difference is confined to a finite space. So two versions of Tegmark are both looking at the exact same Jupiter, not each his own copy of it, for over an hour at least.
Looking at the universe from the perspective of the “Big Bang,” it allegedly begins with a tiny “speck” of unimaginably dense matter that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, began to expand in an outward and omnidirectional thrust of its contents.

Now based on that particular (and most widely accepted) theory, it seems to me that a reasonable way of visualizing the present-day outcome of that scenario is encapsulated in the following rudimentary image...

Image

It is an image that poses all of the suns, planets, and galaxies as being contained within a “bubble-like” phenomenon whose outer “film” (the bubble’s delineated boundary) is a light barrier of which none of the bubble’s interior contents can ever move beyond (at least nothing that exists within the context of what physicists call “local” reality).

Now with that as a backdrop, and with the common sense logic in mind that somewhere within the “closed bubble” depicted above, there can only exist “one” Max Tegmark and only “one” Jupiter, please explain to us how, according to you, there could be “two versions” of Tegmark looking at the “same” Jupiter (even if for only an hour)?

Cleary, two versions of Max Tegmark cannot exist simultaneously within the same bubble of reality. So where, pray tell, is the second version of Max located?

(Continued in next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
Wiki wrote: MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.
Noax wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:50 pm Yes, the language of MW theory often labels worlds as separate universes in pop descriptions. That is unfortunate due to the typical way that work is ambiguously defined. It is one universe still, a single structure, but multi-worlds, which delimit causally isolated events.
I agree that the universe...

Image

...is indeed a “single” structure, not only from the perspective of my earlier description of its “bubble-like” unity, but also that every aspect of this bubble appears to be united into a singular state of “oneness” at what physicists call the “non-local” level of reality.

I am of course referring to the oneness that is implied in the theory that suggests that absolutely everything depicted in the image above is superpositionally entangled in a “universal” wavefunction.

Some have even suggested that this “oneness” of the informationally-based underpinning of the universe is loosely analogous to the oneness in the information that underpins a laser hologram as demonstrated in the image below...

Image

So again, I totally agree with you that this...

Image

...represents one “single structure.”

Nevertheless, one of the problems I am having with your argument is that when we observe this structure, we can see that it is comprised of an unimaginable number of planets that we humans generally think of as being other “worlds” (as in places that we could literally visit and stand on).

However, in your defense of the MWI, the way you are using the term “worlds” seems to have a completely different connotation attached to it.

If you do not believe that there is any lasting substantiality to the “worlds” in Everett’s theory, and that they are simply delimited by “causally isolated events” that may last for an hour or so, then clearly the “multi-worlds” of which you speak are ephemeral and have an “imaginary-like” quality about them.

And that leads me to my next point.

(Continued in next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
Noax wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:50 pm ...the language of MW theory often labels worlds as separate universes in pop descriptions...
Look, when the theoretical physicist who allegedly coined the term “many worlds” in conjunction with Everett’s theory, states the following:
Brice Dewitt wrote: “...The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense...”
...then “pop descriptions” will be based on what can be inferred from those types of proclamations.

Now I realize that you know this stuff already, but the whole point of what attracts people to the Many Worlds Interpretation in the first place is because it is touted as being a more logical alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation’s “collapse” issue.

Because according to the MWI, the wavefunction does not collapse, and that literally all of the superpositioned possibilities inherent in the wave become real - REAL - in some parallel context.

If that is true, and it is obvious that none of those allegedly “real” alternative outcomes are taking place within the confines of this...

Image

...particular bubble of reality, then exactly where are they occurring?

You complain about “pop” descriptions causing confusion. However, you yourself add to the problem by stating such things as:
Noax wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:50 pm “...two versions of Tegmark are both looking at the exact same Jupiter...”
Therefore, if it is obvious that “two versions” of Max Tegmark cannot exist simultaneously in the closed bubble of reality depicted above, then in what context does an alternate version of Tegmark exist within?

And if the context in question is not literally a “real” and permanent context, then the whole premise upon which the Many Worlds Interpretation is founded...

(in other words, the central feature of the theory that supposedly counters the Copenhagen premise)

...is rendered false.
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by uwot »

davidm wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:27 pmAre there any non-trolls here who would like to have a serious discussion about this paper?
I'm not sure I qualify as a non-troll, and mind/body really isn't my field, but I'll chuck in my tuppence worth.
I think the problem people have with Kant is that either they haven't read the Critique of Pure Reason, or they cannot believe that such a slog could be summed up fairly succinctly: we don't know what the cause of experience is, and we should be conscious of that, in the language we use to describe it.
As everyone knows, Kant was trying to reconcile the largely rationalist tradition that he was raised in, with the radical empiricism of David Hume. Of the most influential English speaking empiricists, Berkeley perhaps highlights the most salient point: the phenomena are entirely consistent with the hypothesis that reality is an idea in the mind of god.
The belief that we can never 'know' the cause of phenomena goes back at least as far as Plato (Parmenides, come to think of it), who in the Timaeus has the title character claim that all we can construct from the phenomena is "a likely story". That was true then, and it is true now (viz Inference to Best Explanation): it's just that some current ideas don't seem very likely.
In the paper you cite, Hoffman says:
Hoffman wrote:"5. Perception as a Multimodal User Interface
I reject HFD, the hypothesis that a goal of perception is to match or approximate properties of an objective physical world. Instead I propose the hypothesis of multimode user interfaces (MUI): The conscious percep- tual experiences of an agent are a multimodal user interface between that agent and an objective world.
To say that a world is objective means that the world’s existence does not depend on the agent. MUI theory claims nothing about the ontology of that objective world. It requires no resemblance between properties of the interface and the world.
This seems at odds with:
Hoffman wrote:Many interpretations of Kant have him claiming that the sun and planets, tables and chairs, are not mind-independent, but depend for their existence on our perception. With this claim of Kant, conscious realism and MUI theory agree.
And particularly this:
Hoffman wrote:There is indeed something that has been here so much longer than we have. But that something is not the sun and the planets and the mountains on earth. It is dynamical systems of interacting conscious agents.
Could be. That's more or less what Berkeley believed.
Hoffman wrote:Space-time, classically conceived as a smooth manifold, appears untenable at the Planck scale. Instead there appear to be “pixels” of space and time.
The Planck scale is an epistemological barrier. It is, Planck claims, with reason, the shortest scale we could measure using light. It doesn't follow that there isn't structure beyond that scale, and that therefore reality is granular; it just means we can never see it using light.
Hoffman wrote:The intuition that space-time is a fundamental constituent of an observer-independent reality seems destined to be overturned by theories of quantum gravity.
Maybe, but first you need a tenable theory of quantum gravity.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

Noax wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:50 pm The live cat cannot be aware of its dead version, so in effect, the alternate outcome is a different universe even if the difference is confined to a finite space.
Just a comment on my own comment there. I should have said "is a different world", not a different universe. The point of the comment was that it was still one universe, not a whole new one. Didn't convey that very clearly the way I worded it there.
seeds wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:30 amNow with that as a backdrop, and with the common sense logic in mind that somewhere within the “closed bubble” depicted above, there can only exist “one” Max Tegmark and only “one” Jupiter, please explain to us how, according to you, there could be “two versions” of Tegmark looking at the “same” Jupiter (even if for only an hour)?
It was a description of how MW works, so your assertions about there being one of something (like Tegmark) is not representative of that view.
Cleary, two versions of Max Tegmark cannot exist simultaneously within the same bubble of reality. So where, pray tell, is the second version of Max located?
Same spatial location, except one may have wandered one way and the other another way. My example gave them an hour.

It is fine to not accept the view. I'm not asserting it. But your incredulity isn't amounting to much of a refutation. You need to devise a falsification test. I've even posted what I feel are empirical weaknesses. You haven't pointed one out yet.
I agree that the universe...
is indeed a “single” structure, not only from the perspective of my earlier description of its “bubble-like” unity, but also that every aspect of this bubble appears to be united into a singular state of “oneness” at what physicists call the “non-local” level of reality.
I agree that it is one structure. But 'universe' has a lot of meanings. I think modal logic provides the correct terms. 'Universe' is the frame (not talking about reference frames), and 'worlds' are the causally separated results of decoherence.
I am of course referring to the oneness that is implied in the theory that suggests that absolutely everything depicted in the image above is superpositionally entangled in a “universal” wavefunction.
It depicts one world. Not sure how one might attempt imagery of the entire structure or frame.
Some have even suggested that this “oneness” of the informationally-based underpinning of the universe is loosely analogous to the oneness in the information that underpins a laser hologram as demonstrated in the image below...
Can't see that image. Must be what my ISP considers an unsafe link.
Nevertheless, one of the problems I am having with your argument is that when we observe this structure, we can see that it is comprised of an unimaginable number of planets that we humans generally think of as being other “worlds” (as in places that we could literally visit and stand on).

However, in your defense of the MWI, the way you are using the term “worlds” seems to have a completely different connotation attached to it.
Indeed, nobody is suggesting new planets elsewhere when decoherence occurs. Both cats are in the same box.
If you do not believe that there is any lasting substantiality to the “worlds” in Everett’s theory, and that they are simply delimited by “causally isolated events” that may last for an hour or so, then clearly the “multi-worlds” of which you speak are ephemeral and have an “imaginary-like” quality about them.
No, nothing like that. Splitting is like opening a zipper, the rift growing as the causal effects make a difference. The rift grows up to, but not at, the speed of light. It can be totally contained.
And that leads me to my next point.
Noax wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:50 pm ...the language of MW theory often labels worlds as separate universes in pop descriptions...
Look, when the theoretical physicist who allegedly coined the term “many worlds” in conjunction with Everett’s theory, states the following:
Brice Dewitt wrote: “...The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense...”
...then “pop descriptions” will be based on what can be inferred from those types of proclamations.
??? You couldn't find a quote where somebody says 'alternate universe'? That comment is just says that MW does not easily reconcile with common sense. He's right. You said just above that it seems to go against your common sense. By 'pop' descriptions, I mean loose use of the word 'universe' in a context where the meaning is ambiguous. So I try to avoid the term due to the ambiguity.
Now I realize that you know this stuff already, but the whole point of what attracts people to the Many Worlds Interpretation in the first place is because it is touted as being a more logical alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation’s “collapse” issue.
It's simpler. More logical? Not really since neither violate logic. But it going against common sense just means that some of your intuitive assumptions are not axiomatic.

Because according to the MWI, the wavefunction does not collapse, and that literally all of the superpositioned possibilities inherent in the wave become real - REAL - in some parallel context.
If that is true, and it is obvious that none of those allegedly “real” alternative outcomes are taking place within the confines of this...

Image

...particular bubble of reality, then exactly where are they occurring?
You depict one world. The other outcomes are parts of other worlds, all partly entangled (like the one Jupiter for a while), so never completely disjoint from each other.
Therefore, if it is obvious
New findings are never obvious, else they'd have been discovered with all the other obvious things like the earth being flat. This doesn't make it true, but your declaration of something not being obvious carries zero weight if it cannot suggest a single falsification test.
that “two versions” of Max Tegmark cannot exist simultaneously in the closed bubble of reality depicted above, then in what context does an alternate version of Tegmark exist within?
It's like the cat, which from the viewpoint of outside the box, is actually both dead and alive. The live cat has no awareness of the dead one since the world in the box has split. But the split is confined to the box, so from the world outside the box, both states exist. Jupiter is outside the box for a decoherence event on Earth, at least until any trivial change causes Jupiter to be entagled with the separate outcomes. Until then, it is the same Jupiter, not an identical copy. So say that takes half an hour, and only another half hour later does different light return to Earth and the two versions there see a different Jupiter.

The example above illustrates an unrealistic simplification of one measurement and just two worlds. Realistically, there is no 'the one Jupiter' since decoherence go on all the time there any everywhere else where matter is interacting. But both copies on earth view the same superposition of Jupiter. I think that's the more correct way to say it. There is no stable version of anything, and therefore no real identity to any object. My example was meant to show that a measurement causes a split that separates two worlds at up to the speed of light. There is no lower bound to that. A measurement can be contained indefinitely.
And if the context in question is not literally a “real” and permanent context, then the whole premise upon which the Many Worlds Interpretation is founded...
Depends on one's definition of 'real'. Subjectively, a different copy of something can have zero causal effect on the subject, and thus is not subjectively real. Within the entire universe, all of the outcomes are equally real.
(in other words, the central feature of the theory that supposedly counters the Copenhagen premise)

...is rendered false.
Wait, how? Because the other is obvious? Because you posted a picture of that with which you might causally interact? Does MW draw a different picture of what you might interact with?

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming to be an expert. I do my best but it is probably easier to run my description into the ground than a more correctly worded version.
Last edited by Noax on Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

seeds wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:33 am If that is true, and it is obvious that none of those allegedly “real” alternative outcomes are taking place within the confines of this...

Image

...particular bubble of reality, then exactly where are they occurring?
Your bubble depicts a branch of the universal wave function and hence begs the question. What should be depicted instead is all those things in superposition. One universe comprising many worlds.
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: I agree that the universe...
is indeed a “single” structure, not only from the perspective of my earlier description of its “bubble-like” unity, but also that every aspect of this bubble appears to be united into a singular state of “oneness” at what physicists call the “non-local” level of reality.
Noax wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:31 am I agree that it is one structure. But 'universe' has a lot of meanings.
No, it doesn’t have a lot of meanings – at least not in the context of the “Big Bang.”

I don’t know about you, but I am going by the Big Bang model (as described in my earlier post, here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=22474&start=75#p323420).

In which case, the image I have been using...

Image

...represents the totality of the meaning of the word “universe.”

If “multi worlds” or “parallel universes” exist somewhere outside of the “closed bubble of reality” depicted above, then we are entering into a realm where perhaps some other term other than “universe” would be more fitting.

(Noax, I appreciate the effort you put into your replies back to me. However, in several instances you fail to separate my responses from your responses, and it makes things that I have said look like things that you have said, thus turning our conversation into a muddled mess. So please try to do a better job at composing and editing your posts.)

(Continued in next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote: Cleary, two versions of Max Tegmark cannot exist simultaneously within the same bubble of reality. So where, pray tell, is the second version of Max located?
Noax wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:31 am Same spatial location, except one may have wandered one way and the other another way. My example gave them an hour.
If one Tegmark can wander one way and the other another way (in the “same spatial location”), then they can both turn around and wander towards each other, which implies that the two Tegmarks can eventually meet and shake hands.

You are digging yourself into a hole of indefensible nonsense.
Noax wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:31 am It is fine to not accept the view. I'm not asserting it...
By defending it, you are indeed asserting it. Or are you just playing devil’s advocate as a counter to my disdain of the MWI?
Noax wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:31 am ...But your incredulity isn't amounting to much of a refutation. You need to devise a falsification test.
My incredulity is based on my own obsessive extrapolation of the ridiculous implications of the Many Worlds Interpretation which, according to Bryce DeWitt,...

(again, the physicist who coined the term “many worlds”)

...suggest that trillions of copies of you, me, and this...

Image

...literally come into existence as a result of the infinitesimal quantum events that occur in the process of just you, Noax, gazing at your computer screen for a few seconds.

What exactly do you think DeWitt meant when he said that the MWI implies that there could be...
Bryce DeWitt wrote: “...10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable...”
...???

Stop ignoring what Everett’s most avid supporter said about the theory.

Now from DeWitt’s description, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture an exponentially expanding “EXPLOSION” of parallel universes, all instantly “foaming” off of each other as the result of trillions of copies of, again, just you, gazing at your computer screen within the context of each subsequent bubble...

...(never mind the veritable infinity of other quantum events taking place).

So yes, the above is indeed so utterly incredulous to me that I find absolutely no need for devising a “falsification test.”

And lastly, whether it is a “pop” description or not, you need to stop denying what the MWI actually means.

Again, according to Wiki:
Wiki wrote: The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes. The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many-worlds.
_______
Last edited by seeds on Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:33 am If that is true, and it is obvious that none of those allegedly “real” alternative outcomes are taking place within the confines of this...

Image

...particular bubble of reality, then exactly where are they occurring?
davidm wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:32 am Your bubble depicts a branch of the universal wave function and hence begs the question.
Begs what question?

And no, the bubble does not depict a “branch” of the universal wavefunction.

It depicts the “fully explicated” phenomenal features of absolutely everything that the universal wavefunction “implicitly” represents.

The bubble is a representation of the totality of the “local level” of the universe itself – at least the totality of the universe if the so-called “Big Bang” model is what we are going by.

As I pointed out to Noax, the word “universe” is in reference to just “one” bubble of reality as is pictured in the above illustration.

If you have something bigger in mind, then I suggest finding a different term for it.
davidm wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:32 am What should be depicted instead is all those things in superposition...
In the same way that you cannot “depict” Kant’s “noumena,” likewise, you cannot “depict” anything that exists in superposition.

In which case, the imagery depicted in the bubble illustration represents absolutely everything that is not in superposition.

Or, in other words, it represents the “particle” aspect of the “particle/wave” duality.

And that brings us right back to the theme of this thread and the question of what exactly is it that transforms spread-out waves of quantum noumena into observable, touchable, hearable, smellable, and tastable phenomena?
_______
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

seeds wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:33 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:33 am If that is true, and it is obvious that none of those allegedly “real” alternative outcomes are taking place within the confines of this...

Image

...particular bubble of reality, then exactly where are they occurring?
davidm wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:32 am Your bubble depicts a branch of the universal wave function and hence begs the question.
Begs what question?
Your bubble depicts a definite, single outcome of history, the kind we observe all the time, because at the so-called classical level we cannot observe superpositions. To say that this is a depiction of how things really are begs the question by presuming MW to be false without actually showing it to be false.
And no, the bubble does not depict a “branch” of the universal wavefunction.
Of course it does.
It depicts the “fully explicated” phenomenal features of absolutely everything that the universal wavefunction “implicitly” represents.
No it doesn't! It shows a definite outcome.
The bubble is a representation of the totality of the “local level” of the universe itself – at least the totality of the universe if the so-called “Big Bang” model is what we are going by.
If by "local level" you mean a single branch of the quantum multiverse, you're right. But you said the opposite just above.
As I pointed out to Noax, the word “universe” is in reference to just “one” bubble of reality as is pictured in the above illustration.

If you have something bigger in mind, then I suggest finding a different term for it.
Just one bubble just means a single branch of the multiverse -- what you deny that the above is. This gets very confusing because people don't stick to consistent definitions. What I mean by "multiverse" is ONE universe comprising MANY quantum worlds. So by my lights what the above should depict is a single bubble with all the objects inside in superposition.
In the same way that you cannot “depict” Kant’s “noumena,” likewise, you cannot “depict” anything that exists in superposition.
Of course you can. That's what the two-slit experiment shows. A single quantum particle is creating an interference pattern because it is interfering with itself in multiple worlds.
In which case, the imagery depicted in the bubble illustration represents absolutely everything that is not in superposition.

Or, in other words, it represents the “particle” aspect of the “particle/wave” duality.
Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me. You now agree, it seems, that it is showing a single branch of the universal wave function -- which you denied earlier in this very post to which I'm responding.
And that brings us right back to the theme of this thread and the question of what exactly is it that transforms spread-out waves of quantum noumena into observable, touchable, hearable, smellable, and tastable phenomena?
Under many worlds, different versions of you are quantum entangled with different outcomes of the same event.
_______
[/quote]
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

davidm didn't leave a whole lot out, and I don't disagree with any of his post.
seeds wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:31 pmI don’t know about you, but I am going by the Big Bang model
Big Bang theory is a scientific theory of cosomology, not an interpretation of quantum mechanics. The picture your show, on the other hand, is of one world, and your description asserts it is the only world, which is not a representation of MW interpretation.
If “multi worlds” or “parallel universes” exist somewhere outside of the “closed bubble of reality” depicted above, then we are entering into a realm where perhaps some other term other than “universe” would be more fitting.
We both agreed the word refers to the whole structure I thought. So let's stick with that. Nobody laid claim that parts exist outside this bubble you've depicted.
(Noax, I appreciate the effort you put into your replies back to me. However, in several instances you fail to separate my responses from your responses, and it makes things that I have said look like things that you have said, thus turning our conversation into a muddled mess. So please try to do a better job at composing and editing your posts.)
I made one edit, having indeed missed one leading quote.
If one Tegmark can wander one way and the other another way (in the “same spatial location”), then they can both turn around and wander towards each other, which implies that the two Tegmarks can eventually meet and shake hands.
Nothing in one world can interact with another. They are causally disjoint.
You are digging yourself into a hole of indefensible nonsense.
Noax wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:31 am It is fine to not accept the view. I'm not asserting it...
By defending it, you are indeed asserting it.
I am defending its consistency, not asserting the truth of it. You are free to show the inconsistency.
Noax wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:31 am ...But your incredulity isn't amounting to much of a refutation. You need to devise a falsification test.
My incredulity is based on my own obsessive extrapolation of the ridiculous implications of the Many Worlds Interpretation which, according to Bryce DeWitt,...
(again, the physicist who coined the term “many worlds”)
...suggest that trillions of copies of you, me, and this...
...literally come into existence as a result of the infinitesimal quantum events that occur in the process of just you, Noax, gazing at your computer screen for a few seconds.
I wouldn't word it as 'come into existence' since it is in no way an act of creation, but yes, lots of worlds. In your view, there is Earth at noon causing the Earth of one second later. You don't consider that an act of creation any more that a MW adherent considers subsequent states to be creation acts. It is still the one thing in superposition, the wave function of which can be used to yield the probability of all these countless outcomes. There is no actual collapse, just the decoherence between them.
What exactly do you think DeWitt meant when he said that the MWI implies that there could be...
Bryce DeWitt wrote: “...10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable...”
...???
Tried to describe it just above. Yes, DeWitt describes it pretty well. Not denying any of his quotes.
Stop ignoring what Everett’s most avid supporter said about the theory.

Now from DeWitt’s description, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture an exponentially expanding “EXPLOSION” of parallel universes, all instantly “foaming” off of each other as the result of trillions of copies of, again, just you, gazing at your computer screen within the context of each subsequent bubble...
DeWitt said that? It apparently takes more imagination to envision that they might behave in accordance to physics and stay put unless acted upon by forces.
So yes, the above is indeed so utterly incredulous to me that I find absolutely no need for devising a “falsification test.”
Great! I told you not to buy into a view you don't entertain.
And lastly, whether it is a “pop” description or not, you need to stop denying what the MWI actually means.
Note that it admits to using layman terms below. I bolded the ones that conflict with how we've been using the terms.
Again, according to Wiki:
Wiki wrote: The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes. The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many-worlds.
I said the word 'universe' is ambiguous. Here they are equating the word to 'world', not the entire structure. That ambiguity makes me avoid the word. It is not using it the way you defined it". The structure built on the one initial event, the big bang (if there is such an event). So substitute 'world' for all the bold stuff, and I agree with the wiki as a layman description.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

Many Worlds or Many Words?

The whole thing is worth reading, but for purposes of this immediate discussion, I recommend the (short) Part II which begins on Page One: "The MWI: What It Is and What It Isn't."
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

davidm wrote: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:00 am Many Worlds or Many Words?

The whole thing is worth reading, but for purposes of this immediate discussion, I recommend the (short) Part II which begins on Page One: "The MWI: What It Is and What It Isn't."
Thank you for the link. I will have to adjust my description of decoherence a bit based on what is there.
It is never a metaphysical thing that happens during a measurement, but just a threshold of probability when the two outcomes no longer contribute significantly to their joint wave function. An electron splits and interferes with itself beyond the slits, and interferes far less with itself after the screen. Something like that.
Still reading the later parts. Plenty of it is over my head.
Post Reply