Stopping time

[Atla]

Even if we say that for example gravity is not an interaction or that entanglement doesn't count etc.. how would a quantum system made of two or more particles evolve without collapsing?

And besides in this view, what is doing the observing is arbitrary. You can equally say that one particle is observing the rest of the universe and therefore collapsing it.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacti ... easurement

This interaction business is just a part of the "shut up and calculate" approach. Back in the early days of QM one could still fairly easily pretend that QM is restricted to the very small, and it's just some interactions there, and just forget about implications.

[uwot]

Strictly speaking it's a simplified description of the behaviour of a hypothetical relativistic quantum field.

But that's not the measurement problem.

Indeed, it was a response to this:

But that too is an interpretation, or non-interpretation, one of many.

So you think that there is the consciousness and there is the physical? I disagree, why do you think this? There is no sign that humans are made of anything else than the rest of the universe.

I entirely agree. I have no idea how consciousness works, but every example is associated with a brain.

And you kept going on and on about how we must always follow the evidence.

Quite right too.

Well, once you establish the positional eigenstate, the chances of it having two are nil.

Yes but how and why is it established or appears to be established. That's the problem.

Well, that's a technological problem. You set up your apparatus and it registers an eigenstate or it doesn't.

Again that's my sloppy use of 'reality', but since any mathematical description is necessarily underdetermined (which is also true of any physical model), there is no way of knowing that the axioms refer to any 'consciousness independent physical stuff'.

I agree but again, I see no evidence that there are two kinds of things. None was ever seen.

Right, which is why I have never claimed otherwise.

Interaction has nothing to do with measurement. For example in the DCQE we have the same kind of interactions and get the two different outcomes anyway.

Yup. It's a very sophisticated apparatus and the results are quite marvellous. How you interpret them is pretty much a matter of taste. If I had to plump for a flavour, I'd have a go at conjuring up some localised block universe sort of thing. But for all I know it's just some god playing silly buggers.

So what point are they trying to make?

What do you mean? They just present what was found in physics 80+ years ago. And no one really knows what it means.

Well, according to the Amazon blurb in the link you provided: "Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself - and encounter quantum mechanics." But you have read the book and I haven't, so I defer to you on that one.

[uwot]

There is always a chain of interactions, but that isn't what's causing the collapse.
If that was the case then there was no mistery then, huh.

I don't see how you can rule it out.

And if interaction was driving the collapse then how do you explain that any quantum system can evolve at all, shouldn't they just always collapse themselves?

Without knowing your argument for why you think this should be so, it is difficult to respond to.

[uwot]

Even if we say that for example gravity is not an interaction...

(p33-37 https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk by the way.)

...or that entanglement doesn't count etc.. how would a quantum system made of two or more particles evolve without collapsing?

Until we collapsed the system by looking, we wouldn't know.

And besides in this view, what is doing the observing is arbitrary. You can equally say that one particle is observing the rest of the universe and therefore collapsing it.

You could, but in order to establish that empirically, you'd have to look at it doing so.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacti ... easurement

This interaction business is just a part of the "shut up and calculate" approach. Back in the early days of QM one could still fairly easily pretend that QM is restricted to the very small, and it's just some interactions there, and just forget about implications.

Unlike DCQE, all the experiments cited are thought experiments. If you know of any of them being performed in lab conditions, that would be much more interesting.

[Atla]

I have no idea how consciousness works, but every example is associated with a brain.

You mean individual consciousness.

Well, that's a technological problem. You set up your apparatus and it registers an eigenstate or it doesn't.

Err.. no. This is one interpretation that you think is fact. But it's very good for practical purposes.

conjuring up some localised block universe sort of thing

but how do you account for nonlocality then?
and do you make a separate universe for every particle? what does it solve, why does one block behave differently from the next one?

But for all I know it's just some god playing silly buggers.

I think that's not a good interpretation

I don't see how you can rule it out.

But didn't you just rule it out yourself?

Without knowing your argument for why you think this should be so, it is difficult to respond to.

But it was your argument and didn't you just refute it too?

Well, according to the Amazon blurb in the link you provided: "Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself - and encounter quantum mechanics." But you have read the book and I haven't, so I defer to you on that one.

Yeah but I also said don't be fooled by the word consciousness in the title.
As we know it's a Western catch-all word for like dozens of different things, randomly mixed together, even without QM.

Until we collapsed the system by looking, we wouldn't know.

But quantum systems do evolve in a sort of superpositional way when "not looking".. so what do you mean we wouldn't know?

[uwot]

I have no idea how consciousness works, but every example is associated with a brain.

You mean individual consciousness.

Yup, the only type we have any direct evidence for.

Well, that's a technological problem. You set up your apparatus and it registers an eigenstate or it doesn't.

Err.. no. This is one interpretation that you think is fact. But it's very good for practical purposes.

Err.. yes. It's evidence again.

conjuring up some localised block universe sort of thing

but how do you account for nonlocality then?
and do you make a separate universe for every particle? what does it solve, why does one block behave differently from the next one?

Like I said, if I were to plump for one flavour, that would probably be where I start. Nonlocality? Make the block arbitrarily big and include any entanglement, but then you might just end up with a regulation block universe. Separate universes? That's going to be some version of many worlds. Behave differently? Presumably the rules are the same, but the initial conditions are different.

But for all I know it's just some god playing silly buggers.

I think that's not a good interpretation

So do I.

I don't see how you can rule it out.

But didn't you just rule it out yourself?

Nope.

Without knowing your argument for why you think this should be so, it is difficult to respond to.

But it was your argument and didn't you just refute it too?

Well, it was you that said:

...shouldn't they just always collapse themselves?

So again; why do you think that should be so?

Well, according to the Amazon blurb in the link you provided: "Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself - and encounter quantum mechanics." But you have read the book and I haven't, so I defer to you on that one.

Yeah but I also said don't be fooled by the word consciousness in the title.

Yeah but:

They do use the word "consciousness" rather vaguely but they themselves don't really know what they mean by it, maybe it just means that something about most humans seems to make them QM observers. But I don't remember the book saying that it's restricted to humans or even alive things.

As we know it's a Western catch-all word for like dozens of different things, randomly mixed together, even without QM.

It's also the subject of some fairly respectable science.

Until we collapsed the system by looking, we wouldn't know.

But quantum systems do evolve in a sort of superpositional way when "not looking".. so what do you mean we wouldn't know?

Evidence. You can only know a couple of properties at any one time. You can think what you like about what happens when you're not looking.

[Atla]

...

So what you are saying is, things exist when you need them to, don't exist when you need them to, exist but don't exist when you need them to, even discarding evidence to the contrary. And you are convinced that your interpretation about measurement devices is evidence. And you even mistake your outdated philosophical assumptions for evidence. And you criticize me for picking MWI and then reinvent it just in a much worse way. And ffs I did state that MWI may be wrong, and it is incomplete, it's just my philosophical choice, and things like the Quantum zeno in the opening comment work perfectly well without any such interpretation.

This is again really not going anywhere, or I don't know what the point of this is, maybe again it's your insecurity speaking. No I don't care about your work either that you keep linking in every other comment. It's not all that great you know. Go pester someone else.

[uwot]

So what you are saying is, things exist when you need them to, don't exist when you need them to, exist but don't exist when you need them to, even discarding evidence to the contrary.

Well it's epistemology rather than ontology; you only know things are there when you look at them. As I said, you can make up any old story about what is happening when no one is looking.

And you are convinced that your interpretation about measurement devices is evidence.

It's not an interpretation of measurement devices; measuring is what measurement devices do.

And you even mistake your outdated philosophical assumptions for evidence.

You think empirical evidence is outdated?

And you criticize me for picking MWI...

Doesn't sound like me. I had a look and drew a blank; if you can find the quote you are referring to, I will apologise for it.

...and then reinvent it just in a much worse way.

Not really. In response to you asking:

...do you make a separate universe for every particle?

I said:

Separate universes? That's going to be some version of many worlds.

Which it is, but:

Like I said, if I were to plump for one flavour, that would probably be where I start.

It's a bit harsh knocking something I haven't reinvented yet.

And ffs I did state that MWI may be wrong, and it is incomplete, it's just my philosophical choice...

Which you are perfectly entitled to, but if you use it as a platform to lobs rocks at people who make a different philosophical choice, it really shouldn't surprise you if some are thrown back.

This is again really not going anywhere, or I don't know what the point of this is, maybe again it's your insecurity speaking.

Maybe. Personally, I think it is more to do with you paying little attention to what others actually say and just having a go at them for stuff they didn't say.

No I don't care about your work either that you keep linking in every other comment. It's not all that great you know.

Well you can't please everyone.

Go pester someone else.

https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

[Atla]

So what you are saying is, things exist when you need them to, don't exist when you need them to, exist but don't exist when you need them to, even discarding evidence to the contrary.

Well it's epistemology rather than ontology; you only know things are there when you look at them. As I said, you can make up any old story about what is happening when no one is looking.

And you are convinced that your interpretation about measurement devices is evidence.

It's not an interpretation of measurement devices; measuring is what measurement devices do.

And you even mistake your outdated philosophical assumptions for evidence.

You think empirical evidence is outdated?

And you criticize me for picking MWI...

Doesn't sound like me. I had a look and drew a blank; if you can find the quote you are referring to, I will apologise for it.

...and then reinvent it just in a much worse way.

Not really. In response to you asking:

...do you make a separate universe for every particle?

I said:

Separate universes? That's going to be some version of many worlds.

Which it is, but:

Like I said, if I were to plump for one flavour, that would probably be where I start.

It's a bit harsh knocking something I haven't reinvented yet.

And ffs I did state that MWI may be wrong, and it is incomplete, it's just my philosophical choice...

Which you are perfectly entitled to, but if you use it as a platform to lobs rocks at people who make a different philosophical choice, it really shouldn't surprise you if some are thrown back.

This is again really not going anywhere, or I don't know what the point of this is, maybe again it's your insecurity speaking.

Maybe. Personally, I think it is more to do with you paying little attention to what others actually say and just having a go at them for stuff they didn't say.

No I don't care about your work either that you keep linking in every other comment. It's not all that great you know.

Well you can't please everyone.

Go pester someone else.

https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

You clearly don't even know what the measurement problem is. Oh well.

[uwot]

You clearly don't even know what the measurement problem is. Oh well.

As I said, the wave function is a mathematical treatment. The problem is how to interpret that in physical terms.

This is again really not going anywhere, or I don't know what the point of this is, maybe again it's your insecurity speaking.

Maybe. Personally, I think it is more to do with you paying little attention to what others actually say and just having a go at them for stuff they didn't say.

You are making my case for me. Are you sure it's nothing to do with your insecurity?

[Atla]

You clearly don't even know what the measurement problem is. Oh well.

As I said, the wave function is a mathematical treatment. The problem is how to interpret that in physical terms.

This is again really not going anywhere, or I don't know what the point of this is, maybe again it's your insecurity speaking.

Maybe. Personally, I think it is more to do with you paying little attention to what others actually say and just having a go at them for stuff they didn't say.

You are making my case for me. Are you sure it's nothing to do with your insecurity?

As I said, you don't even know what the measurement problem is. Oh well.

Well if you're not insecure then you are suffering from Dunning-Kruger and that's even worse. You already made this clear in the other thread, there was no need to hammer it home even more.

[uwot]

As I said, the wave function is a mathematical treatment. The problem is how to interpret that in physical terms.

As I said, you don't even know what the measurement problem is. Oh well.

Could be. So if it's not how I described it, what is the measurement problem?

[Dalek Prime]

A caesium clock will decay at the same rate no matter how you stare at it, or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

Blah blah blah. If Zeno's paradox is bullshit, why would I give two shits about bullshit on a quantum scale?

[Atla]

As I said, the wave function is a mathematical treatment. The problem is how to interpret that in physical terms.

As I said, you don't even know what the measurement problem is. Oh well.

Could be. So if it's not how I described it, what is the measurement problem?

I already pointed you to a book, you didn't want it. If you don't want to learn about it then that's not my problem. I'm not your teacher and I couldn't care less.

[uwot]

So if it's not how I described it, what is the measurement problem?

I already pointed you to a book...

And a wikipedia page:

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacti ... easurement

Which lists 3 different thought experiments.
There is also the wikipedia entry on the measurement problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem which states: "The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the problem of how (or whether) wave function collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer." Which is exactly what I said it is.