Stopping time
Re: Stopping time
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.
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.
Re: Stopping time
Indeed, it was a response to this:
I entirely agree. I have no idea how consciousness works, but every example is associated with a brain.
Quite right too.
Well, that's a technological problem. You set up your apparatus and it registers an eigenstate or it doesn't.
Right, which is why I have never claimed otherwise.Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:30 amI agree but again, I see no evidence that there are two kinds of things. None was ever seen.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'.
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.
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.
Re: Stopping time
I don't see how you can rule it out.
Without knowing your argument for why you think this should be so, it is difficult to respond to.
Re: Stopping time
(p33-37 https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk by the way.)
Until we collapsed the system by looking, we wouldn't know.
You could, but in order to establish that empirically, you'd have to look at it doing so.
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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:22 amAlso:
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.
Re: Stopping time
You mean individual consciousness.
Err.. no. This is one interpretation that you think is fact. But it's very good for practical purposes.Well, that's a technological problem. You set up your apparatus and it registers an eigenstate or it doesn't.
but how do you account for nonlocality then?conjuring up some localised block universe sort of thing
and do you make a separate universe for every particle? what does it solve, why does one block behave differently from the next one?
I think that's not a good interpretationBut for all I know it's just some god playing silly buggers.
But didn't you just rule it out yourself?I don't see how you can rule it out.
But it was your argument and didn't you just refute it too?Without knowing your argument for why you think this should be so, it is difficult to respond to.
Yeah but I also said don't be fooled by the word consciousness in the title.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.
As we know it's a Western catch-all word for like dozens of different things, randomly mixed together, even without QM.
But quantum systems do evolve in a sort of superpositional way when "not looking".. so what do you mean we wouldn't know?Until we collapsed the system by looking, we wouldn't know.
Re: Stopping time
Yup, the only type we have any direct evidence for.
Err.. yes. It's evidence again.
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.
So do I.
Nope.
Well, it was you that said:
So again; why do you think that should be so?
Yeah but:Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:05 pmYeah but I also said don't be fooled by the word consciousness in the title.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.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:08 am 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.
It's also the subject of some fairly respectable science.
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.
Re: Stopping time
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.
Re: Stopping time
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.
It's not an interpretation of measurement devices; measuring is what measurement devices do.
You think empirical evidence is outdated?
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.
Not really. In response to you asking:
I said:
Which it is, but:
It's a bit harsh knocking something I haven't reinvented yet.
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.
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.
Well you can't please everyone.
https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
Re: Stopping time
You clearly don't even know what the measurement problem is. Oh well.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:16 pmWell 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.It's not an interpretation of measurement devices; measuring is what measurement devices do.You think empirical evidence is outdated?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.Not really. In response to you asking:I said:Which it is, but:It's a bit harsh knocking something I haven't reinvented yet.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.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.Well you can't please everyone.https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
Re: Stopping time
As I said, the wave function is a mathematical treatment. The problem is how to interpret that in physical terms.
You are making my case for me. Are you sure it's nothing to do with your insecurity?
Re: Stopping time
As I said, you don't even know what the measurement problem is. Oh well.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:41 pmAs I said, the wave function is a mathematical treatment. The problem is how to interpret that in physical terms.You are making my case for me. Are you sure it's nothing to do with your insecurity?
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.
Re: Stopping time
Could be. So if it's not how I described it, what is the measurement problem?
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Stopping time
Blah blah blah. If Zeno's paradox is bullshit, why would I give two shits about bullshit on a quantum scale?Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:53 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effectDalek Prime wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:00 am A caesium clock will decay at the same rate no matter how you stare at it, or not.
Re: Stopping time
Re: Stopping time
And a wikipedia page:
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.