Thanks for the reply.ACProctor wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 11:18 amThat's not quite true. Wave function collapse is merely a description of the deviation of our reality from what the wave equation predicts. The wave equation is fully deterministic, and unitary, but it generates this thing called a wave function. It is defined in a mathematical space or many dimensions, and has no observable counterpart. Max Born gave it a probabilistic interpretation, as you know, but it's not the only interpretation (e.g. WMI). Unfortunately, because we only ever measure one outcome then it was posited that the wave function must collapse -- either mathematically or physically (opinions differ) -- but there is no accepted mechanism and all attempts are "bolt ons" to standard QM.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:17 am Pretty sure the wave function collapse is an example of the "now" moment:-
\langle \psi|\psi \rangle = \sum_i |c_i|^2 = 1.
The concept of time is simple, now that conscious minds exist, time exists as a construct that man has developed pertaining to measurement correlated to events.
Those who believe in it, rather than the slightly more logical alternative of QM being incomplete, suggest it happens instantly during a measurement, but cannot define what that means. Environmental decoherence has been shown to only account for fine-grained probabilities and not the superposed coarse-grained ones.
More importantly, though, there is still no special "now" singled our by any equation, and relativity precludes any such concept. My stance is that "now", and hence the associated temporal flow, are associated with consciousness only, which means there is no fundamental change in the universe. This "block universe" is a bold proposition, but here's the stinger: it violates no laws we know of, it solves many paradoxes and mysteries around time, no equation in mathematical physics is affected because they have no specific "now", and there is no measurement possible to prove or disprove the difference between this eternalistic model and our normal presentist view. As far as I can tell, its preference boils down to mathematicism.
I truly need to get back into mathematics and really delve into this fascinating area but am certain I will never understand QM via it.
So, alas I admit I am not certain of what you are stating there.
RE: 'now' ...are you stating there is no definite such thing since this moment as now is not a moment concurrent to all conscious observers?
Or, that there are simply too many events occurring at any moment?
If that is the case then I understand, if not...perhaps you could attempt to further my understanding!