Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Wigner's friend, the existence of the Immaterial soul, and death of materialism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by grmorton View Post
    I must not have hit send, I thought I answsered this and can't find it now. lol

    The problem is not one of travel time, the problem is that the Schrodinger equation contains multiple realities as if they are equally real, but when we observe we only observe one of those possible realities. All these realities require that 'travel time you mention' so they are not distinguished by that. We see one of the possible outcomes not all of them which are described by Schrodinger's equation. The question is why do we only see one, not all of them, which in some circumstances can be hundreds of possible realities.
    Yes, of the many possible realities, according to the schroedinger equation, we only observe the one actual reality. But doesn't that travel time of light show that it is not our observation that is the cause of the conversion from possible reality to actual reality? The conversion actually takes place at the measuring device which doesn't itself observe anything. So if the cause of the conversion isn't our observation, what would you say is the cause? It would seem to me that the only answer is that reality is determined, and that we only observe that reality after it has already occured? I'm sure I'm probably missing something, could you further clarify what that might be?

    Comment


    • #47
      Lurch, Let's look at t'Hooft's definition of freedom:

      "If we would have been deprived of the possibility to freely choose our initial states,
      we would never be able to rely on our model; we would not know whether our model
      makes sense at all. In short, we must demand that our model gives credible scenarios for a universe for any choice of the initial conditions!"

      Originally posted by Gerard ’t Hooft ON THE FREE-WILL POSTULATE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS, p.5,6
      "This is the free will axiom in its modified form. form. This, we claim, is why one should really want ‘free will’ to be there. It is not the free will to modify the present without affecting the past, but it is the freedom to choose the initial state, regardless its past, to check what would happen in the future.

      This still puts the human consciousness, the observer, in a very special circumstance as do all things quantum. This is saying that I can stop the universe's machination, the laws of physics, and effectively time itself, to check what happens in the future if I do x y or z. Wow! Sorry, don't buy that as a reasonable thing. It still has consciousness being powerful enough to entertain alternative futures. Kinda like those TV Sliders guys, Rembrant "Cryin Man" Brown in charge of the universe.

      Edited to add: Since the past, the present and the future are all superdetermined, I don't see how one can suddenly say I have freedom to change the initial condition. It seems very ad hoc to me.


      I am off for a couple of days to get scanned,, poked prodded and otherwise tormented by the medical community to see if my drug trial is actually working on me. Silence isn't a sign of me giving up.
      Last edited by grmorton; 05-23-2019, 01:54 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by grmorton View Post
        This still puts the human consciousness, the observer, in a very special circumstance as do all things quantum.
        I just don't see how those statements rule out a computer from making the choice without conscious intervention - based on the photons of a distant quasar, to reiterate a recent example. This is the point i'm trying (poorly) to make - you're treating his use of the term "free will" as indicative of conscious choices, while t'Hooft is treating the term mechanistically, and specifically says it tells us nothing about the nature of our consciousness. It seems to me at least that the two of you are using the same term for two different things.

        Now, it could be that i'm missing something in the paper - stuff like this i often have to read twice. But i have also read other things by t'Hooft and seen him speak, so i have some idea of what he's trying to get at.

        Originally posted by grmorton View Post
        I am off for a couple of days to get scanned,, poked prodded and otherwise tormented by the medical community to see if my drug trial is actually working on me. Silence isn't a sign of me giving up.
        I'm recovering from heart surgery right now, so i fully sympathize.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          I'm recovering from heart surgery right now, so i fully sympathize.
          Sorry to hear about that Lurch. I was thinking about t'Hooft's statement while down at MD Anderson getting bone scans, cat scans and MRI scans and I realized I think I have a better point to make about his definition of free will.
          t'Hooft said:

          Originally posted by Gerard ’t Hooft ON THE FREE-WILL POSTULATE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS, p.5,6
          "This is the free will axiom in its modified form. form. This, we claim, is why one should really want ‘free will’ to be there. It is not the free will to modify the present without affecting the past, but it is the freedom to choose the initial state, regardless its past, to check what would happen in the future."

          The phrase freedom to choose the initial state is exactly a collision with consciousness as something very special. A molecule can't choose anything. A rock in space can't choose anything much less initial states in an experiment. A dog and cat, can choose, but can't knowingly choose experimental settings. The only existing thing in the universe which can chose initial states in an experiment are conscious human beings. Seems to me, t'Hoofts definition far from dumping the specialness of humans, actually shows it. It is the only thing in the universe that can choose to set up an experiment and choose the initial settings. And that makes it very very special and very very different from rocks, asteroids, suns, galaxies and all other material objects.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by grmorton View Post
            Sorry to hear about that Lurch. I was thinking about t'Hooft's statement while down at MD Anderson getting bone scans, cat scans and MRI scans and I realized I think I have a better point to make about his definition of free will.
            t'Hooft said:
            Are you able to answer post #46 for me? I am trying to understand, make sense of, or conclude it an error that, according to the Copenhagan interpretation, our observation is the cause of reality. My question is basically, how can our observation be the cause of reality when according to the time lapse between the objects of existence and our conscious observation of them, said objects must needs exist prior to our ability to consciously observe them? Doesn't the external world need exist prior to our conscious awareness of it? Doesn't our consciousness of the external world only occur after the light coming from it reaches our eyes? I don't think you are actually defending that idea, since you are arguing free will and that interpretation, if I have it right, wouldn't leave room for free will, or would it? Perhaps I've misunderstood the Copenhagen interpretation, that our observations cause the reality we see. I'd appreciate it if you could set me straight on that. Thanks.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by grmorton View Post
              Sorry to hear about that Lurch.
              Thanks.

              Originally posted by grmorton View Post
              I was thinking about t'Hooft's statement while down at MD Anderson getting bone scans, cat scans and MRI scans and I realized I think I have a better point to make about his definition of free will.
              t'Hooft said:
              "This is the free will axiom in its modified form. form. This, we claim, is why one should really want ‘free will’ to be there. It is not the free will to modify the present without affecting the past, but it is the freedom to choose the initial state, regardless its past, to check what would happen in the future."
              The phrase freedom to choose the initial state is exactly a collision with consciousness as something very special. A molecule can't choose anything. A rock in space can't choose anything much less initial states in an experiment. A dog and cat, can choose, but can't knowingly choose experimental settings. The only existing thing in the universe which can chose initial states in an experiment are conscious human beings. Seems to me, t'Hoofts definition far from dumping the specialness of humans, actually shows it. It is the only thing in the universe that can choose to set up an experiment and choose the initial settings. And that makes it very very special and very very different from rocks, asteroids, suns, galaxies and all other material objects.
              Ok, you have forced me to reread the paper. One, i want to emphasize again: the entire paper is written from the framework of how things work in a world where there is causal behavior underlying quantum mechanics. The only definition of free will he argues for only works within that framework. As a result, you cannot both reject the consequences of that causal world - there being no free will in the traditional sense, because everything is causal - and then use arguments made within that framework to support your contentions.

              Well, i mean, you can, obviously, given that's what you're doing here. But it's not logically consistent. It's like arguing for the lunar regolith having specific mineral properties based on things derived in a model in which the moon is made of cheese.

              Now, that's only a problem because you've already rejected the supercausal framework that these arguments are based on. But there's also an issue with this particular quote you're using. This again gets back to the issue that you're arguing for a very specific meanings for things like "free will" and "choice", but using quotes from materials where these things have different meanings.

              In the case of this quote, the full context of the paper makes it clear that he's talking about "free will" purely in physical models. Any decent physical model, he argues, should be able to project future behavior from any set of initial conditions you choose. The "freedom to choose the initial state" that you've bolded is nothing more than having a model you can plug any arbitrary but physically plausible parameters into.

              To make this clear, let me quote the from just above the bit you quoted:

              In our model, we will only be able to perform such tasks if we possess some notion of the complete class of all possible configurations of our variables. For every member of this class, our model should produce reasonable predictions. Even if, in the real world, only very limited subsets of all possibilities will ever be realized anywhere at any time, our model must be able to describe all eventualities. If we would have been deprived of the possibility to freely choose our initial states, we would never be able to rely on our model; we would not know whether our model makes sense at all.
              This, i think, makes it clear that "freedom to choose the initial state" is within the context of a physical model, not in the real world.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #52
                I too want to revisit the quote at the bottom of your note above.

                In our model, we will only be able to perform such tasks if we possess some notion of the complete class of all possible configurations of our variables. For every member of this class, our model should produce reasonable predictions. Even if, in the real world, only very limited subsets of all possibilities will ever be realized anywhere at any time, our model must be able to describe all eventualities. If we would have been deprived of the possibility to freely choose our initial states, we would never be able to rely on our model; we would not know whether our model makes sense at all.


                If they have to have a notion of the complete class of possible configurations, that is impossible in many quantum problems because the information required for that task exceeds the available information in the known universe.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                  I too want to revisit the quote at the bottom of your note above.

                  In our model, we will only be able to perform such tasks if we possess some notion of the complete class of all possible configurations of our variables. For every member of this class, our model should produce reasonable predictions. Even if, in the real world, only very limited subsets of all possibilities will ever be realized anywhere at any time, our model must be able to describe all eventualities. If we would have been deprived of the possibility to freely choose our initial states, we would never be able to rely on our model; we would not know whether our model makes sense at all.


                  If they have to have a notion of the complete class of possible configurations, that is impossible in many quantum problems because the information required for that task exceeds the available information in the known universe.
                  Yeah, i had the sense reading through it that, by necessity, the model could only handle reasonable-sized subsets of the universe, not be expected to simulate the entire universe at once. In other words, it's written as if things face the issues we have now: many models can in theory scale to the universe, but can't do so practically because of computational constraints.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Hey guys, could you please explain if the Copenhagen interpretation state that consciousness, or conscious observation, is the cause of the reality that we observe? Does the interpretation conclude that my obsevation of a thing is the cause of that thing? Thanks.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Hey guys, could you please explain if the Copenhagen interpretation state that consciousness, or conscious observation, is the cause of the reality that we observe? Does the interpretation conclude that my obsevation of a thing is the cause of that thing? Thanks.
                      Which interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation?

                      As far as i'm aware, the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't specify the qualities that an observer must have. So, i think that both my favored position and grmorton's would be compatible with Copenhagen.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        Which interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation?

                        As far as i'm aware, the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't specify the qualities that an observer must have. So, i think that both my favored position and grmorton's would be compatible with Copenhagen.
                        Well does the observer cause change or not, influence reality or not?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Well does the observer cause change or not, influence reality or not?
                          It causes reality to shift from a probability distribution to a defined state.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            It causes reality to shift from a probability distribution to a defined state.
                            How does that happen? What is the physical connection between the observer and the wave to cause this?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              It causes reality to shift from a probability distribution to a defined state.
                              for everyone or just that observer?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                There’s one thing about these double slit experiments I’ve never been able to get clear. Does the “observer” have to be conscious, and does the conscious observer have to know which slit the particle went through, or just that whichever slit it passed through was measured and is now potentially knowable?

                                If a computer is programmed to randomly turn a detector on or off before a run of the experiment, but the results are not relayed to any conscious observer, do you get still get an interference pattern (when the pattern is also being detected only by a camera and another computer, not by any conscious observer)?

                                What if the computer is programmed to delete all record of the detection whenever a particle pattern has been observed (by cameras, not by people), so we can know that something was detected, but we can never know what? What if only one person knows, if Bob is watching the experiment, but sometimes he closes his eyes? Could we tell from the results of which experiments were deleted when his eyes were open and when they were closed?

                                I seem to recall an experiment in which the “detector” was nothing more than a single electron in an electron trap between the two slits. If the particle passed through one slit, the electron would be released, and a later conscious observer could check and find the trap empty to prove it went through that slit, and therefore you get a particle pattern. But does the particle pattern only appear if someone is actually going to check the trap? Can it predict the future? Or is the mere “knowability” enough to cause collapse (in which case consciousness is not an actual requirement)? And can that knowability be erased (as in quantum eraser experiments), after the fact, and how long after the fact so as to change the results of an experiment that are themselves knowable, but not known?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X