IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Hugh Everett , quantum mechanics

Reply
Old 25th December 2020, 12:00 PM   #1
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
How to understand QM. My Christmas present to you

Hi. It's me again.

You may know me from my previous thread "I don't think space is expanding".

Well, here's another idea for you. Background: when I first came up with this, it was in the context of photons work on electrons, and gravitons must work on photons, so .... what we see is actually the output of a machine like that?

At first I thought this was some wild ground breaking idea, but as I talked to others about it, it turns out this is what Plato and Kant and Leibniz and whole bunch of other people were on about, so much so that it's called the "perennial philosophy".

Ok, enough woo. Let's get to the sauce.

Turns out, this is also what Hugh Everett was on about.

* Everett, Hugh, (1957) "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics, 29: 454462.

For some reason (mainly a dude named Dewitt), everyone thinks Everett was on about many worlds. The "Everett" interpretation and MWI are now synonymous. This is a big mistake.

Here is page 9:

Quote:
Observation

We have the task of making deductions about the appearance of phenomena to observers which are considered as purely physical systems and are treated within the theory.

It will suffice for our purposes to consider the observers to possess memo- ries (i.e., parts of a relatively permanent nature whose states are in correspon- dence with past experience of the observers). In order to make deductions about the past experience of an observer it is sufficient to deduce the present contents of the memory as it appears within the mathematical model.

As models for observers we can, if we wish, consider automatically func- tioning machines, possessing sensory apparatus and coupled to recording devices capable of registering past sensory data and machine configurations. We can further suppose that the machine is so constructed that its present actions shall be determined not only by its present sensory data, but by the contents of its memory as well. Such a machine will then be capable of performing a sequence of observations (measurements), and furthermore of deciding upon its future experiments on the basis of past results. If we consider that current sensory data, as well as machine configuration, is im- mediately recorded in the memory, then the actions of the machine at a given instant can be regarded as a function of the memory contents only, and all relavant [sic] experience of the machine is contained in the memory.

For such machines we are justified in using such phrases as "the machine has perceived A" or "the machine is aware of A" if the occurrence of A is represented in the memory, since the future behavior of the machine will be based upon the occurrence of A. In fact, all of the customary language of subjective experience is quite applicable to such machines, and forms the most natural and useful mode of expression when dealing with their behavior, as is well known to individuals who work with complex automata.

The symbols A, B, ..., C, which we assume to be ordered time-wise, there- fore stand for memory configurations which are in correspondence with the past experience of the observer. These configurations can be regarded as punches in a paper tape, impressions on a magnetic reel, configurations of a relay switching circuit, or even configurations of brain cells. We require only that they be capable of the interpretation "The observer has experienced the succession of events A, B,..., C."

The mathematical model seeks to treat the interaction of such observer systems with other physical systems (observations), within the framework of Process 2 wave mechanics, and to deduce the resulting memory configura- tions, which are then to be interpreted as records of the past experiences of the observers.
Ok... this dude is literally .... in 1957... saying stuff about modeling a neural network inside a particle simulation.

We clearly are a ways away from doing that in 2020.

No wonder no one had any idea of what he was really talking about.

Over the next 50 years, I think you'll see this concept of a mathematical model making measurements of itself from the inside become self-evident.

For now, people will think this is woo, and go on thinking that parallel universes are real.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 25th December 2020 at 12:02 PM.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2020, 12:33 PM   #2
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
To me he's saying "on a super computer, make a particle simulation, that contains something like a smart phone (camera and computer vision software) and find out what's in the memory of the smart phone that exists in the memory of the super computer."

This would tell us how the model looks from the inside.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2020, 02:48 PM   #3
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Everett stipulated machine observers to scupper the idea that an observer needs to be a conscious human observer. In other words he was shutting down any mystical interpretation that others might put on his work.

Nothing in that requires that there be a computer capable of running the mathematical model (which is almost certainly impossible in any case). All that is required is that we think about and predict what the contents of those memories was, which was perfectly possible in 1957. Nor does he appear to be talking about any sort of simulation.

Often in QM the 'observer' is not specified and this leads to all sorts of confusion in those trying to understand it.

Whenever I am trying to understand any interpretation of QM I always think of the 'observer' as an observer in the sense that Everett describes.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 25th December 2020 at 03:10 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2020, 03:02 PM   #4
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Also I have read interviews with Everett which leave no doubt that he was indeed on about many worlds.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 25th December 2020 at 03:06 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 06:52 AM   #5
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,470
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Everett stipulated machine observers to scupper the idea that an observer needs to be a conscious human observer. In other words he was shutting down any mystical interpretation that others might put on his work.

Nothing in that requires that there be a computer capable of running the mathematical model (which is almost certainly impossible in any case). All that is required is that we think about and predict what the contents of those memories was, which was perfectly possible in 1957. Nor does he appear to be talking about any sort of simulation.

Often in QM the 'observer' is not specified and this leads to all sorts of confusion in those trying to understand it.

Whenever I am trying to understand any interpretation of QM I always think of the 'observer' as an observer in the sense that Everett describes.
This.

/thread
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 07:48 AM   #6
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sorth Dakonsin
Posts: 25,064
Quote:
How to understand QM. My Christmas present to you
Umm... thanks, I guess.

Worst gift given or received
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 11:07 AM   #7
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Whenever I am trying to understand any interpretation of QM I always think of the 'observer' as an observer in the sense that Everett describes.

Right, but Everett wasn't saying we "think" of the observer in the model that way.

He was suggesting we actually model it.

Let the math do the work.

That's why he called it the relative state formuulation. This is not an interpretation. This is a blue print for unique, sophisticated and ground breaking set of computations.

60+ years later, an unsolved programming challenge still exists, and I think it'll be much like a the "singularity" that transhumanists talk about, when it happens.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 11:12 AM   #8
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 14,082
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Everett stipulated machine observers to scupper the idea that an observer needs to be a conscious human observer. In other words he was shutting down any mystical interpretation that others might put on his work.

Nothing in that requires that there be a computer capable of running the mathematical model (which is almost certainly impossible in any case). All that is required is that we think about and predict what the contents of those memories was, which was perfectly possible in 1957. Nor does he appear to be talking about any sort of simulation.

Often in QM the 'observer' is not specified and this leads to all sorts of confusion in those trying to understand it.

Whenever I am trying to understand any interpretation of QM I always think of the 'observer' as an observer in the sense that Everett describes.
Possibly off-topic, but this has always been my roadblock to pursuing a more in-depth understanding of QM. I read Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters way back, and it was clearly meant to be all mystical. Then in school, Schrodinger's Cat was brought up. I of course objected, that the ******* cat was either ******* dead or ******* alive, not in some probability wave till you looked at it. The teacher eventually acknowledged that the analogy wss a steaming pile with no resemblance to what it was meant to analogize. It was a way to picture what the math predicted. But the analogy was useless IMO if it gave a nonsensical or simply wrong image. I recall from calc somewhere that if you get a nonsense answer, you are doing the wrong u substitution or whatever, even if you are doing the math correctly. It means you are just off on an entirely irrelevant reasoning. So these illustrative paradoxes have no meaning to a layperson in the English language, unless you get the math first, in which case you don't need the illustrative paradoxes. Or something.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 11:27 AM   #9
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Possibly off-topic, but this has always been my roadblock to pursuing a more in-depth understanding of QM. I read Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters way back, and it was clearly meant to be all mystical. Then in school, Schrodinger's Cat was brought up. I of course objected, that the ******* cat was either ******* dead or ******* alive, not in some probability wave till you looked at it. The teacher eventually acknowledged that the analogy wss a steaming pile with no resemblance to what it was meant to analogize. It was a way to picture what the math predicted. But the analogy was useless IMO if it gave a nonsensical or simply wrong image. I recall from calc somewhere that if you get a nonsense answer, you are doing the wrong u substitution or whatever, even if you are doing the math correctly. It means you are just off on an entirely irrelevant reasoning. So these illustrative paradoxes have no meaning to a layperson in the English language, unless you get the math first, in which case you don't need the illustrative paradoxes. Or something.
To me his treatment of an observer is the most interesting part of the formulation, because the same trick he's applying to wave mechanics should technically be applicable to any system with complex enough output as to contain measurement records from an observer machine.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 11:51 AM   #10
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,636
Mike, have you actually ever studied quantum mechanics? I don't mean reading books which try to explain quantum mechanics. I mean actual textbooks that teach you to do quantum mechanics calculations.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 12:02 PM   #11
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Mike, have you actually ever studied quantum mechanics? I don't mean reading books which try to explain quantum mechanics. I mean actual textbooks that teach you to do quantum mechanics calculations.
Of course not.

But I can tell the difference between "the Everett interpretation" and the relative state formulation.

One is an interpretation and has many worlds due to the uncollapsed universal wavefunction.

The other is the blue print for a computer program that contains internal observers and tells us what a model looks like from inside of it.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 12:12 PM   #12
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,933
So, now quantum mechanics is a computer program now?
That would have made studying physics so much more ughhhhhhh
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 12:26 PM   #13
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
So, now quantum mechanics is a computer program now?
That would have made studying physics so much more ughhhhhhh
I mean, you could try to make a mathematical model with a functioning observer on paper or a chalk board if you want, but I don't think that will speed of the process of inventing it.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 04:24 PM   #14
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,636
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Of course not.
I’m not trying to be rude here, but none of your opinions are actually informed. They cannot be. You don’t actually know what quantum mechanics is, if you’ve never actually done it. That’s like trying to study a language without actually learning to speak it. It will not work.

If you ever do learn to do quantum mechanics, come back and let us know how it went. Until then, nothing you say about it will be of any interest.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 04:34 PM   #15
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,639
The best thing I can say about this thread is that the title follows the mainstream media trend of using "how" or "why" in a headline to a story that fails to explain how or why.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 04:36 PM   #16
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I’m not trying to be rude here, but none of your opinions are actually informed. They cannot be. You don’t actually know what quantum mechanics is, if you’ve never actually done it. That’s like trying to study a language without actually learning to speak it. It will not work.

If you ever do learn to do quantum mechanics, come back and let us know how it went. Until then, nothing you say about it will be of any interest.
Ok.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 04:38 PM   #17
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The best thing I can say about this thread is that the title follows the mainstream media trend of using "how" or "why" in a headline to a story that fails to explain how or why.
If the measurement problem is "how to think of measurement", then Everett's answer is "model it."

Seems like the most obvious answer to me.

Make a mathematical model of a measurement happening. It'll happen some day.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 05:07 PM   #18
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,636
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If the measurement problem is "how to think of model measurement", then Everett's answer is "model it."

I've replaced one short phrase in your original quote with a different word that, in context, has the exact same meaning. I hope this might help you understand why your suggestion is not being perceived as particularly helpful.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 06:57 PM   #19
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
I've replaced one short phrase in your original quote with a different word that, in context, has the exact same meaning. I hope this might help you understand why your suggestion is not being perceived as particularly helpful.
Oh, well, it's Everett's suggestion, but sure.

Say in your typical model you have two objects, each has a mass, and a position in three dimensions:

Code:
var objects = [
    {x: 0, y: 0, z: 0. m: 5}, 
    {x: 0, y: 5, z: 0. m: 5}]
If this was the initial conditions of the model, you could just let it run for bit (apply the rules in a loop), and then check to see where each object is now.

Code:
console.log(objects)
What we're doing is determining the absolute state of the model.

Everett was saying we could find the relative state of the model if we do the following:

1. model the objects as a collection of particles
2. include photons in the collection of particles
3. include a clock in the collection of particles
4. include a ruler in the collection of particles
5. include an observer in the collection of particles

The observer should be able to make measurement records purely as a result the initial conditions and rules, nothing special added.

Now, we could console.log(objects) to see the absolute state of the model, from our God's eye perspective.

Or we could inspect the memory of the observer, and that tells us the relative state.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 05:51 AM   #20
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Then in school, Schrodinger's Cat was brought up. I of course objected, that the ******* cat was either ******* dead or ******* alive, not in some probability wave till you looked at it. The teacher eventually acknowledged that the analogy wss a steaming pile with no resemblance to what it was meant to analogize.
You and your teacher appear to have missed the entire point of Schrödinger's cat.

It isn't an analogy, for a start.

Also, it was Schrödinger's whole point that the cat was either dead or alive and not in a probability wave until you looked at it. It is a similar to Einstein's gunpowder thought experiment. Schrödinger was asking whether QM was an actual law of nature, or whether it was just a useful calculus.

Perhaps you should look into these matters a little more deeply before assuming that people like Einstein and Schrödinger were complete idiots.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 05:53 AM   #21
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
And, again, Everett did confirm many times that he was talking about a many worlds theory.

The computer simulation that the OP is talking about would add exactly nothing to Everett's formulation - it is not required.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 05:55 AM   #22
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Everett was saying we could find the relative state of the model if we do the following:

1. model the objects as a collection of particles
2. include photons in the collection of particles
3. include a clock in the collection of particles
4. include a ruler in the collection of particles
5. include an observer in the collection of particles
No, he wasn't saying that.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 02:53 PM   #23
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 14,082
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You and your teacher appear to have missed the entire point of Schrödinger's cat.

It isn't an analogy, for a start.

Also, it was Schrödinger's whole point that the cat was either dead or alive and not in a probability wave until you looked at it. It is a similar to Einstein's gunpowder thought experiment. Schrödinger was asking whether QM was an actual law of nature, or whether it was just a useful calculus.

Perhaps you should look into these matters a little more deeply before assuming that people like Einstein and Schrödinger were complete idiots.
You must have gotten this from one of those other universes. Had you read the post, I said that the pseudo-mystical approach should not be pushed, as it gives the wrong impression to a layperson. My college teacher was one of those (I get it much better now). Rather than laying the backgound out, which you need to appreciate the paradox, he jumped right in with many-world's and the Cat. It took a while, as I said, to get him to admit that it was not what Schrodinger meant at all.

Where are you reading that I assume some of history's greatest minds are idiots? Serious question.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 06:31 PM   #24
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Where are you reading that I assume some of history's greatest minds are idiots? Serious question.
Just that you said that the Schrödinger's Cat thing was a steaming pile with no resemblance to what it was supposed to analogise.

Calling something a steaming pile does not seem very complementary to the author or anyone who was in complete agreement with the steaming pile.

However I am sorry for the tone of my earlier response.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 06:36 PM   #25
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
No, he wasn't saying that.
He said:

"As models for observers we can, if we wish, consider automatically func- tioning machines, possessing sensory apparatus and coupled to recording devices capable of registering past sensory data and machine configurations. ... These configurations can be regarded as punches in a paper tape, impressions on a magnetic reel, configurations of a relay switching circuit, or even configurations of brain cells. "



Quote:
The computer simulation that the OP is talking about would add exactly nothing to Everett's formulation - it is not required.
Your intuition says this adds nothing.

Everett and I say it adds something. Namely, the principles of uncertainty and relativity can be found this way.

Nevertheless, the model will be built, and we will see for ourselves. Intuition should surrender to evidence.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 08:21 PM   #26
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,636
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Everett and I say it adds something. Namely, the principles of uncertainty and relativity can be found this way.
Remember when I said you can’t understand quantum mechanics if you don’t know how to do quantum mechanics calculations? The uncertainty principle is a prime example.

You may think you understand the uncertainty principle, but I assure you, you do not. And you cannot, if you don’t learn to do calculations with quantum mechanics, because it is a very mathematical result. Things like operator commutation probably don’t mean anything to you, right?

You have nothing of interest to tell anyone about quantum mechanics, because you don’t know quantum mechanics.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 08:25 PM   #27
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Remember when I said you can’t understand quantum mechanics if you don’t know how to do quantum mechanics calculations? The uncertainty principle is a prime example.

You may think you understand the uncertainty principle, but I assure you, you do not. And you cannot, if you don’t learn to do calculations with quantum mechanics, because it is a very mathematical result. Things like operator commutation probably don’t mean anything to you, right?

You have nothing of interest to tell anyone about quantum mechanics, because you don’t know quantum mechanics.
Understood.

If you use Everett's technique on top of wave dynamics where uncertainty already exists, one wouldn't expect this technique to do anything different.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 08:36 PM   #28
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,636
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Understood.

If you use Everett's technique on top of wave dynamics where uncertainty already exists, one wouldn't expect this technique to do anything different.
What exactly do you think uncertainty even is, in this context?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 08:43 PM   #29
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What exactly do you think uncertainty even is, in this context?
Uncertainty relationships are between two conjugate variables. Individually they can be measured to arbitrary precision, but not together.

Position and momentum traditionally, but energy and time is one too.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 09:28 PM   #30
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 14,082
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Just that you said that the Schrödinger's Cat thing was a steaming pile with no resemblance to what it was supposed to analogise.

Calling something a steaming pile does not seem very complementary to the author or anyone who was in complete agreement with the steaming pile.

However I am sorry for the tone of my earlier response.
No, I didn't. I said my instructors representation and presentation of it was a steaming pile, because he did not give the necessary context to understand what paradox it posed. He instead dropped it as a literal description of the conclusions reached by QM, and IMO that is a great disservice to those of us who are trying to get a handle on what is going on.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 09:33 PM   #31
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,636
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Uncertainty relationships are between two conjugate variables. Individually they can be measured to arbitrary precision, but not together.

Position and momentum traditionally, but energy and time is one too.
That’s more than I expected, but it isn’t actually an answer as to what uncertainty is.

But the energy/time one is different than other uncertainty relationships because time is not an observable property of the wave function in non relativistic quantum mechanics. There is no time operator.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 09:42 PM   #32
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That’s more than I expected, but it isn’t actually an answer as to what uncertainty is.

But the energy/time one is different than other uncertainty relationships because time is not an observable property of the wave function in non relativistic quantum mechanics. There is no time operator.
Fair enough.

In the last thread you said something about changing QM, and I didn't think it'd be a good idea to even bring that up then. But since that was around Thanksgiving and appears finished, I thought I'd just bring up QM for Christmas.

I think Everett's "relative state formulation", and specifically how to derive the relative state itself, is pretty interesting. To any other computer programmers out there, they might have a good sense of what that formulation ultimately looks like.

A computer inside a computer, an internal observer's view, and the programmer's view.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 10:40 PM   #33
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
He said:

"As models for observers we can, if we wish, consider automatically func- tioning machines, possessing sensory apparatus and coupled to recording devices capable of registering past sensory data and machine configurations. ... These configurations can be regarded as punches in a paper tape, impressions on a magnetic reel, configurations of a relay switching circuit, or even configurations of brain cells. "
Which is not what you claimed he said.
Quote:
Your intuition says this adds nothing.
Who said anything about my intuition?
Quote:
Everett and I say it adds something
Where exactly did Everett say this? Certainly not in the part you quoted.

Having observers as part of the model does not imply creating a computer simulation.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 10:51 PM   #34
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Which is not what you claimed he said.

Who said anything about my intuition?

Where exactly did Everett say this? Certainly not in the part you quoted.

Having observers as part of the model does not imply creating a computer simulation.
I guess not explicitly, although the amount of calculation and particles involved seems to be pretty problematic without one.

In my notes I have a couple thing on this, first from Barrett:

Barrett, Jeffrey A. (2010) On the Faithful Interpretation of Pure Wave Mechanics, Br J Philos Sci (2011) 62 (4): 693-709.

Page 3

Quote:
Everett's goal then was to explain both determinate measurement records and the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics in pure wave mechanics. More specifically, he said that his strategy for providing this explanation would be to "deduce the probabilistic assertions of Process 1 as subjective appearances ... thus placing the theory in correspondence with experience. We are then led to the novel situation in which the formal theory is objectively continuous and causal, while subjectively discontinuous and probabilistic" (1973, 9). That said, it has never been entirely clear how Everett intended to resolve either the determinate-record or the probability problems. It is not that Everett had nothing to say about these problems; indeed, as we have just seen, he shows that he clearly understood both in the very statement of his goal. The difficulty in interpreting Everett arises from the fact that Everett had several suggestive things to say in response to each problem, none of these suggestive things do quite what Everett seems to be describing himself as doing, at least in his strongest statements of his project, and it is unclear that his various considerations can be put together into a single account of how one is to understand the theory as predicting determinant records distributed according to the standard quantum statistics.
And also some mentions that Everett didn't pursue this theory, but instead got interested in computer programming and started a company focused on computer vision and hearing:

https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/984028

Quote:
Monowave is a small research company located in Seattle, Washington, primarily involved in research on machine speech recognition. The firm was founded by Elaine Tsiang and Hugh Everett III to study "human-machine parallels", and became focused on hearing and speech in the early 1990s.
It sounds to me like he was still working on the relative state formulation.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 08:00 AM   #35
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,414
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Hi. It's me again.

You may know me from my previous thread "I don't think space is expanding".

Well, here's another idea for you. Background: when I first came up with this, it was in the context of photons work on electrons, and gravitons must work on photons, so .... what we see is actually the output of a machine like that?

At first I thought this was some wild ground breaking idea, but as I talked to others about it, it turns out this is what Plato and Kant and Leibniz and whole bunch of other people were on about, so much so that it's called the "perennial philosophy".

Ok, enough woo. Let's get to the sauce.

Turns out, this is also what Hugh Everett was on about.

* Everett, Hugh, (1957) "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics, 29: 454462.

For some reason (mainly a dude named Dewitt), everyone thinks Everett was on about many worlds. The "Everett" interpretation and MWI are now synonymous. This is a big mistake.

Here is page 9:



Ok... this dude is literally .... in 1957... saying stuff about modeling a neural network inside a particle simulation.

We clearly are a ways away from doing that in 2020.

No wonder no one had any idea of what he was really talking about.

Over the next 50 years, I think you'll see this concept of a mathematical model making measurements of itself from the inside become self-evident.

For now, people will think this is woo, and go on thinking that parallel universes are real.
Thanks much for the kind thought of providing Christmas present to the Forum.

As for me however, your constant demonstration of your own ignorance is not the type of Christmas present that I would like to get from you.
__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency.

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 09:40 AM   #36
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,231
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Remember when I said you can’t understand quantum mechanics if you don’t know how to do quantum mechanics calculations?
Quantum mechanics is the calculations. While secondary materials can try to put a conceptual veneer over it, I have found that this tends to complicate the teaching and learning of quantum mechanics rather than help it. There is no more concise or correct explanation of quantum mechanics to be had than its mathematical formulation. It is, at its heart, only a mathematical formulation. To believe that one can understand quantum mechanics while ignoring the math is delusional. The best way to learn it is to gain enough foundation in the relevant mathematics (not rudimentary computer science) and surrender yourself to the formulation.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 10:05 AM   #37
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 31,407
It was always my layperson's understanding that anything that interacted with a quantum system in any way could be classed as an observer. An electron could be an observer.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 10:07 AM   #38
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,844
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Quantum mechanics is the calculations. While secondary materials can try to put a conceptual veneer over it, I have found that this tends to complicate the teaching and learning of quantum mechanics rather than help it. There is no more concise or correct explanation of quantum mechanics to be had than its mathematical formulation. It is, at its heart, only a mathematical formulation. To believe that one can understand quantum mechanics while ignoring the math is delusional. The best way to learn it is to gain enough foundation in the relevant mathematics (not rudimentary computer science) and surrender yourself to the formulation.
This is why when “it’s quantum” comes up in some discussion regarding woo I ask for the maths. Because if you want to claim that “it’s quantum” someone needs to have done the maths.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 10:35 AM   #39
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,231
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
This is why when “it’s quantum” comes up in some discussion regarding woo I ask for the maths. Because if you want to claim that “it’s quantum” someone needs to have done the maths.
Thought experiments aside, the notion that quantum mechanics relies entirely upon its formulation is exactly the appeal in fringe argumentation, because it constitutes a "completely different way of thinking about the universe." Cautionary quotes applied because some variation of this phrase is always what's equivocated to amplify the presumed need to "think differently" about the macro world than what mainstream perceptions provide. This is the common -- though incorrect -- justification for abandoning present models about the observable large-scale behavior of the universe and instead latching onto some woo that is presented as a viable alternative model. The "different way" of thinking about the universe in quantum mechanics is not just whatever handwaving nonsense someone thinks of, it's identically statistical mechanics. And it's not "the universe" that's thought of differently, just the behavior of certain very tiny bits of the universe when observed at quantum scale.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 02:30 PM   #40
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Thought experiments aside, the notion that quantum mechanics relies entirely upon its formulation is exactly the appeal in fringe argumentation, because it constitutes a "completely different way of thinking about the universe."
Just a nitpick, but if you mean "interpretation" instead of "formulation", I agree.

My point is that the relative state formulation isn't an interpretation. It describes a sophisticated codifiable mathematical model that makes measures of itself.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.