|
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. |
![]() |
#41 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 13,542
|
What's that I hear? A bell ringing? Sounds like schools in session.
|
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
That's a fairly common school of thought today.
Sean Carroll promotes that position often. An observer could be a video camera, or a cloud of gas. I think a video camera makes a good observer because it makes measurement records, of which we can determine what happened and when. Let's say I shoot a gun three times through a cloud of gas against a wall, and I video tape it. The "all matter is an observer" theory would say the cloud of gas, the wall, and the video tape are all observers. If you can look at the cloud of gas and tell exactly how many shots were fired and when, that'd be impressive. If you were to look at the three bullet holes in the wall and know which when hit first, also impressive. But if you watch the video tape, you can see which hole is shot A, which is shot B and which is shot C. I think only the video camera makes acceptable measurement records. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,331
|
You shouldn’t have.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
Actually I meant what I said. Among the various ways of observing and describing the universe, quantum mechanics is often described as a novel approach because it exists primarily as a mathematical formulation (or, if you prefer, as any of a number of formulations), not as an analytical model. It's the origin and basis of the model that activates this particular fallacy, not whether it's unique and not the special meaning of interpretation as it exists in quantum mechanics.
Fringe claimants misuse this principle to argue that rebuttals of their claims based on analytical models that prevail in the macro universe cannot be preclusive because "other ways" of describing the universe exist and may speculatively allow for their particular claims. (They don't.) If you present me with a sophisticated modifiable mathematical model that pertains to quantum behavior, that's still in the style of model that gets misused to dispute the validity of analytical models as grounds for rebuttal. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 31,257
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,966
|
So, I guess the takeaway from this thread will be:
If you want to understand QM you'll need to work hard, study thoroughly and fully understand mathematics, not spout of some barely understood pseudo-science. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,491
|
A video camera does not experience, observe, measure, or record bullets hitting a wall. It detects a few of the photons emitted during those events (those that happen to impinge on its optics), and records digital data representing the patterns of those detections in time and image coordinates. (What it experiences is a question for philosophers to debate, such debate being mostly about definitions of "experience.") We happen to be better at forming consensual narratives of the causes of such patterns in time and image-space than we are at forming them from the movements of disturbed particles in a gas cloud. So the video recording is more convenient for us. But it's no more or less an observation either way. |
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister... |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
The video camera can be combined with a neural network that observes holes in a medium and records the order in which they are placed.
Everett describes an observer as having sensory apparatus and memory configurations depicting a series of events. A smartphone can do that. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,687
|
The actual "observer" in QM is defined in math, though, not in English. There's not really anything useful for a layperson to get from a natural language approximation of QM, in terms of how to understand QM.
You want to tell us how to understand QM? Start with the definition of an observer in the system of formal logic that actually describes QM. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,491
|
|
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister... |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
It's an interesting question, but it's entirely irrelevant to my point because it exists at a level of scrutiny that the people I'm talking about can't and don't apply. That said, my point was a tangent to this thread and so not necessarily worth pursuing much further.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#56 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#57 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,687
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#59 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
My recollection of Everett's observer was that the final quantum state of the observer would be a unique entanglement of the measurement record in order, but didn't necessarily have to incorporate a time sequence of measurements. To put my recollection in the photographic terms we seem to be using, it could be a still photo of the wall after a number of events. That is, if I throw spaghetti with marinara sauce at the wall, and then a cheesecake, the final state of the wall would be different than if I threw the cheesecake first and then the spaghetti. You would be able to tell from a still photo of each wall what order prevailed, but that sequence doesn't have to be something the observer preserves as a stepwise construct.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#60 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
* Everett, Hugh, (1957) "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics, 29: 454462.
Page 9 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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#61 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
Would n forensic investigators come up with 1 story of how many tosses and how many noodles were in each toss looking at a wall of spaghetti misadventure?
If the wall told the story, we wouldn't have subservience cameras. That said, given silent high speed footage of a plastic bag, it has been proven we can reconstruct the sounds made during the time of footage. I get that media records its past interactions. I think Everett saying "we only require the observer can say A, B... C" is purely mechanical, but not so simple as satisfied by an electron or cloud of gas. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#62 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
Sound from images:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUzB...ture=emb_title We would still need video footage of the wall or cloud of gas to make a real determination of measurement records. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
Nothing in the dissertation that mandates that the observer memory has to retain all the steps separately up to the present memory. It can be a still photo, as long as the still photo depicts the ordered accumulation of past events, and the current sensory information is separate. If the succession of events, A, B, and C, is preserved (albeit entangled and static) then I think it satisfies his criteria.
Thanks for digging up Everett's dissertation to confirm what he wrote. Your key phrases in it are the analogies to the state of a relay switching circuit or configurations of brain cells. The former especially can be the (unique) product of a sequence of combinatorial steps without preserving explicitly all the steps. The next step could be inferred from (a) the current state of the relay circuit and (b) the present sensory values. This doesn't preclude that an observer can retain them. But I think it's salient to consider that it doesn't have to in order to qualify. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#64 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
That's the sole requirement:
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." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#66 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
Yeah, you didn't actually address my point. I think you're reading too much into Everett's description, and I think my emphasis on two of the examples he alludes to support that contention. While paper and magnetic tapes can record sequences of information, a relay circuit cannot. It can ever hold only one state at a time, as can an assemblage of brain cells. To change what it stores, one must destroy the previous state.
I think you're stuck on the notion of the sequential storage nature of computer tape. But keep in mind that those were the most prevalent persistent storage technologies in computers at the time Everett wrote. That they can store a complexly expressed state only as a sequence of simple elements of it is an accident of his attempt to analogize in the terms of his time. He brings up other examples of physical technology that can store complex state, but famously cannot preserve sequences of former states; the new state completely overwrites the existing state, but as a combination of former state and present events that may yet preserve the unique result of some sequence of events. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
Destroy the previous state?
I can write a journal on paper, or magnetic hard drives. Each new entry doesn't destroy the last.. There are three sentences here:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#68 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
And I don't see why that requires a stepwise preservation, which complicates the model. At some time point, the state of the observer reflects the result of having experienced, in order, a succession of events A, B, ..., C. I don't understand why that can't be a single wave function that entangles those sequential effects in a unique way reflecting the sequence of applications.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#69 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#70 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
Yes. You cannot change the configuration of a relay switching network without losing the previous state.
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#71 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
No, I'm disagreeing with you. You're the one interpreting Everett to say the observer must preserve all intermediate steps and ignoring that at least two of the examples he gives of a possible valid observer cannot do what you expect it to do in that regard. And I say this because I recall reading more modern discussions of many-worlds that do not require the observer to preserve all the intermediate steps.
And you've reworded Everett. Now you're trying to say that Everett calls out specifically the requirement that the sequence be maintained. But you quoted him previously as saying,
Originally Posted by Everett, 1957
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#72 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
If we were machines that output a punch and a paper feed when given the appropriate stimuli/input, which is what I think he was talking about, then wouldn't our output reflect the events we experienced in succession? (Meeting the criteria of that which it is we want to measure.)
Quote:
To us in 2020, we should know that examining the inner working of a neural network is fruitless, and just examine the outputs. In Everett's day, that would be blinking lights. We shouldn't look at the modeled observer's neurons, but instead its simplified output, which could be a series of bitmaps sent to a display driver. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#73 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
Okay, you're not really listening. I'm trying to reconcile your interpret of Everett with others' interpretation. In others' discussion of the many-worlds interpretation, the observer does not retain a sequence of all past events, but it does reflect a present-state that is the result of having experienced a sequence of events.
Stop trying to analogize this in terms of specific computer equipment and try to think about it abstractly. Do you understand that a specific single wave function can be the unique result of a sequence of measurement events? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#74 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#75 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#76 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#77 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,292
|
I'll try again.
Yes. I think I understand, any wave function can be, not just anything, but many things. Everett's universal wavefunction though, I think was talking about the wave function of everything. Given a universal wave function it would never need to collapse, but churn on. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#78 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,287
|
|
__________________
"... 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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#79 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,687
|
An analogy turns out to fall short of properly describing the thing itself? Say it ain't so!
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#80 |
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,603
|
Yep, that's something we see often enough. So, 'quantum fallacy'? I've seen Newton's third law similarly (mis)used, with a straight face, in "explaining" karma theory, and claiming in all earnestness that this is scientifically proven fact. But of course, this 'quantum fallacy' thing is seen far more often when actually invoking QM. There is one small difficulty here, however. As you say, it is the math that [is] QM. Absolutely, point taken. But the fact is, for most of us the math is beyond us. I suppose it's entirely possible for many of us to learn enough of it, given that we do have the basics; but it is almost certain that most of us won't. So, when you tell someone who's peddling this kind of "quantum woo" that, as you say, the math is what the QM is, then that opens those of us who don't have QM-level math to the obvious objection that, by that same reasoning, we don't know what we're talking about and are not equipped to meaningfully object to said woo, or even identify it as such. eta: I'm speaking generally here, and not necessarily on the specific topic of this thread. This is more about the out and out woo that's peddled by invoking QM, rather than weird takes on QM itself. Although the difficulty I spoke of would apply in both kinds of mangling of QM. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|