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 31st December 2020, 08:37 PM   #161
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I assume that's what Everett means too.
It isn't.

Quote:
Hopefully that clear that up.
Get Everett's 1956 paper and digest the two or three pages of math that follows the equivalent statement in that paper. It explains exactly in what way the observer constitutes a "physical system" within the model. Hint: it's not even close to the literal physical recording devices you're stuck on. It is, as Weatherall notes, an abstract model.

It is "treated within the theory" in the sense that the observer is not an external entity, as it is in other interpretations. In classical quantum mechanics, no one cares about the state of the observer, if any, after the observation occurs. It is external and ephemeral. In order for Everett's interpretation to be a relative-state formulation, we have to assign inherence to the observer so that its state can persist and be what we reckon relative experience against.

Quote:
Without them atoms wouldn't stay together.
But that's not the part I objected to. The part I object to was when you indicated that photons had to be part of your model so that your "observer" could use them to make observations, as in literal optical observation. Your interpretation of "event" and "state" and "measurement" and "record" and all the other terms Everett uses comes wrongly from a macro-scale inference.

Quote:
The problem here really seems to be that you are imagining what I think, and then attacking what you imagine.
No, the problem is that the more you talk about how you would implement this in software, the easier it is to see how badly you misunderstand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. You may feel a strong desire to dismiss my criticisms as a straw-man attack, but I assure you that the regulars here can see the parts you're glossing over in order to convey that illusion.

Quote:
No, the web cam is the literal eyeball.
Fair enough, but my point is that you think you need an actual eyeball of some kind in order to receive photons. You say this is what Everett intends, but when he gets down to describing possible ways to formulate the observer, it's painfully obvious that it's an abstract entity. What he means by its being a "physical" system is that there are no special rules that apply only to the representation of an observer.

Yes, the best mathematical entity already existing to model them is an automaton, such as from Turing's 1936 paper. But a "machine" in the sense that both Everett and Turing use the word is an abstract machine. It exists only as math. The state of that machine is not expressible as the states of the particles that make up some physical webcam or whatever in the real world.

Quote:
OpenCV, which is computer vision software, employs a neural net.
I never said it didn't.

Quote:
If you prefer non-neural net based version of computer vision, you're welcome to use them all you want.
Thanks, I do. But that's not the point. The point is that you're throwing around terms without showing that you know what they mean. It just means I'm somewhat less confident that you have the computer science knowledge necessary to address this problem in a meaningful way.

Quote:
You were the first to use the phrase "particle system".
Very well, you are correct. I believe the terms are synonymous. It is clear that the emitter-decay model will not work for any but a few isolated behaviors, but in any case you have clarified what you mean by the term.

Quote:
You should give it a try.
That's a sure-fire way to fail in the field of theoretical physics.
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 31st December 2020, 09:27 PM   #162
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It is "treated within the theory" in the sense that the observer is not an external entity, as it is in other interpretations.
Right. Let's take a game engine for example.

The player sees what's going on in the game, because the game take's the players position, determines what the player could see, and presents that to display driver.

This is an example of an observer not treated within the theory.

Agreed?

Quote:
Fair enough, but my point is that you think you need an actual eyeball of some kind in order to receive photons.
Without special treatment, how else would the observer receive photons?

The observer could be blind and use hearing, or braille. But you still need the electromagnetic force to hold together the atoms that make sounds waves or paper.

Quote:
What he means by its being a "physical" system is that there are no special rules that apply only to the representation of an observer.
Indeed. So if the observe used sight to observe anything, it's eyeballs and nervous system would have to be represented entirely in particle physics.


Quote:
That's a sure-fire way to fail in the field of theoretical physics.
Heh. I got nothing to lose on that front. Happy New Year, sir.
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 31st December 2020, 09:45 PM   #163
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The point is that you're throwing around terms without showing that you know what they mean. It just means I'm somewhat less confident that you have the computer science knowledge necessary to address this problem in a meaningful way.
When I said neural networks, I was referring to this:

Quote:
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.
It seems to me, this configurations of memory as abstract brain cells were neural network like.

Not an absolute requirement, but it just seems like he said that's an option.
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 31st December 2020, 10:04 PM   #164
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Right. Let's take a game engine for example.

The player...
No, you really need to stop trying to analogize these concepts to physical things you're familiar with.

Observation in classical quantum mechanics is only a footstep or two away from being an afterthought. It's ephemeral. It has the capacity to effect a "measurement," as QM defines the term. But the effect, if any, on the observer is ignored. The only thing that matters is the effect on the observable.

Everett's theory requires the observer to accumulate and retain state, which was a novel concept. This is so that new states can be reckoned relative to previous (possibly shared) states, and prior states can be deduced. But all this is abstract. It's only math, even if all Everett did was sketch the math. The notion that the observer has to be a stateful mathematical entity, not just a one-time agitator upon the observable, is why Everett's observer has to be "physical" and "treated in the model." In classical QM it's nonsensical to contemplate the ongoing state of the observer after the observation. Hence nothing in the classical physical model can depend on any such thing as "new" observer state. it's like saying the 3 in 3x + y is affected by the final answer. In Everett, what happens over time to the observer is important to the model. Hence it must be part of the model.

None of this bears any resemblance to what happens to players in a video game, or how game play is presented to the player or represented within the program. You either need to bear down and grasp the mathematics of quantum mechanics, or accept the criticism of others when they say that analogizing is giving you the wrong idea.

Quote:
Without special treatment, how else would the observer receive photons?
The observer doesn't need to receive photons. And by "special treatment" I mean that it would have to be considered as an adjunct or externalism to the model. In Everett it's contemplated to be an ongoing wave function, just as is the universal state of the particle models.

Quote:
Indeed. So if the observe used sight to observe anything, it's eyeballs and nervous system would have to be represented entirely in particle physics.
No. You're still completely misunderstanding what Everett means by an observer.

Quote:
Heh. I got nothing to lose on that front. Happy New Year, sir.
just under two hours of 2020 remain for me, but thanks for the happy wishes. A Happy new year to you too.
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 31st December 2020, 10:56 PM   #165
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The observer doesn't need to receive photons. And by "special treatment" I mean that it would have to be considered as an adjunct or externalism to the model. In Everett it's contemplated to be an ongoing wave function, just as is the universal state of the particle models.
The observer needs to interact, in a purely physical way (physical as per the rules of the model) with other sub-systems, as per Everett:

Page 4.

Quote:
For this purpose it is
necessary to formulate abstract models for observers that can be treated
within the theory itself as physical systems, to consider isolated systems
containing such model observers in interaction with other subsystems, to
deduce the changes that occur in an observer as a consequence of interaction
with the surrounding subsystems
, and to interpret the changes in the familiar
language of experience.
Page 10.

Quote:
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.
I guess what I'm saying is, and I'll use the game engine here as an analogy to help us both...

... if the game engine included basic particle physics, to the point where it supported chemistry and electricity, then the NPCs could have working senses and working memories, and they would count as Everettian observers.


Quote:
No. You're still completely misunderstanding what Everett means by an observer.
Well, as scholars like Barrett (who I exchanged emails with this week) had said, Everett tried explaining his idea a few different ways.

No doubt, in his PhD thesis he was describing the observer with wave mechanics, and in a more abstract way than the modeling a measurement apparatus atom atom by atom.

Like I was saying earlier, even in 2020 that's kind of a gonzo idea.

I think he was motivated by that gonzo idea. Model the whole observer. And his work on computer vision and speech recognition later in life would have been a means to that end.
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 31st December 2020, 11:16 PM   #166
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
It seems to me, this configurations of memory as abstract brain cells were neural network like.

Not an absolute requirement, but it just seems like he said that's an option.
Since Everett didn't explain what specific property of "brain cells" he meant to invoke, it's difficult to say for sure whether it's an option.

A neural network achieves its characteristic behavior by assigning weights to the various scalar inputs (any number of them) to a neuron and conditioning the value of its output based on that functional relationship. Stated more simply, the character of a neural net exists partly in the set of weightings, but also -- dependently so -- in the topology of its connections. The "state" of a set of neurons in a neural net could be considered the current weight values. But that's a meaningful set of numbers only when reckoned against the topology of the connections. There's no provision in Everett for such a concept. In training mode, a neural net can change state when inputs are validated and thus the weightings change to reinforce or attenuate the response. Only in that respect could they be considered analogous to relative state fundamentals. The new state of the weightings -- ignoring topology -- is a function of the prior state and the inputs.

Conversely, if we return to the sequential-storage examples he gives (tape-strip based technologies), we have to consider whether the sequential nature of the storage was intended as part of the necessary properties. In 1956, random access persistent storage for computers simply did not exist, and many of the volatile memory systems (e.g., delay-line storage) that were the precursors of today's RAM were also constrained to be sequential. We have to consider that even if Everett were completely versed in specific computer technology -- not a given, by the way -- any analogy he made to persistent computer storage would have presumed the sequentiality as inevitable. The examples he cites were sequential in nature because all such computer storage was sequential by necessity. There was no other way to do it, therefore no reason to contemplate that it could be done differently, and therefore no reason to assign meaning to the property.

If we consider the Turing machine's "tape" memory as the quintessential example, the way it exemplifies an Everett observation is that the Turing machine can read the current value of the tape cell, and the value of some abstract input, and write a new value to the tape cell that is an expression of the accumulation of past experience combined with a measurement. All that's required is that each tape cell on the Turing machine contain a value that has accumulated the effects of all prior events.

And then finally we have the relay switch array, comprised of some non-zero number of electromechanical relays. The state of such an array (or a single relay) is the open or closed state of the relay, which in turn describes whether that relay is energized or not. Its energization depends on the specifics of wiring, not unlike a neural net. That wiring may or may not involve other relays. But in pipe organs, for example, it's common for the stop action to energize all 61 relays that represent the keys, so that a signal arriving from a specific key will be passed on via a closed relay. Those relays are simply ganged onto the same buss wire, with diodes added to prevent crosstalk.

In terms of Everett, the outputs of the relays can be combined with inputs in a way that then decides whether some relay is energized. Elevator control logic is still often implemented as both combinatorial and sequential arrangements of relays. But what's important is that the relay array cannot store anything except the current state. When "clocked" it can change state based on the current state and the inputs, but the previous state is lost. Which is to say, not fully lost, but rather combined with inputs to result in a new state that replaces the previous state.

There's only one element that's common to all the examples he raises. The connections in neural nets and the connections in a relay switch matrix -- entirely different kinds of connections -- are not represented in sequential tape memories. The sequential nature of tape storage is not reflected in either neurons (biological or artificial) or the relay matrix. The only common element is the ability to express current state (which is the accumulation of prior states combined with inputs) and to accept a revision based on new inputs. And when you go into the math, this is fairly evident. The "sequence" of events is expressed as a superposition of state in the observer, and it is the particular way this is done in the "trajectories" section which will probably elude most readers.
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 31st December 2020, 11:28 PM   #167
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The observer needs to interact, in a purely physical way (physical as per the rules of the model) with other sub-systems, as per Everett...
I explained what "in a purely physical way" should be interpreted to mean among physicists, especially those coming from classical QM. You're simply insisting that you must nevertheless be right.

Quote:
... if the game engine included basic particle physics, to the point where it supported chemistry and electricity, then the NPCs could have working senses and working memories, and they would count as Everettian observers.
No. You really need to grasp the math.

Quote:
Well, as scholars like Barrett (who I exchanged emails with this week) had said, Everett tried explaining his idea a few different ways.
And still today no one is entirely sure what he's talking about. But it's a fair bet he wasn't talking about webcams and some Inception-esque notion of nested, embedded automatons.

Quote:
I think he was motivated by that gonzo idea.
I don't, and neither do any of the people who have tried to continue his work. They're all working in the vocabulary of theoretical physics, which ultimately is what Everett spoke in.

Quote:
Model the whole observer.
As your own sources demonstrate, the observer is an abstract entity. And as far as he was able to describe its mathematical behavior in the 1956 paper, it must be an abstract entity.

Quote:
And his work on computer vision and speech recognition later in life would have been a means to that end.
No. No "observation" produced by those technologies has the slightest relevance to quantum mechanics. Conversely, physicists often display innovative and highly cerebral conceptualizations of what amount to ordinary commercial, scientific, and technical problems. Which is why I hire them. They think differently than most people.
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 31st December 2020, 11:48 PM   #168
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And still today no one is entirely sure what he's talking about. But it's a fair bet he wasn't talking about webcams and some Inception-esque notion of nested, embedded automatons.
Ok. Wanna make the bet then?

I think in 12 months I can make some progress on this:

"webcams and some Inception-esque notion of nested, embedded automatons."

It's not a million ways from what I work on anyways.

Here are Everett's exact words:

Quote:
As models for observers we can, if we wish, consider automatically func-
tioning machines, possessing sensory apparatus
And in his conclusion:

Quote:
The theory based on pure wave mechanics is a conceptually simple, causal
theory, which gives predictions in accord with experience. It constitutes a
framework in which one can investigate in detail, mathematically, and in a
logically consistent manner a number of sometimes puzzling subjects, such
as the measuring process itself and the interrelationship of several observers.
Two Everettian observers in a single model would be pretty interesting.

That will be my goal.

Quote:
As your own sources demonstrate, the observer is an abstract entity. And as far as he was able to describe its mathematical behavior in the 1956 paper, it must be an abstract entity.
Sure.

Are you trying to tell me he came up with a formulation for an abstract observer with senses and memory, in a vacuum of thought?

I'm sketpical.

Happy new year!

(Ps, what kind of problems do you hire people to solve?)
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 1st January 2021, 09:22 AM   #169
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,353
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok. Wanna make the bet then?

I think in 12 months I can make some progress on this:

"webcams and some Inception-esque notion of nested, embedded automatons."

It's not a million ways from what I work on anyways.
Of course what you want to do is similar to what you normally do. You have a hammer, and you're looking for a nail.

But none of it is useful. None of it will lead anywhere. It cannot, because as I told you before, you don't actually know any quantum mechanics. And you aren't actually trying to learn quantum mechanics. Anything you do will not actually be 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 1st January 2021, 02:03 PM   #170
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of course what you want to do is similar to what you normally do. You have a hammer, and you're looking for a nail.

But none of it is useful. None of it will lead anywhere. It cannot, because as I told you before, you don't actually know any quantum mechanics. And you aren't actually trying to learn quantum mechanics. Anything you do will not actually be quantum mechanics.
You're saying I should more like you?

Smarter and wiser?
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 1st January 2021, 02:19 PM   #171
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Ok, but that's the paradox posed by the Cat, no? What is happening between the possibility and the actualization? The absurdity of kitty being a standing probability wave is so ludicrous that it begs for a more satisfactory answer. That's the broad brush of the Cat AIUI, anyway.
If you use Sean Carrolís interpretation of MWI, there is no standing probability wave, but the wave function will still be used to calculate the probability that the cat is dead or alive.

At least, that is how I understood it, but I admit I am in deep water here, not being able to do math.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 1st January 2021, 02:27 PM   #172
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,353
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You're saying I should more like you?

Smarter and wiser?
I'm saying that if you want to do quantum mechanics, you have to actually learn it. And that means doing the actual math. None of what you are doing in this thread is actually 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 1st January 2021, 02:28 PM   #173
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm saying that if you want to do quantum mechanics, you have to actually learn it. And that means doing the actual math. None of what you are doing in this thread is actually quantum mechanics.
If I was really an idiot on the internet doing idiot things, is this really what you do with your life? Tell people that are dumb?

How about you take my bet, then?
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 1st January 2021, 02:29 PM   #174
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
That's very clearly not what he says if you read or listen to his words. He says very explicitly that all those other worlds are real. The wavefunction is what exists, and when it branches that doesn't cause the other branches to cease to exist somehow.
I am well aware that Everett clearly says that the worlds are real, but I was referring to Sean Carrollís view on the Many-Worlds Interpretation.

I have read it in ďFrom Eternity to HereĒ which I only have in print, so it will be difficult to find and quote it here. But I can, if you insist. However, I am now in doubt if this is on topic.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 1st January 2021, 04:32 PM   #175
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,353
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If I was really an idiot on the internet doing idiot things, is this really what you do with your life? Tell people that are dumb?

How about you take my bet, then?
I didnít call you dumb. There isnít anything dumb about not knowing a subject that you havenít studied, and you told me yourself you havenít studied quantum mechanics. It is not an easy subject either. Most people donít even have the prerequisite math, including lots of very smart people. So there is no insult here, intended or otherwise.

But the fact still remains that you donít know quantum mechanics, and whatever you do in the absence of such knowledge wonít be quantum mechanics. Unlike quantum mechanics itself, thatís a concept which can be grasped without specialist knowledge.
__________________
"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 1st January 2021, 04:39 PM   #176
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I didnít call you dumb. There isnít anything dumb about not knowing a subject that you havenít studied, and you told me yourself you havenít studied quantum mechanics. It is not an easy subject either. Most people donít even have the prerequisite math, including lots of very smart people. So there is no insult here, intended or otherwise.

But the fact still remains that you donít know quantum mechanics, and whatever you do in the absence of such knowledge wonít be quantum mechanics. Unlike quantum mechanics itself, thatís a concept which can be grasped without specialist knowledge.
You seem pretty confident you understand my abilities, you understand the task, and you are certain I will fail.

So, do accept the bet? No money. Just glory, I guess.
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 1st January 2021, 05:05 PM   #177
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,353
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You seem pretty confident you understand my abilities, you understand the task, and you are certain I will fail.

So, do accept the bet? No money. Just glory, I guess.
I understand your abilities because you described them to me: you have never done any actual quantum mechanics, or even actually studied the subject. And I'm not even interested enough in whatever it is you say you are going to do to bother figuring it out. I know it won't be quantum mechanics, though, 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 1st January 2021, 05:06 PM   #178
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I understand your abilities because you described them to me: you have never done any actual quantum mechanics, or even actually studied the subject. And I'm not even interested enough in whatever it is you say you are going to do to bother figuring it out. I know it won't be quantum mechanics, though, because you don't know quantum mechanics.
So take the bet?

Berating me on the internet just makes you look afraid of taking 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 1st January 2021, 05:23 PM   #179
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,675
Doesn't seem worth betting on if there's no way to objectively measure the results. What is "some progress"? Who will judge it? How?

The topic of the thread is ostensibly understanding QM. Is that the progress you're committing to? Or are you just committing to making "some progress" on simulating a particle model of a webcam?

Personally, if you were proposing that within 12 months you will publish a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, describing how your computer program adds something new to the QM body of knowledge, I would take that bet.
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 1st January 2021, 05:25 PM   #180
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Doesn't seem worth betting on if there's no way to objectively measure the results. What is "some progress"? Who will judge it? How?
Presumably, if I make a model of Everett's observer, and scholars go "Ah, yeah, that's an Everettian observer alright", I would consider that a victory.

Quote:
Personally, if you were proposing that within 12 months you will publish a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, describing how your computer program adds something new to the QM body of knowledge, I would take that bet.
Sweet. Good on ya.
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 1st January 2021, 05:27 PM   #181
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Presumably, if I make a model of Everett's observer, and scholars go "Ah, yeah, that's an Everettian observer alright", I would consider that a victory.
The computer program you describe has nothing to do with the observer in Everett's theory. As I said, if you take what you've given me now and present it to actual physicists, they will laugh at you.
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 1st January 2021, 05:32 PM   #182
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The computer program you describe has nothing to do with the observer in Everett's theory. As I said, if you take what you've given me now and present it to actual physicists, they will laugh at you.
Oh no!

FWIW, I don't think a model with zero initial conditions and zero rules will be the final model.
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 1st January 2021, 05:52 PM   #183
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok. Wanna make the bet then?

I think in 12 months I can make some progress on this:

"webcams and some Inception-esque notion of nested, embedded automatons."
We've lurched from "Don't take this thread so seriously" to "Someone please take my bet!" My statement was that Everett's observer is not remotely any sort of the machines -- real or virtual -- that you've proposed. If you believe you can write the computer program you describe, and if it would be rewarding to you to do so, then I say proceed. I literally don't care whether you have the skill to do it, or whether you actually go on to do it. I have no dog in that fight.

But to say that the program you describe implements an Everettian observer is just plain wrong. No success or failure on your part to write the program alters that error.

Quote:
And in his conclusion:
You keep bringing up the prose discussion and then read between the lines to determine what these authors might have meant. But in the mathematical portions of all these treatments, it's clear what they mean. I don't have to second-guess what Everett or anyone else meant by the words in the few quotes you keep relying on. I can look at the sketch formulation that Everett provides and see clearly what he means, minus some detail that others have tried to fill in later.

The relative-state formulation is a formulation of quantum mechanics. Everything in it is operating at the quantum scale. The "machines" you insist he specifies as potential physical devices are imaginary machines operating at quantum scale. The observations they're recording are of quantum-scale events. Nothing that happens at the webcam-and-virtual-minicomputer scale has the slightest thing to do with quantum mechanics or the slightest thing to do with anything Everett wrote about.

You are simply, colossally, obviously wrong.

Quote:
Are you trying to tell me he came up with a formulation for an abstract observer with senses and memory, in a vacuum of thought?
I don't know what you mean by "vacuum of thought." I'm telling you he came up with the basic idea of how a quantum-level observer would have to behave in his model. Unlike the quantum-level observer in classical QM, it would have to sense (i.e., be affected by) occurrences in the surrounding system. Unlike the quantum-level observer in classical QM, his observer would need to retain a state from one event to another. Informally, he analogizes them to such existing macro-scale machines as his audience might be familiar with, but only to provide an intuitive understanding of behavior, not to imply that anything about his observer operates at the macro scale.

Then having explained informally how his observer would have to behave differently than the one his audience knew, he delves into the mathematics to show, abstractly, what the quantum-scale observations would look like, how they can be notated, how the superposition of different outcomes would be represented in the observer model, and how the behavior of quantum-level systems as already then understood can be used to deduce relative quantum states in the observer.

None of that has anything to do with virtualizing an actual sensing device and actual information storage inside of some "particle simulation." You're barking up the wrong tree. But I'm certainly not going to stop you from barking, if you think that something instructive or worthwhile could come out of it. But I can guarantee that what cannot come of it is a better understanding of what Everett theorized.l

Quote:
(Ps, what kind of problems do you hire people to solve?)
Very complicated problems in science and engineering.
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 1st January 2021, 06:01 PM   #184
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
FWIW, I don't think a model with zero initial conditions and zero rules will be the final model.
I'm considering also the discussion you offered subsequent to your empty pseudocode, wherein you supplied some additional detail. That's what I mean by "what you've given me now." What you've given me up to this point, whether as code, pseudocode, or a textual description. Another way of thinking about this would be that if you printed out this entire thread and showed it to a theoretical physicist, I would expect him to laugh quite a lot at you over it.

You are failing at a fundamental level to grasp the relevant concepts. And I agree with others that this failure is likely because you did not study quantum mechanics in the way those who understand it correctly have done. As have many others, you're trying to take shortcuts and trying to intuit your way around the informal analogies. You cannot think correctly about quantum mechanics that way. Many have tried, and all have failed.

The only computer model that will accurately simulate an Everettian observer is one that takes its rules and algorithms from the formulation that Everett provides, such as in the 1956 paper. It's deeply mathematical, not for the faint of heart, and somewhat incomplete. But you can't avoid it if you want to claim to have modeled an Everettian observer.
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 1st January 2021, 06:08 PM   #185
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
We've lurched from "Don't take this thread so seriously" to "Someone please take my bet!"
Ha. Fair point.

Again, for context between Zigg and I, the conflict of me saying cosmology is largely wrong and providing my hypothesis, put a strain on our brand new relationship.

I didn't think explaining an internal observer of a mathemetical model would be as controversial as doubting the expansion space.

But apparently it is.

Quote:
None of that has anything to do with virtualizing an actual sensing device and actual information storage inside of some "particle simulation."
Fair enough. You have your opinion I have mine.

To be honest, in the 20 years since I've been kicking this idea around, it's amazing how difficult the task I'm describing is for some people to understand.

Initially my focus was on building atoms from elementary particles. I needed a tool to audioalize the simulation so I could listen for harmonic oscillators.

I found a way to do that... and ended up working on music software for the last 15 years.

This whole pandemic thing has given a lot of time to dig up old ideas...



Quote:
Very complicated problems in science and engineering.
Well, how about this.

If I publish a paper on this, how about a job?
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 1st January 2021, 06:19 PM   #186
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,675
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Presumably, if I make a model of Everett's observer, and scholars go "Ah, yeah, that's an Everettian observer alright", I would consider that a victory.
Is that something you're betting you can do in the next 12 months?

What forms could the "scholars go" take, to satisfy the conditions of the bet?

You've already got one scholar going "ah, no, you don't understand Everrett's observer, and whatever it is you end up modeling it won't be that."

Quote:
Sweet. Good on ya.
Does that mean you're offering that bet on those terms?
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 1st January 2021, 06:30 PM   #187
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What forms could the "scholars go" take, to satisfy the conditions of the bet?
I'd say if it make rounds in the physics community that someone has made a fully working Everettian observer, would that work?

Quote:
Does that mean you're offering that bet on those terms?
Absolutely.
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 1st January 2021, 06:38 PM   #188
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,675
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I'd say if it make rounds in the physics community that someone has made a fully working Everettian observer, would that work?
It wouldn't work for me, no. "Makes the rounds" is a figure of speech. "The physics community" is poorly defined.

How about this: If someone who has published* on Everett before, publishes on Everett again and cites your own peer-reviewed paper in support of their work, that would count for me as "making the rounds". One time around to publish your own work, and a second time around for the citation by another physicist. Two rounds made, bet won.

Quote:
Absolutely.
Just to make sure we're on the same page, please repeat back to me the terms you're offering.

---
*In a reputable peer-reviewed journal of physics.
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 1st January 2021, 06:50 PM   #189
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Just to make sure we're on the same page, please repeat back to me the terms you're offering.
Just what you said:

"if you were proposing that within 12 months you will publish a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, describing how your computer program adds something new to the QM body of knowledge, I would take that bet. "

For cream on top, after it's published, others should cite 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 1st January 2021, 06:52 PM   #190
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I didn't think explaining an internal observer of a mathemetical model would be as controversial as doubting the expansion space.
It's not controversial, it's arrogant. Being demonstrably wrong while insisting you're right is off-putting regardless of the topic. In scientific circles, the most grave sin you can commit is to pretend to have expertise you don't have. They can always tell a bluff.

Quote:
Fair enough. You have your opinion I have mine.
Fine, but let's talk about the basis of my opinion. I was taught quantum mechanics in the manner prescribed by physicists as leading to the most correct understanding of it. My mastery of it was tested according to an objective standard. On the other hand, you tell us you haven't studied the subject. My opinion on what Everett meant by an observer comes from the proper background in the field he wrote in, and is further informed by having actually read the parts of his paper that you haven't yet seen fit to discuss.

You're evidently a betting man. Would you care to make a wager on whose opinion turns out to be right?

Quote:
To be honest, in the 20 years since I've been kicking this idea around, it's amazing how difficult the task I'm describing is for some people to understand.
Having tried to walk through it with you, I'm not surprised. As I said, I have decades of experience writing and evaluating the descriptions of complex tasks. From my perspective you could stand to improve your explanatory skills a little.

Quote:
I found a way to do that... and ended up working on music software for the last 15 years.
I am also a musician, so I appreciate any such efforts.

Quote:
This whole pandemic thing has given a lot of time to dig up old ideas...
Indeed, and don't let me stop you. But if your goal is for your ideas to be accepted by the mainstream physics community, you have a long way, and much humility, to go before that will happen. I believe all of MIT's course materials are available online for free, and perhaps also some recorded lectures. If you're serious about pursing physics, I recommend some remedial study.

Quote:
If I publish a paper on this, how about a job?
Professional and academic publications and citations are considered as part of a candidate's overall fitness for employment. But my participation in this forum doesn't include recruiting.
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 1st January 2021, 06:59 PM   #191
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Fine, but let's talk about the basis of my opinion. I was taught quantum mechanics in the manner prescribed by physicists as leading to the most correct understanding of it. My mastery of it was tested according to an objective standard. On the other hand, you tell us you haven't studied the subject. My opinion on what Everett meant by an observer comes from the proper background in the field he wrote in, and is further informed by having actually read the parts of his paper that you haven't yet seen fit to discuss.

You're evidently a betting man. Would you care to make a wager on whose opinion turns out to be right?
I think so. I thought that's what we were working on.

I think I can make an Everettian observer that gets accepted as an Everettian observer by reputable journal.

Quote:
Professional and academic publications and citations are considered as part of a candidate's overall fitness for employment. But my participation in this forum doesn't include recruiting.
You still do the hiring though. That's what you said.
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 1st January 2021, 07:05 PM   #192
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,353
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So take the bet?

Berating me on the internet just makes you look afraid of taking it.
What bet? I say that in the sense that I care so little that I havenít bothered reading your description of it. And why would I be afraid? You say that as if I have something on the line, but I donít. Nor have I really berated you. I donít look afraid, but you do come off as weirdly defensive. Itís... peculiar.
__________________
"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 1st January 2021, 07:05 PM   #193
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,136
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I think I can make an Everettian observer that gets accepted as an Everettian observer by reputable journal.
Then don't let me get in your way.
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 1st January 2021, 07:17 PM   #194
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What bet? I say that in the sense that I care so little that I havenít bothered reading your description of it. And why would I be afraid? You say that as if I have something on the line, but I donít. Nor have I really berated you. I donít look afraid, but you do come off as weirdly defensive. Itís... peculiar.
Haha, ok.

I am weird. I'll give you that.
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 1st January 2021, 10:02 PM   #195
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,283
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I am well aware that Everett clearly says that the worlds are real, but I was referring to Sean Carrollís view on the Many-Worlds Interpretation.

I have read it in ďFrom Eternity to HereĒ which I only have in print, so it will be difficult to find and quote it here. But I can, if you insist. However, I am now in doubt if this is on topic.
Yeah, I know you were talking about Sean Carroll. I'm a bit of a fan of his, having watched few dozen hours of his physics lectures and read all his books (I'm also a big fan of his podcast).

It's always possible that I'm wrong, but he seems to be pretty consistent in his discussions of Many Worlds: there's no collapse of the wavefunction, it just goes on evolving, and as it branches no branch is treated as more real than any other. I've heard him talk quite often about how under many worlds before you do a measurement the probability of any of the possible outcomes of that measurement is actually 1, as it will happen in some branch of the wavefunction, so what we mean by the probability (arrived at through the Born rule) has to be more carefully defined (the definition he favors being related to one's uncertainty about which branch of the wavefunction one is on).
__________________
"... 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 2nd January 2021, 06:39 PM   #196
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,675
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You still do the hiring though. That's what you said.
You'd still have to tender an application to his place of business. And the hiring decision would still be based on more than just one publication.
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 2nd January 2021, 06:46 PM   #197
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,675
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Just what you said:

"if you were proposing that within 12 months you will publish a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, describing how your computer program adds something new to the QM body of knowledge, I would take that bet. "

For cream on top, after it's published, others should cite it.
I'll take that bet, with the following provisos:
-- JayUtah and Ziggurat have to agree that it's a reputable journal; or some other adjudicator must be agreed between us beforehand; and
-- pay-to-publish journals are automatically excluded; and
-- the loser of the bet has to set their forum avatar to an image chosen by the winner, for a year and a day (an "avatar bet"); the image must comply with the forum's membership agreement and other rules.
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 2nd January 2021, 06:54 PM   #198
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'll take that bet, with the following provisos:
-- JayUtah and Ziggurat have to agree that it's a reputable journal; or some other adjudicator must be agreed between us beforehand; and
-- pay-to-publish journals are automatically excluded; and
-- the loser of the bet has to set their forum avatar to an image chosen by the winner, for a year and a day (an "avatar bet"); the image must comply with the forum's membership agreement and other rules.
Yeah, sure. What do you think of this one:

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/mpla

So, I think the first task would be to show Snell's Law, a photon moving from one volume of atoms to a differing volume of atoms. Try to coax some chemistry and electricity out of that.
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 2nd January 2021, 07:44 PM   #199
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,675
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Yeah, sure. What do you think of this one:

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/mpla

So, I think the first task would be to show Snell's Law, a photon moving from one volume of atoms to a differing volume of atoms. Try to coax some chemistry and electricity out of that.
I don't want to pin you down to one specific journal. It'd suck if you contribute meaningfully to the body of knowledge but still lose the bet because you got published in Quantum or Physics Letters A instead.

Also, I honestly don't care at all what you think the first task would be, or even what the first task turns out to be*, for the purposes of this bet. It suffices merely that the reviewers and editors of the journal agree on what the task would be, and whether you've completed it.

---
*Though I suspect the first task will turn out to be "know what you don't know".

Last edited by theprestige; 2nd January 2021 at 07:46 PM.
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 2nd January 2021, 07:52 PM   #200
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't want to pin you down to one specific journal. It'd suck if you contribute meaningfully to the body of knowledge but still lose the bet because you got published in Quantum or Physics Letters A instead.

Also, I honestly don't care at all what you think the first task would be, or even what the first task turns out to be*, for the purposes of this bet. It suffices merely that the reviewers and editors of the journal agree on what the task would be, and whether you've completed it.

---
*Though I suspect the first task will turn out to be "know what you don't know".

Ha, yeah, I get it. Just thinking out loud.
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 11:36 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.