|Apr27-13, 04:56 PM||#35|
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Question
Ruth, I have now read chapter 7. In it you say:
"As noted in Chapter 1, traditional approaches to measurement in quantum theory
inevitably end up needing to invoke an ‘observing consciousness’ in order to ‘collapse’
the wave function (or state vector) and bring about a determinate outcome, necessitating
speculative forays into psycho-physical parallelism"
I would like to understand if this means you see psycho-physical parallelism as a problematic concept and if this is so, why you think there is a problem with it.
|Apr28-13, 12:12 AM||#36|
I view psycho-physical parallelism as problematic in the context of interpreting physical theory because it is so speculative, and because it does not appear to be based on any sort of physical theory. As Kent has noted, "we don't have a good theory of mind." In Chapter 1 I quote from Kent (2010): "“...the fact that we don't have a good theory of mind, even in classical physics, doesn't give us a free pass to conclude anything we please. That way lies scientific ruin: any physical theory is consistent with any observations if we can bridge any discrepancy by tacking on arbitrary assumptions about the link between mind states and physics.” (A. Kent, 2010, from Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality , p.21)
|Similar Threads for: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Question|
|Question on Decoherence and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser||Quantum Physics||2|
|Question about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment||Quantum Physics||5|
|Question regarding the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser expirement - interference at D0||Quantum Physics||9|
|Question about delayed choice quantum eraser||Quantum Physics||42|
|delayed choice quantum eraser question||Quantum Physics||7|