Cosmic Censorship: Exploring QM, Consciousness & Predictive Power

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

It may be just me with my limited(extremely little) knowledge of the hypothesis, but it seems as though the "Casuality breaking down" part of the Cosmic Censorship hypothesis is an attempt at connecting QM (or rather, just fundamental laws) with consciousness.

Either that, or "see"/"view" is a really bad word to use, and should instead be "measure".

ie. "The fundamental concern is that since the physical behavior of singularities is unknown, if singularities can be seen from the rest of spacetime, causality may break down, and physics may lose its predictive power." ~ From wikipedia

I could replace "seen" with "measured" in this paragraph.

But here;

"While the weak cosmic censorship hypothesis asserts that any observer who has observed a singularity is destined to fall into it, it does not give a timeframe for this to happen. As such, for classical general relativity to be a complete theory, an observer of a naked singularity should still have a theory to explain what is observed; Penrose thus formulated a stronger version of the cosmic censorship hypothesis (known as the strong cosmic censorship hypothesis) that asserts that no singularity is ever visible to any observer."

I can't see how this doesn't link into consciousness.



Maybe I'm just generally confused xD.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

If anyone could give me any insight to what I'm misunderstanding or otherwise it would be a great help.

I thought attempts to link consciousness with science were generally shunned yet in this example from the particular sources I've read seem to do that exact thing, yet don't receive criticism on the consciousness level of the arguement.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

:(

D:

.

 

[cristo]

What's your definition of the cosmic censorship hypothesis? You state "the causality breaking down part," but do not say where it came from. Please provide a link (and not that wiki page that is "needing help from an expert").

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I said it came from Wikipedia, and I know that page is probably half BS, but it's the only source I have, every other source I've found CITES wikipedia for it's info on Cosmic Censorship.

What I understand about Cosmic Censorship is basically the Hypothesis states that there can be no Naked singularities.

However, it's the reason for this for which I need clarification on, again, that crappy Wikipedia page seems to link it with consciousness causing a 'breakdown of the laws of physics'.

 

[whatta]

as far as I heared, "Cosmic Censorship" was a principle saying that whenewer our math predicts some weird stuff, the nature comes up with a countermeasure that makes that situation impossible. in this form, it doesn't seem to be anything more than witty observation.

 

[cristo]

as far as I heared, "Cosmic Censorship" was a principle saying that whenewer our math predicts some weird stuff, the nature comes up with a countermeasure that makes that situation impossible. in this form, it doesn't seem to be anything more than witty observation.

I'm not sure about that. In it's simplest form, the cosmic censorship hypothesis says that "nature abhors naked singularities." A more detailed version would be

Naked singularities cannot form from a gravitational collapse in an asymptotically flat spacetime that is non-singular on some intitial spacelike hypersurface

Back to the original post. I don't see how this can be thought of as "linking quantum mechanics with consciousness." Firstly, this hypothesis comes about in general relativity, not quantum mechanics. Secondly, as you can read in those notes that I quoted, Penrose stated the hypothesis to ensure that the case where the future were not predictable from an intial spacelike hypersurface would not occur; i.e. there was no breakdown of causality.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

So-

"While the weak cosmic censorship hypothesis asserts that any observer who has observed a singularity is destined to fall into it, it does not give a timeframe for this to happen. As such, for classical general relativity to be a complete theory, an observer of a naked singularity should still have a theory to explain what is observed; Penrose thus formulated a stronger version of the cosmic censorship hypothesis (known as the strong cosmic censorship hypothesis) that asserts that no singularity is ever visible to any observer."

Is totally incorrect?

What I am concerned with is this paragraph I read. (As a side note, aren't singularities QM + GR?)

 

[cristo]

I never said it was incorrect! I just don't understand how you link the necessity of introducing the CCH with the attempt at connecting QM with consciousness. It is introduced to prevent a breakdown in causality.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I'm asking if it's incorrect.

It suggests if an observer (conscious) sees a naked singularity that causality will breakdown. As is a conscious act causes the law of physics to breakdown... doesn't that try to link consciousness with certain parts of science? (I was wrong in saying QM, but I thought singularities were GR+QM, and QM is usually the target of such acts, either way, it's suggesting that consciousness has some part to play in why CCH is around :-/).

 

[cristo]

You appear to be linking causality to consciousness, however causality happens whether or not an object is conscious. For example, if a stone hits a can standing on a wall, then the can will either fall over or not, regardless of whether there is someone there to observe it.

The CCH is put into the theory of relativity to stop the absurd (i.e. a breakdown of causality) happening. It is not attempting to link science with consciousness.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

It's the paragraph I read which is linking it, I believe that's wrong, and I just want someone to explain what it is really like.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining my problem wrong, or I don't understand your response fully.My problem is - that the paragraph I read (the one from wikipedia), suggests to me, that "a breakdown of causality" would be caused by a "conscious observer" "viewing" a naked singularity.

This seems to be to be wrong (to me), because it depends on a consciousness observing something (which is how I understand this 'breakdown' happens, from the paragraph I've read). Is it correct in saying that a conscious observer viewing a naked singularity would cause a breakdown of causality if CCH were not in place? I certainly hope not.