Paradox of the Universe - Physics or Voodoo Philosophy?

In summary, the conversation discusses the paradox of the universe and the role of sentient beings in its existence. It is argued that the universe can only exist if there are sentient beings to observe it, and that the precise tuning of quantum laws is necessary for life to evolve. The concept of parallel universes and the role of measurement in quantum mechanics are also touched upon, with the idea of Quantum Decoherence being proposed as an explanation. The conversation concludes with a discussion on the various interpretations of quantum mechanics and their acceptance among physicists.
  • #1
magnusrobot12
53
0
I wrote a response in a thread entitled "What is the single most important thing for life to exist in the universe?" . I thought about it some more and I am wondering if this paradox is scientifically sound or is it just crazy philosophers taking physics and making into voodoo science. I hope its OK to pose this question here. My statement:

You have to understand the paradox of the universe. The universe can only exist if there are sentient beings (consciousness) able to observe it. If there are no sentient beings, then the universe exists as a wave, without any form or structure. Only after sentient beings observe the universe does the wave collapse into the beautiful firmament of stars, planets, galaxies, quasars, etc. Thus, the single most important thing for life to exist is a universe that provides the right quantum laws that allow for sentient beings to evolve. That is, the gravitation strength is this and the strong force is that and the weak force is this and the electromagnetic force is that. If any of the four forces deviate by a slight bit, then the conditions of the quantum laws will not be correct for life to exist. It is the precise tuning of our laws of quantum mechanics that is the most important factor to create sentient life.

There may be parallel universes that exists as only a wave function because those universes did not provide the correct quantum laws for sentient beings to evolve. Those universes are dead in the sense that they are unable to form a firmament of astronomical bodies including a sun and a planet with beautiful water and sky. There is no such thing as a "barren" cold universe unless somehow we observe it through a black hole (impossible to do). Until then, its only a wave. There are probably an infinite number of universes in the form of a wave waiting for sentient beings to observe them so they can collapse into a world of particles and matter.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Even proponents of Copenhagen Interpretation do not believe that it is consciousness that causes collapse. But there is a new trend from 199x: there is no collapse. Collapse is replaced with Quantum Decoherence, measurement problem is solved, no consicous beings are required.
 
  • #3
The problem i have with the paradox is how can the universe pass through the different phases of its own evolution if it is not being observed? Does that mean that the wave function itself is evolving? I like the idea of replacing sentient with Quantum Decoherence. But, i must ask, what the heck is Quantum Decoherence? I'll do some reading and start with wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
 
Last edited:
  • #4
1. Yes, the wiki article is a good start
2. Wavefunction itself is evolving
3. No observations of conscious beings is required for any processes to happen.
 
  • #5
Dmitry67 said:
Measurement problem is solved, no consicous beings are required.
The wikipedia article on Decoherence says that it doesn't attempt to solve the measurement problem, which makes sense given its definition there. Is that wrong?
 
  • #6
magnusrobot12 said:
If there are no sentient beings, then the universe exists as a wave, without any form or structure.

Not true. There's no reason that an observer has to be sentient to collapse the quantum wave function. For the purposes of quantum mechanics, a non sentient Geiger counter works perfectly well to collapse a wave function.

The term "observer" is a bad term to use. The right word is "detector."
 
  • #7
amrhima said:
The wikipedia article on Decoherence says that it doesn't attempt to solve the measurement problem, which makes sense given its definition there. Is that wrong?

Congratulations! You are on the next level :)
So yes, decoherence shows that no collapse is needed. It explains why we don't see macroscopic objects in superposition, but it does not explain why we observer only one outcome.

It rules out collapse interpretations (Copenhagen, TI) but leaves a choice between different non-collapse interpretations (MWI, BM). These interpretations explain defferently why ww observe only 1 outcome.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Dmitry67 said:
Congratulations! You are on the next level :)
So yes, decoherence shows that no collapse is needed. It explains why we don't see macroscopic objects in superposition, but it does not explain why we observer only one outcome.

It rules out collapse interpretations (Copenhagen, TI) but leaves a choice between different non-collapse interpretations (MWI, BM). These interpretations explain defferently why ww observe only 1 outcome.

Thank you, i figured the MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation, and i didn't get what BM was, I have a question on this matter; Is Decoherence widely accepted among physicists?
 
  • #9
twofish-quant said:
Not true. There's no reason that an observer has to be sentient to collapse the quantum wave function. For the purposes of quantum mechanics, a non sentient Geiger counter works perfectly well to collapse a wave function.

Copenhagen Int uses the demagogy, switching back and forth between 2 close but different views.

When being asked: “How Wavefunction can collapse instantly?” copenhagens reply “Wavefunction is just our knowledge about the system.
When being asked: “Do we need conscious beings for the wavefunction collapse?” they say: “No, the measurement device is required for the collapse, not humans”

Copenhagen Int was the very first and it was very useful, but in the era of Quantum Computers, when there is no longer a sharp line between Macro and Micro worlds it does more harm then good.
 
  • #10
amrhima said:
Thank you, i figured the MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation, and i didn't get what BM was, I have a question on this matter; Is Decoherence widely accepted among physicists?

BM=Bohmian Mechanics.
Decoherence is mathematical thing, so it is difficult to reject that 2+2=4 :)
 
  • #11
amrhima said:
Thank you, i figured the MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation, and i didn't get what BM was, I have a question on this matter; Is Decoherence widely accepted among physicists?

The problem with all of these interpretations of quantum mechanics is that they lead to the same experimental outcome.

If they didn't, we could just do an experiment and see what works. So by "accepted" you mean that someone using the concept of decoherence to do a calculation, you don't have any choice but to accept the calculation, however someone that doesn't accept the ideas as a philosophical explanation for what is really going on will take the paper, accept the calculations and results, and then mentally rewrite the paper to fit what they think is "really" going on.

What you can do is to take a paper that is written from a given interpretation that then "translate" it into any other interpretation you want. If you couldn't do that, then you just do the experiment and see what happens.
 
  • #12
Dmitry67 said:
When being asked: “How Wavefunction can collapse instantly?” copenhagens reply “Wavefunction is just our knowledge about the system.

No, the reply from the Cophenhagen interpretation is "just do the math."

When being asked: “Do we need conscious beings for the wavefunction collapse?” they say: “No, the measurement device is required for the collapse, not humans”

The problem is that if you require human beings to do the collapse, then if you get yourself in a Schodinger cat situation you end up with wavefunctions that are not calculable, and hence you have no theory.

Also, I was at a talk by Bryce DeWitt, a long, long time ago, in which he was arguing that the "magic thing" that causes a wavefunction to collapse is an interaction with any massive object. It was a weird talk, because I started talking notes, and as he was talking, what he was saying seemed so painfully obvious I stopped taking notes, but I can't remember the argument now.
 
  • #13
Dmitry67 said:
Copenhagen Int uses the demagogy, switching back and forth between 2 close but different views.

When being asked: “How Wavefunction can collapse instantly?” copenhagens reply “Wavefunction is just our knowledge about the system.
When being asked: “Do we need conscious beings for the wavefunction collapse?” they say: “No, the measurement device is required for the collapse, not humans”

Copenhagen Int was the very first and it was very useful, but in the era of Quantum Computers, when there is no longer a sharp line between Macro and Micro worlds it does more harm then good.


Thank you both for helping me with this topic.
 
  • #14
twofish-quant said:
No, the reply from the Cophenhagen interpretation is "just do the math."

No, it is "Shut up and calculate" aka macroscopic realism
 
  • #15
twofish-quant said:
Not true. There's no reason that an observer has to be sentient to collapse the quantum wave function. For the purposes of quantum mechanics, a non sentient Geiger counter works perfectly well to collapse a wave function.

The term "observer" is a bad term to use. The right word is "detector."

I thought that it was impossible to separate conscious observer from any measurement, and thus decoherence theory will never be able to be proven beyond all doubt? How do you know if it's the detector entangling with the wavefunction or if it's the measurer's consciousness endearing a non-local wavefunction collapse over time? How do you separate the two in any measurement?

Oh wait, I just read another of your posts. Are you sure this totally, 100% debunks the "consciousness causes collapse" possibility, or is this just your stance. Couldn't there be other ways at looking at the S Cat paradox where you don't run into the problem you stated?
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Moreover, if you read this experiment:

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html

The conclusions, seen in bullet points 1/2/3/4 near the bottom of the page purport to debunk most ways of looking at decoherence theory, along with many other interpretations, and seem to support the consciousness causes collapse interpretation.

Although I'm not sure of the veracity of the source.

What are we to make of this? Has this line of experimentation been carried out anywhere else?
 
  • #17
I don't see any new experiments decribed in this article.
And I don't see how it supports 'consciousness causes collapse'
 
  • #18
Supports was a bad word, more like 'leaves the door open for'. So wait, are you saying the Conclusions presented in 1/2/3/4 have all been found to be true before? (I'm not a physicist, but I thought this wasn't the case). If so, why is decoherence theory so popular, and why do proponents of decoherence theory claim that the measuring instrument endears collapse? Also, why is the consciousness causes collapse interpretation so unpopular given these results? The conclusions seem to imply that either:
The data of the which path information is entangling with the wavefunction
A conscious measurer is required to collapse the wavefunction
 
  • #19
1. Quantum Decoherence is not a physical theory, it is rather a mathematical instument, a mere consequence of QM. This is why it is accepted ("popular") - because one can't deny Decoherence without denying QM at whole.

2. You look confused:
"why do proponents of decoherence theory claim that the measuring instrument endears collapse" is not true: Decoherence denies the very existence of the collapse. THere is no collapse at all!

3. It gives an answer to "why is the consciousness causes collapse interpretation so unpopular given these results" - because there is no collapse.
 
  • #20
Dmitry67 said:
1. Quantum Decoherence is not a physical theory, it is rather a mathematical instument, a mere consequence of QM. This is why it is accepted ("popular") - because one can't deny Decoherence without denying QM at whole.

2. You look confused:
"why do proponents of decoherence theory claim that the measuring instrument endears collapse" is not true: Decoherence denies the very existence of the collapse. THere is no collapse at all!

3. It gives an answer to "why is the consciousness causes collapse interpretation so unpopular given these results" - because there is no collapse.

I see. It looks like more research is needed on my part. Thx for clearing that up.

I'm still a tad confused though, is decoherence compatible with other interpretations, or is it a mutually exclusive interpretation in itself?
 
  • #21
Decoherence is a consequence of QM.
So it is compatible in that sense with the other Interpretation.

However, in Copenhagen Int (and other collapse Int) the situation becames confusing: there are 2 things to explain why the world we see is classical: old Collapse and new Decoherence.

For that reason I believe after the discovery of Decoherence the status of "Collpase" in the same as status of "Light Either" so Copenhagen is interesting only in historical aspect.
 
  • #22
So, are you saying that if Decoherence Theory was proven beyond any doubt, all collapse theories would subsequently be proven to be deficient, as decoherence theory states that no collapse is actually happening?
 
  • #23
Decoherence is widely accepted and is intensively studied. Again, you can't deny QD without denying QM. So since 199x collapse theories makes no sense (of course, collapse can be used in a form of "rule of thumb" when we don't care about what is actually happening and our measurement devices are big and simple enough)

And of course, diehard proponents of Copenhagen Int will not agree with it, but I made an experiment on this forum about 1y ago, trying to find proponents of Copenhagen Int on this forum. And I had failed :) There was only one defender of CI about 1.5y ago (jambaugh) but I believe he is avoiding any interpretations wars now.

If you know any proponents of CI, it would be interesting to discuss with them their view.
 

1. What is the Paradox of the Universe?

The Paradox of the Universe refers to the conflicting theories and concepts in physics that attempt to explain the fundamental nature of the universe. It is often associated with the debate between scientific theories and philosophical concepts.

2. Is the Paradox of the Universe a scientific concept or a philosophical one?

This is a highly debated question and there is no clear answer. Some argue that the paradox is purely a scientific concept, while others believe it has philosophical implications. Ultimately, it is a complex issue that requires further research and discussion.

3. Can the Paradox of the Universe be solved?

There is no definitive answer to this question. Some scientists and philosophers believe that the paradox can be resolved through further scientific advancements and understanding of the universe. Others argue that it may never be fully solved, as it deals with fundamental questions that may be beyond human comprehension.

4. How does the Paradox of the Universe impact our understanding of reality?

The Paradox of the Universe challenges our beliefs and assumptions about the nature of reality. It forces us to question our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It also highlights the limitations of our current scientific knowledge and the need for continued exploration and discovery.

5. What are some proposed solutions to the Paradox of the Universe?

There are various proposed solutions to the Paradox of the Universe, including the theory of multiple universes, the concept of a holographic universe, and the idea of a simulated reality. However, none of these theories have been conclusively proven, and the debate continues among scientists and philosophers.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
948
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
931
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
607
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top