Darwinism, Reproduction and QM

*WaveJumper*

Quote by apeiron

So you would be believing that uranium does not decay independent of a human observation? The deposit just is a wavefunction evolving and waiting to be collapsed into a history of events going back to when each uranium atom was first created in a supernova? Or because the supernova was not being witnessed at the time, part of prior wavefunctions back to the first moment?

Yes. Essentially, definite properties exist only when measured/observed. This is perfectly in agreement with experiments.

I thought we were talking quantum reality? Time does flow in a background dependent formalism like QM. GR and this blocktime reply is based on precisely the classical reality you want to deny.

What do you mean by "Background dependent QM"? The background is missing, the relationship between state space and physical space is matter of constant debates. Time flowing in the quantum world is a misconception as well, you should not confuse the ability to extract amplitude probabilities in time, with time flowing.

The wavefunction actually does exist in time. So if consciousness is required, then it was my awareness of the cancer that is the collapse event. Coldcall perhaps believes the cell itself perhaps had the biological complexity.

"Awareness" as the agent causing collapse is a very loose term but is consistent with all evidence. Before accepting it as an actual cause or dismissing it, we have to actually know what it is and its properties. We do not.

Now I'm wondering what if I die without ever realising I had a cancer caused by a cosmic ray? Maybe it even caused a brain cancer, so disabling my awareness is ways that absolutely prevented my making the observation?

Yes, at some point in a copenhagenish type of interpretation, the mind of god has to step in. But this is a problem of all interpretations. Is there an interpretation that explains all events in the universe without resorting to vague and ridiculous claims of the existence of 100 billion trillion universes?

First, we can divorce ourselves from the modelling of reality in any regard.

This is a slogan and experiments are not in agreement with it.

Second, the basics of good modelling is to divorce ourselves as much as possible.

Yes, but it appears impossible. Unobserved entities do not have defined physical properties.

The formalism of QM does not specify a machinery of collapse. That is why it has become a matter of interpretation. In practice, when using QM models, people work round the collapse issue in practical ways. And that is why I am suggesting you talk about your chosen interpretation in relation to everyday life concrete examples. As it stands, we are left free to place the collapse anywhere we want it. Why not start with where it makes the most commonsense - out in the busy world of interacting things?

Yes, that is my point. The reality we perceive only exists as a relationship of correlated events. Ours is a universe of events, not of fixed, immutable, FOR-independent objects. You can choose to include or not a mind, but without a mind, the perception of reality is very problematic.

GCMax

Hi, first post here :)

Your statement sounds interesting but I have a few problems with it, for instance: Reality exists without our perception of it, the individual or collective need not witness anything for it to occour or have occoured.
If on the right track of your argument here I believe what you are saying is that existence is maintained by reproduction and that a chain of events governed by time can mutate the subject given certain conditions. This is evolution.

Having said that a strange thought lingers, temperature may change due to global warming, other factors may invoke illness for the poor and prosperity for the rich yet evolution keeps advancing at the same pace despite all these gradual changes in circumstances. What is the driving force behind this, mother nature? This seems like another meaningless word for something that has absolutely no logical explanation.

tj8888

Quote by apeiron

So you would be believing that uranium does not decay independent of a human observation? The deposit just is a wavefunction evolving and waiting to be collapsed into a history of events going back to when each uranium atom was first created in a supernova? Or because the supernova was not being witnessed at the time, part of prior wavefunctions back to the first moment?

Yes, this is actually what I thought PAP says. Other aspects of the system would have been restricted by previous observations, but the main point I thought was, as Wheeler said:"no elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."

Think of Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, only not with photons but with radiated particles from uranium in a distant galaxy. It seems pretty clear then that the uranium doesn't decay until it is observed.

Now I'm wondering what if I die without ever realising I had a cancer caused by a cosmic ray? Maybe it even caused a brain cancer, so disabling my awareness is ways that absolutely prevented my making the observation?

Well this gets back to what an observation is. Maybe it has something to do with the nervous system, and since our bodies are bundles of nerves, anything that affects could in some sense be observed.

kote

Quote by tj8888

Well this gets back to what an observation is. Maybe it has something to do with the nervous system, and since our bodies are bundles of nerves, anything that affects could in some sense be observed.

If observation is treated as physical, as you imply above, then why should it be restricted to human nervous systems? Other physical systems can "observe" as well as human can, in which case reality progresses as expected.

It is only when observation is treated as an epistemological issue that the human becomes a factor. But in this case, you, are that observer and it is your knowledge that is being updated, nothing else.

Either observation is only about your own personal knowledge, or any physical thing can do it.

In neither case is there any contradiction or great dilemma. Just be sure not to confuse the two. We have no reason to believe that humans are a special type of observer.

Also, hi GCMax

.

apeiron

Quote by GCMax

Having said that a strange thought lingers, temperature may change due to global warming, other factors may invoke illness for the poor and prosperity for the rich yet evolution keeps advancing at the same pace despite all these gradual changes in circumstances. What is the driving force behind this, mother nature? This seems like another meaningless word for something that has absolutely no logical explanation.

No, this is all perfectly understandable from the second law of thermodynamics. Everything that happens in the universe is entrained to this gradient or purpose - the relentless increase in entropy over time.

So if you study modern ecology or dissipative structure theory, you will learn all about why it is absolutely logical that order in the form of bios - life and mind - arises. It is because we accelerate the heat death of the universe.

From the second law's view, it is right and natural that humans are blowing ancient geo-deposits of petroleum. All that locked-up hydrocarbon is order or negentropy that needs degrading.

Not so good for us and our children of course.

tj8888

Quote by kote

If observation is treated as physical, as you imply above, then why should it be restricted to human nervous systems? Other physical systems can "observe" as well as human can, in which case reality progresses as expected.

Yeah, I am just throwing around ideas, and am not arguing that the human NS would be the only thing that could make an observation (although it might be lol). I don't think QM supports a "physical" universe though as you seem to be using the term. When I ponder the NS bringing a superposition into an actuality I am thinking of an evolving superposition reaching some point of complex interaction where experienced events start occurring. Obviously this is just conjecture, and terms like "experienced," "complex interaction" etc are hard to define (just as "physical" is).

You say that "other physical systems can observe" and yet buckyball molecules with 60 carbon atoms can be in a superposition and create a diffraction pattern. It would seem on some level human subjective observations are not in superpositions. In a "physical" universe where between the two do you think events start occurring?

kote

Quote by tj8888

You say that "other physical systems can observe" and yet buckyball molecules with 60 carbon atoms can be in a superposition and create a diffraction pattern. It would seem on some level human subjective observations are not in superpositions. In a "physical" universe where between the two do you think events start occurring?

I never claimed to know the interface between the objective and subjective

. I think it's literally impossible to prove the connection between the two. They are just two viewpoints from which you can consider physics.

Taking the subjective view, a superposition isn't anything real. It's simply an expression of a lack of knowledge. Taking an objective view, all physical interactions are observations. Two atoms colliding actually collide and interact when we would expect them to - the reaction they have to each other counts as an observation.

What things are like between those physical interactions is anyone's guess. We don't have an agreed upon answer, and it may be impossible to find one. Physics only deals with the results of interactions. We can have no direct evidence of anything between interactions (observations).

apeiron

Quote by tj8888

You say that "other physical systems can observe" and yet buckyball molecules with 60 carbon atoms can be in a superposition and create a diffraction pattern. It would seem on some level human subjective observations are not in superpositions. In a "physical" universe where between the two do you think events start occurring?

What you have to consider here is the increasing care and energy it takes to observe macroscale QM effects. So this gives you your cut-off between naked QM and QM in interaction with a decohering context.

See for example discussions of the future of this kind of research - people are optimistic we can still go a few orders of magnitude higher in the scale of the hot molecules...here on earth....

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...32005000200004

http://www.df.uba.ar/users/mininni/t...a_fulereno.pdf

Similar Threads for: Darwinism, Reproduction and QM
Thread	Forum	Replies
Cosmic Darwinism	Cosmology	8
Anti-Darwinism	Biology	25
Darwinism not testable	General Discussion	8
Neural Darwinism	Medical Sciences	2
Informational Darwinism	General Discussion	0