Register to reply

Paradox of the Universe - Physics or Voodoo Philosophy?

by magnusrobot12
Tags: paradox, philosophy, physics, universe, voodoo
Share this thread:
magnusrobot12
#1
Mar5-10, 11:48 AM
P: 48
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.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Wildfires and other burns play bigger role in climate change, professor finds
SR Labs research to expose BadUSB next week in Vegas
New study advances 'DNA revolution,' tells butterflies' evolutionary history
Dmitry67
#2
Mar5-10, 11:52 AM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
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.
magnusrobot12
#3
Mar5-10, 11:59 AM
P: 48
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

Dmitry67
#4
Mar5-10, 12:11 PM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Paradox of the Universe - Physics or Voodoo Philosophy?

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.
amrhima
#5
Mar5-10, 11:52 PM
P: 14
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
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?
twofish-quant
#6
Mar6-10, 12:20 AM
P: 6,863
Quote Quote by magnusrobot12 View Post
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."
Dmitry67
#7
Mar6-10, 01:14 AM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Quote Quote by amrhima View Post
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.
amrhima
#8
Mar6-10, 01:28 AM
P: 14
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
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?
Dmitry67
#9
Mar6-10, 01:35 AM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Quote Quote by twofish-quant View Post
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.
Dmitry67
#10
Mar6-10, 01:37 AM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Quote Quote by amrhima View Post
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 :)
twofish-quant
#11
Mar6-10, 11:30 AM
P: 6,863
Quote Quote by amrhima View Post
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.
twofish-quant
#12
Mar6-10, 11:36 AM
P: 6,863
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
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.
magnusrobot12
#13
Mar6-10, 12:07 PM
P: 48
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
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.
Dmitry67
#14
Mar6-10, 12:36 PM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Quote Quote by twofish-quant View Post
No, the reply from the Cophenhagen interpretation is "just do the math."
No, it is "Shut up and calculate" aka macroscopic realism
imiyakawa
#15
Mar9-10, 09:33 PM
P: 251
Quote Quote by twofish-quant View Post
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?
imiyakawa
#16
Mar9-10, 09:38 PM
P: 251
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?
Dmitry67
#17
Mar10-10, 01:08 AM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
I don't see any new experiments decribed in this article.
And I don't see how it supports 'consciousness causes collapse'
imiyakawa
#18
Mar10-10, 04:48 AM
P: 251
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


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Philosophy in The Elegant Universe General Discussion 6
Gzk paradox and expanding universe General Physics 7
Hologramatic universe and the philosophy of nonduality General Discussion 1
A Pragmatic Philosophy of Paradox General Discussion 45