Can Reproduction and Darwinism Explain Quantum Mechanics' Observer Effect?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the relationship between reproduction, Darwinism, and the observer effect in quantum mechanics, focusing on the implications of an observer-centric interpretation of quantum mechanics. Participants examine how these concepts might interrelate and the philosophical ramifications of such connections.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if observers are essential for physical reality, then reproduction may be necessary for the continuity of that reality, suggesting a link between biological reproduction and the existence of the universe.
  • Others draw parallels to biocentrism and Wheeler's "it from bit" concept, arguing that reality is shaped by the information processed by observers.
  • A participant questions the rationale behind reproduction as a primary objective of biology, pondering whether it serves the continuation of species or reality itself.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the anthropic argument, arguing that if multiple universes exist, it would imply a wastefulness of energy resources if they do not support observers capable of reproduction.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the implications of quantum fluctuations and energy conservation in the context of a multiverse, suggesting that if other universes exist, they should adhere to the same principles of energy conservation as our own.
  • One participant reflects on the philosophical challenges of constructing models of reality without fully understanding consciousness, life, and the nature of existence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement, with some supporting the idea of a connection between reproduction and the observer effect, while others challenge the anthropic reasoning and the implications of a multiverse. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their arguments, including assumptions about the nature of observers, the role of quantum mechanics, and the implications of multiverse theories. There is also an awareness of the philosophical complexities involved in discussing consciousness and reality.

  • #91
kote said:
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
tj8888 said:
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 :smile:. 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).
 
  • #93
tj8888 said:
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?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332005000200004

http://www.df.uba.ar/users/mininni/teo2/interferencia_fulereno.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
3K