Can Reproduction and Darwinism Explain Quantum Mechanics' Observer Effect?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores a theory suggesting that the existence of observers is crucial for the physical reality of the universe. It posits that reproduction is not just about species survival but also about sustaining the universe's evolving complexity. The theory ties into concepts from quantum mechanics, particularly the observer effect and retrocausality, which imply that observers can influence past events by collapsing wave functions. This leads to the idea that the universe may be "alive," striving for objective existence through the emergence of conscious observers.Critics raise concerns about the implications of this theory, particularly regarding the universe's existence prior to observers and the energy efficiency of a multiverse with countless non-observing realities. The conversation also touches on teleological arguments, questioning whether the universe has inherent purpose or design, and whether observers play a role in shaping reality. The exchange highlights the philosophical tensions between observer-centric interpretations of quantum mechanics and traditional views of materialism, ultimately suggesting a symbiotic relationship between observers and the universe.
  • #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
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K