Can Reproduction and Darwinism Explain Quantum Mechanics' Observer Effect?

[apeiron]

I don't think that the anti-realist is rejecting realism on behalf of his own perspective, that would be violating the very "ideology".

We would agree then that "all is modelling". We start from a position of subjectivity and have to operate on that basis. The question then becomes how to we move towards the impossible ideal of an "objective" understanding.

The third way I'm talking about is very much concerned with just how to do this properly. And a central issue is how to make the epistemic cut, how to make a separation between observer and observed, given that we are stuck in a position of subjectivity.

Mainstream physics does just jump to realism. Or rather, being based on a positive, pragmatist, epistemology, it agrees all is modelling, and just models the observables. The observer is placed outside the description.

Well, with GR, the observer became part of the model to an important extent. With QM, the role of observers was made both crucial and obscure.

I guess a lot of people imagine that a ToE would do away with the need for observers perhaps. Their partial inclusion in physical models is an embarrassment and the urge is to find deeper theories that are just about naked observables. Meaningless information.

So the alternative would be to instead get observers and meaning-making into a ToE.

 

[disregardthat]

We would agree then that "all is modelling". We start from a position of subjectivity and have to operate on that basis. The question then becomes how to we move towards the impossible ideal of an "objective" understanding.

The third way I'm talking about is very much concerned with just how to do this properly. And a central issue is how to make the epistemic cut, how to make a separation between observer and observed, given that we are stuck in a position of subjectivity.

Mainstream physics does just jump to realism. Or rather, being based on a positive, pragmatist, epistemology, it agrees all is modelling, and just models the observables. The observer is placed outside the description.

Well, with GR, the observer became part of the model to an important extent. With QM, the role of observers was made both crucial and obscure.

I guess a lot of people imagine that a ToE would do away with the need for observers perhaps. Their partial inclusion in physical models is an embarrassment and the urge is to find deeper theories that are just about naked observables. Meaningless information.

So the alternative would be to instead get observers and meaning-making into a ToE.

I agree with you on this. The realism of science is useful if the context in which it is being used is understood anti-realistically. I think Kant has a unique and interesting approach to this question however. By investigating what dimensions are necessary for experience he could logically deduce what framework/context our experience necessarily must be within. It seems that quantum mechanics implicitly shows us that this road should be taken.

The search for "the theory of everything" in a realistic sense is chasing ghosts IMO. Whatever knowledge we might have is a plateau on which we can construct new buildings of knowledge. The depth of our knowledge is not reaching a singularity, rather, its breadth is growing exponentially.

Quantum mechanics again shows us the need for the observer as more or less an integral part of any theory.

Also, it seems that the breadth of knowledge is not bounded by any objective restrictions, but that our own expectations are creating the holes which in turn needs explanations. This is however only speculation of the nature of knowledge.

 

[tj8888]

Interesting discussion. I just finished reading Lanza's Biocentrism. All the good stuff seems to be what Wheeler already thought up with the Participatory Anthropic Principle. Although I have to admit I never quite understood how Wheeler could violently resist the idea that consciousness was involved in wave function "collapse" but yet insisted observers were essential. I take it this is not an uncommon position so maybe someone can enlighten me there.

Something I have been pondering is what the implications of a PAP like theory would be for SETI. It seems to me it would suggest we are likely to be alone in the universe (and so would provide a possible solution to the Fermi paradox). If we are responsible for the fine tuning then it seems less likely that other formulations of life could exist, especially if one aspect of this fine tuning involves our relative temporal location with respect to cosmic expansion, galactic formation, etc.

 

[Coldcall]

Interesting discussion. I just finished reading Lanza's Biocentrism. All the good stuff seems to be what Wheeler already thought up with the Participatory Anthropic Principle. Although I have to admit I never quite understood how Wheeler could violently resist the idea that consciousness was involved in wave function "collapse" but yet insisted observers were essential. I take it this is not an uncommon position so maybe someone can enlighten me there.

Something I have been pondering is what the implications of a PAP like theory would be for SETI. It seems to me it would suggest we are likely to be alone in the universe (and so would provide a possible solution to the Fermi paradox). If we are responsible for the fine tuning then it seems less likely that other formulations of life could exist, especially if one aspect of this fine tuning involves our relative temporal location with respect to cosmic expansion, galactic formation, etc.

Lanza's Biocentrism is a poor-mans, dumbed-down version of PAP. In my view its sort of a scandal that Lanza claims this is his theory.

Yes you bring up a really interesting point in regards to the potential of other life in the universe. Even Brandon Carter who first coined the "anthropic prinicple" apparently now regrets using the term "anthro" because it implies human life is solely reponsible for the defintion of the universe and its properties, which was not intended.

I also agree with you that Wheeler ended up confusing his original theory by stating that "consciousness" was not vital for wave function collapse. I think he was doing two things by saying this

a) He perhaps thinks that the first lifeforms did not have "consciousness"
b) He did not want to appear to be endorsing "consciousness causes collapse", as this idea is still too anti-copernican for the scinetific community which has real problems quantifying and defining "consciousness".

But going back to your point, I'm not sure that PAP would mean we are somehow alone in the universe. If a universe which can evolve lifeforms is self-selected from an infinite number of virtual universes, as is the main thrust of PAP, then life would be possible all over the universe not just locally in our neighborhood. Once our universe collapses into a reality, life on Earth and anywhere else with suitable conditions is almost a forgone conclusion. Does it matter whether the first lifeform capable of interacting or sensing reality originated locally or in some galaxy on the other side of the universe? I don't think so.

I am of the opinion that once life is possible somehwere its possible anywhere within that same universe which has the life-bearing conditions.

 

[tj8888]

But going back to your point, I'm not sure that PAP would mean we are somehow alone in the universe. If a universe which can evolve lifeforms is self-selected from an infinite number of virtual universes, as is the main thrust of PAP, then life would be possible all over the universe not just locally in our neighborhood. Once our universe collapses into a reality, life on Earth and anywhere else with suitable conditions is almost a forgone conclusion. Does it matter whether the first lifeform capable of interacting or sensing reality originated locally or in some galaxy on the other side of the universe? I don't think so.

I am of the opinion that once life is possible somehwere its possible anywhere within that same universe which has the life-bearing conditions.

I have been thinking about this some more and I think it also depends on how PAP would work and how you define universe. I was under the impression that Wheeler thought the fine tuning wasn't a sudden collapse of the entire universe's wave function but more of a gradual process that fine tuned things as different areas of the "virtual universe" interacted with observers.

The more I think about PAP the more I realize how vague the idea is (or maybe I just don't understand it well enough). It seems like there is a range of starting points. You could say that initially there was nothing at all and somehow everything came into being in a PAP sort of system. I think the more common kind of suggestion is there were quantum laws at first but other things were fine tuned by observation. Who knows if spacetime dimensions would be a priori or created by observation either. So for PAP I think a lot depends on what the initial restrictions are.

If different life forms could arise in a virtual universe at roughly the same time and fine tune different areas differently we could maybe see their galaxy and the altered laws and constants, etc. Obviously that hasn't happened, so maybe it would just be really improbable. Maybe their fine tuning would have to be consistent with any other tuning no matter how far away. Or maybe the differences in physical laws would be so fundamental our area of the universe couldn't even interact with theirs, so in that sense they wouldn't even be in the same universe as us.

Trying to make sense of the theory makes me think PAP is completely insane and yet I can't help thinking it is where most of the evidence points to.

 

[apeiron]

Trying to make sense of the theory makes me think PAP is completely insane and yet I can't help thinking it is where most of the evidence points to.

For me, the idea of conscious humans being somehow special enough to collapse the universe's wavefunction was so plainly nuts I've never investigated the detail.

But just for the fun of the argument, how would PAP deal with the rest of the universe that presumably lies over the event horizon. Our collapse of the wavefunction should be limited to our lightcone, shouldn't it?

So this consideration would seem to force the corollary that consciousness is evolving everywhere at much the same time (which is plausible), or that much of the universe remains in superposition because we are not yet aware of its existence.

 

[WaveJumper]

For me, the idea of conscious humans being somehow special enough to collapse the universe's wavefunction was so plainly nuts I've never investigated the detail.

But just for the fun of the argument, how would PAP deal with the rest of the universe that presumably lies over the event horizon. Our collapse of the wavefunction should be limited to our lightcone, shouldn't it?

So this consideration would seem to force the corollary that consciousness is evolving everywhere at much the same time (which is plausible), or that much of the universe remains in superposition because we are not yet aware of its existence.

The apparent 'collapse' is instantaneous across the universe, which is one of the reasons for the tension between quantum theory and GR. There is no event horizons for non-local effects.
A good case can be made that matter, time and space as we see them manifested in the macro realm, exist only in the classical domain. This has led many a scientist to conclude that such effects cannot be physical and that at its deepest level reality is one(or that the universe is a hologram, projection, a manifestation of a special, emergent case that will be explained, mathematical universe, consciousness causing collapse, relational universe, etc.). This is assuming that human logic is capable of describing reality at all its levels.

BTW, the metric expansion of space is a pretty solid argument that the 'outside' dimensions of the universe are zero or very close to zero.

Most of the questions in the philosophy forum tend to concern the foundations of physics, its building blocks, the assumptions that we've taken for granted for millenia and some consider them now facts. However, let me quote Smolin from 'The trouble with physics'(introduction) - "Those scientists who work on the foundations of any given field are fully aware that the building blocks are never as solid as their colleagues tend to believe".

 

[apeiron]

The apparent 'collapse' is instantaneous across the universe, which is one of the reasons for the tension between quantum theory and GR. There is no event horizons for non-local effects.

Are you sure about that? It would be great if you had references that discuss the issue.

My understanding was that to be entangled, two particles would have to be created at a location. Then they could only separate at the speed of light max. And so even if collapse is "instant", it reaches only across that lightcone. Regions of the big bang not in light range at the start of our particular lightcone would not be part of any later collapsing within our lightcone.

The closest I can find to a discussion on this point concerns entangled particles crossing the event horizon of a black hole. The answer as to what happens seems to be contentious still.

Signaling, Entanglement, and Quantum Evolution Beyond Cauchy Horizons (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409112)

https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-43418.html

 

[WaveJumper]

Are you sure about that? It would be great if you had references that discuss the issue.

My understanding was that to be entangled, two particles would have to be created at a location. Then they could only separate at the speed of light max. And so even if collapse is "instant", it reaches only across that lightcone. Regions of the big bang not in light range at the start of our particular lightcone would not be part of any later collapsing within our lightcone.

The closest I can find to a discussion on this point concerns entangled particles crossing the event horizon of a black hole. The answer as to what happens seems to be contentious still.

Signaling, Entanglement, and Quantum Evolution Beyond Cauchy Horizons (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409112)

https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-43418.html

Yes, I am sure, but there seems to be some misunderstanding. Non-local effects are not constrained to entanglement. Any influence, signalling or effect that is instantaneous(faster than light) and in violation of relativity is non-local.

A consequence of the HUP is that a particle's position and momentum cannot be ascertained and there is always the small but not zero probability that the particle might appear on the Moon, Jupiter or on Andromeda. Anyway, the apparent 'collapse' happens instantaneously across the universe(otherwise we might have been able to see superpositions - at least in the realistic interpretations). You could say that everything is a wave and there is no 'collapse'(MWI), thus making our universe even more abstract. Measure the position many times and you'll see that it will form a wave quanta(field). This is how a statistical picture of matter is built up. Now, with that in mind, the open question is what constitutes the universe if the 'collapsed' quanta we see everywhere were spread throughout the universe with different amplitudes before the seeming 'collapse'?
But this isn't very different in relativity - no object in the universe has fixed, objective properties - mass, speed, energy, length, time... The only concepts that i would count invariant are the 3 dimensions(until i am proven wrong, of course). So if someone claims to know what the universe and reality are and why we see the universe we do, he must have come from the future via a time machine. Heisenberg has nice quote on this:

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

Change the mode and depth of the questioning and the universe that we thought we knew at the end of the 19th century, gets blurred and we reel into a haze of interpretational issues and debates.

 

[WaveJumper]

Let me sum up what i think is crucial to the debate what the underlying reality might be. There is no object in the universe that can be specified and objectified(having the specific observable values that we see and measure - mass, location, speed, length, momentum, time) without providing a reference frame and a measurement apparatus. Our perceived reality is dependent on these 2 requirements being met and the realism found in our perception is to be found only there, within the constraints of those conditions.
The Big Bang model is an example of a naive, egocentrical explanation of the universe. My expectation is that when the theory of quantum gravity comes along with a new, better understanding of space and time, the Big Bang theory will be quickly pulled off from high school textbooks.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

I like that Heisenberg quote WaveJumper. It reminds me of this Jung one:

"This grasping of the whole is obviously the aim of science as well, but it is a goal that necessarily lies very far off because science, whenever possible, proceeds experimentally and in all cases statistically. Experiment, however, consists in asking a definite question which excludes as far as possible anything disturbing and irrelevant. It makes conditions, imposes them on Nature, and in this way forces her to give an answer to a question devised by man. She is prevented from answering out of the fullness of her possibilities since these possibilities are restricted as far as practible. For this purpose there is created in the laboratory a situation which is artificially restricted to the question which compels Nature to give an unequivocal answer. The workings of Nature in her unrestricted wholeness are completely excluded. If we want to know what these workings are, we need a method of inquiry which imposes the fewest possible conditions, or if possible no conditions at all, and then leave Nature to answer out of her fullness."

 

[apeiron]

Yes, I am sure, but there seems to be some misunderstanding. Non-local effects are not constrained to entanglement. Any influence, signalling or effect that is instantaneous(faster than light) and in violation of relativity is non-local.
.

Well let's consider this. You would agree that entanglement would be a within lightcone "instant" collapse and not a supra-lightcone phenomenon? So it is not evidence that collapse could happen between us and everywhere that exists.

It is tricky because the proposition of PAP is that the whole of the universe is in superposition until we turn up to collapse it. Yet we also have some cosmic models that say much of the universe has never been in thermal contact (and so we need some mechanism like inflation to make it so flat). How do we as THE observers then collapse what is beyond our light cone?

A consequence of the HUP is that a particle's position and momentum cannot be ascertained and there is always the small but not zero probability that the particle might appear on the Moon, Jupiter or on Andromeda.
.

Ah, but is there a non-zero chance of it appearing beyond the current lightcone of our visible universe?

This would seem to be a new form of black hole radiation if particles can cross event horizons by tunnelling.

[edit] There is of course also the Feynman sum over histories view taken by some, which allows light to travel at all speeds in effect, so even supraluminal. But then it gets summed to lightspeed as other contributions cancel out. However, is this really QM collapse? or QM nonlocal? Is it more than a computational technique?

Anyway, the apparent 'collapse' happens instantaneously across the universe(otherwise we might have been able to see superpositions - at least in the realistic interpretations). .

Which is why I am interested in how realistic it is as an idea given that collapse would seem to me to me restricted to the insides of lightcones.

So for instance, the first PAP collapse happened say 150kya when the first homo sapiens became "conscious enough" LOL. Then since that time, we have collapsed a little bit more as our visible universe has grown in size.

Like MWI, these interpretations seem to be thrown out with rather little real effort to work through all the consequences of what is being claimed.

Quite possibly I am raising an easily dismissed objection. But I read a lot of things and even though, as I admit, I probably usually hold my nose and pass on when PAP crops up, I've not seen these kinds of details tackled.

 

[WaveJumper]

Well let's consider this. You would agree that entanglement would be a within lightcone "instant" collapse and not a supra-lightcone phenomenon? So it is not evidence that collapse could happen between us and everywhere that exists.

It is tricky because the proposition of PAP is that the whole of the universe is in superposition until we turn up to collapse it. Yet we also have some cosmic models that say much of the universe has never been in thermal contact (and so we need some mechanism like inflation to make it so flat). How do we as THE observers then collapse what is beyond our light cone?



Ah, but is there a non-zero chance of it appearing beyond the current lightcone of our visible universe?

This would seem to be a new form of black hole radiation if particles can cross event horizons by tunnelling.

[edit] There is of course also the Feynman sum over histories view taken by some, which allows light to travel at all speeds in effect, so even supraluminal. But then it gets summed to lightspeed as other contributions cancel out. However, is this really QM collapse? or QM nonlocal? Is it more than a computational technique?




Which is why I am interested in how realistic it is as an idea given that collapse would seem to me to me restricted to the insides of lightcones.

So for instance, the first PAP collapse happened say 150kya when the first homo sapiens became "conscious enough" LOL. Then since that time, we have collapsed a little bit more as our visible universe has grown in size.

Like MWI, these interpretations seem to be thrown out with rather little real effort to work through all the consequences of what is being claimed.

Quite possibly I am raising an easily dismissed objection. But I read a lot of things and even though, as I admit, I probably usually hold my nose and pass on when PAP crops up, I've not seen these kinds of details tackled.

These 'details' are not trivial. All this of lightcones talk concerns GR and the macro-scale(or rather the appearance/perception of it). The 'speed' of entanglement has been tested to be at least 10 000 the speed of light(limited by our ability to test beyond those speeds/times - the lowest bound of resolution was 300 trillionths of a second that produced the '10 000' number):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3349494/Einsteins-spooky-action-acts-at-10000-times-the-speed-of-light.html

I am not certain that consciousness causes collapse, nobody knows this. Nobody knows what causes 'collapse'(or what consciousness is), all the interpretations seem sloppy and it takes some religious belief before you can jump on their bandwagon. But we do know that the apparent 'collapse' is instantaneous in as much as we can test. Even if the lower bound was true(unrealistic assumption), i.e. the influence between entangled particles traveled at 10 000 times the speed of light, that would be at least 3 000 000 000 km/s^2.
My perspective is that we as observers, are an essential part of how reality is defined and manifested. All these relative concepts of space, time, lentgh, mass that have no definite, fixed values and which are manifested by 'particles' that have no definite observable values before a measurement is carried out suggest that we are living in a relational universe and what we perceive as matter and space is tied to what we are using as a measurement apparatus and the FOR it is in.

So for instance, the first PAP collapse happened say 150kya when the first homo sapiens became "conscious enough" LOL. Then since that time, we have collapsed a little bit more as our visible universe has grown in size.

Time as a concept is problematic, it is often required to assume that time runs backward and forward to explain certain quantum phenomena. In GR, the perceived flow of time is even more problematic. I see you insist on sticking up for Realism, but i see no way out, without changing most of physics as we know it.

 

[apeiron]

These 'details' are not trivial. All this of lightcones talk concerns GR and the macro-scale(or rather the appearance/perception of it). The 'speed' of entanglement has been tested to be at least 10 000 the speed of light(limited by our ability to test beyond those speeds/times - the lowest bound of resolution was 300 trillionths of a second that produced the '10 000' number).

I accept nonlocality to be "instant". And even retrocausal in Cramer sense. But my point was that entanglement and tunnelling cannot (in my understanding) be said to transverse infinite spacetime, only the spacetime within lightcones.

So the collapse can be instantaneous, yet not infinite. And GR defines the scale of "an instant".

If GR did not apply as the upper boundary to QM nonlocality, then we would surely observe supraluminal entanglement, supraluminal tunnelling.

Two tachyons, for example, might be created as an entangled pair. Or might be subject to HUP uncertainty (to the point that they were slower than light and we could observe them perhaps!). Particles could radiate from the inside of black holes (and not just be liberated as stray virtual particles, the Hawking radiation, at the event horizon).

So what you are asserting seems to go counter to many things I thought were accepted.

I don't believe in PAP, and this issue of the extent of any collapse would seem a real problem for PAP enthusiasts.

I do believe in decoherence as a collapse mechanism. And in my view, event horizons are the "observation" that are the decohering environmental context. So if nonlocality is demonstrable beyond lightcones, then I would have to reconsider that.

 

[WaveJumper]

I accept nonlocality to be "instant". And even retrocausal in Cramer sense. But my point was that entanglement and tunnelling cannot (in my understanding) be said to transverse infinite spacetime, only the spacetime within lightcones.

So the collapse can be instantaneous, yet not infinite. And GR defines the scale of "an instant".

I don't think i understand your point. If the Time it takes the influence to reach Andromeda is zero(instantaneous influencing), then the Speed is infinite.

If GR did not apply as the upper boundary to QM nonlocality, then we would surely observe supraluminal entanglement, supraluminal tunnelling.

Entanglement and nonlocality is always superluminal, tests confirm that. You could claim that GR is not violated because no information can be sent over such a 'link' because entangled particles, according to QM, remain in an indeterminite state until measured. But even 10 000 times the speed of light is 'very' superluminal. You seem to adopt Einstein's stance as in the EPR towards "spooky action at a distance", but he was proven wrong more than 40 years ago. Non-locality cannot be explained by any local theory(this is the same as saying "GR light cones are not observed").

Two tachyons, for example, might be created as an entangled pair. Or might be subject to HUP uncertainty (to the point that they were slower than light and we could observe them perhaps!). Particles could radiate from the inside of black holes (and not just be liberated as stray virtual particles, the Hawking radiation, at the event horizon).

I did not claim particles moved at speeds beyond the speed of light, and were able to escape black holes' gravity pull. I merely stated that the causal influence between entangled particles, was traversing instantaneously which renders the speed of propagation infinite.

I don't believe in PAP, and this issue of the extent of any collapse would seem a real problem for PAP enthusiasts.

How would you build a context-independent reality in GR? Where are the objects that have fixed, immutable properties in this universe? Is there even one example? Or in QM?

I do believe in decoherence as a collapse mechanism. And in my view, event horizons are the "observation" that are the decohering environmental context. So if nonlocality is demonstrable beyond lightcones, then I would have to reconsider that.

Non-locality is not about particles prapagating through space, but their causal influence at certain polarization settings. It has been first demonstrated by Alan Aspect in 1982 and several times afterwards.
If you want to stick to realism and decoherence(and not the naive realism of your senses, but to a mind-independent reality), your only option is MWI(and you need to explain what kind of realism can be found in MWI). Instantaneous loss of coherence among states across the universe is not a phenomenon that supports realism.

 

[apeiron]

I don't think i understand your point. If the Time it takes the influence to reach Andromeda is zero(instantaneous influencing), then the Speed is infinite.

OK I can see that you are not getting what I was meaning. But I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly.

Nonlocality is instant. It takes no time. The speed of the collapse is infinite - way super luminal. All the distance is covered instantly.

But... nonlocality (and so the collapse of a wavefunction) is only known to happen across the spacetime of a lightcone. It may take no time to cross all that space, in effect. But it cannot act from outside that lightcone.

Start again, Take two entangled particles. Even if they move apart as fast as possible, by definition they cannot move apart faster than light and so remain forever in each other's light cone. Correct me if I am wrong here of course.

So even if the state of one particle is observed, collapsing the state of the other, it is an instant in time result...but only across a finite space, not infinite space.

Now take two tachyons. Here we can imagine having two particles that are created entangled and then move so fast that they are not within the same shared lightcone. Any collapse would be both instant and across a much greater space than defined by a lightcone.

Now nonlocality may indeed be unrestricted in this fashion. It does not respect the limitations of lightcones and event horizons. But I have not seen this said. If you have references that would be great. However I don't think you were responding to the actual point I had in mind.

Again, an instant connection across a finite space is not the same as an instant connection across infinite space. One is a (lightcone) subset of the other.

 

[WaveJumper]

OK I can see that you are not getting what I was meaning. But I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly.

Nonlocality is instant. It takes no time. The speed of the collapse is infinite - way super luminal. All the distance is covered instantly.

But... nonlocality (and so the collapse of a wavefunction) is only known to happen across the spacetime of a lightcone. It may take no time to cross all that space, in effect. But it cannot act from outside that lightcone.

Yes, because there is no way we and our measuring equipment can ever get out of our light cone. But i see no reason to believe a light cone can be a limit to the instantaneous influence between entangled particles.

Start again, Take two entangled particles. Even if they move apart as fast as possible, by definition they cannot move apart faster than light and so remain forever in each other's light cone. Correct me if I am wrong here of course.

So even if the state of one particle is observed, collapsing the state of the other, it is an instant in time result...but only across a finite space, not infinite space.

OK. We are talking of the visible universe.

Now take two tachyons. Here we can imagine having two particles that are created entangled and then move so fast that they are not within the same shared lightcone. Any collapse would be both instant and across a much greater space than defined by a lightcone.

Now nonlocality may indeed be unrestricted in this fashion. It does not respect the limitations of lightcones and event horizons. But I have not seen this said. If you have references that would be great. However I don't think you were responding to the actual point I had in mind.

Again, an instant connection across a finite space is not the same as an instant connection across infinite space. One is a (lightcone) subset of the other.

I see no reason to believe nonlocality would not hold beyond our future/past light cone.

 

[Fra]

I have an evolutionary, subjective view of this so I might throw in an opinon here.

This theory is based on accepting an observer-centric interpretation of qm. Many won't agree with that but its important in order to make sense of my argument. So let's pretend that the existence of an information processing observer is absolutely vital for physical reality to occur as we experience it in this universe.

Observer-centric is sound with me as long as we don't think observer = human. I have no problems to say picture an atom as an information processing observer.

So if observers are vital for the universe to exist, then the only way the universe becomes sustainable from the perspective of an unfolding reality, is if those observers/biology go on to reproduce new observers which "hold open" the physical reality.
...
I know there are problems with this idea because one can argue that the universe appears to have existed a few billion years before any biology evolved,
...
Any comments or arguments most welcome.

But this objection is only an issue if you think observer=human or biology.

If we by observers means any physical system (ie. one atom can "observe" another atom), then I see no reason to give biological evolution special treatment. It should be one the same footing as the evolution of the speices of particle physics.

I think you say that "evolution" started long before the biological evolution then I fully agree. This is also the idea behind ideas where physical law evolves.

What was the first "particle species" occur in this past we call big bang. What was the first interactions that distinguished themselves from a total chaos? Why are the laws of physics like they are? What physical laws could have been distiniguishable to thoese first particle species? perhaps the options was quite constrained - *this is a handle for possible constructive implications of this idea*

The ideas is that in the observer-centric view - even the laws of physics are observer dependent, and the evolution of observes thus goes hand in hand with the evolution of law.

Unfortunately there are as far as I know no worked out mature predictive theories in line with this. Smoling has his Cosmological natural selection which tries to make a prediction about the mass of neutron stars. But I think of that as an inital idea only while the real thing is yet unraveled.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

A clarification, since I have a feeling that the common confusion to think of observers and humans also cause confusion as to what subjective law means (in any sensible way that is)

The ideas is that in the observer-centric view - even the laws of physics are observer dependent, and the evolution of observes thus goes hand in hand with the evolution of law.

Observer dependent obviously doesn't mean that scientist 1 and scientist 2 can make consistent and disagreeing assessement of physical law.

The way this makes sense is instead to ponder what physical laws are DISTINGUISHABLE from the poitn of view of say one of the primordal observers? Ie. an electron and a quark might "SEE" different laws of physics, and this might be a key to unification and their mutual interactions or non-interactions.

For example, one could picture that to the primordal observers above a some imagine unification energy, the forces are simply indistinguishable.

This is yet different from the external view of say a human run laboratory.

So this subjective view of evolvtion law by no means threatens the objectivity of HUMAN science.

/Fredrik

 

[Coldcall]

Hi Fra,

Yes i am afraid i don't accept that one particle can "observe" another since it has no relatively complex information processing capabilities. So yes when i talk about observers i mean biological systems which have a) sensors to interpret the physical environment b) information processing ability.

Hence this is why i reject the notion of "decoherence" as anything other than a FAPP construct.

Of course i am biased because my view is that qm is actually a science of "consciousness" or let's say a framework for creating a physical reality, which is not possible without the information processing capabilities found in biological systems.

 

[Fra]

Hello Coldcall,

Yes i am afraid i don't accept that one particle can "observe" another since it has no relatively complex information processing capabilities. So yes when i talk about observers i mean biological systems which have a) sensors to interpret the physical environment b) information processing ability.

I think your requirement is fulfilled also by physical non-living systems.

The "sensors" of a physical systems in general are that it can respond to gravity, electromagnetic fields, strong and weak fields.

The information processing can be thought of as the internal equilibration processes. If you excite a system, internal reconfigurations can take place. All this can be be thought of as information processing and representations of memory.

It's just that of course biological life, and in particular the human brain is exceedingly more complex.

On brain level we have decisions and actions due to brain processing the sensory inputs, the actions often mean controlling muscles etc.

On particle leve we have the physical actions describing the responses of a small system to perturbation, this response can be thouhgt of as information processing. A given input, can via a rational action conjectures lead to a preferred output.

The notion of quantum superposition might (here I'm throwing in a yet unproved but conjectured feature of my own thinking) be possiblt to explain as a form of preferred representationa of a parially lossy compression of an uncertain input. Then the observers actions are evaluated so as to account for several possibilities at once.

After all, even an atom is an incredibly complex thing, if you think about it's component an not to mention it's significant mass. So physical systems are IMO certainly "complex enough" to qualify for the traits you mention.

But I certainly respect your position, I just don't see where in the complexity chain you draw the limit. I think in your view, you need to explain at what complexity level your version of information processing occurs.

No quantum physics experiment actually incorporates the human brain. It's not the observation of the scientists that is in question, it's the measurement device observing something. So no brains involved ?

/Fredrik

 

[Coldcall]

Fra,

"The "sensors" of a physical systems in general are that it can respond to gravity, electromagnetic fields, strong and weak fields."

Thats not the same as biologically evolved sensors. The fact that a particle is affected by gravity or radiation does not equate with it sensing those things.

"No quantum physics experiment actually incorporates the human brain. It's not the observation of the scientists that is in question, it's the measurement device observing something. So no brains involved?"

Of course they do. Each and every quantum experiment is based on human knowledge and our observations either directly or through a proxy such as a geiger counter or whatever.

If you can show me a way to measure a quantum state of any kind without some sort of interaction by a human directly or indirectly that would be much appreciated.

 

[Fra]

"The "sensors" of a physical systems in general are that it can respond to gravity, electromagnetic fields, strong and weak fields."

Thats not the same as biologically evolved sensors. The fact that a particle is affected by gravity or radiation does not equate with it sensing those things.

To me it is. The difference is complexity. this is what I tried to convey in my first post, the ability to sense the interaction forces might be a result of evolution of physical law and it's representation in evolution of matter system.

When I ask a question, why does the laws of nature look like the do? I do have in mind an "explanation" in terms of evolved inference systems. And in my personal abstraction the "sensors" of an inference systems can be thought of as the boundary of the system, which is the first line of interaction, which is then further processes internally.

I can not answer this myself, but a typical question would be, why are there 4 fundamental forces? And the answer should hopefully follow as we scale the complexity of the "observer" up from a primordal observer, to where gravity is distinguished and then the strong and weak and electromagnetic interactions.

Why does a primordal quantum observer evolve the ability to distinguish gravity from the rst of the interactions? Probably in order to survive (to stay stable).

Further, why does this observer evolve the sensory capabilitis to distinguish the strong force from the electroweak? Well, probably because it's what the competition requires. (adapt or die).

My view of this unifcation scale is an evolutionary one. As more complex observers emerge, the diversity of sensory capatibiles increases - just like in biology.

Of course they do. Each and every quantum experiment is based on human knowledge and our observations either directly or through a proxy such as a geiger counter or whatever.

Hmm ok, if you mean in the sense that all measurement devices is operated an interpreted by humans, and that "science" as we know it, is indeed a human endeavour then you have a point.

But I was trying to keep the discussion at anothre level. In a sense everything I do or speak of, including anything I want is going on in my brain, yes.

I do not question any of that.

I just mean that quantum weirdness can't be entirely dismissed to human mind, since the interference patterns occurring in nature, are consistent with naturs parst acting upon each other AS IF they were observing each other.

/Fredrik

 

[Coldcall]

Hi Fra,

"To me it is. The difference is complexity. this is what I tried to convey in my first post, the ability to sense the interaction forces might be a result of evolution of physical law and it's representation in evolution of matter system."

Yes but that difference in complexity between a particle and a biological system is of an exponential nature. And yes the extra ability to sense the forces intelligently has emerged as the universe matures. Hence that capability and one i equate with the ability to process reality re qm, was not present until the universe had enough time to gain the complexity we are discussing.

"...My view of this unifcation scale is an evolutionary one. As more complex observers emerge, the diversity of sensory capatibiles increases - just like in biology"

I agree with the above. I think where we differ in opinion is that i believe the capacity to process reality is directly linked to our biological capacity to process complex information. So in my view, particles on not independently capable of causing reality to occur (or causing wave function to collapse).

IMO, The only way a particle can act as a trigger for the processing of reality (through wave function collapse) is if that particle has been manipulated by a biological system. So that particle acting as an extension of biological consciousness may be able to collapse a wave function...but only because a biological system is entangled with it in the first place.

"I just mean that quantum weirdness can't be entirely dismissed to human mind, since the interference patterns occurring in nature, are consistent with naturs parst acting upon each other AS IF they were observing each other."

But i think that is exactly why it is so weird - qm being the framework of laws governing how our reality unfolds into what we call "objective" physicality.

 

[apeiron]

IMO, The only way a particle can act as a trigger for the processing of reality (through wave function collapse) is if that particle has been manipulated by a biological system. So that particle acting as an extension of biological consciousness may be able to collapse a wave function...but only because a biological system is entangled with it in the first place.

So in this view, what is the status of parts of the world or universe which are not being observed in a biologically complex fashion?

Say there is a strata of uranium deep in the ground. No complex senses are detecting it. Would it be decaying or remain in a state of superposition until some mining company comes along to dig it up, assay if for its value?

Or what about the cosmic ray that struck some cell in my body many years ago and set in train cancerous changes. Did the cell have the complexity to collapse the wave function or does it all have to wait until I become aware of the fact of the cancer?

 

[tj8888]

Anyway, the apparent 'collapse' happens instantaneously across the universe(otherwise we might have been able to see superpositions - at least in the realistic interpretations).

I guess I thought PAP would have a more gradual collapse of the wave function of various systems across the universe, thereby doing a more gradual fine tuning. Just for the sake of this discussion let's just make the huge assumption that wave function collapse is somehow linked to animal nervous systems and perception in some way. Could there then be an extending sphere of influence as wave functions are collapsed by a greater and greater number of observations? Also, as perceptual systems made "measurements" with greater accuracy these collapses might restrict values to a greater and greater degree.

 

[NWO]

Originally Posted by Coldcall
Yes i am afraid i don't accept that one particle can "observe" another since it has no relatively complex information processing capabilities. So yes when i talk about observers i mean biological systems which have a) sensors to interpret the physical environment b) information processing ability.

 

[NWO]

Guys I`m not a physicist(gcse level) but have a question... If by the power of observation you bring the atom out of super position into a solid stae we percieve as reality, what was doing it before we the conscious observers were here to observe and create reality. I have the esoteric answer which is... the universe and everything in it is consciousness. The big bang happened because of the creators intention to expierience it`s self. so it manifested it`s self outwards as consciousness into everything that exists, so not only are we part of God( I`m not religious in anway) but we also have all the power to create as God does and his greatest gift that he gave to us is free will... but from your physics eyes what happened before we were around?

 

[Fra]

If by the power of observation you bring the atom out of super position into a solid stae we percieve as reality, what was doing it before we the conscious observers were here to observe and create reality.

If you want to know what "normal science" says, "observer" in quantum mechanics really does NOT refer to a "human observer". This is a misconception. It traditionally refers to one system (a measurement device) interacting with another system.

"Observation" is an abstraction that refers to two subsystems systems interacting and observing each other.

This is the same in Einsteins relativity, observer really does not refer to "human", it can refers to any material systems "communicating" with another one.

So before you and me were around there where other humans, before they were areound there were monkeys. Before that there was other animals, all the way down to life with lowe and lower complexity. Before cellular life was around, there was also complex chemistry. Take this all the way down to the idea of the big bang.

But of course, as you picture this "scale" we also expect to scale the interactions back to a point of unification. So the simple observers would possible also see just "simple laws". All this w/o humans.

/Fredrik

 

[WaveJumper]

If you want to know what "normal science" says, "observer" in quantum mechanics really does NOT refer to a "human observer". This is a misconception. It traditionally refers to one system (a measurement device) interacting with another system.

"Observation" is an abstraction that refers to two subsystems systems interacting and observing each other.

This is the same in Einsteins relativity, observer really does not refer to "human", it can refers to any material systems "communicating" with another one.

So before you and me were around there where other humans, before they were areound there were monkeys. Before that there was other animals, all the way down to life with lowe and lower complexity. Before cellular life was around, there was also complex chemistry. Take this all the way down to the idea of the big bang.

But of course, as you picture this "scale" we also expect to scale the interactions back to a point of unification. So the simple observers would possible also see just "simple laws". All this w/o humans.

/Fredrik

The problem with this is that you forgot to include the human as an essential part of the system "observer - observed". It's the human that does the measurement. If it's a machine by itself(human is absent),the system is in a superposition of states until knowledge of the system's state(measurement) forces it into a definite state.

 

[Fra]

The problem with this is that you forgot to include the human as an essential part of the system "observer - observed". It's the human that does the measurement.

Yes, humans build measurement devices, interpret data as part of human science and so one. There is no question about that.

But I wanted to point out to NWO that whenever one in relativity or QM talk about "observers", it really does not refer to humans. Quantum mechanics is not a theory of the human brain, nor is relativity a theory of how the human brain is affected my motion or gravity.

I'm the first to admit that there are interesting analogies with actions of the brain, and actions of physical systems when it comes to weighting possibilities, but it's still two different domains of complexity. The conventional quantum mechanics is not a theory of the human brain.

I think we should try to see the relevant differences here and not confuse the unavoidable human role in EVERYTHING we do or talk about, since we are humans, and the scientific consensus that we are still able to produce about how nature works, that alll humans agree upon. One could also say that nature agrees upon it, since nature is largely consistent with our understanding.

I think trying to explain the interference patterns of double slit experients, the stability of atoms, the photoelectric effect, or the clock dilations or SR or GR by introducing the human mind more than what is already obvious anyway since we are humans is IMO out of reasonable focus.

/Fredrik

 

[apeiron]

The problem with this is that you forgot to include the human as an essential part of the system "observer - observed". It's the human that does the measurement. If it's a machine by itself(human is absent),the system is in a superposition of states until knowledge of the system's state(measurement) forces it into a definite state.

Like I asked, Coldcall, what does this view then commit you to in some concrete cases?

Say there is a strata of uranium deep in the ground. No complex senses are detecting it. Would it be decaying or remain in a state of superposition until some mining company comes along to dig it up, assay if for its value?

Or what about the cosmic ray that struck some cell in my body many years ago and set in train cancerous changes. Did the cell have the complexity to collapse the wave function or does it all have to wait until I become aware of the fact of the cancer?

And besides, where was it ever proved that collapse does not happen in the absence of human observation? In the history of QM, the collapse was only placed in the human mind as a last resort - through a failure to place the collapse out in the environment.

 

[WaveJumper]

I think we should try to see the relevant differences here and not confuse the unavoidable human role in EVERYTHING we do or talk about, since we are humans, and the scientific consensus that we are still able to produce about how nature works, that alll humans agree upon. One could also say that nature agrees upon it, since nature is largely consistent with our understanding.

I think trying to explain the interference patterns of double slit experients, the stability of atoms, the photoelectric effect, or the clock dilations or SR or GR by introducing the human mind more than what is already obvious anyway since we are humans is IMO out of reasonable focus.

/Fredrik

I see no way to restore the old idea of atoms being billiard balls and the human mind being the result of a physical brain. I see no way to interpret the ontology of QFT as anything more than humans, objects, planets, etc. being instant excitations of fields comprising what we term "the universe". Atoms and molecules passing through a double slit as waves/fields when unobserved don't lend credibility to a realist picture of structured, localised objects in space.
Physical, invariant objects with definite properties in space is a misconception, found in our perception at the macro scale and adopting realism as a starting point for interpreting reality and nature is bound to failure IMO. Such a local realistic picture is inconsistent with experiments and needs adjustment.

 

[WaveJumper]

Like I asked, Coldcall, what does this view then commit you to in some concrete cases?

Say there is a strata of uranium deep in the ground. No complex senses are detecting it. Would it be decaying or remain in a state of superposition until some mining company comes along to dig it up, assay if for its value?

Multi-particle systems are best treated as fields. This is what gives QFT the edge over QM. Until obervers are present, i'd say, those fields don't have the definite properties that we seem to perceive as matter in space. There are no objects, there are events. QFT confirms this and QFT is the best tested of all physical theories.

Or what about the cosmic ray that struck some cell in my body many years ago and set in train cancerous changes. Did the cell have the complexity to collapse the wave function or does it all have to wait until I become aware of the fact of the cancer?

Time is still very puzzling but Time 'flowing' and in only one direction is to be found in your head. It is an illusion. I'd say that all events exist out there(as pictured in GR) and the apparent distinction of past, present and future is an illusion created by awareness causing collapse of the 'proper' wavefunctions to create the macroscale we inhabit.

And besides, where was it ever proved that collapse does not happen in the absence of human observation? In the history of QM, the collapse was only placed in the human mind as a last resort - through a failure to place the collapse out in the environment.

That was my point in my previous reply to Fra - we can't divorce the conscious human from the system "measurement apparatus - measured event". In the end, it is always the human awareness that objectifies the results of measurements, now, tomorrow or in 1 billion years.

 

[apeiron]

Multi-particle systems are best treated as fields. This is what gives QFT the edge over QM. Until obervers are present, i'd say, those fields don't have the definite properties that we seem to perceive as matter in space. There are no objects, there are events. QFT confirms this and QFT is the best tested of all physical theories.
.

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?

Time is still very puzzling but Time 'flowing' and in only one direction is to be found in your head. It is an illusion. I'd say that all events exist out there(as pictured in GR) and the apparent distinction of past, present and future is an illusion created by awareness causing collapse of the 'proper' wavefunctions to create the macroscale we inhabit.
.

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.

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.

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?

That was my point in my previous reply to Fra - we can't divorce the conscious human from the system "measurement apparatus - measured event". In the end, it is always the human awareness that objectifies the results of measurements, now, tomorrow or in 1 billion years.

First, we can divorce ourselves from the modelling of reality in any regard. Second, the basics of good modelling is to divorce ourselves as much as possible.

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?

 

[WaveJumper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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