Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Does MWI imply dualism?

  1. Mar 3, 2016 #1
    Hi guys,

    I was listing some older threads regarding mwi and I found an interesting number of posts by a member named vanesch. So let me first say that I don't want to start a philosophical discussion because this is clearly a physics forum, but he analyzed the 'mind body problem' in a mathematical way. Here is the thread:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mwi-alice-bob-and-alfred.114207/

    My question is, does mwi, or quantum physics itself imply mind body dualism, or a distinction between our subjective experiences and the physical body?

    Thank you.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 3, 2016 #2

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Quantum physics and MWI do not imply it, but some interpretations of quantum physics or sub-interpretations of MWI do suggest it.
     
  4. Mar 3, 2016 #3

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No.

    QM is a theory about observation that occur in a common-sense objective classical world independent of us.

    Some, nowadays fringe, interpretations have conciousness involved.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  5. Mar 3, 2016 #4
    Thanks for the responses Demystifier and Bill. This guy in his posts supposedly (and mathematically, using the Born rule) somehow derived that in mwi our subjective experience is neccessarily dualistic, he of course doesn't go so far to say that consciousness causes collapse or some other bs like that, but I'm also highly sceptical about this what he wrote, so maybe if you have the time and the will you can check the thread and elaborate what has been done in his example.

    Regards
     
  6. Mar 3, 2016 #5

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Its simply a philosophical view he takes - dont worry about it unless you are into philosophy. And if you are by forum rules this is not the place to discuss it.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  7. Mar 4, 2016 #6

    I know this is not the place to talk about it, that's why it sounded weird that something about the minds can be derived from QM. I just wanted to ensure that default Qm and mwi don't say nothing about the mind body problem but instead focus on what you said, the objective reality.
     
  8. Mar 4, 2016 #7

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Actually, default QM is somewhere in between. It talks about results of measurements, which, on the scale of subjectivity, is somewhere between "mind body problem" and "objective reality". Both "mind body problem" and "objective reality" are often considered too philosophical for default QM.

    It is precisely the fact that default QM is somewhere in the middle that makes many people unsatisfied with it. They just want QM to choose one side or the other: Is it about the subjective or about the objective? As a consequence, we have many non-default views of QM which are more specific about that. But to keep balance, the default QM remains in the middle and neutral.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2016
  9. Mar 4, 2016 #8

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It cant - and obviously so. Any argument to the contrary is philosophical mumbo jumbo.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  10. Mar 4, 2016 #9

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  11. Mar 4, 2016 #10

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    So you say that a silicon pixel detector and/or the electronic data aquisition system connected to it has a mind and that there is even a "mind-body problem" for such an apparatus? Well, it's hard to prove or disprove whether a computer has a mind or consciousness or not. It's even complicated for living organisms. Has an amoeba a mind, or some sponge, your pet, a monkey, an ape or only humans? The good "news" is: That's completely irrelevant for physics and doing measurements.

    QM is a description of (certain aspects) of nature as any scientific theory or model. It describes objective reproducible observations correctly, as far as we know today. That's it. I think this thread is way beyond the tolerable limits of a scientific (!!!) discussion.
     
  12. Mar 4, 2016 #11

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So physicists don't need minds?
     
  13. Mar 4, 2016 #12

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That, of course, is not what I am saying. But I am saying the following:
    - If it is not obvious whether a single electron has a position before measurement, then it may not be obvious whether a single electron has any property at all before measurement.
    - But then it may also not be obvious whether the atom has any property at all before measurement.
    - But then it may also not be obvious whether any object made of atoms has proprties before measurement.
    - But then it may also not be obvious whether silicon pixel detector has properties before measurement of the detector.
    - But then it may also not be obvious whether silicon pixel detector exists without observation by a conscious being.

    And finally, for anyone who chooses that some (but not all) of those are obvious, it may not be obvious to specify where exactly the cut between obvious and not obvious is.

    Clearly, black is not white. But with a 50 shades of gray, where exactly the cut between black and white is?
     
  14. Mar 4, 2016 #13

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Of course, it's nonsense to claim that an electron doesn't have any property if it's not measured. If you know that there is somewhere and electron that's the property that it is an electron. I don't understand the point of the entire discussion to be honest. I think, it's high time to close the thread.
     
  15. Mar 4, 2016 #14

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What property does it have when it is not measured?
     
  16. Mar 4, 2016 #15

    naima

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Atyy, you are too pessimistic.
    We know that the double of its spin is an integer.
     
  17. Mar 4, 2016 #16
    Not from what I understand, 4 half spins = 2 times the square root of 2 for maximally entangled inequality...
     
  18. Mar 4, 2016 #17
    No, that is not right either, but isn't is greater than or less than 2?
     
  19. Mar 4, 2016 #18

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I guess I should have asked: does it have any dynamical properties?
     
  20. Mar 4, 2016 #19

    naima

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It seems that the "no property" will win, but what do you think of these sentences:
    Particles can be prepared in the same state.
    Information is physical (it from bit)
    It cannot travel ftl.
    A qbit cannot be cloned nor erased.
    It flows in the environment.
    there is no interference if you have which path information?
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  21. Mar 5, 2016 #20

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    :cry::biggrin:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted