Does a tree exist if no one is there to observe it?

[kote]

That would be a good idea. Sound waves travel through other media besides air. Your deaf brother could well sense the sound of the tree falling even if he doesn't perceive sound the same way a hearing person would.

The same idea behind a human observing infrared light with an infrared sensor and artificially translating different infrared frequencies to visual light frequencies.

Is it the method in which the info is interpreted that's important or is it the information that's important?

The color of the apple in a dark room affects the actual information, not just a difference in how the info is received and processed. (In the case of colorblindness, a sensor that would translate the affected frequencies to a different frequency could be used similar to the infrared frequencies - the info is still there.)

If the process of hearing is more important than the information received by hearing, then, "No", there is no sound if there's no human to receive it, there's no sound if the human didn't bring his dog with him (since the dog will hear some frequencies from the fall that the human is incapable of hearing), etc.

If the information transmitted by the sound is more important, then, "Yes", there is sound as long as the sound energy exists and there is something, anything, living or inanimate, to receive and be affected by the information.

Except I've already made a distinction between sound (the sensation) and compression waves . That's why it's usually easier to concentrate on color. A deaf person can sense compression waves and tell you that you probably would have heard something had you been there, but that's not the same as hearing. It's similar to a colorblind person telling you a stop sign is red.

It's amazing how one's interpretation of QM is intimately entangled with one's philosophy of mind. Physics, of course, is only concerned with "information" conveyed by experiments, but this avoids Chalmers' hard problem of qualia. It ignores the subjective. There is a difference between pretending to perceive something and actually experiencing it.

I believe that there is something that it is like to be me. I'm not just an empty machine reporting on colors and sounds. I have a real subjective existence in which the color red exists independently of (though usually caused by) EM waves. I have more information when I perceive a red stop sign than the colorblind man who is told the sign is red. This leads me, as discussed, to saying that the tree doesn't make a sound.

To accept that the tree does make a sound, which you can do, you must also accept that a colorblind person who is told all of the details about the color of a sign has just as much information as someone who actually sees it, which you might also do. I claim that he will always lack knowledge of what it is like to perceive a red sign.

 

[kote]

Our last two posts said very similar things I think. To sum up, I'll say that communication is necessarily lossy when it comes to subjective experience. The best we can do when communicating experience is to use analogy. The best Merriam-Webster can do for "red" is "being in the color range between a moderate orange and russet or bay." When pressed for a definition that doesn't reference other colors you would have to say something like, "red is the color of a stop sign."

There is no possible communicable definition of red that is not circular. Red can only be known by direct experience and talked about by analogy. Unless, of course, you are satisfied that the dictionary definition of red is complete and blind people can know red as well as I can.

 

[Coldcall]

I'd like to add an alternative to the interpretations posted so far re: "does the tree make a sound".

We seem to forget that everything on Earth is entangled through interactions and shared experiences. Just because the human is not around to witness the sound of the tree falling does not mean it did not make a sound. However that sound if not heard by a human, certainly does not make the sort of sound a human would expect from a falling tree. The local observers, being insects, birds or whatever other biology in proximity to the falling tree would experience their own version of what "sound" occured. It migh not have anything to do with sound, but it would notice something has changed.

So that tree cannot make a "sound" as we know it, without a human with ears to witness the event. This is a basic fact.

If one takes an observer-centric view of qm (as i certainly do) then the question is defining what constitutes an observer able to collapse a wavefunction. In my view all biology qualify as observers simply because they have a) sensors b) information processing abilities.

So the tree might make a noise but not one would we identify as a tree falling. Does an ant have human-like ears? No, of course not. So the sound or vibrations it would experience are not the same as ours.

Hence the tree did not make a noise as we understand it, because without human ears nearby to witness the event, the tree falling noise has not entered our consciousness, other than after the fact when we get to the forest and see a fallen tree. We may be able to imagine what it sounded like falling, but no human witnessed the event.

The event happened according to all the biology which was present at the time but we have no right to say it made a "noise" as we know it.

 

[JRDunassigned]

Could one not simply put a sound and visual recording device in the forest?

Nobody is around to see it, yet when they recover the data, it will be there.

 

[Evo]

Could one not simply put a sound and visual recording device in the forest?

Nobody is around to see it, yet when they recover the data, it will be there.

That would be the simple solution to prove that it does make a sound, that can be captured, absent of all life, and then replayed. When this question first came up, no such equipment existed.

But my youngest daughter, that likes philosophy, keeps telling me that's not the point of the "exercise" it's supposed to make you think differently, or something. I stop listening to her when she goes into "philosphic mode". People have been arguing this forever and to no point.

 

[Q_Goest]

Hi Evo,

That would be the simple solution to prove that it does make a sound, that can be captured, absent of all life, and then replayed. When this question first came up, no such equipment existed.

But my youngest daughter, that likes philosophy, keeps telling me that's not the point of the "exercise" it's supposed to make you think differently, or something. I stop listening to her when she goes into "philosphic mode". People have been arguing this forever and to no point.

I'm afraid your daughter is correct... <sorry> There really is a point to this exercise, and the word "exercise" is a pretty good way of describing it. The point is to consider a phenomenon which occurs inside your head. That phenomenon is the phenomenon of qualia, also called "subjective experience". As we've already seen in this thread, explaining what this phenomenon is all about is very difficult to get across, even to scientific advisors. <sorry BobG, don't mean to pick on you> Qualia is a phenomenon which occurs inside a human brain. It isn't something that occurs outside of a brain as near as we can tell. So the point about there not being any sound if no one is around regards this strange phenomenon called qualia.

To explain what this phenomenon is, I think I have to agree with kote here:

Except I've already made a distinction between sound (the sensation) and compression waves . That's why it's usually easier to concentrate on color.

The exercise as applied to sound waves is a bit more difficult to gasp for all the reasons kote provided. Consider color instead. Does a red stop sign have any physical property that is red? Certainly the stop sign has measurable, physical properties and amoung these properties are the various wavelengths of light that are reflected off the sign and enter your eye. The spectrum of light that your eye absorbs contains photons across a broad range of wavelengths. We can measure the wavelengths and frequency of the light. We can measure the intensity or amplitude. But does that spectrum of light that your eye absorbs also contain the measurable properties of red? The very simple answer (or is it a complicated answer?) is no.

I'm sure you know all this except perhaps for the punchline, but for the sake of clarity, I want to go through how the phenomenon we call qualia come about in the brain. If you look at what your body does with this wavelength of light, it first has some cones in the back of your eye that have chemicals inside that react with specific wavelengths of light. Those cones are actually a type of neuron, and they can transmit a type of chemical/electrical signal (ions) to their neighboring neurons. Those neurons receive numerous signals such as these from various other cones and perhaps other neurons as well. These neurons pass that signal along depending on now the neurons are wired together and how many signals they recieve. So really, there is no light being passed along, it is just neurons passing those signals along through your brain. The signals go from your eye back into various parts of your brain and bounce around and your brain creates a phenomenon from all these signals that we understand as color. Color is a "subjective experience" because it is the experience we have when light of a given wavelength interacts with the cones in our eyes. If we had a different number of cones, such as bees or birds have (they have 4 different cones instead of the 3 humans have) then we would presumably experience different colors, because birds and bees can distinguish the difference between various spectrums of light that we humans can't. Is this to say that humans can't experience the 'actual' color? nope... because there is no 'actual' color. Color is a phenomenon that is created by the brain, it isn't a property of the light itself. In other words, these things we experience are called qualia, and they are representative of the real world, but they are not the real world itself. They only represent the world for us humans, and if we were Martians or birds, with different genes and different senses, we would experience the world in a very different way. We might consider for example, what our subjective experiences would be like if we were some other animal or intellegent species. Those subjective experiences (qualia) would likely be very different, but just as useful in representing the world for us.

Similarly, the noise we hear isn't a property of the compressed air waves. The noise we experience is a subjective experience that exists only inside our heads. It isn't a property of the air at all. Sure we can record it and play it back and it sounds the same, but that's not because the properties of the phenomenon we experience inside our head (called qualia) is being recorded. What is recorded is a symbolic representation (digital or analog) of the sound waves that can be converted back into sound waves using a speaker which vibrates the air in exactly the same way that the air vibrated a microphone. The point is that if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around to experience it, then yes it creates the same vibrations in the air that it would had someone been standing there. But the whoosh and the crash that our brains create would not exist and would not be created by the falling tree.

 

[Evo]

Hi Evo,

I'm afraid your daughter is correct... <sorry> There really is a point to this exercise, and the word "exercise" is a pretty good way of describing it.

True. She is quite advanced in philosophy, although she was devasted when she entered college. She had such a great philosophy teacher in high school, that she was ecstatic about taking philosophy in University. Her professor in philosophy at her university was so bad, that she actually withdrew. She was devasted. She thought that she would get deeper into it, and instead it was a huge step back.

 

[JRDunassigned]

True. She is quite advanced in philosophy, although she was devasted when she entered college. She had such a great philosophy teacher in high school, that she was ecstatic about taking philosophy in University. Her professor in philosophy at her university was so bad, that she actually withdrew. She was devasted. She thought that she would get deeper into it, and instead it was a huge step back.

This is the strange state of American University, and a common phenomena across various fields of study. Education needs an overhaul.

But back to the point, I think this little argument about the true creates a hole of thought that questions whether or not philosophy and physics can exist when taken to their greatest lengths - they seem to differentiate so far apart that it conjures images of science as a whole and religion as a whole, beating each other up.

 

[Q_Goest]

True. She is quite advanced in philosophy, although she was devasted when she entered college. She had such a great philosophy teacher in high school, that she was ecstatic about taking philosophy in University. Her professor in philosophy at her university was so bad, that she actually withdrew. She was devasted. She thought that she would get deeper into it, and instead it was a huge step back.

wow... sorry to hear that. What university is she going to? Curious to see what the staff looks like there.

I'd think if she really liked philosophy that much she could find a university she enjoyed though. Perhaps it has to do with the views expressed by the prof? I could definitely see that happening, I'd quit myself if I had to listen to Dennett. <blah!>

 

[Evo]

wow... sorry to hear that. What university is she going to? Curious to see what the staff looks like there.

I'd think if she really liked philosophy that much she could find a university she enjoyed though. Perhaps it has to do with the views expressed by the prof? I could definitely see that happening, I'd quit myself if I had to listen to Dennett. <blah!>

It was quite devastating to her.

But she was accepted pre-med, so she moved on, although I am NOT allowed to discuss philosphy because I am too black and white.

 

[SDetection]

If a tree falls in the woods...and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?...

Of course not. It wouldn't make a sound in any one's head .

 

[WaveJumper]

What is a 'tree' before measurement/observation? Waves of probability? Or waves of substance? The measurement problem is inextricably connected with the answer to the question - If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

 

[SDetection]

What is a 'tree' before measurement/observation?

Note that the tree is already observed by the earth, and the Earth is observed by the tree, and the Earth is observing us, the moon, the sun, the galaxy...

 

[WaveJumper]

Note that the tree is already observed by the earth, and the Earth is observed by the tree, and the Earth is observing us, the moon, the sun, the galaxy...

This says nothing about the system before going from a superpositional state to a mixed state.

 

[SDetection]

This says nothing about the system before going from a superpositional state to a mixed state.

I'm not good at physics, but is there a tree that exists in superpositional state?, or you mean an imaginary tree?.

Also I think the measurement/observation depends also on the observer. When you touch a tree that you're looking at, you still observing the same tree but from different perspectives. The same situation applies if you use an infrared camera. The perspectives can change but the dimensional knowledge obtained is from the the same thing.

 

[WaveJumper]

I'm not good at physics, but is there a tree that exists in superpositional state?, or you mean an imaginary tree?

No, not just a tree or a bush. The whole of reality is depicted by wavefunctions, describing probability amplitudes of localising 'particles'. What those wavefunctions represent is the core of the argument - If a tree falls in the...

There are good reasons to believe they aren't real and are just a mathematical tool(objective reality does not exist), but there are also reasons to believe there is more going on than mathematics before a measurement(debate is still ongoing). Otherwise, the tree exists as a probability wavefunction that sort of maps out around the tree(soaks into the space around the tree - a sort of blurred image of a tree if you need a mental image).

The wavefunction accounts for everything that we can measure, so it is obviously linked to what we call 'physical reality'. How else could QM be relevant for physical properties and phenomena?

An unbiased treatment of the problem of objective reality in the 20th and 21st century, requires that it is treated by physics as a hypothesis that needs to be proved.

Also I think the measurement/observation depends the observer. When you touch a tree that you're looking at, you still observing the same tree but from different perspectives. The same situation applies if you use infrared camera. The perspectives can change but the dimensional knowledge obtained is the same.

I don't see what you are saying here.

 

[SDetection]

I don't see what you are saying here.

I mean, the mechanism, that you use for the observation, also determines your final perception of the observed. There can be different perspectives of the same thing, like when you use your eyes, and when using an infrared camera. This is of course from classical point of view...

 

[SDetection]

Of course not. It wouldn't make a sound inside any one's head.

But of course nature would hear it, in its own mysterious way .

 

[baywax]

Existence is relative to the observer? If the tree doesn't exist because you don't see it nor measure it etc... then the dust mites in your eye lashes don't exist either. This seems a bit egocentric to believe. Why not step out of the box and allow for phenomena to exist without your permission?

 

[WaveJumper]

Existence is relative to the observer? If the tree doesn't exist because you don't see it nor measure it etc... then the dust mites in your eye lashes don't exist either. This seems a bit egocentric to believe. Why not step out of the box and allow for phenomena to exist without your permission?

Every physicist asks this question sooner or later. Some are asking themselves to their dying day, some consider it only as a passing thought and dismiss it as an issue that cannot be resolved. Others are afraid to even look in that direction and will frantically move onto the next topic.

I believe a problem should be approached without bias. The biggest missing link towards having a better understanding of reality, imo, currently resides in the notion of Time(on top of other foundational problems). We have different concepts of time in classical mechanics, in GR and in QM and time is a fundamental ingredient in what we call 'reality'. Without some new insight into its nature, this 'reality' may remain unknowable for quite some time. If time is strictly a macroscopic phenomenon, then we have no basis to insist on space being objectively real either. There is likely something 'wrong' with our perception of the notions - matter, time and space and the hypothetical TOE will supposedly adjust these 'misunderstandings'. Afterall, the theory of evolution doesn't claim our senses evolved for the purpose of verifying quantum mechanics, so we can't blame our senses for being too coarse to discern how reality operates at its fundamental level.

To wrap this up, there are good reasons to believe that the notion of "real" and "reality" needs re-adjusting in a moderate or a rather radical way. Those reasons all come from cosmology, quantum theory and GR. The only field from physics that supports all our naive assumptions about reality, is classical Newtonian physics where it appears the environment had wired our brains to operate within that domain.

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

 

[baywax]

Every physicist asks this question sooner or later. Some are asking themselves to their dying day, some consider it only as a passing thought and dismiss it as an issue that cannot be resolved. Others are afraid to even look in that direction and will frantically move onto the next topic.

I believe a problem should be approached without bias. The biggest missing link towards having a better understanding of reality, imo, currently resides in the notion of Time(on top of other foundational problems). We have different concepts of time in classical mechanics, in GR and in QM and time is a fundamental ingredient in what we call 'reality'. Without some new insight into its nature, this 'reality' may remain unknowable for quite some time. If time is strictly a macroscopic phenomenon, then we have no basis to insist on space being objectively real either. There is likely something 'wrong' with our perception of the notions - matter, time and space and the hypothetical TOE will supposedly adjust these 'misunderstandings'. Afterall, the theory of evolution doesn't claim our senses evolved for the purpose of verifying quantum mechanics, so we can't blame our senses for being too coarse to discern how reality operates at its fundamental level.

To wrap this up, there are good reasons to believe that the notion of "real" and "reality" needs re-adjusting in a moderate or a rather radical way. Those reasons all come from cosmology, quantum theory and GR. The only field from physics that supports all our naive assumptions about reality, is classical Newtonian physics where it appears the environment had wired our brains to operate within that domain.

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

Nice look at the way people either believe the tree exists when they aren't looking or not... etc...

Personally I believe that forewarned is forearmed or whatever the saying is. That way, even if you don't see the tree you are aware that it may be falling on you, and that the results can be crippling or deadly.

The whole "purpose" of our senses for the last 6 million years has been to keep us alive... in a macroscopic world. The senses are honed to that function by evolution and natural selection down through the generations of us. No wonder we're confused when we start catching glimpses of the microscopic. When we are able to discern a cause and effect going on between the two, with the accuracy found in the function of our senses here, in the macroscopic, perhaps things will become clearer. For now, though, I'll remind you that nothing is only a part of everything!

 

[WaveJumper]

Have the experiments of Benjamin Libet on how unconscious electrical impulses predate conscious volitional acts been repeated or refuted? If not, it might, from a certain perspective, be interpreted as support for the primacy of mind over brain.

 

[SDetection]

Have the experiments of Benjamin Libet on how unconscious electrical impulses predate conscious volitional acts been repeated or refuted? If not, it might, from a certain perspective, be interpreted as support for the primacy of mind over brain.

Here is a definition of consciousness that doesn't make us special: An entity that is involuntary/unconsciously recalling an aspect, of its prior state, which it involuntary/unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

This means that, not because one is unconscious, one can't memorize anything, but one is unconscious because one hasn't just memorized anything to recall. What do you do if you want to wake someone up?
There is, of course, degree of consciousness, which is characterized by the levels of the dimensional knowledge that the observer can abstract from the stimuli, like when someone abstracts speech from sounds, or emotions from faces...

 

[WaveJumper]

Here is a definition of consciousness that doesn't make us special: An entity that is involuntary/unconsciously recalling an aspect, of its prior state, which it involuntary/unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

This doesn't say what consciousness is or if it's 'special'(whatever that means). It's simply a characteristic/feature of consciousness.

This means that, not because one is unconscious, one can't memorize anything, but one is unconscious because one hasn't just memorized anything to recall. What do you do if you want to wake someone up?
There is, of course, degree of consciousness, which is characterized by the levels of the dimensional knowledge that the observer can abstract from the stimuli, like when someone abstracts speech from sound, or emotions from faces...

What is the 'observer' that you seem to take for granted? This is a core issue and i am attempting to validate the assumptions being made, before proceeding to account for macro-scale phenomena. One of the basic assumptions is that matter is real and fundamental. I disagree with the latter and i am doubtful about the former. A thourough look at the nature of matter, space and time doesn't hold up to our pre-conceived notions. In this connection, i said earlier:

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

 

[magpies]

Ok so my definition of consciousness...

Consciousness: Being aware. <-- How good is this?

If I had my choice I would say consciousness is consciousness and leave it at that but that's not allowed it seems.

 

[Dmitry67]

All definitions of consciousness are pure blah blah unless they help to solve the
so called hard problem of Consciousness.

 

[WaveJumper]

The real question is what is 'woods' in the 'If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around...'?

It's an unmeasured supperposition of states that we mistake for woods. The Uncertainty principle does not state that two complementary properties cannot exist together; it merely states that we cannot know the two complementary properties simultaneously.

The uncertainty in the behaviour of particles is an extremely important feature of the nature. The form in which objects are manifested to us is the creation of our brain.

I cannot make a definite statement about the physical state of any entity until I make an observation to determine the actual state of that entity. This forces me to keep all the possibilities open and the best I can do is calculate the probability of finding a specific physical state when I make an observation. Schrodinger's equation allows me to calculate these probabilities, but the fact that a measurement/observation is required to 'collapse' the eigenstates to single outcomes is the core of the measurement problem. It's a powerful insight into the nature of reality and our role in it. If one takes modern physics seriously and assumes that human logic is valid and the right tool to describe reality(incredibly important assumption), then we are living in a relational universe.

 

[baywax]

The real question is what is 'woods' in the 'If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around...'?

It's an unmeasured supperposition of states that we mistake for woods. The Uncertainty principle does not state that two complementary properties cannot exist together; it merely states that we cannot know the two complementary properties simultaneously.

The uncertainty in the behaviour of particles is an extremely important feature of the nature. The form in which objects are manifested to us is the creation of our brain.

I cannot make a definite statement about the physical state of any entity until I make an observation to determine the actual state of that entity. This forces me to keep all the possibilities open and the best I can do is calculate the probability of finding a specific physical state when I make an observation. Schrodinger's equation allows me to calculate these probabilities, but the fact that a measurement/observation is required to 'collapse' the eigenstates to single outcomes is the core of the measurement problem. It's a powerful insight into the nature of reality and our role in it. If one takes modern physics seriously and assumes that human logic is valid and the right tool to describe reality(incredibly important assumption), then we are living in a relational universe.

Hi Wavejumper, perhaps the macro physical state is too course to "experience" the micro quantum or atomic/electro/magnetic states. Being unaware of a state does in no way prove that one or the other state does or does not exist.

Consciousness is a really bad way of saying "awareness". Somehow its been hijacked by the whoo hoos of the world and is now something you pay money to attain. What it may be trying to convey is the idea that when one is aware of process, causes and effects and the overall picture, they reach a conscious-awareness that is supported by experience and existing, stored knowledge. This way one's experiential awareness is bolstered by a consciousness of facts that add to the experience of the phenomenon. Who knows!?

 

[WaveJumper]

Hi Wavejumper, perhaps the macro physical state is too course to "experience" the micro quantum or atomic/electro/magnetic states. Being unaware of a state does in no way prove that one or the other state does or does not exist.

Hi Baywax,

My stance is not that the quantum doesn't exist, but that the macro scale impression of how matter, time and space exist is either wrong or incomplete. It must have felt similar in the 16th century when Coprnicus tried to get across the message that the hardwired and very intuitive notion of a flat Earth was wrong. The concept of a flat Earth was so intuitive for the primitive human perception that there are today vocal proponents of the flat Earth nonsense.

Consciousness is a really bad way of saying "awareness". Somehow its been hijacked by the whoo hoos of the world and is now something you pay money to attain. What it may be trying to convey is the idea that when one is aware of process, causes and effects and the overall picture, they reach a conscious-awareness that is supported by experience and existing, stored knowledge. This way one's experiential awareness is bolstered by a consciousness of facts that add to the experience of the phenomenon. Who knows!?

Maybe it's because we have zero knowledge of the important fundamental concepts. I'd stay away from naive models of reality, though.

 

[baywax]

Hi Baywax,

My stance is not that the quantum doesn't exist, but that the macro scale impression of how matter, time and space exist is either wrong or incomplete. It must have felt similar in the 16th century when Coprnicus tried to get across the message that the hardwired and very intuitive notion of a flat Earth was wrong. The concept of a flat Earth was so intuitive for the primitive human perception that there are today vocal proponents of the flat Earth nonsense.

Hi WaveyGravy! I have a feeling that if the emergent phenomenon you're calling a macro scale impression of matter didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. The other thing about your statement is... is it wrong or right... its neither. When you see green as red its neither wrong or right... its either a trick of simultaneous colour contrast or a trick of the light. There are always mechanisms creating impressions and illusions and they are the subject of our fun inquiries. There's a lot of top physicists who think the universe is flat. That would make Earth pretty flat too.

 

[WaveJumper]

Hi WaveyGravy! I have a feeling that if the emergent phenomenon you're calling a macro scale impression of matter didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about it right now.

Yes, it probably exists but the fact that we are talking about a consensus event does not mean that the event exists outside our conscious perception in the way it is manifested to us.

The other thing about your statement is... is it wrong or right... its neither. When you see green as red its neither wrong or right... its either a trick of simultaneous colour contrast or a trick of the light. There are always mechanisms creating impressions and illusions and they are the subject of our fun inquiries. There's a lot of top physicists who think the universe is flat. That would make Earth pretty flat too.

Sorry, i don't see your point.

 

[disregardthat]

A little off-topic, but...

WaveJumper, I have a question for you since you obviously knows quite a lot of quantum mechanics. What are your views on the classical interpretations of QM like the "Many-worlds theory" and the "copenhagen interpretation"?

 

[baywax]

Yes, it probably exists but the fact that we are talking about a consensus event does not mean that the event exists outside our conscious perception in the way it is manifested to us.

That's all we have to go on. This is no indication that the event is not as we perceive it to be. There are countless accounts of artifacts and phenomenon being misinterpreted. Take the canals on Mars for example. There's millions of examples. But, all its taken is advances in technology (in this case telescoping) and concentrated effort to prove a phenomenon is what we think it is or that its something else.

Sorry, i don't see your point.

That doesn't mean it is non-existent...
I think I was trying to point out that what you see is not always what you get... but that is neither wrong or right nor does it point to the non-existence of a phenomenon.

 

[WaveJumper]

What are your views on the classical interpretations of QM like the "Many-worlds theory" and the "copenhagen interpretation"?

I have not seen an interpretation that i would embrace as true. There is something fundamentally missing from our knowledge of reality and all these interpretational efforts are kind of premature and incomplete(bordeing on religion). We need a theory of QG and new insights into the nature of space and time, before an interpretation starts to fit the greater picture more convincingly, IMO.

 

[WaveJumper]

That's all we have to go on. This is no indication that the event is not as we perceive it to be. There are countless accounts of artifacts and phenomenon being misinterpreted. Take the canals on Mars for example. There's millions of examples. But, all its taken is advances in technology (in this case telescoping) and concentrated effort to prove a phenomenon is what we think it is or that its something else.






That doesn't mean it is non-existent...
I think I was trying to point out that what you see is not always what you get... but that is neither wrong or right nor does it point to the non-existence of a phenomenon.

This is how science works - making conclusions(often wrong) from incomplete evidence. You could say this is what gives us an edge over other animals and let's us predict phenomena and make progress.