Is Qualia Intrinsically Linked to Quantum Mechanics?

[Varon]

I'm saying the details of how they generate that figure doesn't matter, what matters is its information content, which I can get in much easier ways. Let me ask if you agree that the "average trajectories" that they plot are indeed exactly the same as we would get via my method #2 above-- running one photon at a time through exactly their configuration, and just putting the wall at different distances, and collect the aggregate detections. Then build up a concept of the aggregate photon flux by taking those measurements, normalizing the total detection numbers to be a constant total for every wall distance used (zero divergence), and then drawing the "field line density" for that divergenceless detection field? That's exactly how we would generate a concept of "aggregate photon flux" in this very two-slit experiment, in a completely classical limit of many iterations of slightly different experimental setups (the distance to the wall being the sole variable).

If we can agree that I can get the exact same figure my way, with no subtle "weak measurements", then the question to ask is: what additional information are they extracting with their clever measurements if they end up with the exact same figure I get?

Note that it makes no difference how clever their measurements are-- if they can tell which slit the photon went through, they won't get that photon to participate in an interference pattern anywhere. That is all the CI needs to hold.

Ken, Expert in the forum I referred to above didn't agree that you could get the same figure by your method. If you have time, pls go there so you can discuss your view as it is QM forum. Here at philosophy, Quantum Mechanic is not here... only armchair philosophers or metaphysicists who hold totally Newtonian views as you agreed before, or in case you really missed the original paper and it produced new stuff... at least you know so.

 

[Varon]

Now you are getting into the variants of Copenhagen. In "purist" Copenhagen, that of Bohr, the opposite is true-- nothing is quantum, there is no "quantum world." There is only the world of our observations-- the entire quantum realm is something just imagined, whatever we need to do the calculation to get the right prediction. von Neumann is bridging from the empiricist Copenhagen view to the rationalist many-worlds view, and his is the only one that I have a hard time seeing the consistency of. That seems to be the thrust of your issue too, but Bohr would not have had that problem.

Ken. We are discussing now about your statement "the entire quantum realm is something just imagined" in the QM forum thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=494788&page=11

A person my_wan is confused by certain meaning of your statement. He said for example: (See message starting #165)

"Again, this is highly dependent on what is meant by "no" quantum world. Is Ken referring to nonexistent in the sense that our everyday world of observations is all there is because the quantum world is nothing more than that same world, or is it an existential nonexistence? It appears to me Ken is flirting with the existential version here, but even that is tricky. Because what exactly about it is existentially nonexistence if it is merely the world we experience? This I tried to qualitatively formulate previously by showing how even the limited frame dependent notion of space and time disappears at a fundamental level. So I need more to even guess at Ken's response."

So pls. go to that thread and clarify your confusing views. Thanks.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=494788&page=11

 

[Ken G]

First of all, they are not my confusing ideas, I am explaining Bohr's perspective. Which I agree with, and do not find confusing. But I'll do it on that thread, yes.

 

[Evo]

Ken, Expert in the forum I referred to above didn't agree that you could get the same figure by your method. If you have time, pls go there so you can discuss your view as it is QM forum. Here at philosophy, Quantum Mechanic is not here... only armchair philosophers or metaphysicists who hold totally Newtonian views as you agreed before, or in case you really missed the original paper and it produced new stuff... at least you know so.

Telling people to go to another forum? This thread is closed.