Is Scale Related to Rate of Change in Quantum Mechanics?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Go back and read Fliption's links located at the 7th post on page 5 of this thread. READ IT. READ IT ALL. Then come back and and tell us what you think.

I'll read it again, if you'd like, but I still think that Fliption should have addressed my counter directly (it's not like I want to repeat the same one over and over again, but it hasn't been answered).

Note: Playing the devils advocate does not mean being intentionally bullheaded and obtuse. It means addressing the issue in logical meaningful ways not simply repeating the same counterstatement over and over again. If your going to play the game play it right. That way we can all learn and clarify our thinking rather than getting exasperrated with one another.

If a person makes a valid point, say so then counter it with your own valid point don't just not accept anything anyone says and repeat your point as if it were the last word on the suject over and over again. If you have a question ask it, then thank the person answering it.
Playing the devils advocate for mutal advantage and the meaningful sake of the quality of the discussion is a lot harder than you think.
There is a lot more than just disagreeing with a point. Playing the devils advocat is a service to both the opposition and the discussion. The word "advocate" in this case means lawyer as in trying a case before an impartial judge. It is a lot of responsiblity and must be played seriously or you expose your self to fined for being in contempt of court, being thrown off the case and/or being disbarred for incompetence. Being the Devil's advoce one should be extra careful not anger you client or you may end up toast.

I know all of this. I knew it before I chose "Devil's Advocate" as a useful tool in discussions. However, I'm not playing devil's advocate when I attempted to show that the experiment (the one that you told me to go back and read again) can be explained without consciousness.

 

[Royce]

Then explain it and explain your reasoning and support.
Nobody knows, mentat, nobody. Top rate scientist and theoriticians are struggling with this and trying to explain it with new and just as contravertial hypothesis. This is not something that we are going to explain simply or by logic or common sense because it is completely outside the limit of human experience and previous knowledge. There is a story of a student coming up with a weird idea and presenting it to his professor (can't remember his name, may have been Gell Mann) The proff said yes its weird; but, is it weird enough? super symetry, string theory, superstring theory and field theory are all involved. It is a major effort just trying to combine QM and Relativity. To make absolute statements at this point is pointless. To say that anything is illogical or doesn't make sense is redundant and/or showing ignorance of the comlexity of the subject.
I personally get more confused the more I read and more aware of how little I understand much less know; but, as I said, nobody knows and that my friend includes both you and me.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Then explain it and explain your reasoning and support.
Nobody knows, mentat, nobody. Top rate scientist and theoriticians are struggling with this and trying to explain it with new and just as contravertial hypothesis. This is not something that we are going to explain simply or by logic or common sense because it is completely outside the limit of human experience and previous knowledge.

That is also a very good point. Human experience and common sense just aren't good enough to understand the quantum world. All we can do is describe the effects (and possibly not even all of those, only those that manifest themselves to our observations).

Anyway, I will attempt to explain how the experiment's results can occur the way they did without consciousness' playing a key role, but I cannot (wouldn't even attempt to) explain just how the quantum effect occurs, or even what - exactly - the effect is, because - as you said - no one knows that (but I like to add, "yet").

There is a story of a student coming up with a weird idea and presenting it to his professor (can't remember his name, may have been Gell Mann) The proff said yes its weird; but, is it weird enough? super symetry, string theory, superstring theory and field theory are all involved. It is a major effort just trying to combine QM and Relativity. To make absolute statements at this point is pointless. To say that anything is illogical or doesn't make sense is redundant and/or showing ignorance of the comlexity of the subject.
I personally get more confused the more I read and more aware of how little I understand much less know; but, as I said, nobody knows and that my friend includes both you and me.

You are correct, of course. My point wasn't really to prove that one point was less logical then mine, it just appeared to me that consciousness effecting something at the quantum level was just impossible in principle (and thus a stumbling block on the path toward understanding the quantum world). I suppose it "may" be true, but that depends on your definition of consciousness.

 

[Royce]

It is also predicated on the materialist view point that subjectivity and thus consciousness cannot effect anything material. To me this viewpoint is absurd at best as everything we do is preceeded by thought and intent even if we are not aware of it. (with the exception of our auto-response system, reactions etc., and even these reactions can with training be brought under conscious control.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
It is also predicated on the materialist view point that subjectivity and thus consciousness cannot effect anything material. To me this viewpoint is absurd at best as everything we do is preceeded by thought and intent even if we are not aware of it. (with the exception of our auto-response system, reactions etc., and even these reactions can with training be brought under conscious control.

Well, actually, the materialist PoV is not that consciousness doesn't affect anything material, it's that consciousness itself is material.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'll read it again, if you'd like, but I still think that Fliption should have addressed my counter directly (it's not like I want to repeat the same one over and over again, but it hasn't been answered).

I'm not real clear on what it is I didn't provide. The only thing I have been unwilling to do is to try to give a class on Qm so that someone can disagree with it(As if I could do it justice!). While I'm not sure what is being asked of me that I haven't provided, it seems that the discussion is centering around the role of consciousness. Here are my thoughts. I, personally have not made any claims about consciousness so we aren't disagreeing necessarily on this point. But you keep saying that the experiment is claiming that consciousness has a role and I don't agree with this. The only thing this experiment has concluded (which is pretty much the only thing that can be concluded from the results...ie. no one has offered up any other conclusions) that the wave function collapses when their is potential for knowledge. The potential to provide information. Your preconcieved ideas about what all these words mean(even though you have never even heard of complexity theory) have you in a tizzy about consciousness. But to me, this experiment does not imply consciouness necessarily. What does it mean then? This is what no one is sure of and more research is being done to try to find the right interpretation.

If you just can't accept this, then the best thing you can do is to offer up your own interpretation of what happens in these experiments. Unless of course you think the experiments are flawed. In that case, I guess we really have nothing to talk about unless you can find some other experiment to discuss.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
But you keep saying that the experiment is claiming that consciousness has a role and I don't agree with this.

The experiment didn't "claim" anything, it was the experimenters that were making claims with regards to the effect that "potential knowledge" can have on the photon.

The only thing this experiment has concluded (which is pretty much the only thing that can be concluded from the results...ie. no one has offered up any other conclusions) that the wave function collapses when their is potential for knowledge. The potential to provide information. Your preconcieved ideas about what all these words mean(even though you have never even heard of complexity theory) have you in a tizzy about consciousness. But to me, this experiment does not imply consciouness necessarily. What does it mean then? This is what no one is sure of and more research is being done to try to find the right interpretation.

The fact that it collapses "when there is potential for knowledge" doesn't mean that it collapses because there is potential for knowledge. Anyway, I didn't just add this consciousness issue for no reason, it is implied. Every time you make reference to knowledge, you imply consciousness (especially when making reference to "potential" knowledge).

If you just can't accept this, then the best thing you can do is to offer up your own interpretation of what happens in these experiments. Unless of course you think the experiments are flawed. In that case, I guess we really have nothing to talk about unless you can find some other experiment to discuss.

I don't think the experiments are flawed; unless the fact that the experimenters were looking for the wrong thing counts as a flaw in the experiment. I am going to have to re-read the experiment (I've been gone for a while, but it's ok if you hadn't noticed ) before I can offer an alternate interpretation.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
The experiment didn't "claim" anything, it was the experimenters that were making claims with regards to the effect that "potential knowledge" can have on the photon.

No kidding. Experiments never claim anything; it's always the experimenter making the interpretations of their findings. Not sure why this needed to be pointed out. If this weren't the case then I would have been much more careful with the wording. But I thought you'd know what I was talking about.

The fact that it collapses "when there is potential for knowledge" doesn't mean that it collapses because there is potential for knowledge.

This is why you do different experiments varying the way it is done. You keep changing things, based on results, trying to narrow down the possibilities of what causes the collapse. This is done in these experiments and it is the "potential for knowledge" that it is narrowed down to.

Anyway, I didn't just add this consciousness issue for no reason, it is implied. Every time you make reference to knowledge, you imply consciousness (especially when making reference to "potential" knowledge).

I don't agree with this. If you have an equation with 2 unknowns then you have an equation that says nothing. However, if one of those unknowns becomes fixed, then by default the other unknown can be calculated creating potential for knowledge. It actually being calculated by a conscious being is not necessary. The point is that this equation now has only one answer and can now be solved. To me these experiments could simply mean that the universe understands math and logic. (before you go ballistic, I know the universe doesn't "understand" anything. It is simply a figure of speech.)

I am going to have to re-read the experiment (I've been gone for a while, but it's ok if you hadn't noticed ) before I can offer an alternate interpretation. [/B]

Please do.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Fliption
To me these experiments could simply mean that the universe understands math and logic. (before you go ballistic, I know the universe doesn't "understand" anything. It is simply a figure of speech.)

lol

"Figure of speech"?? Are you trying to say speech is a diagram, or a pictoral representation of the human body??

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
lol

"Figure of speech"?? Are you trying to say speech is a diagram, or a pictoral representation of the human body??

I wax poetic like my scientific friends

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
No kidding. Experiments never claim anything; it's always the experimenter making the interpretations of their findings. Not sure why this needed to be pointed out. If this weren't the case then I would have been much more careful with the wording. But I thought you'd know what I was talking about.

I knew what you were talking about, except I thought you must have(somehow) missed all of the implications (in the way that the summary of the results were written) to knowledge - and, thus, consciousness - on the part of the experimenters.

This is why you do different experiments varying the way it is done. You keep changing things, based on results, trying to narrow down the possibilities of what causes the collapse. This is done in these experiments and it is the "potential for knowledge" that it is narrowed down to.

Not necessarily. I wish I had more time, but I will make a real effort to get them read, since this can't possibly be conclusive (it would be much more famous.

I don't agree with this. If you have an equation with 2 unknowns then you have an equation that says nothing. However, if one of those unknowns becomes fixed, then by default the other unknown can be calculated creating potential for knowledge. It actually being calculated by a conscious being is not necessary. The point is that this equation now has only one answer and can now be solved. To me these experiments could simply mean that the universe understands math and logic. (before you go ballistic, I know the universe doesn't "understand" anything. It is simply a figure of speech.)

Yes, it is a figure of speech. However, the only conclusion that I can draw from your reasoning, is that (for this interpretation of the experiment to be true) the Universe must literally understand logic. The fact that the Universe doesn't understand logic (and neither does a subatomic particle) leaves this explanation in my "possible, but highly unlikely" group.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
since this can't possibly be conclusive (it would be much more famous.

The reason these specific experiments aren't more famous is because they haven't concluded or found anything that is inconsistent with the results of other experiments. And even so, I have seen these specific experiments mentioned in readings elsewhere.

Yes, it is a figure of speech. However, the only conclusion that I can draw from your reasoning, is that (for this interpretation of the experiment to be true) the Universe must literally understand logic. The fact that the Universe doesn't understand logic (and neither does a subatomic particle) leaves this explanation in my "possible, but highly unlikely" group.

And this is exactly what I was disagreeing about so here we go with the seemingly inevitable circle of responses in yet another thread. The universe does not have to "understand" math in order to work off of math principles. Does a rock understand erotion?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
And this is exactly what I was disagreeing about so here we go with the seemingly inevitable circle of responses in yet another thread. The universe does not have to "understand" math in order to work off of math principles. Does a rock understand erotion?

I didn't say that the Universe understood math, you did - or, at least, that's what I got from your reasoning. You said that when one factor becomes known (again, a reference to knowledge, which bothers me already but is not the focus of this particular post) then the Universe "fills in" the what should logically follow. The only way this could be the case (AFAICS) is that the Universe would understand mathematics, and this cannot be the case.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that the Universe understood math, you did - or, at least, that's what I got from your reasoning. You said that when one factor becomes known (again, a reference to knowledge, which bothers me already but is not the focus of this particular post) then the Universe "fills in" the what should logically follow. The only way this could be the case (AFAICS) is that the Universe would understand mathematics, and this cannot be the case.

If you take a triangle and make 2 of it's angles equal to 45 degrees, guess what happens to the third angle? It actually gets "filled in" automatically with no help from you.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
If you take a triangle and make 2 of it's angles equal to 45 degrees, guess what happens to the third angle? It actually gets "filled in" automatically with no help from you.

Perfectly reasonable, since a physical interaction would occur between both of the sides that I have changed and the unchanged angles.[/color] No physical interaction can occur when someone is merely "conscious" of the possible condition of a particle, and so the particle has no "reason" (please forgive my free use of this term) to change at all.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Perfectly reasonable, since a physical interaction would occur between both of the sides that I have changed and the unchanged angles.[/color] No physical interaction can occur when someone is merely "conscious" of the possible condition of a particle, and so the particle has no "reason" (please forgive my free use of this term) to change at all.

But as I've said before and reading the article will confirm, someone being conscious is not what is required. What is required is the "potential for knowledge". A conscious person being around to see the collapse isn't required.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
But as I've said before and reading the article will confirm, someone being conscious is not what is required. What is required is the "potential for knowledge". A conscious person being around to see the collapse isn't required.

Even removing the need for a conscious person, doesn't change the need for a conscious particle. After all, how could the particle be changed by just the "threat of knowledge". It's not as though knowledge - or the potential for it - are physical entities or anything (outside of the workings of the brain, of course).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Even removing the need for a conscious person, doesn't change the need for a conscious particle. After all, how could the particle be changed by just the "threat of knowledge". It's not as though knowledge - or the potential for it - are physical entities or anything (outside of the workings of the brain, of course).

That's what my triangle example was trying to illustrate. That a partcle can have a value fixed for it depending on what's happening elsewhere simply because it is obeying the rules of logic and math. Not because it understands those rules.

Let me also say that this is just a possibility as I see it. The actual interpretation of quantum experiments has been and continues to be up for debate. That was the main point of my posting in this thread.

 

[Mentat]

Well, Fliption, I don't think there's much more that can be said. I don't want to say "let's agree to disagree", since I agree with you that there are many different P'soV and that I had just been exposed to one but that doesn't meant that that's the "right" one. Even great Physicists like John Wheeler are of the opinion that "information" (whatever it is that they think that means) plays a role in all quantum occurances, so no one really "knows".

I will agree to leave the topic alone and just agree that it's undetermined, if you want.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, Fliption, I don't think there's much more that can be said. I don't want to say "let's agree to disagree", since I agree with you that there are many different P'soV and that I had just been exposed to one but that doesn't meant that that's the "right" one. Even great Physicists like John Wheeler are of the opinion that "information" (whatever it is that they think that means) plays a role in all quantum occurances, so no one really "knows".

I will agree to leave the topic alone and just agree that it's undetermined, if you want.

Absolutely! But I would like for more people to start more threads on quantum physics. The fact that it is so unknown is exactly why I think it is interesting to think about it. I had thought that attitudes like Tiberius were part of the reason no one ever talked about it. But if we agree we have lots to learn then I would think there would be more topics on it here. But hey, since this thread started there have been many changes here and I think there is a forum dedicated to it now! A whole forum called "Quantum Physics"!

 

[Dogman]

Wave Function Collapse

If a wave function collapse does require observation, the perhaps this is proof that God exists. If waves have been collapsing in a universe 7+ billion years old, who else would have been "observing"?

 

[quantumcarl]

And of course, it doesn't help matters when dimwits like Frijtof Capra write "literature" like Tao of Physics. People read that garbage and think they actually know quantum mechanics.

Yo! At least the garbage alerts people to the study of quantum physics.

What's confused me is that when people say the Quantum universe is so very different from Relative universe in that things relatively appear so predictable in the RelativeU when they appear much less so in the QUniverse.

They site the constant and fast changing environment of the nanoscopic quantum mechanics and the slow predictable curves etc... of the universe on the scale we are more prone to observe.

What I would interject is that the larger scaled universe, which is considered relative, has a rate of change that is equal to its scale. The same applies to the nanoscopic scale where quantum mechanics is precieved to be completely unpredictable. The rate of change at a nano level is going to be beyond our synaptic ability to comprehend and only predictability models generated by math or whatever can be used to probe such rapid and seemingly unpredictable changes.

This conjecture disregards the overall nature of simultaneous occurances at a quantum level and I am only asking that those of you who are privy to the workings of the quantum theories to remember the fact that with a change of scale comes a difference in "rate of change" (also known as "time").