Is Scale Related to Rate of Change in Quantum Mechanics?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Arguments for QM entanglement between the observer and the experiment, or some other dependence on a consciousness, both exist as schools of thought. After I do some review I will try to argue the points. I can say that to dismiss these claims as silliness is the height of arrogance. They may be wrong, but they are not silly.

As I've already stated, numerous time before, consciousness is a macroscopic occurance. Now, quantum entanglement I understand. But quantum consciousness is foolishness, as I will attempt to show in a new thread (coming soon, to a Forum near you ).

 

[Mentat]

So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?

I feel so alone

 

[drag]

Since I'm such a lazy bastard with little time :
What exactly is this "quantum consciousness" concept
you're opposed to ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?

I feel so alone

What exactly would you like me to respond to? I thought you and Ivan were on a tangent lol.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?

I feel so alone

Hello Mentat! Sorry, I had forgotten all about this thread. Give me a few days to get focused and to catch up - busy with work right now...my vacation ended during your absence.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Since I'm such a lazy bastard with little time :
What exactly is this "quantum consciousness" concept
you're opposed to ?

Live long and prosper.

LOL!

My problem (which is apparently also Tiberius' problem, since he started the thread) is that many people take Schrodinger's "cat" analogy literally, and use it to show that an "observation" (which they (wrongfully) take to mean a conscious observation) is necessary to collapse the wave-function, and make the object take on a specific form.

Tiberius and I disagree with this (new-ageish) idea, and one of the reasons for our disagreeing with it is that consciousness is a macroscopic phenomenon (much like life or individuality), and thus has no meaning at the subatomic level.

Yes, an "observation" is necessary, but not a conscious observation, as many think. In quantum mechanics, an observation is merely an interaction between fields of energy.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Hello Mentat! Sorry, I had forgotten all about this thread. Give me a few days to get focused and to catch up - busy with work right now...my vacation ended during your absence.

Well, I can't blame you for having forgotten about this thread. I had to do some "fishing" myself, before I could actually find the thing again (it had fallen to page 4). Take your time responding.

 

[Royce]

From all that I have read on the subject, you are wrong, mentat.
The conscious obsever is an intregal and necessary part of any experiment and the results of the experiment will be determined by what the observer is looking for and what he is looking at. This has been verified time and time again and your philosophical denying it will not change the reality of the experiments.

Who now is living in a dream world and denying the findings of science because they don't support his beliefs. You are not the first or alone but you position is just plain wrong.

If you don't believe us then read up on it. read the links at the first part of this thread. Read "In search of Schroding's Cat" and/or "...Kittens" by John Gibbins.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
From all that I have read on the subject, you are wrong, mentat.
The conscious obsever is an intregal and necessary part of any experiment and the results of the experiment will be determined by what the observer is looking for and what he is looking at. This has been verified time and time again and your philosophical denying it will not change the reality of the experiments.

Who now is living in a dream world and denying the findings of science because they don't support his beliefs. You are not the first or alone but you position is just plain wrong.

If you don't believe us then read up on it. read the links at the first part of this thread. Read "In search of Schroding's Cat" and/or "...Kittens" by John Gibbins.

This is exactly what Tiberius was talking about, people taking layman texts as though they were just as good as the pure mathematics. This is not the case, and often facts need to be watered-down, before they can be explained in layman terms (I myself have fallen into that trap numerous times before). However, some new-ageish (Tiberius' term, not mine) books have also been written that refer to experiments, but interpret them as having something to do with consciousness - while the experiment doesn't indicate anything of the kind, when left to plain evidence without interpretations.

I think it would do you a lot of good to read the actual texts (mathematics and all - though I find marginal annotations very helpful as well) on QM, because the idea that consciousness plays a role is not a premise of the actual Quantum Theory, nor is it necessarily implied by any experiments.

 

[Mentat]

Royce,
I have also read some of the layman texts that attempt to explain QM, and some of them are very good (I didn't want you to think that I was preaching against the publication of such texts altogether). However, I have also read some that were not so good, including a few that have cited the EPR experiment as proof that a conscious observer is necessary before the quantum entanglement can cause the particles to assume absolute states. However, after having read some actual text-books on the subject, I've learned that this is really not the case, as any energetic reaction could have caused this assumption of absolute states.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I think it would do you a lot of good to read the actual texts (mathematics and all - though I find marginal annotations very helpful as well) on QM, because the idea that consciousness plays a role is not a premise of the actual Quantum Theory, nor is it necessarily implied by any experiments.

No offense Mentat, but from my experience on PF it is
Royce who should give you that type of advice.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
No offense Mentat, but from my experience on PF it is
Royce who should give you that type of advice.

What does past experience on the PFs have to do with it? I wouldn't assume that Alexander shouldn't tell someone to be careful of acting pompous, just because he had before. I wouldn't assume that Lifegazer shouldn't call other people unreasonable, just because he had been before.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
What does past experience on the PFs have to do with it? I wouldn't assume that Alexander shouldn't tell someone to be careful of acting pompous, just because he had before. I wouldn't assume that Lifegazer shouldn't call other people unreasonable, just because he had been before.

I'm talking about the dude's knowledge not his post count.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I'm talking about the dude's knowledge not his post count.

Whatever, man.

I recognize Royce's sharp intellect and thinking ability, but I also recognize that: 1) no one can be an expert at everything; and 2) Theoretical Physics hasn't been (in the past) Royce's strong-suit (which would be more on the broader realm of Philosophy).

I never meant to offend Royce (good buddies that we are ), I just thought he should continue to be open-minded enough to read up on such a complex subject. It's not like him to settle on a layman interpretation, IMO.

 

[Royce]

I have told ou before mentat that you can't insult me, we are friends.

Having said that:
I would hardly call Richard Feynman or John Gibbins lay material. Nor woulds I call Niels Bohr nor Schrodinger himself to name just a couple New Ager's. The textbooks often give a simplified cookbook rendering of QM so that it can be successfully applied. The actual theory and findings however are not so easy to explain nor is it so simple.
I am no expert nor am I a mathemitician or physicist; however, when I read the same thing from a number of highly respected theorietical physicist from a number of different sources, I tend to believe what I've read and discount others without such authority who say otherwise, especially when it contradicts the findings of actual experiments done in the last few years that indicate that what I've read is not only correct but even more correct and unexplainable than anyone thought. I repeat the findings have been verified time and time again and they all indicate that the conscious observer is an intregal and necessary part of the experiment and cannot be separated from it.
I am saying only that consciousness is an intregal intrinsic part of the universe and cannot be separated from it. That consciousness has effects on phisical material things. I do not claim that this proves that God exists or make any mystical or magical claims.

 

[Royce]

drag, thanks for the vote of confidence. It was reading Feynman's "QED" that brought me here to the PF's in the first place, loaded with a bunch of questions. Needless to say I rapidly became addicted, hoplessly so I afraid.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
In quantum mechanics, an observation is merely an interaction between fields of energy.

Sigh, 14 pages and you still claim you know what must scientists aren't even sure of. I give up. I do believe you have read everything you say you've read but I think this is clearly a case in which you entered into the scene with preconceived notions about what is possible and what isn't and you've concluded what you want in this one.

My whole point here Mentat was that there isn't a strong consensus on what exactly the "observation" act that collapses the wave function is. You can believe it to be anything you want but I just wish you'd stop telling everyone what it is and what it isn't as if you know it for certain.

I give up.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Having said that:
I would hardly call Richard Feynman or John Gibbins lay material. Nor woulds I call Niels Bohr nor Schrodinger himself to name just a couple New Ager's. The textbooks often give a simplified cookbook rendering of QM so that it can be successfully applied. The actual theory and findings however are not so easy to explain nor is it so simple.
I am no expert nor am I a mathemitician or physicist; however, when I read the same thing from a number of highly respected theorietical physicist from a number of different sources, I tend to believe what I've read and discount others without such authority who say otherwise, especially when it contradicts the findings of actual experiments done in the last few years that indicate that what I've read is not only correct but even more correct and unexplainable than anyone thought. I repeat the findings have been verified time and time again and they all indicate that the conscious observer is an intregal and necessary part of the experiment and cannot be separated from it.
I am saying only that consciousness is an intregal intrinsic part of the universe and cannot be separated from it. That consciousness has effects on phisical material things. I do not claim that this proves that God exists or make any mystical or magical claims.

First, I challenge you to produce an experiment where it is undeniable that consciousness plays any role at the subatomic level.

Secondly, I also challenge you to show me the flaw in the first post of "Mentat at the subatomic level", because, if I was corect in that post, consciousness shouldn't have any affect at the subatomic level (just based on reasoning, there's nothing conclusive).

Finally, what do you think consciousness is?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Sigh, 14 pages and you still claim you know what must scientists aren't even sure of. I give up. I do believe you have read everything you say you've read but I think this is clearly a case in which you entered into the scene with preconceived notions about what is possible and what isn't and you've concluded what you want in this one.

My whole point here Mentat was that there isn't a strong consensus on what exactly the "observation" act that collapses the wave function is. You can believe it to be anything you want but I just wish you'd stop telling everyone what it is and what it isn't as if you know it for certain.

I give up.

Look, Fliption, I'm sorry that I've exasperrated you, but you still haven't given me what I asked for: a direct counter to my reasoning on your experiment (the experiment that you posted about). Yes, people can say that conscious observation played an integral role in that experiment, and I can't (shouldn't) just tell them that they are wrong (this issue is, as you've said repeatedly, highly controversial, and not in any way resolved yet), but I can attempt to reason on the experiment to see if there is a - equally or surpassingly logical - way to explain the results of the experiment without consciousness.

If there is some actual logical problem with what I'm doing, please just tell me (don't give up on me yet; I may be a slow learner, but I'm still listening).

Also, I would like to solicit your participation (and the participation of anyone else who reads this post) on my new thread. I think the responses will assist us in this and many other threads.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
First, I challenge you to produce an experiment where it is undeniable that consciousness plays any role at the subatomic level.

Secondly, I also challenge you to show me the flaw in the first post of "Mentat at the subatomic level", because, if I was corect in that post, consciousness shouldn't have any affect at the subatomic level (just based on reasoning, there's nothing conclusive).

Finally, what do you think consciousness is?

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.

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.

 

[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