4 ms·
This is pretty weird, deep stuff to think about. To me, the two main points of the article were: > While neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can b
by burlesona 9y ago
This is pretty weird, deep stuff to think about. To me, the two main points of the article were:
> While neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer.
and
> Nevertheless, for now I don’t think we are machines — in part because I distinguish between the mathematical representation and the thing being represented. As a conscious realist, I am postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world. I’m claiming that experiences are the real coin of the realm. The experiences of everyday life — my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate — that really is the ultimate nature of reality.
- Filligree 9y ago> While neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer. You won't find many quantum physicists agreeing with this statement. The notion of an 'observer' is an artificial one, coming from the Copenhagen interpretation, which is well known to be false -- it's still used only because it simplifies the calculations, so long as you know when to apply it. The reality is far more nuanced. That being said, even Copenhagen doesn't equate observers to humans. Anything can be an observer, and to make good use of the interpretation, it's usually equated with the measuring apparatus used in the experiment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with thought. In reality, the 'observer effect' is an approximation to decoherence that only applies when the experiment is perfectly shielded, and the measuring instrument is not. That is only usually the case.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago> The notion of an 'observer' is an artificial one, coming from the Copenhagen interpretation, which is well known to be false I think you're overstating this a great deal. I don't think it's well-known, or even agreed on, that it's false. Can you demonstrate otherwise? And in what sense is it "false"? If it's true to the equations, and not experimentally disproved, isn't it as valid as any other interpretation?
- Filligree 9y agoThe equations don't describe anything like collapse, and Copenhagen doesn't really explain what's supposed to be triggering it. No, I don't think it's a match. There are plenty of interpretations that do match the math, though. You're not stuck with MWI.
- kgwgk 9y agoDecoherence doesn’t really solve the measurement problem. It may destroy the “interference” between the dead cat and the living cat, but it doesn’t explain why the cat is either dead or alive (in precisely one of the possible states).
- monktastic1 9y agoRight. Decoherence is really uncontrolled and "in practice irreversible" entanglement, but in practice != in principle. The state is still in a superposition; it has just become practically impossible to demonstrate the fact.
- Filligree 9y agoThat just describes MWI, though. You can recover normality from it, so I don't see the unending superposition as being a problem.
- kgwgk 9y agoHow can you recover “normality” from it?
- AstralStorm 9y agoHow do you tell you have reached "normality" or whatever state you wished without perturbing the quantum system? (Yes there are some tricks like observing phase angle while changing velocity etc. Used in quantum cryptology.)