3 ms·

> our minds collapse the wave function While I know there are many sources available of people saying this exact thing, this is a common misunderstanding of th

by 317070 3y ago

> our minds collapse the wave function While I know there are many sources available of people saying this exact thing, this is a common misunderstanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. There is nothing special about our minds.

goatlover 3y ago
It was Wigner who speculated that consciousness causes collapse. But Neils Bohr had a Kantian approach to science, so he did think it mattered how our minds understood the world, and what we can and can't say about physical formalisms.
FollowingTheDao 3y ago
First, thank you for responding. I’m not saying there’s anything special about our mind, it’s just a function of our mind. And is it misinterpretation or is it my interpretation that you disagree with? How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? I do not believe, for example, that the moon exist, only because I look at it. I think it exists in a probabilistic state in that probabilistic state turns to certainty when I look at it. But that is only my certainty. How do I share my mind’s interpretation of what the moon looks like with someone else? Exactly? I can’t, it’s impossible. The moon both exist, and does not exist at the same time. And what I mean it does not exist. I mean it does not exist in any sense of certainty. Hence the moon is a wave function. The fact that my brain in your brain can collapse the way function in an apparent 100% similarity provides no proof that the moon exists in a single state outside of our own minds.
- consilient 3y ago
  > How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? Photons are not particles or waves. They are similar to classical particles in certain respects and similar to classical waves in other respects, but what they're really like is a localized excitation of the electromagnetic field. Because that's what they are. Physics by analogy simply does not work. If you understand the math, analogies can occasionally be a helpful signpost. If you don't, they're worse than useless.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    Depends the interpretation. Bell thought the most straight forward conclusion was that quantum systems are both quantum waves and particles, where the wave guides the particle (Pilot Wave/Bohmian Mechanics). In MWI, particles are superpositions of every possible quantum value. We can understand that as branching worlds thanks to entanglement and decoherence. Saying we can't understand the mathematical formalism is a kind of Copenhagen interpretation.
kromem 3y ago
I'm curious why you think the commenter is interpreting according to the Copenhagen interpretation? It sounds more like they are working within a view similar to the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation.
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  Yes, and I feel that it will be proved to be right. But I will disagree with them on one point, that I don’t think that consciousness is a thing that causes wave collapse, rather, the brain has a function that calculates the highest probability of a particle, and provides that to consciousness.

by 317070 3y ago

goatlover 3y ago

It was Wigner who speculated that consciousness causes collapse. But Neils Bohr had a Kantian approach to science, so he did think it mattered how our minds understood the world, and what we can and can't say about physical formalisms.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago

First, thank you for responding. I’m not saying there’s anything special about our mind, it’s just a function of our mind. And is it misinterpretation or is it my interpretation that you disagree with? How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? I do not believe, for example, that the moon exist, only because I look at it. I think it exists in a probabilistic state in that probabilistic state turns to certainty when I look at it. But that is only my certainty. How do I share my mind’s interpretation of what the moon looks like with someone else? Exactly? I can’t, it’s impossible. The moon both exist, and does not exist at the same time. And what I mean it does not exist. I mean it does not exist in any sense of certainty. Hence the moon is a wave function. The fact that my brain in your brain can collapse the way function in an apparent 100% similarity provides no proof that the moon exists in a single state outside of our own minds.

consilient 3y ago
> How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? Photons are not particles or waves. They are similar to classical particles in certain respects and similar to classical waves in other respects, but what they're really like is a localized excitation of the electromagnetic field. Because that's what they are. Physics by analogy simply does not work. If you understand the math, analogies can occasionally be a helpful signpost. If you don't, they're worse than useless.
- goatlover 3y ago
  Depends the interpretation. Bell thought the most straight forward conclusion was that quantum systems are both quantum waves and particles, where the wave guides the particle (Pilot Wave/Bohmian Mechanics). In MWI, particles are superpositions of every possible quantum value. We can understand that as branching worlds thanks to entanglement and decoherence. Saying we can't understand the mathematical formalism is a kind of Copenhagen interpretation.

kromem 3y ago

I'm curious why you think the commenter is interpreting according to the Copenhagen interpretation? It sounds more like they are working within a view similar to the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago
Yes, and I feel that it will be proved to be right. But I will disagree with them on one point, that I don’t think that consciousness is a thing that causes wave collapse, rather, the brain has a function that calculates the highest probability of a particle, and provides that to consciousness.