NationStates Jolt Archive

The "Ultimate Fate of the Universe" thread mutated into a discussion about the nature of consciousness. So I'm creating this spinoff to initiate a discussion on the basis and role consciousness has in quantum mechanics. This thread could become highly scientific or philosophical, be aware of that. Well, for all those that need a little introduction:

Physics nowadays dictate that any particle in reality exists as a waveform when unobserved, and collapses into a definite particle only when observed by consciousness. This means, the world outside conscious perception cannot, in actual and definite, not metaphorical or metaphysical way, be defined as "real", at least not in the way we perceive reality, but rather as a blurred mess of indefinite quantum states.
That was very brief, but I assume only people who have already gained a little knowledge on the topic will join this discussion, so that'd be it for that matter.

Here are the main contestants I assume to have the potential of claiming the crown of being the One True Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics:

1) If you claim that the collapse of the waveform into a particle is an "illusion" and does not really take place, you'll end up with the Many-Worlds Interpretation. This theory claims that anything that can happen, will happen - but in parallel realities. Whenever a waveform is perceived by consciousness, it does not collapse into a definite state, but rather, the indefinite state expands onto the perceiving consciousness, splitting the universe into as many different realities as there are possibly quantum states of that particle waveform, thus any definite state we perceive is only one of many that are actually real, and it is only real in our own universe, whereas other splitoff universes perceive other states.

2) If you accept the collapse as real, in accordance with the Copenhagen Interpretation, then you will end up with admitting that consciousness has some kind of real power in actually creating reality, because only conscious perception of the indefinite quantum state causes it to take on a definite state, thus defining actual reality.

There are some minor other interpretations, which I won't deal with here, but you're invited to discuss them as well.

You can also look all this stuff up on wikipedia, for a brief lesson that'll tell you all you need to understand this, but I'd rather like people who already know about it and have their own opinions on this matter join the discussion.

It devolves into two distinct groups (saving what you're holding back): which side of the coin changes. It seems to me that we don't dictate nature, nature dictates us.

Quantum Mechanics are an offense to Allah, and He urges His followers to insert wooden shoes into the hated Stern-Gerlach devices.

A counterargument is that the superimposition of two conscious states is not paradoxical — just as there is no interaction between the multiple quantum states of a particle, so the superimposed consciousnesses need not be aware of each other. However, it has been contested whether this "many-minds interpretation" of quantum mechanics yields the same probability distribution as the Copenhagen interpretation in experiments involving repeated measurement.

The Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't guarantee an effect of conscious perception on waveform collapse.


Sorry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_Friend

Let's be honest - why would anyone care about this stuff?

I'm living my life fairly well without knowledge of such things, life in general has being going on for several billion years without knowledge of such things, and even if we did know the truth about this kind of jazz, what would we want to for in particular?

Let's be honest - why would anyone care about this stuff?

I'm living my life fairly well without knowledge of such things, life in general has being going on for several billion years without knowledge of such things, and even if we did know the truth about this kind of jazz, what would we want to for in particular?

*shrug* I'm a physicist, so it's something I'm personally interested in. And why should we care about the possibility of life on other planets if FTL is impossible and the amount of transit time between those planets is literally "astronomical"? Why should we care about Heat Island effect of large cities and their effect on airflow if the cause may easily be random perturbations of which we have no capacity to predict or control?

Because it works in real life.

Tunnelling, for instance. If tunnel diodes didn't work, most common watches would not be electronic.

Quantum physics will, in the near future, allow untamperable cryptographic communication.

It will also usher in a new age of computing power orders of magnitude greater than today.

Other than that - well, not a big deal.

Assuming Quantum Computing research pays off. Which isn't a guarantee.

Let's be honest - why would anyone care about this stuff?

I'm living my life fairly well without knowledge of such things, life in general has being going on for several billion years without knowledge of such things, and even if we did know the truth about this kind of jazz, what would we want to for in particular?

Because it works in real life.

Tunnelling, for instance. If tunnel diodes didn't work, most common watches would not be electronic.

Quantum physics will, in the near future, allow untamperable cryptographic communication.

It will also usher in a new age of computing power orders of magnitude greater than today.

Other than that - well, not a big deal.

Because it works in real life.

Tunnelling, for instance. If tunnel diodes didn't work, most common watches would not be electronic.
Oh. Right.

No great loss, I quite like proper watches.
Quantum physics will, in the near future, allow untamperable cryptographic communication.
You think.
It will also usher in a new age of computing power orders of magnitude greater than today.
To do what, exactly?

They'll still be programmed originally by flawed humans, and the ones we have at the moment are fine, really.

Oh. Right.

No great loss, I quite like proper watches.

You think.

To do what, exactly?

They'll still be programmed originally by flawed humans, and the ones we have at the moment are fine, really.

Actually, a lot cannot be done today with today's computers.

Accurate simulation, for one. You just can't build a serial computer powerful enough to simulate things like turbulence, etc.

But, with a suitably powerful quantum computer (let's say one with hundreds of qubits), you could simulate turbulence, predict stock prices accurately, etc.

Actually, a lot cannot be done today with today's computers.

Accurate simulation, for one. You just can't build a serial computer powerful enough to simulate things like turbulence, etc.

But, with a suitably powerful quantum computer (let's say one with hundreds of qubits), you could simulate turbulence, predict stock prices accurately, etc.

It's amazing what we might be able to do with a powerful quantum computer. Think about the capabilities for AI we would have. I mean that's our real bottleneck with fully functioning AI: Computing power. It's already possible to come up with an algorithm to accurately simulate what we know of human behavior. But the amount of time it would take a computer today to process that information makes it completely unreasonable to try implementing such an algorithm.

Actually, a lot cannot be done today with today's computers.

Accurate simulation, for one. You just can't build a serial computer powerful enough to simulate things like turbulence, etc.

But, with a suitably powerful quantum computer (let's say one with hundreds of qubits), you could simulate turbulence, predict stock prices accurately, etc.
Oh. Great.

By the time that this is all properly researched, we'll probably be running low enough on oil that turbulence isn't an issue, because we'll all be pootling about on bikes, and stock prices won't matter, because money'll be fairly pointless.

Oh. Great.

By the time that this is all properly researched, we'll probably be running low enough on oil that turbulence isn't an issue, because we'll all be pootling about on bikes, and stock prices won't matter, because money'll be fairly pointless.

Right. Because there's no such thing as alternative fuels, and because the economy is 100% dependent on the oil market.

Right. Because there's no such thing as alternative fuels, and because the economy is 100% dependent on the oil market.
More because alternate fuels aren't in a state which is properly ready to take over from the oil economy any time soon.

And much of many economies is largely based on oil-powered goods, or those created using various oil by-products, yes.

Anyway, I'll stop ruining this thread. Tata for now.

Quantum Mechanics are an offense to Allah, and He urges His followers to insert wooden shoes into the hated Stern-Gerlach devices.

You're just pissed off that in some other universe, Muhammad decided to live a peaceful life herding camels, and Allah stayed a minor deity. :P

Moving on. My understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation must be flawed, because, unless I'm mistaken, a waveform condensing into a particle doesn't mean one's brain has caused it to collapse, it merely means that concious observation gives the waveform perspective, in which it MUST be viewed as a particle, since a concious entity could not view and/or study a waveform.


Then again I'm a historian, not a physicist.

Right. Because there's no such thing as alternative fuels, and because the economy is 100% dependent on the oil market.

Yep

/end cynicism

You're just pissed off that in some other universe, Muhammad decided to live a peaceful life herding camels, and Allah stayed a minor deity. :P

You're the worst kind of blasphemer. People like you would not only draw a likeness of the Prophet, but you'd also give him a ridiculous handlebar mustache or something.

You're the worst kind of blasphemer. People like you would not only draw a likeness of the Prophet, but you'd also give him a ridiculous handlebar mustache or something.

Not to mention that ridiculous bomb hat...

Quantum mechanics works in the sense that it correctly predicts certain observable phenomena and the outcomes of certain experiments. It does not say the slightest thing about how nature actually works. Just like it is easy to predict where the hands of a watch are at a certain time without knowing how the watch actually works. It may work in a whole range of ways (I'd say an infinite number of ways), but you cannot tell how just by looking at the hands.

That is what we are doing, because it is all we can do: look at the hands of the watch. That is, we can only observe nature, her phenomena, and how our sophisticated experiments turn out. Observation is our only source for all scientific purposes, and there is simply no way that it can tell us if a certain interpretation is correct. We might be able to detect inconsistencies between a given interpretation and reality, thus falsifying the interpretation, but that's about it.

There is no guarantee that the "correct" interpretation, if any such can be defined, is intuitively appealing. If a consistent and intuitively appealing interpretation is devised, however, there is no reason why one should not endorse that interpretation.

----

Not to mention that ridiculous bomb hat...

Now now, we should not let this thread degenerate into a discussion of Danish art.

I always thought that anything can be an observer and it will effect collapse, isnt consciousness just another part of the universe, the universe effects its own change?

I always thought that anything can be an observer and it will effect collapse, isnt consciousness just another part of the universe, the universe effects its own change?

You can set up an experiment in which you get different results depending on where you make the first observation.

What you do is to fire some particles at a double slit with a detector screen behind it. If your only observation is made at the screen you'll see some interference pattern. However, if you place a detector that measures which slit any given particle passes through, the pattern on the screen is that of classical particles shot through a double slit. That is because the observation of which slit a particle "chooses" (in lack of a better term) causes the wave function to collapse into a localized eigenstate (some may want to wikipediate this), so that it cannot pass both slits simultaneously, as would a non-localized state.

I guess now would be a bit late to put up a warning about the risks of technical discussion?

Physics nowadays dictate that any particle in reality exists as a waveform when unobserved, and collapses into a definite particle only when observed by consciousness. That is not in fact what quantum mechanics claims. First of all collapsing waveforms is an interpretation; secondly consciousness does not factor into the observation necessary for collapse under that interpretation, any measurement will do.

*sigh* Bad physics gives me headaches, you got at least that much right.

That is not in fact what quantum mechanics claims. First of all collapsing waveforms is an interpretation; secondly consciousness does not factor into the observation necessary for collapse under that interpretation, any measurement will do.

*sigh* Bad physics gives me headaches, you got at least that much right.

The Double-slit experiment is a perfect example of waveform collapse without the need for an intelligent observer. The waveform collapses as it passes through the double-slit, with or without an observer present. Suggesting that an observer must be present for the waveform collapse is just a silly rehashing of the "tree falls in the woods..." idea.

1) If you claim that the collapse of the waveform into a particle is an "illusion" and does not really take place, you'll end up with the Many-Worlds Interpretation. This theory claims that anything that can happen, will happen - but in parallel realities. Whenever a waveform is perceived by consciousness, it does not collapse into a definite state, but rather, the indefinite state expands onto the perceiving consciousness, splitting the universe into as many different realities as there are possibly quantum states of that particle waveform, thus any definite state we perceive is only one of many that are actually real, and it is only real in our own universe, whereas other splitoff universes perceive other states.

2) If you accept the collapse as real, in accordance with the Copenhagen Interpretation, then you will end up with admitting that consciousness has some kind of real power in actually creating reality, because only conscious perception of the indefinite quantum state causes it to take on a definite state, thus defining actual reality.


Can't it be both?

The Double-slit experience is a perfect example of waveform collapse without the need for an intelligent observer. The waveform collapses as it passes through the double-slit, with or without an observer present. Suggesting that an observer must be present for the waveform collapse is just a silly rehashing of the "tree falls in the woods..." idea.

It can be observed that the wave function collapses if the measurement is made, but that observation requires someone to observe. The question is what constitutes a measurement? A physical consequence of a given collapsed state? - Or would those consequences evaporate into a superposition of physical consequences, that is, a non-collapsed state of the entire system including both the original system and the measuring equipment?

Does the light in the fridge really go out when the door is closed?

It can be observed that the wave function collapses if the measurement is made, but that observation requires someone to observe. The question is what constitutes a measurement? A physical consequence of a given collapsed state? - Or would those consequences evaporate into a superposition of physical consequences, that is, a non-collapsed state of the entire system including both the original system and the measuring equipment?

Does the light in the fridge really go out when the door is closed?

I see what you mean. And you're right.

It can be observed that the wave function collapses if the measurement is made, but that observation requires someone to observe. The question is what constitutes a measurement? A physical consequence of a given collapsed state? - Or would those consequences evaporate into a superposition of physical consequences, that is, a non-collapsed state of the entire system including both the original system and the measuring equipment?

Does the light in the fridge really go out when the door is closed?

Is the cat dead or alive?

*shrug* I'm a physicist, so it's something I'm personally interested in. And why should we care about the possibility of life on other planets if FTL is impossible and the amount of transit time between those planets is literally "astronomical"? Why should we care about Heat Island effect of large cities and their effect on airflow if the cause may easily be random perturbations of which we have no capacity to predict or control?

All good questions. To which I offer the following response. Rather than asking why, determine how. And if that is impossible, there is nothing you can do. Thus, I should not be worried.

No great loss, I quite like proper watches.

There is a theory that quantum tunneling is how enzymes work.

Also; We need someone to make a bose-einstein condensate.

There is a theory that quantum tunneling is how enzymes work.

Also; We need someone to make a bose-einstein condensate.

We have. In 1995, no less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_einstein_condensate

We have. In 1995, no less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_einstein_condensate

I mean someone from NSG. You seem like a raring chappie who is interested in kinetics, why don't you gather some QM buddies and cool down some atoms for us?

Can't it be both?

Is the cat dead or alive?

Can the cat be both dead and alive? An undead quantum cat.

Is not knowing the answer?

Can the cat be both dead and alive? An undead quantum cat.

Is not knowing the answer?

Infinite undead quantum cats that wave to us whenever we're not looking.

Lets cool down some atoms guys

Hooray for Physicist 'facilitators'!

You're the worst kind of blasphemer. People like you would not only draw a likeness of the Prophet, but you'd also give him a ridiculous handlebar mustache or something.

I was thinking one of those wire-thin mustchaes right above the lip.

Let's be honest - why would anyone care about this stuff?

Are you fucking kidding?
I've spent almost my entire life thinking about this.
And i'm in 5th grade!

Not to invalidate the rest of your point, but this is a great topic.

*shrug* I'm a physicist, so it's something I'm personally interested in. And why should we care about the possibility of life on other planets if FTL is impossible and the amount of transit time between those planets is literally "astronomical"? Why should we care about Heat Island effect of large cities and their effect on airflow if the cause may easily be random perturbations of which we have no capacity to predict or control?

Great, now i have a specific PERSONAL reason to respect you, aside from your online persona. Pfft.
*bows*

Lets cool down some atoms guys

Lets start with cats.
Point one: Assumption is, we all know what happens to measurement of cats after they've been heated up, presumably by incessant rubbing or perhaps even microwave ovens.

I see what you mean. And you're right.

They're only right because you see it.
If you didn't, it would be in a perpetuative state of undetermined. :p

Quantum physics will, in the near future, allow untamperable cryptographic communication.


No. In an experiment in the last months at the MIT, Eve has intercepted and successfully copied/scrambled the message between Alice and Bob, with a success rate of about 40%.:p

Do not mix the no-cloning theorem with the technical feasibility of intercepting, reading and manipulating a PART of a quantically encrypted transmission.

It can be observed that the wave function collapses if the measurement is made, but that observation requires someone to observe. The question is what constitutes a measurement? A physical consequence of a given collapsed state? - Or would those consequences evaporate into a superposition of physical consequences, that is, a non-collapsed state of the entire system including both the original system and the measuring equipment?

Does the light in the fridge really go out when the door is closed?

The problem is that, at the metaphysical level, we require the cause-effect chain to remain the classical one, because we aren't able to understand reality without the cause-effect chain (that is, standard timeflow+Einstein's relativity).
So, we postulate that the fact that we will do a measurement on the layer of particles deposited on the target in a Stern-Gerlach AFTER the deposition of the layer itself, for example, will be OUTSIDE of the cone of events that can affect the actual collapse of the wave, because the collapse happens DURING the operation of the S-G device.

Ahh... no physics without metaphysics, like no mathematics without metamathematics, no logics without metalogics. Gödel rules.

You folks really need to go out and concentrate more on making babies. This stuff, even if you are a phycisist, has no practical place in general dialogue. Pour yourself a scotch and soda, call up that old flame, and get it on. Way more exciting than this.

You folks really need to go out and concentrate more on making babies. This stuff, even if you are a physicist, has no practical place in general dialogue. Pour yourself a scotch and soda, call up that old flame, and get it on. Way more exciting than this.

You are so very right, that is what we should do.

The sad reason why some people bother to even think about QM is that we somehow believe that it will help us doing just that. We fail to conclude from our observations that this assumption conflicts with reality.

No. In an experiment in the last months at the MIT, Eve has intercepted and successfully copied/scrambled the message between Alice and Bob, with a success rate of about 40%.:p

Do not mix the no-cloning theorem with the technical feasibility of intercepting, reading and manipulating a PART of a quantically encrypted transmission.

The nice thing is, you know when people have read or tampered with it, which is a big improvement over cryptography today.

Once people start talking about the 'flavour' of particles, I get too hungry to follow the discussion anymore.

I thought it was quarks that have flavor, color, etc..

I thought it was quarks that have flavor, color, etc..

Fermions (including quarks) have to be different in order to be in the exact same quantum state and same locations, as their probability amplitude would be zero if they were exactly the same in every way.

But they seem to be the same, and to remedy this they are given some properties like flavour and colour that may vary. This allows them to exist in the way they do without violating the standard model and quantum mechanics.

I haven't studied this specific area very deeply, but to me it appears as a slightly arbitrary solution. I'm convinced however, that the professionals making the theories have some very good reasoning behind their principles. It just would not be like them not to have.

I should go read some more about this...

Quantum Mechanics are an offense to Allah, and He urges His followers to insert wooden shoes into the hated Stern-Gerlach devices.

I know what we need. We need a Fatwa. Come on, you know you want to.

I know what we need. We need a Fatwa. Come on, you know you want to.

Until we hear more, quantum mechanics is in a superimposed state of having and not having a fatwa upon it.