Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Francois Tremblay · 02-13-2002, 05:28 PM

Well, since I disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation, I guess my objections are moot. But your explanation doesn't really explain why the argument is not circular (not to mention the silliness of any multiple universes hypothesis). Your "explanation" only makes "uncollapsed universe" the functional equivalent of "collapsed universe", which kinda makes your whole point moot.

David Gould · 02-13-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Franc28:
Well, since I disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation, I guess my objections are moot. But your explanation doesn't really explain why the argument is not circular (not to mention the silliness of any multiple universes hypothesis). Your "explanation" only makes "uncollapsed universe" the functional equivalent of "collapsed universe", which kinda makes your whole point moot.

I do not understand why it is circular so it makes it hard for me to rebut the accusation...

I am not proposing multiple universes actually existing. I am saying that universes without intelligent life are impossible if Copenhagen is true. (intelligence is invevitable)

This is my argument:

P1.) Copenhagen is true
P2.) The universe is the result of a collapsed wave function.
C.) Therefore, intelligence was the inevitable result.

I do not see the circularity.

A wave function contains all possible collapses for that wave function. Wave functions, prior to observation, cause effects as if all possible collapses have actually occurred. Thus, the wave function of the unvierse would, if it contains the possibility of intelligent life, have an effect as if that intelligent life already existed. (ie, the collapse of the wave function).

I am not sure I believe Copenhagen, either. But it in no way seems mystical to me.

David Gould · 02-13-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christopher Lord:
But wouldnt the chaos of normal impacts average out as well?

The observer actually sends a directed, non-random particle at the desired target. this would be what collapses.

I highly doubt a mind is required to collapse these. Minds can create order, however, and this would have to be ruled out before moving on to such an exotic sugestion.

I do not know what you mean by a normal impact.

Every unobserved particle is a wave function. If we send a photon off at a target and cease to observe it, the photon ceases to be a point particle but becomes instead a wave function.

Thus, there is no 'non-randomness' unless we continually observe. And our observations of this particle will naturally be observations of the other particle when they collide.

Bill · 02-13-2002, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
For example, they have done experiments with detectors set at different places detecting for waves or particles (you can only detect one or the other) and had the results put into storage without anyone looking at them.

Then they have rolled a dice to see which one they would look at first.

Whichever one they looked at first had meaningful information on it. The other one always was noise.

This implies that it is the conscious observer that collapses the wave function and not simply the inanimate detectors.

This sounds vaguely like the attempts at obtaining Faster-Than-Light (FTL) communication through collapsing the wave function. It also involves a phenomena called "entanglement." Basically, you take two photons and "entangle" them appropriately. Then, you transport the second entangled photon an arbitrary distance away from the first photon. At some prearranged moment, the person in custody of the first photon observes it. That collapses the wave function of BOTH of the entangled photons. The person in custody of the second photon can then make one (and ONLY one) observation of the photon. When notes are compared with the person in custody of the first photon, the two observations will correlate. All subsequent observations produce only noise.

You might get some more on this from this article on <a href="http://www.cakes.mcmail.com/StarTrek/teleportation.htm" target="_blank">Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation.</a> The phenomena of "entanglement" is a product of the <a href="http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm" target="_blank">Everett</a> or <a href="http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm" target="_blank">"Many Worlds"</a> interpretation of quantum mechanics. The mind-blowing aspect of the "Many Worlds" interpretation is that the act of observing something produces as many different universes as the number of possible results.

Quote:

The wavefunction, instead of collapsing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all possibilities embedded within it. All outcomes exist simultaneously but do not interfere further with each other, each single prior world having split into mutually unobservable but equally real worlds.

However, the entangled state is not really inexistence for long enough to do any good for long distance communication. as it says in <a href="http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/thw/publications/proceeding/pdfdownloads/novgorod.pdf" target="_blank">THIS PAPER</a> (.pdf format):

Quote:

The entangled state exists for milliseconds vs. nanoseconds to microseconds in photon experiments; this is an orders of magnitude longer time scale.

Even in the millisecond range for atomic particles, the entangled state doesn't exist for long enough to really separate the entangled particles to perform anything useful in the real world. I mention this to show that what might seem to be a promising avenue of research might, in light of physical reality, not be particularly promising after all.

== Bill

tronvillain · 02-13-2002, 07:43 PM

P1.) Copenhagen is true
P2.) The universe is the result of a collapsed wave function.
C.) Therefore, intelligence was the inevitable result.

The thing is, I'm not at all sure C follows from P1 and P2. You're going to have to specify exactly what you mean by "Copenhagen is true."

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

echidna · 02-13-2002, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
However, I disagree that Coenhagen points to a omniscient consciousness.

Unfortunately it keys into Ontological Arguments quite well as I see it. If Aquinas proved (which is debatable of course) that for the universe to exist requires a contingent being, CI would support that a Universal Observer may be necessary to collapse its wave function.

As tron says, it�s absurd and yet impossibly elegant in its frustrating circularity.

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
There is nothing more mystical in that than the ability to self identify.

There are some of us amoeba who still think that�s a bit tricky.

David Gould · 02-13-2002, 07:51 PM

'Copenhagen is true' would include the following:

- wave functions are collapsed if and only if observed by a conscious observer
- the collapse only results in one event (no multiple universes)

I think that about covers it. (I am assuming that the other parts of QM in general are a given and not really relevant anyway)

I think C has to follow if P1 and P2 are correct.

echidna · 02-13-2002, 07:57 PM

I believe that part of the dilemma comes from there being no apparent boundary to what can be considered a quantum system ? In fact recent experiments (SciAm ?) have demonstrated spooky action at a distance in that clouds of particles have been separated and somehow coordinated their behaviour without direct communication. Previously spooky action had only been observed in single pairs.

David Gould · 02-13-2002, 07:58 PM

Echidna,

My argument is based on the fact that the possibility of there being an observer acts as if there is one.

The fact that the probability states within a wave function have an effect prior to observation has been experimentally verified.

Thus, there is no need for a being external to the universal wave function to observe it - the mere possiblity within the wave function of observers will make the wave function act as if it had been observed.

echidna · 02-13-2002, 08:09 PM

Offside, I was bushwalking last weekend with some friends and I was asking the kids if a tree fell whether it would make a noise or not if there was no one there to hear it.

When one parent (logical positivist) scoffed I replied with :

1. Explanation of the CI (with her Transactional Interpretation alternative), which would indicate that the result is indeterminate.
2. That noise, like taste, smell, colour, are qualia that our consciousness interprets from vibration, chemicals and wavelengths, and hence no noise was made, only vibrations.

02-13-2002, 07:43 PM	#25
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	P1.) Copenhagen is true P2.) The universe is the result of a collapsed wave function. C.) Therefore, intelligence was the inevitable result. The thing is, I'm not at all sure C follows from P1 and P2. You're going to have to specify exactly what you mean by "Copenhagen is true." [ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2002, 05:28 PM	#21
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	Well, since I disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation, I guess my objections are moot. But your explanation doesn't really explain why the argument is not circular (not to mention the silliness of any multiple universes hypothesis). Your "explanation" only makes "uncollapsed universe" the functional equivalent of "collapsed universe", which kinda makes your whole point moot.

02-13-2002, 07:51 PM	#27
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	'Copenhagen is true' would include the following: - wave functions are collapsed if and only if observed by a conscious observer - the collapse only results in one event (no multiple universes) I think that about covers it. (I am assuming that the other parts of QM in general are a given and not really relevant anyway) I think C has to follow if P1 and P2 are correct.

02-13-2002, 07:57 PM	#28
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	I believe that part of the dilemma comes from there being no apparent boundary to what can be considered a quantum system ? In fact recent experiments (SciAm ?) have demonstrated spooky action at a distance in that clouds of particles have been separated and somehow coordinated their behaviour without direct communication. Previously spooky action had only been observed in single pairs.

02-13-2002, 07:58 PM	#29
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	Echidna, My argument is based on the fact that the possibility of there being an observer acts as if there is one. The fact that the probability states within a wave function have an effect prior to observation has been experimentally verified. Thus, there is no need for a being external to the universal wave function to observe it - the mere possiblity within the wave function of observers will make the wave function act as if it had been observed.

02-13-2002, 08:09 PM	#30
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Offside, I was bushwalking last weekend with some friends and I was asking the kids if a tree fell whether it would make a noise or not if there was no one there to hear it. When one parent (logical positivist) scoffed I replied with : 1. Explanation of the CI (with her Transactional Interpretation alternative), which would indicate that the result is indeterminate. 2. That noise, like taste, smell, colour, are qualia that our consciousness interprets from vibration, chemicals and wavelengths, and hence no noise was made, only vibrations.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.