Peter Soderqvist

TO SODIUM

Soderqist1: The problems starts when we come to Quantum Cosmology!
As pointed out earlier by me!

Soderqvist1: There is no third alternative as far as I know, either immaterial mind or multiverse, pick your weirdness?

Soderqvist1: Not correct!
The wave function collapses when measured according to Copenhagen Interpretation, or decoherences into many branches of universes according to Everett! A random event is for instance, radio isotopic decay because it is acausal phenomenon, but its probability to decay can be calculated in half-life, some is shorter, some is longer which give us halve-life in average! We cannot say why, nor exactly when a particular decay happens, therefore it is random! But we can predict when the wave function collapses, and why it does so, it happens for instance every time we scan the quantum system with say; a photon beam apparatus, therefore; it is a nonrandom phenomena!

Soderqvist1: Not correct!
The probability where the electron can be found is given by the wave function, since where the wave amplitude is as highest; there is the highest probability to find the electron too, and vice versa! But the wave function cannot say when it will collapse!

Soderqvist1: Quantum physicists in their ordinary work doesn't need the immaterial mind, or multiverse hypothesis because they work on relatively small areas, it is simply the relation between the quantum system and the measuring apparatus which is part of the rest of macro universe! But the problem exists in Quantum cosmology as pointed to earlier, because the whole universe is in a superposition of states, every measuring apparatus too, if quantum physics is consistent on a cosmological scale!

Quest for the Quantum Computer by Julian Brown!
Deutsch is a physicist, winner of the 1998 Paul Dirac prize for theoretical physics and a researcher at the Center for Quantum Computation at Oxford University's Clarendon Laboratory. In the early 1980s, Deutsch's proposed experiment (described more fully in Chapter 3) sounded like the stuff of science fiction. To test the existence of multiple universes, he envisaged the construction of a thinking, conscious artificial intelligence whose memory worked "at the quantum level." Such a machine, he claimed, could be asked to conduct a crucial experiment inside its own brain and report back to us whether Deutsch was indeed right to believe in the existence of parallel universes.

Well, nearly 20 years later we have the answer because quantum computer memory is on the verge of becoming an experimental reality. Interpretations aside, it's long been known that at the atomic level waves can behave like particles, and particles have waves associated with them. A single entity such as an electron, for example, can travel along many different routes simultaneously as if it were really a spread-out phenomenon like a wave. The essential idea of quantum parallelism advanced by Deutsch was this: If an electron can explore many different routes simultaneously, then a computer should be able to calculate along many different pathways simultaneously too! http://www.simonsays.com/excerpt.cfm?isbn=0684814811

David Deutsch’s Home Page!
http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html

4. The Copenhagen interpretation!
Bohr understood that there was no precise way to define the exact point at which collapse occurred. Any attempt to do so would yield a different theory rather than an interpretation of the existing theory. Nonetheless he felt it was connected to conscious observation, as this was the ultimate criterion by which we know a specific observation has occurred.
http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm.html#toc4

Soderqvist1: Many worlds interpretation is parsimony with wave function collapse because the interpretation doesn't have any collapse but is instead wasteful with universes, if and only if David Deutsch's experiment is proven wrong, the immaterial mind hypothesis, the offspring from Bohr's feeling that, consciousness is the collapser of wave function, will be the only one which is consistent with Quantum Cosmology!

Carl Treetop

I find quantum mechanics confusing, and admittedly I do not have a good understanding of it. However, it seems to me that it does not apply once matter has reached the state of stable atomic elements - from hydrogen on up. In the macro-world all of the laws and theories of physics (not counting quantum m.) and chemistry seem to apply reliably. This includes the human body, the food we eat and the body’s processing of that food, the earth and oceans, and the natural processes of the macro-world.

So it seems that in regard to the free will vs. determinism issue, quantum mechanics is not relevant. Human bodies, once adulthood is reached, change little over time other than to age in a fairly predictable manner. Likewise, adult personalities change little over time other than (barring illness) to generally become somewhat more tolerant.

If I am incorrect on this, Peter, can you explain (in layman’s terms) how so, and specifically how quantum mechanics applies to this debate?

sodium

I know you addressed this to Peter, but since I'm another participant in the quantum debate, I think I can answer your question as well.

Belief in Free Will, as most philosophers seem to understand it, necessitates belief in conscious minds that operate outside our normal physical laws. You might be able to define Free Will so that it is compatible with materialism, but most philosophers do not.

So, the Free Will discussion is closely related to the argument over immaterial conscious minds. Any reason to believe such things actually exist would help the argument for free will. Peter contends that the most palatable interpretations of quantum mechanics imply a special role for immaterial minds, because by believing in immaterial minds, we can avoid certain strange conclusions that cannot be avoided otherwise. I disagree.

sodium

Well, given the choice, I'd pick multiverse, which here I'll take to mean the Many Worlds theory. But I thought you were arguing that immaterial minds must have a role, thus lending support to the kind of free will that contradicts materialism. But now you say that I could instead pick Many Worlds, and give arguments for why Many Worlds must be true anyway. What gives? And anyway, there's also the Transactional Interpretation and Bohm's Interpretation.

You responded to my comment, "The simplest explanation is that when the wave function collapses, a random event has occurred, and the probability that a particular event will occur is given by the wave function." Reading your comments, It appears that I didn't get my point across. So, let me give an example. You turn on a flashlight and aim it at a wall. A photon is emitted. You can calculate where and when the photon is likely to end up by using formulas that describe a wave-like pattern. But eventually, the photon stops behaving like a wave, and interacts with something. At this point, there are no split realities or superposition of states. The photon is wherever it is. However, the new state of the universe is not fully determined by the previous state (or vice versa), so in that sense, it is truly random.

I would say that quantum physicists in their ordinary work don't need the immaterial mind because hypothesizing a role for it in QM doesn't change any of the experimental results.

As I said above, there is no particular reason to believe in all these superpositions of states.

Let's have some thought experiments. I'll state the results I expect, and you can differ with either the experimental results or the conclusions I draw. I'll be assuming that conscious minds cause specific realities to be selected, even though I still don't agree with this.

1) Measure a photon's position. The interference pattern disappears, whether anyone actually looks at the results or not. You might argue that there is a non-observable difference in that looking causes reality pruning, but there is no change in the observable results. So, the kind of wave-function collapse we can observe is not affected by conscious observation.

2) Imagine setting up a Geiger counter over some slightly radioactive material. The Geiger counter is not set up to emit any noise, but instead, advances a display showing the number of hits. We stand in the room with our eyes closed. You open your eyes and look at the display, and then I do the same. We see the same result. So, presumably, when you looked at the display, you must have caused reality selection to occur, so that I would get the same result. By being first, you had a profound effect that I did not. But special relativity says that the question of which of two events come first can depend on what frame of reference you use. So, what is the universe's frame of reference for deciding which of two conscious minds causes this kind of unobserved effect? Also, was your effect instantantaneous, and would it be instantaneous at any distance?

Peter Soderqvist

TO SODIUM
Soderqvist1: What frame of reference do you use to show that you were the first observer, and I was only after you? If there is no frame of reference in order to decide who was first, there is no way to say that our observations differ in time either! From that point of view, consciousness is oneness, known as Brahman! Just as when we are dreaming, since the dreamer control every actor in the dream, even if he doesn't know anything about it when he is dreaming! Erwin Schrodinger has used this theory in his mind and matter lecture 1954, and has proven that mind is indestructible by time! Here is a quote from my home side link to Schrodinger 's Book what is Life?