Comments by "Adrian" (@HiAdrian) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
thatMimosaGrove
"Are you suggesting that because observation disturbs what is to be measured that this is the meaning of 'observation produces reality'? If so, then no. In the Copenhagen interpretation, observations not only disturb what is to be measured, observations actually produce the measured results."
I'm suggesting that you cannot observe something without disturbing it. The "results" you talk about cannot be had without measurement. Why you seem to assume that a person or animal (rather than a mere mechanical setup) has to be present to do this measurement, I don't know.
"Now, what exactly constitutes 'observation' can be a bit tricky and controversial, that's true. Copenhagen also says observation occurs when a microscopic object interacts with a macroscopic object. But I think it's clear that these interactions merely 'stack up,' so to speak, and particles become quantum entangled until a conscious observer observes them. Then the wave function of the entire system collapses. (This is what Schrodinger's cat nicely illustrates. Although it was meant to illustrate the absurdity of it all, it actually illustrates what is really happening.)"
You don't even need a macroscopic object. Microscopic entities interacting can suffice, which is why even careful measurement "spoils" the result. To my knowledge, Schrödinger's thought experiment ends with the opening of the "box". But it is the sudden interaction with the environment that would, if you will, collapse the superposition, not the presence of a man in a lab coat.
"'Decoherence' suggests that all this activity going on all the time keeps the whole thing going without need for a conscious observer to do any particular observing. That may be true (I doubt it) but again, it in no way changes the bottom line that consciousness produces physical reality rather than the other way around. Einstein's (...)"
I still don't follow. The falling tree in the forest makes a sound (pressure wave) even if no one is there to hear it. The sensation of hearing a sound doesn't happen of course. The same goes for all other physical phenomena. The perception of reality (qualia) is a product of consciousness, but the physical world isn't. For me the profound effects that physical changes to the brain (injury, surgery, disease, drugs) have on people's experience of reality, is convincing enough to assume a physical origin at the root of consciousness. As you seem convinced of the opposite, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
3
-
2
-
1
-
thatMimosaGrove
"OP is right on the money when he says, "The material world exists as a probability wave. The second you observe the probability wave becomes actual." I can give you right off hand a dozen authoritative QM statements to the effect that prior to the wave-function collapsing, there is no real world at all."
It looks like you have again sidestepped the question of what observation means.
"As Heisenberg himself put it, "...the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities of possibilities rather than one of things or facts." So you see, measuring these non-real particles is not what brings them into existence. It is consciousness."
Again, this quote could simply refer to the constructed nature of mathematical models. Given certain limits of what can experimentally be tested, one cannot differentiate between a (reality approximating) model and the reality it describes. Your "It is consciousness." interpretation is just added baggage.
"I wonder, would the words of some quantum theory founders help here?"
No, since they are decades old and highly speculative (I think Wigner changed his position later on). You could do the same to argue for the existence of gods, but modern polls of physicists would paint an equally contrasting picture from the past.
"QM is not necessarily telling us our thoughts create whatever reality we want. It's telling us that consciousness is what collapses the wavefunction. It's telling us that consciousness produces physical reality."
That's still just your opinion. For me, the universe that "happened" for billions of years and eventually allowed conscious beings to evolve, is very much what I would define as physical reality. What makes your consciousness-created physical reality different?
"There are no mountains of evidence to the contrary. (...) QM tells us consciousness is fundamental"
No, the "consciousness" you seem to talking about is firmly in the realm of philosophy, i.e. not empirical science at all. Cherry picking personal quotes won't change that.
1
-
thatMimosaGrove "I thought that's been clear from the start. I think an observation occurs whenever a conscious observer takes a peek. Or perhaps more accurately 'acquires information.'"
Fair enough, but you need to keep in mind that the word might not have the same meaning in the context of other people's quotes.
"What you mean by observation, on the other hand... well, heh, I'm not quite sure. If I understand you correctly, observation merely means taking a measurement — a measurement of an already existing particle in an already existing universe."
Right, that's what I mean* and assume to be the meaning in most statements one can find about experimental results.
*except for the "particle" maybe, a classical concept.
"What could possibly be controversial about such a mundane procedure? Why would Einstein, for instance be so concerned about it?"
I think Einstein didn't like the idea that underlying reality behaves non-classically and that if you can properly isolate a system, weird shit is going on until you take a measurement. The way I see it, the moon was just a metaphor/exaggeration to make a point. As was Schrödinger's cat. Going with the consciousness-induced reality model, the lab outside the box would, from the cat's point of view, also be in some strange superposition until the lid got opened. Aside from a many-worlds concept, I don't see how these competing "realities" can coexist.
To summarize: the world at the small scale is very weird to our human intuitions; measurements can affect outcomes (i.e. appear as if they affect starting conditions after the fact). I personally don't see where consciousness enters the picture, but I'm no physicist either.
As for the video this comment thread was started under, I take the position that free will is implausible, as much as we might prefer it to be real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1