The von NeumannWigner interpretation and the Fine Tuning Problem
It occured to me the other night that the von NeumannWigner interpretation of quantum mechanics, that consciousness is what causes wave collapse (or decoherence), solves the Fine Tuning Problem quite nicely.
Why do we find ourselves in a universe that appears to be "fine tuned," for life? Because all realities exist together as quantum possibilities until just that moment when consciousness is possible then, boom! all possible pasts collapse into the outcome that produced consciousness. This works if consciousness is somehow caused by the physical world, or if it is suis generis. If it is suis generis though, we have the problem of figuring out how it shows up in the world in the first place.
And this then also neatly describes why consciousness is so impossible to find in all our myriad brain scans. This is puzzling because we think we should have the resolution of scans we need to be able to identify what it is that "causes," consciousness. But instead the brain is like an expert magician, who pulls a rabbit out of a hat even when he's inside an MRI.
But, if we interact with our bodies by collapsing quantum probabilities into actualities, this is no problem. Consciousness isn't anywhere to be found in the brain because its interactions with the brain occur in a manner that we cannot measure with such scans. However, we do see that the limits on consciousness can be found in the brain easily enough. This isn't suprising because damage to the brain, the effects of drugs, etc. obviously effect which quantum possibilities exist for consciousness to collapse at any given moment. Additionally, we don't have complete control over our thoughts because only so many possibilities exist at any given moment, others have already been collapsed, while other people's observation of us is also collapsing the possibilities available to consciousness.
Now how does our glorious Atman get effected by our brains? Why do we think differently when drunk or tired? That might well be unknowable, as we can only observe one half of the interaction. But perhaps not. Under consciousness causes collapse, consciousness still can be a physical phenomena. It is one that is generated non-classically and then in turn collapses elements of the "past" into classical necessity.
Now, if our minds aren't physical, how might we account for how our immaterial Atman has become mixed with this materiality? Maybe it's that pesky Yaldaboath!?
Not that I am at all an advocate for "consciousness causes collapse," but sometimes exploring theories you don't like tells you important things about the ones you do like. In any event, in comparison to infinite parallel universes and infinite copies of ourselves, it doesn't
seem that wild. If the Fine Tuning Problem is bad enough to make people embrace multiple worlds, maybe consciousness causes collapse is due for a resurgence?
Slightly related, there have been some neato experiments in the past years that have supported the thesis that quantum effects are utilized for brain functions. After seeing this sort of thing at work in photosynthesis, I don't find it particularly surprising.
https://scitechdaily.com/shocking-experiment-indicates-our-brains-use-quantum-computation/?expand_article=1
Why do we find ourselves in a universe that appears to be "fine tuned," for life? Because all realities exist together as quantum possibilities until just that moment when consciousness is possible then, boom! all possible pasts collapse into the outcome that produced consciousness. This works if consciousness is somehow caused by the physical world, or if it is suis generis. If it is suis generis though, we have the problem of figuring out how it shows up in the world in the first place.
And this then also neatly describes why consciousness is so impossible to find in all our myriad brain scans. This is puzzling because we think we should have the resolution of scans we need to be able to identify what it is that "causes," consciousness. But instead the brain is like an expert magician, who pulls a rabbit out of a hat even when he's inside an MRI.
But, if we interact with our bodies by collapsing quantum probabilities into actualities, this is no problem. Consciousness isn't anywhere to be found in the brain because its interactions with the brain occur in a manner that we cannot measure with such scans. However, we do see that the limits on consciousness can be found in the brain easily enough. This isn't suprising because damage to the brain, the effects of drugs, etc. obviously effect which quantum possibilities exist for consciousness to collapse at any given moment. Additionally, we don't have complete control over our thoughts because only so many possibilities exist at any given moment, others have already been collapsed, while other people's observation of us is also collapsing the possibilities available to consciousness.
Now how does our glorious Atman get effected by our brains? Why do we think differently when drunk or tired? That might well be unknowable, as we can only observe one half of the interaction. But perhaps not. Under consciousness causes collapse, consciousness still can be a physical phenomena. It is one that is generated non-classically and then in turn collapses elements of the "past" into classical necessity.
Now, if our minds aren't physical, how might we account for how our immaterial Atman has become mixed with this materiality? Maybe it's that pesky Yaldaboath!?
Not that I am at all an advocate for "consciousness causes collapse," but sometimes exploring theories you don't like tells you important things about the ones you do like. In any event, in comparison to infinite parallel universes and infinite copies of ourselves, it doesn't
seem that wild. If the Fine Tuning Problem is bad enough to make people embrace multiple worlds, maybe consciousness causes collapse is due for a resurgence?
Slightly related, there have been some neato experiments in the past years that have supported the thesis that quantum effects are utilized for brain functions. After seeing this sort of thing at work in photosynthesis, I don't find it particularly surprising.
https://scitechdaily.com/shocking-experiment-indicates-our-brains-use-quantum-computation/?expand_article=1
Comments (83)
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Notice how close this is getting to the dictum of classical metaphysics - that to be is to be intelligible.
See also
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/does-the-universe-exist-if-were-not-looking
What is the danger of getting close to the dictum?
:up:
Well sure, if we take the Copenhagen Interpretation as a given then other interpretations are wrong, but what's the grounds for doing that? The wave function is perfectly real in Bohmian mechanics, objective collapse, etc.
Why can't possibilities be physical? That's the linchpin of retro-causal explanations.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Some thoughts:
I won't clutter your thread any more with my skepticism. I don't mean to be disruptive.
What do you think of Carlo Rovelli's proposal that wave function collapse is very localised. The entire waveform does not collapse, only a local section 'collapses' due to the measurement process. At least I think that is what he proposes.
True, but this is true for almost every interpretation of quantum mechanics. The only ones I know of that have actually been tested are some forms of objective collapse, which appear to have been falsified. There are ideas on how we might test MWI or information theoretic "It From Bit," models but they are well beyond our current technological capabilities.
Of course, "Consciousness Causes Collapse" (CCC) might be uniquely hard to falsify, but obviously it hasn't proven particularly difficult to reduce its cachet despite this-- it isn't very popular-- so I don't think this is too much of a threat.
[Quote]
It seems likely, to me at least but also to many others, that there never will be. That means it's metaphysics, not science, at least until the issue is resolved.[/quote]
Right, but this is true of virtually all of quantum foundations. Mach famously held that atoms were unfalsifiable and unscientific. Quarks were held to be unfalsifiable pseudoscience until just a few years before they were "verified." Lots of elements of string theories are unfalsifiable.
My counterargument would be that if you bracket off these issues as non-scientific it puts a stigma on them (and indeed a prohibition on research in quantum foundations was dogmatically enforced from on high until the late-90s). Philosophers in general lack the skills and resources to pursue these ideas; they have to be done by physicists. In many cases, we see theories that are initially attacked as unscientific coming to mature and eventually develop means of testing the theory against others. This in turn, sometimes leads us to new theories that are not falsified, while existing dominant theories are, resulting in scientific progress. But even when such theories don't pan out, they often do manage to tell us things about the world or our surviving theories.
Per Poppers evolutionary view of science, we need such suppositions because they are the "mutations," that allow science to keep "evolving." Of course, most mutations result in the death of the organism (or the scientific career), but occasionally they are hugely successful.
In any event, we currently have a number of theories about what causes quantum phenomena that are empirically indiscernible given our current technology and knowledge. By what rights should we select any of them as canonical? The idea behind enforcing the Copenhagen Interpretation as orthodoxy was that this secured science against metaphysics, but this is not what it did. Instead, it enshrined a specific type of metaphysics and epistemology as dogmatism.
[Quote]
Fine Tuning Problem - There is no fine tuning problem. It's just an expression of a fundamental misunderstanding of what probability means and how it works. [/Quote]
How so? Certainly it's a problem that is taken seriously. The rapid coalescence of support for the Many Worlds Interpretation over that past decade is often based around the conception that the interpretation is "more likely," because it answers the Fine Tuning Problem. But of course, the von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation seems to do that too, at least at first glance .
[Quote]
The hard problem of Consciousness - We have this argument over and over here on the forum. Many of us shake our heads when others tell us they can't conceive that consciousness and human experience can be understood scientifically.[/quote]
I personally think it's incredibly premature to say that consciousness cannot be understood scientifically. But the question remains, "why do the origins of consciousness yield so slowly to the same methods that have allowed us to understand so many other phenomena with a great level of depth."
Answers to the Hard Problem are so diverse that I agree with the pronouncement that such diversity is indictive of a discipline that is flailing. When conferences on the topic have speakers talking about pan-psychism, Bayesianism, dualism, idealism, computation causes conciousness, quantum effects, etc., all as the missing basis for consciousness, i.e., everyone going in wildly different directions, it's not the sign of a problem that is proving tractable.
What this interpretation might do, however, is allow an explanation of why it's so hard to find consciousness using the same tools we use for understanding other complex processes. It shouldn't make it "unknowable," though. I don't think it's a huge merit, but one that occurred to me.
[Quote]
I won't clutter your thread any more with my skepticism. I don't mean to be disruptive.[/quote]
Skepticism is fine. I'm deeply skeptical of CCC myself. It just occurred to me that, if one puts that aside, it does seem like it might offer up an answer for two big issues in the sciences. Rather than being an argument in favor of CCC though, this might be more of an argument against accepting MWI on the basis of it "solving" the Fine-Tuning Problem.
I found his book a little short on details. He seemed to be saying that things exist as they relate to one another and that relations are ontologically basic, not things. This really isn't all that different from the idea in metaphysics that things are essentially just a collection of the universals or tropes that describe them. This being the case, collapse occurs only relative to some other system. So, in the context of the Wigner's Friend experiment, the mystery is solved by the fact that no relationship between the friend outside the lab and the results of the experiment exist until just that time that the friend walks back into the lab and observes what has happened.
I think its an elegant way to put it but I do wonder if it wouldn't run into problems if explored more. It seems vulnerable to the same problems of identity that plague "bundle theories," in metaphysics. If an object is defined by its relations, then an object is actually continually becoming a different object; I am a different person when I'm in my dining room them when I'm in my living room, etc. It becomes difficult to ground propositions about entities when all we have is relations. Also, why do relations seemingly pop into existence at all times? Classical interpretations fix this problem by having entities, fields or particles, that exist regardless of their relations, but Rovel does away with these.
I do think that his starting point could work better with a process-based metaphysics though. If everything is essentially flux and pattern, and we classify objects as "emergent" or "mental constructs," then he might have less difficulties. The problem is that we tend to have a hard time thinking in terms of process and not objects; hence we had to wait a long time to think about heat in terms of motion instead of caloric, fire in terms of combustion instead of phlogiston, life in terms of process instead of elan vital, etc.
I have not read Rovelli's books but I have watched his youtube offerings.
I think he proposes that each of us, experiences our existence, as a localised phenomena. Time is also an individual localised phenomena.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I am not sure I understand you here. Why could we not say that an object is defined by its instantaneous states and relationships are a measure of how these instantaneous states affect other objects and/or are themselves a measure of all the instantaneous states of all other objects present? So its the same 'you' object in the dining room, as in the living room but your instantaneous states will change.
It is very frustrating to the point of willed ignorance that you keep misinterpreting/misrepresenting the hard problem of consciousness. In your own words, can you even summarize it correctly??
I'll give you a hint, it's not about "consciousness and human experience not being understood scientifically".
The concern is generally that, if an object is nothing but its properties, and its properties change, then the object has become a different object. This might be less of an issue in fundemental physics though because it is generally accepted that fundemental particles lack haecceity, that they have no discrete identity. Or, as Wheeler put it, we could as well imagine that only one electron exists in the universe and it is just in many places as once.
To be honest, I never found these problems that convincing. They seem to concern people mostly because what it does to propositions' ability to model the world or correspond to it.
But I find it more concerning what Rovelli's model is supposed to say about what happens when isolated photons or protons go for a bit without interacting with anything. In this case, it seems they should have ceased to exist. But then why do we only see them reappear, and snap into existence, based on what we saw disappear when the original particle stopped interacting? If things can start existing in any given state of the universe, why do we only see some types of things start to exist? It seems the relations have to exist even when they aren't "active," which seems to bring us back towards "objects."
IDK though, maybe this is fixed if we think in terms of fields, which are always interacting, instead of particles. But his book mostly avoids talking in terms of fields, although that might be just to help make it accessible. If we take Wilzek's conception of space as a "metric field," or aether, then it seems it could resolve that problem since all "particles" are always interacting with spacetime. Although it still seems like certain of their properties are snapping into existence at some times and disappearing at others.
I don't doubt that a scientific observation of quantum superposition results in a change of some kind. But the notion that a single mind's act of perception, can cause a physical change in a material object in the real world, not only sounds like Magic, but also faces the Solipsism paradox.
So I would propose that we look at the "collapse" as a mental change in a single mind, in the Ideal realm. By that I mean the Potential for a particle was "out there" all along. But the observer, in his own mind, by an act of recognition, can cause a particular Form (the particle's physical properties) to suddenly appear within a random background. In other words, the statistical Potential was Actualized, in a manner similar to Pattern Perception*1.
A good example of unrecognized Potential is order-within-randomness optical puzzles, such as the spotty scene below*2. What you see depends in part on what you expect to see. But once a meaningful pattern has been recognized within a random pattern, it calls to mind a concept that was already existing in your memory. So, if you are looking for a particular familiar pattern, it will be easier to see. If I tell you to look for the "?", your mind will overlay a template of instances of "?" that you already know. I gave you a hint above.
So, if the scientist is looking for a localized particle of matter, a pattern matching his mental preconception might suddenly appear from within a background of fuzzy superposition : an act of recognition (to know again). This possible explanation for the "collapse" conundrum just occurred to me. So, it bears further consideration. Is it plausible that quantum "collapse" is merely a change of mind : a shifted perspective to see what was already there? :smile:
PS___The Strong Anthropic Principle is alternative explanation for the Fine Tuning observation.
*1. Pattern recognition :
Recognizing patterns allows us to predict and expect what is coming. The process of pattern recognition involves matching the information received with the information already stored in the brain. Making the connection between memories and information perceived is a step of pattern recognition called identification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition_(psychology)
*2. ONCE YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN'T UNSEE IT
Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. Mass is a property and the mass of an electron is a constant, so it does not change, what am I failing to understand here? Is a snowball that gains mass as it rolls down a hill of snow, still the same snowball? I am not the same person as I was 50 years ago. Perhaps I am just not understanding, the significance in physics, of treating every electron as individual objects or treating each electron as the same 'properties' existing in many places. Would either 'treatment' significantly affect any major current theory in quantum or classical physics? The single electron theory bore no value at all, did it?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Surely such is still interacting with the spacetime it exists within. Quantum fluctuations occur during every planck time duration, at every spacetime coordinate, do they not? So what is meant here by 'isolated proton or photon. Also, if QFT is correct and particles are in fact 'disturbances' in a field then again, the term 'isolated' or 'without interacting with anything,' seems incorrect.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Is the book you are referring to 'Helgoland?' Your paragraph above seems to deal with some of the issues I raised but is the last sentence not just a further reference to the quantum fluctuations that we think exist but we have no explanation for the source of other than 'the energy of the vacuum.'
Quoting Wikipedia - Hard Problem of Conscioiusness
That.
Good point. But on this view, other minds would have the effect of collapsing wave functions around us and inside of us, and this might help explain constraints on our actions that would otherwise be difficult to explain.
Plus, while you can take CCC in a "supernatural" direction, where the mind is essentially magic, I think it's more interesting to think of it in terms of a sort of self-causing effect, with mind emerging from probabilistic nature and crystalizing it.
But yeah, it seems somewhat magical. I think it would serve as a solid basis for a magic system in a fantasy book.
As far as we know, none of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics can be verified even in principle. They are all equivalent. There is no difference except, perhaps, a metaphysical one.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Unverified is not the same thing as unverifiable. If I'm wrong and one interpretation of QM can be verified, then your argument will mean something. Modeling the behavior of matter at the smallest scales as atoms and quarks allows generation of predictions of behavior that can be tested. QM interpretations do not.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
As I noted, if I'm wrong and the various QM interpretations can be tested, then we can have this discussion. I'm not the only one who thinks that is unlikely. I acknowledge I am far from qualified to render an opinion on this. I'm not a physicist. I'm basing my understanding on reading what other more qualified people have written.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
The problem with that analogy is that evolutionary ideas in science have to make testable predictions in order to be useful. None of the QM interpretations do that.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
They are not "a number of theories" they are a number of interpretations of one theory. The reason the Copenhagen Interpretation is in any way canonical is that it's really not an interpretation at all. It just describes how quantum level phenomena behave. Shut up and calculate is not metaphysics. It's anti-metaphysics.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
There have been plenty of discussions of the fine-tuning problem here on the forum before that never got anywhere, just like all the hard problem and QM interpretation discussions. I'll just stand by my statement that it misrepresents the meaning of probability. It explains nothing. It will be fruitless to go any further here.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This is a straw dog or straw man or straw something argument. The social and psychological mechanisms of consciousness have been studied for decades, centuries, millennia, with some success. The neurological mechanisms of consciousness have not been because the technology has not been available. Over the past few decades, those technologies have been evolving rapidly. Again, this is an argument that has been gone through many times on the forum without resolution.
In summary - I've identified three elements of you thesis about which I am skeptical - the fine-tuning problem, the hard problem, and the interpretations of QM. Clearly I have not resolved those issues and I'm sure I won't. I don't think I'll live long enough. My purpose here is just to let people who haven't run through this mill as many times as we have know that your argument is built on an unsteady foundation.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
The million dollar question is, do they exist in the first place? The answer is in the wave equation - they have a tendency to exist, but their existence is indefinite (or uncertain) prior to measurement. You're being tripped up by the realist assumption that they really exist independently or outside of that. The reason quantum mechanics is called 'shocking' is because that is what is being called into question.
Yes, but the way you made it seem here:
Quoting T Clark
You make it seem that the (fairly large) amount of people who acknowledge the hard problem deny the easy problems! Of course they don't deny that many aspects of physical correlates of consciousness can be observed such as processing, categorization, perceptual discrimination, and so on. Brain regions can be observed in an fMRI, neural networks can be modelled, brain chemistry can be analyzed. Matching behavior and mental aspects with their functional correlates in the brain can be conducted. No one is denying that easy problems are amenable to science. So I guess it is the way you worded it.
Rather, the "hard problemers" see the question of how/why the "what it's like" subjective/qualitative nature of consciousness as precisely not amenable to empirical methods. This article lays it out nicely:
Quoting Hard Problem of Consciousness - IEP
Quoting Hard Problem of Consciousness - IEP
I don't think this accurately represents the understanding of those who believe that phenomenal consciousness can be studied effectively using scientific methods. It certainly doesn't represent my understanding. We've had that discussion many times before. Neurological processes are not identical to mental processes. I've never said they were and, in fact, have argued strongly they are not. We just finished this same argument a few days ago and I'm not ready to start up again.
//update// following complaint by T Clark, this has been reversed.
It's this part that I am rebutting. That is to say, hard problemers have no problem studying phenomenal consciousness.
Taken literally, that subject = object notion sounds like a figment looking at its own concept, as illustrated in Escher's hand-drawing-hand image. However, Idealism & Panpsychism seem to assume that the subject is immersed in a non-local ideal world (e.g. God's world model), and who interprets the contents of his personal consciousness as-if they are non-self objects existing locally even when the subject is not looking. Hence, Berkeley's "quad" explanation that what we "see" is figments of God's imagination, that for all practical (scientific) purposes are real & objective.
My post above suggests a slightly different way to interpret the "collapse of wave function" in a way that does not seem quite so magical & counter-intuitive. In place of "collapse" it substitutes "pattern recognition". If you are looking for a particle of matter, you are more likely to interpret randomized or statistical data as a particular object of some kind. But it's not magic --- subject creates its own object --- merely the Potential/Actual transition that Aristotle defined 2500 years ago, as feature of our ability to transform incoming Perception (raw data) into internal Conception (meaningful information). That subject/object dualism-within-monism is what I call the BothAnd Principle*1.
In my proposed interpretation, Ari's Potential is what we now call Statistical. And Statistical existence could be defined as Ideal (like all mathematical objects) or as not-yet-real (like all statistical possibilities). Hence, a 50% possibility would be half real & half ideal. Perhaps it also means that God's idea of a particle is 100% Ideal, and our incomplete human perception of the waveform is only partially particular (but real enough for mathematical manipulation). Does any of that actual nonsense make potential sense? :smile:
PS___Like all matter/mind discussions, our matter-based words can be interpreted literally (realistically) or metaphorically (ideally), leading to confusion of intention.
*1. BothAnd : Yin/Yang Complementary
This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until observed by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
POTENTIAL-STATISTICAL WAVE-FUNCTION before & after observation
This is not reasonable unless the original poster specifically asked you to do it. The hard problem was an important aspect of the original post. My response questioning it's relevance was a reasonable and relevant response. That was as far as I intended to take it, but then @Count Timothy von Icarus responded to me. Unless you were specifically asked by them, your decision was an unreasonable use of your moderator's authority. And it's not the first time.
The OP said nothing about 'the hard problem', that was introduced by you.
Furthermore you said:
Quoting T Clark
And finally, the posts were not deleted, they were moved to more relevant thread, so as to keep this thread more on topic, which is already a complex and contentius topic in its own right.
The question I have, then, is what is the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation? As I understand it, two of the main points are most controversial:
First, that it stresses the role of the observer in quantum measurements, suggesting that the act of measurement collapses the quantum wave function from a superposition of possible states to a single, definite state. Secondly its assertion that quantum objects do not have definite properties, such as position and momentum, until they are measured, suggesting that the underlying reality is essentially probabilistic and in some sense observer-dependent.
It seems to me rather a modest attitude, which acknowledges that in these cases, science is operating at the limits of what is knowable.
I think the problem for realist or objectivist views is the implication that nature of the entities in question is unknowable or undeterminable, prior to there being measured. Isn't that the aspect that most rankles its critics?
That is such baloney:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Quoting Wayfarer
That also is baloney. I'm going to leave it there as long as you do.
I had overlooked this until excerpted it.
Googling around, the smallest estimate of neuron count per fMRI voxel that I found is ~10,000. Mr. Spock would see our current fMRI technology as working with stone knives and bearskins.
If we were approaching the ability to resolve all the individual synapses in a brain we might be approaching sufficient resolution, but we are a long long way from that sort of resolution, and that's only talking spatial resolution. The temporal resolution of fMRI leaves much to be desired as well.
Sure, this is certainly true from the perspective of being able to totally predict behavior or the subjective elements of experience. But we're just looking for a broad answer for "what causes consciousness." That is, "what phenomena do I need to observe to make me reasonably confident that a system has subjective experience." There isn't any one mainstream theory for this. Rather, there is a constellation of widely variant theories that focus on anything from "all complex enough computation results in experience," to "certain energy patterns = experience," to panpsychism, to brainwaves, to a quantum level explanations.
What is surprising is that, even if we could resolve individual synapses, we aren't sure this would give us an answer. That is, most theories are such that, even if we magically had that sort of resolution, they couldn't tell us "look for X and X will show you if a thing is conscious or not."
By contrast, even for most theories of quantum foundations, we know what observations would count as supporting of falsifying different theories. If we could actually do Davies 10,000 beam splitter experiment we could confirm if the universe really "computes" or if it actually requires real numbers to describe. We can imagine that, if we could "step back" and see parallel universes, we could confirm MWI. However, it's unclear what view you would need, even of a magic sort, to confirm many theories of consciousness. How can we observe panpsychism? I've heard very mixed things.
That all said, I actually agree with you and T Clark. I think it's too early to begin throwing our hands up on the consciousness question given current technical limits. It's not like we have phase space maps of the brain lol. Nothing close. I merely brought that point up because it is popular and could be a point in CCC's favor.
But anyhow, not to get sidetracked on the consciousness question, which is maybe ancillary...
This is not the case, although it is mostly the case. Some forms of objective collapse theories do make distinct predictions about quantum behavior that differs from other interpretations, meaning they can be tested. Indeed, some versions, those where gravity causes collapse, have been tested (and falsified).
For example, simple formulations of the DiósiPenrose model appear tohave been falsified, although the model has been kept alive through modifications (which if we're skeptics I suppose we could liken to epicycles.)
Likewise, pancomputationalist theories can be tested to some degree in theory, if not yet in practice. With enough beam splitters, one can configure an experiment that would require more information than the visible universe appears to be able to store to calculate. If pancomputationalists are correct, the universe is computable and infinite real numbers are not really needed to describe it. This would be a way to test that assumption and it would have ramifications for several interpretations of QM that posit real continua (or at least force them to be reformatted in finitist or intuitionist terms.) Such experiments might also lend credence to the advancement of intuitionist instead of Platonist flavored interpretations of mathematics vis-a-vis physics (a line advanced by Gisin), which would in turn have ramifications for many quantum theories and for arguments for eternalism writ large.
As noted above, these interpretations have already resulted in some experiments, and ideas for experiments that could lend support to them. My point is that such experiments never get thought up if the theory isn't invented first.
Take quarks. Quarks were introduced based on pure theory. The same is true of anti-particles. The experiments that made us confident that these were real entities were only dreamed up because the theory already existed and people were interested in it. Quarks were not initially verifiable or falsifiable and were indeed attacked as pseudoscience on those grounds. But people kept working and now quarks are well-established. We won't get a breakthrough without theorizing.
You might be interested in Adam Becker's book "What is Real?" It's a pretty succinct explanation of the history of quantum foundations, although it stops in the 1990s when there is really an explosion in the field and gives "It From Bit," pretty short shrift. It goes into detail about why most physicists don't and don't need to care about this sort of thing. But for those who work in quantum foundations, attitudes are quite different from the general population of physicists.
Now maybe their arguments are colored by the fact that this is what they do for a living, but they seem to have good arguments about why their work matters and how it can advance physics as a whole. And indeed, a lot of big discoveries have been made from this sort of work. Tests of Bell's Theorem were called "experimental metaphysics," originally, but they ended up having a large impact. He was on the short list for a Nobel before his untimely death for his work on locality and his work on locality stemmed from his interest and work on foundations.
Sort of. It depends on how we define theories, but even if we define theories as "only the formalism," different work in quantum foundations does in fact utilize different formalisms, making them different theories by that definition.
Copenhagen isn't "shut up and calculate." Copenhagen has a metaphysical perspective, it's one that is heavily influenced by logical positivism and Carnap. "Shut up and calculate," is seen as equivalent only because:
1. Copenhagen was the first major interpretation that gained traction.
2. It was dogmatically enforced (see Becker's "What is Real?"), and physicists pressured away from perusing other interpretations.
3. Thus, until recently, it was the "standard interpretation." Shut up and calculate just means you ignore the issue, which means the de facto explanation stays in place.
Bohr's complementarity is itself a metaphysical claim. It explicitly rules out other metaphysical claims like Pilot Waves (Bohm). If you want an interpretation with no metaphysics, that's Quantum Bayesianism (QBism). There, QM is only about proper statistical inferences about future observations, nothing more. QBism doesn't rule out Pilot Waves or parallel dimensions because it is totally silent on what exists (in mainstream versions I am aware of).
But Copenhagen also comes in for more criticism than most modern interpretations because it essentially has been falsified. Copenhagen presupposes two worlds, a quantum world where quantum phenomena happen and a classical world. This made sense back in the 50s, but today we've seen macroscopic drumheads entangled, bacteria entangled, quantum effects underpinning all chemistry, huge clouds of atoms entangled, macromolecules used in double slit type experiments. Advances in our theories like decoherence show that the binary of Copenhagen doesn't make a lot of sense.
That's why you'll often hear modern forms of Copenhagen described as "Neo-Copenhagen." A number of interpretation do hew quite close to Copenhagen, but they also change it to fit experimental data since the 1950s. For example, Roveli's Relation Quantum Mechanics has been described as essentially "reformed Copenhagen." And indeed, he draws on Mach, a huge inspiration for Copenhagen, quite a bit in his book. Although, IMO, it is different enough to be its own thing.
Most physicists don't have to care about this sort of thing, and so people tend to suppose the Copenhagen is more like QBism, being only about inference, rather than being logical positivists' attempt at an interpretation of QM.
See above in my reponse to wonderer. I am actually inclined to agree with you here. I am just noting that this is a commonly expressed position and the CCC might help alleviate it, although IMO it would do so in an unhelpful way, in the same sense that MWI solves FTP in a way that isn't helpful.
I'll admit, I find the claim that FTP isn't a problem more of a head scratcher. We have the Big Bang because a whole bunch of observed characteristics seem incredibly unlikely. We could have just said "well, in an infinite amount of time very unlikely things will happen so we can leave it at that." But we didn't. We got the Big Bang theory, one among any, and it found a lot of support.
However, we still saw all sorts of things that seemed very unlikely. This led to Cosmic Inflation being posited, a period of rapid inflation prior to the Big Bang. Cosmic Inflation helped explain a lot more observations and is now the theory in cosmology. But if we had simply said "initial conditions don't need to fit any statistical pattern because they are a sample size of one," we never would have developed the Big Band of Inflation theories.
Now, I can totally see thinking FTP is a bad argument for a creator and bad reason to embrace MWI or CCC, that makes perfect sense to me.
The hard division between the quantum and classical scales is generally considered to be its main problem, but this has been revised over the years. The problem is that the revisions have sort of split into different interpretations, so it's hard to see what "Copenhagen" is today unless we return to the version that had to be revised.
But yeah, big picture there is no problem with it except for the fact that it predicts nothing different than any of the other theories, and so can't mark itself out as superior in that regard. It also doesn't answer the FTP issue in the way MWI can, although I am dubious about that being a point in favor of MWI.
I appreciate it. I should not have been so combative.
Thanks for the education. I'll take a look at "What is Real."
Ha, well I'm [I]trying[/I] to figure out if this standpoint is actually justifiable while starting from no presuppositions with Big Heg. The problem is that for some reason I thought the Logic was notoriously dense but at least shorter than the Phenomenology. Then the book arrives and it's like 1,000 damn pages.
I've made it about a third of the way through Houlgate's 500 page commentary on the first 20% of the Logic and we haven't made it to the introduction yet... and I don't think I've fully grasped everything... so I might have to get back to you on that.
That said, I can see the outlines and it seems like it [I]might[/I] work.
:D
The Science of Logic is something I need to revisit eventually if I ever hope to be able to offer a formalization of sublation, but it's so hard to get through.
I think that's popular myth.
[quote=Werner Heisenberg, Positivism, Metaphysics, and Religion (in Physics and Beyond)]Some time ago there was a meeting of philosophers, most of them positivists, here in Copenhagen, during which members of the Vienna Circle played a prominent part. I (Bohr) was asked to address them on the interpretation of quantum theory. After my lecture, no one raised any objections or asked any embarrassing questions, but I must say this very fact proved a terrible disappointment to me. For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Probably I spoke so badly that no one knew what I was talking about....
I can readily agree with the positivists about the things they want, but not about the things they reject. Positivist insistence on conceptual clarity is, of course, something I fully endorse, but their prohibition of any discussion of the wider issues, simply because we lack clear-cut enough concepts in this realm, does not seem very useful to methis same ban would prevent our understanding of quantum theory.[/quote]
The quote 'for those who are not shocked...' is quite famous in its own right.
Did you know that Bohr adopted the ying-yang symbol for the Coat of Arms that was commissioned after the honours he received from the Danish Government? It symbolised the complementarity wave-particle duality
Michel Bitbol (French philosopher of science) argues that Bohr is nearer to Kantianism than positivism. See Bohr's Complementarity and Kant's Epistemology (recorded lecture). '"(According to Bohr) you cannot speak of attributes of objects independently of the possibility we have to explore them" (38:52)
More on topic, though --
I'm pretty skeptical of the fine tuning problem. I'd probably count as a deflationist on the question because I'm not so sure that the "physical constants being just this way" is really that surprising. They're constants. That's what they do, and we throw them into equations all the time just to make it work. (ever notice how Hooke's Law isn't so much a law as an approximation with wiggle room that works for springs? There turns out to be a point where it's no longer applicable)
Basically I'm not sure the notion that physical constants are worth taking seriously as ontological assertions. Sure if by the notion that the physical constants are ontological entities than there's a question to explore. But if they're just constants, like Hooke's law or coefficients of friction, which we use for certain circumstances, then there's no mystery there. It's just us making the balance sheet work out right and throwing a constant in to keep our math working while we describe this physical phenomena with it.
That being said, I'm not sure that consciousness can be explained through wave-function collapse, as if our actions are always measuring wave-functions and collapsing them and so these constants come out of that interaction. The two subjects seem so incredibly disparate to me that I usually think it's foolish to combine the two. The problem of consciousness requires picking apart the supervenience relationship, and quantum wave collapse requires the Hamiltonian operator which generally operates on partial differential equations.
They're both so heady and conceptual that I usually feel like solutions that propose both are a bit hand wavey in saying "Look, there's two complex things going on and maybe we can get two birds with one stone", but to me it just looks even more confusing.
The Copenhagen interpretation's fault is not metaphor, but literality. The form of the math expresses the physical reality, rather than represents it. The electron, whatever it might mean, is literally a point and a wave.
In ways this mimics Hegel's dialectic, because these concepts are not Boolean contradictions of the form "A ^ ~A", but rather were two concepts thought to be contradictory. My thought on the Copenhagen interpretation, with respect to dialectics, is that the assertion of point/wave started a dialectic, and the sublation was in the mathematical equivalence between wave and matrix mechanics.
What do you think the Bohr-Einstein debates revolved around? It was just this kind of question. This is why Einstein famously exclaimed one day 'Does the moon cease to exist just because nobody's looking at it?' The clear implication is 'of course it does, stop being ridiculous'. But he was compelled to ask it the question. He posed the so-called EPR paradox to once and for all disprove the anti-realist implication of quantum mechanics, but as is well known, this was torpedoed by the Bell inequalities experiments conducted by Alain Aspect and others (subject of a recent Physics Nobel, I believe.)
The view of the first-generation quantum physics was deep, subtle, and philosophically informed. Schrodinger was a lifelong student of philosophy, particularly influenced by Schopenhauer, and expressed an admiration for Advaita Vedanta. Heisenberg was essentially a Christian Platonist, who studied the Timeaus deeply in his university years. (By the way, it was Heisenberg who coined the term 'Copenhagen interpretation', in 1955, in his book On Physics and Philosophy. His writings are the canonical source for much of what goes under that name.)
This brief article is worth a read: Quantum Mysticism: Gone but not Forgotten. The author notes that it was with the migration of physics research to the US after the war, and the heavy involvement of the military industrial complex, that the 'shut up and calculate' mentality became predominant. The Americans lacked the philosophical culture of the European pioneers. (Having just watched Oppenheimer, I have no trouble believing that.)
Quoting Moliere
How can 'something' be 'literally' two completely different kinds? As is well known, Bohr said that the answer to 'is it a wave of a particle?' depends on which question you asked, but it could not to be said to be anything beyond that. Heisenberg: 'What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.'
By being both a particle and a wave. "particle" refers to matrix mechanics, and "wave" refers to wave mechanics, and it turns out they were mathematically equivalent. It was an old science fight between Schrodinger and Heisenberg which turned out to not matter because they both predicted the same outcomes. So I interpret that as "particle" and "wave" as being inadequate to the task at hand, where the math is adequate even though we still puzzle over what it means.
When we start measuring small stuff it behaves differently than when we measure big stuff. And you can even apply QM to macroscopic objects, like the moon, and you'll see that how small the difference is basically gets erased at the level of the moon. Neither the moon nor the electron cease to exist if the experimenter is not experimenting. It's being measured by all the other electrons, etc, around it.
I've been pondering this. It is possible, I suppose, that the mathematics in quantum theory has been reified to some extent. The Mathematical Universe is this idea writ large.
Right! My point.
Quoting Moliere
And this is where the 'mind-created world' of idealism enters the picture, but I won't drag Tim's thread any further in that direction.
Quoting Moliere
I believe that saying was coined by David Mermin. Heisenberg himself did not shut up - he continued to lecture and write throughout his life, albeit that his international reputation suffered because of his association with the Nazi bomb project.
That's basically what I think. I love the German scientists because they were educated in philosophy and so were willing to explore interesting questions that were just their curious thoughts, and I think it was obvious that these curious thoughts lead to some advances in the sciences.
But I'm skeptical of the implications. The first thing I think of is, why not biology as a first science rather than physics? Maybe the results in physics, at certain times at least, aren't fundamental but specific to the system they're studying, and the aggregates of the physical world don't follow the same rules. Not in a superfluous way, where we're just approximating the quantum level, but rather that [s]The Origen of the Species[/s] The Origin Of the Species* sets out a wholly different way to interpret the physical world that can be semi-bridged through the genome, but even as we dig into the mechanics of life there are differences that are only half-way related to QM (like proton pumps) or not related at all (like "uh, the cells just changed based on the measurement, but I'm not sure why").
*The Origen of the species would be the end of the species, since he castrated himself. I done did the mispelling thing and so am correcting myself here.
It's too messy. And chemistry and physics underlie it. A biophysicist could go into more detail. There is one lurking here.
I'm not a biophysicist, but I sometimes annoy my coworkers in my insistence on attempting to reduce our experiments to the physical sciences :D. But, that also provides some motivation to reject the reduction -- the working molecular biologists I'm around, who know way more than me about their subject, are perfectly able and I'm still learning concepts from them. Not all the relationships are mathematical. They're linguistic, even in a fairly plain-language sense while occasionally introducing some technical terms, and yet seem to be true.
Then I think about the plots of climate science and how I believe in global warming. There's a lot of supporting ideas, but if I were to look at the math alone then the uncertainty would dissuade me if I didn't know about the reality of the system being studied.
I guess that leaves room open, in my judgment at least, that biology's messiness is actually a virtue with respect to truth.
It's about scale. Particle physics deals with the world at the smallest possible scale. To understand biology you need to understand chemistry and physics, but not the other way around.
To understand biology you need to study biology. To understand chemistry you need study chemistry, and all the same for the other subjects. The intersection between these fields isn't so clean as you present.
It's about scale. You need to understand chemistry to understand biology at it's most basic level. Biological systems have to behave consistent with the rules of chemistry. The reverse is not true.
I'm skeptical.
Especially now that these two disciplines are interwoven and so have reciprocal support for one another. I don't think there's a "most basic level" as much as there's a wild web of knowledge loosely interwoven, and which concepts get priority at what times has more to do with the experimental apparatus and question we're exploring than general emergent properties of the respective knowledges, such as a hierarchy conditions.
Further -- the big conflict here, with respect to interpreting the sciences in a philosophical manner, is on different notions of causation. The SEP has a lovely page on Teleological Notions in Biology, which you won't find in chemistry except as metaphor. The intersection between physics and biology is interesting specifically because it's where we might be able to understand the relationship between our traditional notion of causation in science (not quite billiard-ball, anymore, but still), and the frequent use of teleology in understanding living systems. That is -- putting biology first isn't so crazy as it sounds because we're not modeling the world off of natural selection, but instead questioning what sort of causation is truly fundamental.
Or, if we are dedicated Humeans, we'll note that neither is fundamental at all, that there is no most basic kind of causation that everything can be reduced to, that it's a mere habit of the mind.
This reminds me of the problems of emergentism and notions of "downward causation". How does a higher level influence a lower level, if the higher level doesn't exist yet? Are we going to invoke some sort of quantum level of indeterminacy of time? That seems a stretch. I am not saying it's necessarily wrong, but that approach seems a stretch.
But this brings up a more fundamental question. How do properties (without a knower already in the equation) "emerge" from nothing to something, other than by assertion that "things exist from more basic things it appears". That is just restating what is the case, instead of the question of how that works.
Heh. Well, therein is the rub to all interpretations of QM -- they all kind of stretch our notions of credulity. It's hard to pick one interpretation or another because it's difficult to determine an experimental set up in the interpretations which allow us to distinguish them. Furthermore I think a lot of the QM interpretations are asking too much of the science, like it's a foundation of reality or something. But there's no reason to pick QM over classical mechanics if we're positing foundations. In a way you could treat them like a step-wise function -- when you get to such-and-such a scale, whether we are zooming in or out, then you use these equations. Which equations you use has more to do with your question and what we know from past experience. So far we've noticed small stuff is better predicted with some difficult equations, and big stuff is better predicted with what are still difficult, but different equations.
Quoting jgill
That's pretty much my charge leveled against interpretations of QM. Insofar that we don't require all physical theories to cohere into one logical system there's nothing really in conflict between classical and quantum mechanics. They're just measuring different systems, sort of like life is a different system than a beaker of salt water, though there are connections to be drawn out. And you can choose to use either set of equations as you see fit.
Seems to me the kind of situation we would expect in light of less than adequate empirical data, and all the more reason to recognize the low spatial and temporal resolution of the empirical data available at present.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
To me it seems unsurprising that speculation in the absence of sufficient empirical data fails to yield definitive criteria for identifying the physical nature of consciousness.
Would you elaborate on why you find the situation surprising?
A couple of thoughts.
I read a book a while ago "What is life? : how chemistry becomes biology" by Addy Pross. It's about abiogenesis and Pross writes, somewhat convincingly, that it would make sense to think of everything, including non-living matter, as subject to natural selection. That could be seen as evidence for your position, although I don't think it is. Cross-fertilization between disciplines is useful, necessary. That's different from understanding science, all human understanding, as a system of hierarchical levels. Perhaps you don't see that as a useful way of seeing things, but I do.
As for causation, it is mainstream philosophy, not to say everyone agrees, that causation is not a useful way of looking at the way the world works. As you suggest:
Quoting Moliere
That's nothing new. Bertrand Russell wrote a paper on it in 1912. That makes sense to me. This is not the place for us to get deeply into it.
Fair point. Tangentially related, but that'd be going off the deep end.
Yeah, that's a big conceptual difference between us there.
So I suppose that's also part of my skepticism with respect to the problem of consciousness' relation to QM -- not only are they two different problems that are heady and complicated, but even in related fields, like chemistry and biology, it seems that there are limits to coherence when we dig deeply enough.
I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena.
:up:
As I noted on another thread, I did read Becker's book and enjoyed it. It was a bit too People Magazine for me - about biography, personality, and relationships rather than science. Becker was also too rah rah for non-Copenhagen interpretations for my taste - a bit smug and condescending. But the explanations of the different interpretations were clear and well thought through. I found that really helpful. I found one of the interpretations Becker described - spontaneous collapse - plausible and intriguing, although I still don't see how it can be distinguished from the others experimentally.
All in all, my understanding of the overall problem hasn't changed.
That was sort of my feel too. It felt like he had an axe to grind at some points, although it does seem like some people intentionality went out of their way to destroy other's careers to keep their theory from being challenged, which also isn't a good thing. Evolutionary biology has a very similar thing going on right now re how central the "gene pool," really is to adaptation.
Plus, he totally skips retrocausality and information based approaches. The former is interesting, and the latter is one of the most popular versions.
The spontaneous collapse versions do make slightly different predictions and have been tested in some forms. I posted a link to those above.
Information based versions that claim the universe is computable are falsifiable, we have ideas for experiments that might confirm them (and arguably strong emergence) but lack the technology to pull them off.
But verifiable experiments have been born from this sort of work. For example, tests of Bell's Inequalities came out of work in foundations and are important. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment came out of Wheeler and Feynman's work in foundations.
I am less familiar with work on quantum gravity and attempts to unify physics, but my understanding is that theories about "what is really going on behind the measurement outcomes," have at least some implications for thinking up ways to unify physics and ways to test said theories.
So even if the interpretations can't be falsified currently, work on them does indeed produce testable hypotheses. The idea of decoherence, given short shift in Becker's book, is probably the biggest of these. It has had a huge impact and it wouldn't exist without considerations of what "collapse" is.
Yes. I think Bohr's magical/statistical metaphor was taken literally by those who wanted a more mechanical/physical explanation for the non-classical "Quantum Weirdness" that perturbed the pioneers of sub-atomic physics. Apparently the literalists intended to make Bohr's implicit mind-over-matter notion seem absurd. For them, unreal Mind & real Matter are like oil & water.
A century later, the role of the observer is simply ignored by those for whom the mind doesn't matter. Yet, those less opposed to Mental-Physics, now use statistical Quantum Bayesian calculations to measure experimental results in terms of "degrees of belief". It accepts that mental Belief may not have a physical effect on matter (ontological Being), but it certainly has a metaphysical effect on interpretation (epistemological Knowing). :smile:
The Observer Effect :
Abstract: The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983
Wheeler's Observer Effect :
The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment
Note -- prior to the experimental observation, the Phenomenon is statistically unknowable, and even after the test, it's still statistically uncertain, perhaps because the object is Virtual, not Actual.
"the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with the observer or equipment used during observation". https://chem.libretexts.org/Uncertainty_Principle
One thing that Becker wrote and that I endorse is that, even if different interpretations can not be distinguished empirically, they have epistemological value if they can help suggest new ways to test quantum mechanical principles. If I remember correctly, Becker's statement was kind of arm waving and he didn't really provide any examples.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Can you repost the link. I couldn't find it.
This has been an interesting discussion.
Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.
Moreover, In the anthology by a variety of scientists & philosophers : Information and the Nature of Reality, physicist Paul Davies said, "if quantum mechanics really does provide the most fundamental description of nature, then at some level it must incorporate an account of consciousness and other key mental properties". Then, theoretical physicist Henry Stapp noted : "Thus the replacement of classical mechanics by quantum mechanics opens the door to religious possibilities that formerly were rationally excluded".
What Stapp called "religious" possibilities was also an open door to philosophical interpretations of such metaphysical phenomena as Consciousness. Yet, Physicalists typically equate mind-probing philosophy with the supernatural nonsense of religion*2. Hence, they see no realistic understanding in such exegesis, beyond the obvious fact that basic Consciousness is an entry-level requirement for both pragmatic Science and impractical Philosophy. :smile:
*1. Observer Effect :
The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983
*2. Quantum Philosophy :
Frustrated by the re-introduction of flighty philosophy into practical Physics, some experimental scientists decided to avoid dealing with the mental/emotional aspects of fundamental physics, in favor of abstract mathematical/logical factors, hence to just "shut up and calculate". But the book referenced above reveals a variety of important roles for consciousness (and information) in the real physical world. Several of the authors are physicists & biologists, who do more with their minds than just calculate.
Yes. That's the part of the Consciousness Causes Collapse metaphor that sounds like mind-over-matter magic. But, if we remember that Properties (attributes) are attributed*1 to a particle by the mind of the observer, the focus turns back onto the Attributor. So, the sudden change may be in the mind, not the matter, as different attributes*2 come to mind when possible properties are actualized by the experiment. That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. So, the quantum Magic may actually be a case of Mind over Mind insight (e.g. pattern recognition). :smile:
*1. Attribute (verb) : to regard as resulting from a specified cause
Note --- Qualities (e.g. redness) are mental, not physical. To Regard is to imagine as an opinion. Causation is an inference from material change, not an observation.
*2. Attribute (noun) : a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.
Note --- to attribute is to pass a mental quality or value onto an object of attention. Tribute goes from payer to payee.
The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect.
Quoting Gnomon
That's exactly what I meant when I said
Quoting T Clark
Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory. It describes aspects of our world. Our world includes consciousness. That doesn't mean there is a specific, direct connection between QM and consciousness.
The article reviews a few of them.
True. Although given the ways we've already found that life has adapted to take advantage of quantum effects, I figure it will probably come to play some sort of role. Obviously life uses quantum phenomena in that all chemistry is quantum phenomena, but it seems likely that adaptations for molecule level cellular machinery taking advantage of non-classical effects will be something we continue to find. After all, live evolved in our real world, not the abstraction we call the "classical scale world," and if optimal solutions involve quantum effects then life could easily have chanced upon them over 4 billion years.
You already have neat little experiments like this: https://www.sciencealert.com/study-suggests-spins-of-brain-water-could-mean-our-minds-use-quantum-computation
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be
There has been a decent trickle of these, some related to how microtubules and tubulins re-emit trapped light, etc.
My guess is that, if these are verified, we will see some big headlines about "the quantum brain discovered," but that's about it. It's not going to answer any big questions. It won't mean much of anything. It'll just
be more evidence that the idea of a "classical world," is just a useful abstraction. If anything, it will mean it's going to be even harder to unpack how the brain works, not that we'll get some sort of "quantum leap," if you will, in understanding.
We just can't take your word for that. You need to prove it's true!
I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. That an observation (or perturbation) precedes the so-called "collapse" is not in question. But "correlation does not prove causation". In my quoted definition above, "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it". The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Does witnessing an event (the role of observation) cause the event, or does the physical disturbance by experimental apparatus cause the noted change?
The Copenhagen Interpretation seemed to imply that it was the consciousness of the observer that triggered a phenomenal change in the target particle field. And it's the causal power of consciousness that the OP is using to postulate another effect on a completely different philosophical question : the cosmological Fine-Tuning Problem. In several of my posts above, I proposed a different way to interpret the phenomenon of "collapse". I doubt that human awareness has magical mind-over-matter powers. But an awareness event (perception) does seem to cause a change in how a phenomenon is conceived : statistical Potential becomes observed Actual. :smile:
Does observation cause collapse? :
In Bohm interpretation the collapse of the wave function happens when the observer introduces into the measured system some perturbation, which is inevitable when performing the measurement.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function
The von NeumannWigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation
You don't find my postulation convincing? How do you explain the "change"? It was a personal philosophical guess, based on the discussion above. I didn't ask you to accept it as a fact, just something to think about. I'm not a quantum scientist, so challenging me to "prove it" on a philosophy forum is not appropriate.
When the experts disagree*1 on the role of the observer in causing "collapse", how could a non-expert prove a forum postulation, except by pointing to an expert whose professional opinion agrees with the reasoning & conclusion. I'm not aware of any expert who has even addressed the question of "collapse" in terms of perception to conception transition. :smile:
*1. Why does observation collapse the wave function? :
This is actually an unresolved question in QM. There are many interpretations of QM. Some attempt to define what constitutes measurement and what causes collapse. In some interpretation, wavefunctions never collapse. In some others, wavefunctions are not a good enough description for quantum systems. The canonical interpretation, Copenhagen interpretation, simply dodges this question.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function
Of course life has adapted to take advantage of quantum effects. Natural selection operates on organism's interactions with the world. The world at a basic level includes quantum effects. The classical world emerges from the quantum world. Again, that says nothing specific or direct about consciousness.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I have no doubt that much of how an organism operates uses quantum mechanical effects.
I'll say it again one more time and leave it at that. No... I won't say it again, I'll just copy my previous comment here:
Quoting T Clark
No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence.
I cannot personally explain waveform collapse and the measurement problem. I am currently most convinced by the proposals that when we measure position or momentum, we are measuring an extension, so we get a 'localised' result, but this statement probably demonstrates my limited understanding of QM. I would however, further state that every measurement made, is notionally inaccurate. Even those we call 'constants' can only be measured to a fixed number of decimal places.
We eventually come up against the planck scale.
From Wiki:
[b]At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate. The best-known example is represented by the conditions in the first [math]{10^{?43}}[/math] seconds of our universe after the Big Bang, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.
The four universal constants that, by definition, have a numeric value 1 when expressed in these units are:
The speed of light in vacuum, c,
The gravitational constant, G,
The reduced Planck constant, ?, and
The Boltzmann constant, kB.
Planck units do not incorporate an electromagnetic dimension. Some authors choose to extend the system to electromagnetism by, for example, adding either the Coulomb constant or the electric constant, to this list. Similarly, authors choose to use variants of the system that give other numeric values to one or more of the four constants above.[/b]
Any measurement smaller than the Planck scale takes us into black hole physics, as far as I understand.
Quoting universeness
I tried google and google scholar with:
Properties of an electron?
Can the properties of an electron change?
So if I choose something like the 8 properties of electrons as listed here:
[i]Property 1: Electrons are negatively charged particles.
Property 2: The mass of the electron is 1/2000 times lesser than the mass of proton and neutron. Therefore, the electrons do not contribute to the mass of the atom.
Property 3: An electron has an electric charge of -1.602 × 10-19 coulombs) which is equal and opposite to the charge of a proton.
Property 4: Electrons are subatomic particles found outside the nucleus, unlike protons and neutrons, which are present inside the nucleus.
Property 5: According to the Bohr atom model, electrons are continuously moving around the nucleus in orbits or shells.
Property 6: The invariant mass of an electron is approximately 9.109×10?31 kilograms.
Property 7: Electrons display both particle properties and wave properties.
Property 8: According to the principle of quantum mechanics, the position and momentum of the electrons cannot be determined simultaneously.[/i]
Then I consider, which of these can change, I garnish that property 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 do not change and 5 and 8 accommodate change, in that a bound electron can become a free electron and that the position and momentum of an electron can change.
This is why I responded to @Count Timothy von Icarus with:
Quoting universeness
Based on some of his sentences, such as
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
and
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Quoting Gnomon
I accept that like me, you are not a 'quantum scientist' and I further accept that you engage in a lot of 'philosophical guessing,' and that such is the strength (or lack of) behind your dalliances with theism and your enformation proposals.
Addition: I also accept that a positron can be considered 'an electron whose charge property is positive,' but this is misleading, as an electron cannot become a positron by any method I have heard of explained in particle or quantum physics.
From Science Direct:
In particle accelerators, positrons are produced through the process of pair production. In this process a photon interacting with the electromagnetic field of a heavy charge creates an electron and a positron.
I don't want to sound obtuse, but "role of observation"*1 and "observer effect"*2 are different in what sense? Does, or does not, experimental observation (looking + perturbing) have an empirical effect on the object of the experiment? As I said, I don't think "just looking" can cause a change in matter. But a quantum-scale scientific observation involves more than just passively seeing what happens. So here, I'll try to answer my own question.
In the science of Ethology, animal behavior, the scientist is often -- but not always -- careful not to interfere with the activities of the animals they observe & record. Yet, in observing sub-atomic particles a drastic intervention is necessary in order to split the atom into its constituent parts. In such cases, the observation always follows perturbation.
That's why I conclude that The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Hence, "looking" = no effect ; "perturbing" = observer effect. The Copenhagen controversy was apparently an over-reaction to the magical-mind-over-matter notion that "looking is causing". So, I agree with you that an atom-smasher observation (physics) is completely different from the erroneous magical "Observer Effect" (metaphysics) as imagined by critics.
However, it's possible that Bohr was making a physics assertion with metaphysical implications, as later expressed by Wheeler as "It from Bit". And we could debate that quip for decades. :smile:
*1. What is an observation in science? :
That's what it means to observe during a scientific experiment. It means to notice what's going on through your senses, but, more specifically, we can define observation as the act of knowing and recording something. This has to do with both the act of knowing what's going on, and then recording what happened.
https://www.mometrix.com/academy/observations/
Note -- In the case of subatomic observations, the human senses are augmented by artificial instruments of enormous physical power. So it's not a mere "observation" in the usual sense, but more like "looking" at a bug with a sledge hammer.
*2. Observer effect (physics) :
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
Note : a metaphysical "Observer Effect" might be something like the spooky feeling of being watched by someone you can't see.
The psychic staring effect (sometimes called scopaesthesia) is a supposed phenomenon in which humans detect being stared at by extrasensory means.
OBSERVATION MADE WITH 13 tera-electronvolts OF ATOM-SMASHING POWER
(TeV = trillions of electron volts)
Do you require empirical evidence for a "philosophical thesis*1"? Most philosophical assertions are supported by argumentation, that you can accept or reject for personal reasons, but can't disprove empirically --- only by authority.
A more complete argument was given above to TClark*2. There, I referenced an anthology by several scientists & philosophers presenting their expert opinions on the role of Mind/Information in the world. They offer some empirical results into evidence, but that does not carry the same weight as the "official" philosophical position (collective opinion) of modern Science, which at this moment is Materialism or Physicalism*3. But the certainty of that pre-quantum (classical physics) position seems to be crumbling under the weight of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (waves are not material), plus the spooky implications of the Observer Effect (see OP), and the failure of Science to find a fundamental Atom of matter (12 kinds of quarks so far).
My personal philosophical position departs from mainstream science, and if you are a believer in Scientism, then that lack of authority will determine your antithesis to my thesis. That's OK for a forum post, but you can't disprove it empirically. :smile:
PS___What scientific "claim" do you think I'm making? We may be fruitlessly arguing about completely different ideas.
*1. Gnomon to Schopenhauer1 :
"My philosophical thesis suggests that human Consciousness is a high evolutionary stage of causal Energy, combined with directional Enformy*1".
*2. Gnomon to TClark :
Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for [i]philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.[/i]
*3. Gnomon blog :
Pinters book also has a chapter discussing the Mind vs Matter debate in modern philosophy. Regarding the materialistic bias of modern Science and Philosophy, He says the most widely shared opinion today is that mental phenomena are subject to physical law, and can be fully explained by the principles of physics. Ironically, that presumption is more of a hopeful belief than a settled science.
From Wikipedia:
Quoting Wikipedia - The Observer Effect
As the definition indicates, the observer effect is not a property of quantum systems. It is often used to explain the results of psychological studies when the experimenter interferes with the experimental subjects. In his original paper on the uncertainty principle, Heisenberg identified the observer effect as the cause of uncertainty. Later, it was determined that the phenomenon is caused by properties unique to quantum systems.
FWIW, here are some thoughts on the relation between Enformy (the natural tendency to create and transform material objects) and Energy. You won't find that term in any science books, because I coined it to express an underlying relationship that is more useful for philosophical reasoning than for empirical manipulation of matter. There's lots more where this came from, but it's not in the category of settled science. Again, it's not a factual "claim", but a philosophical conjecture about the role of Form in the world. Plato & Aristotle used that idea long before anyone had the modern concept of physical Energy. :smile:
From a previous forum post :
However, for me, the laws of Form are essentially the same as laws of Energy or Thermodynamics*1. By analogy : First law : EnFormAction (power of causation) is universal & permanent. Second law : the Power to Enform (to cause changes in matter) is not a material substance that could be used-up, but it can be transformed into Entropy (material substance). Third law : pure Enformy has zero Entropy.
[i]*1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (er, Enformy) :
#1 -- Enformy : Potential (P) for Causation/Change is finite but unbounded. EnFormAction is never lost, but merely transformed into Actual (A) material forms . (P = A)
#2 -- Entropy : Inputs are proportional to Outputs (?E = q + w)
#3 -- Origin : Initial state & Final state balance out (qualitatively the same)[/i]
https://www.chadsprep.com/chads-general-chemistry-videos/3-laws-of-thermodynamics-definition/
How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
These are not the Laws of Thermodynamics, they're the Laws of Gnomodynamics.
Your defensive skepticism missed the point. It's just an analogy.
As I said, this Energy/Information equation is a novel philosophical concept, not a settled scientific fact. I am not parroting any conventional science, here. I'm postulating a new approach to old science. And it's not just Gnomodynamics, there are many credentialed scientists who are following a similar path of Information in many forms. One of which is Energy. Please note that I quote pragmatic scientists, not preachy gurus. :smile:
PS___ Are you aware that classical/mechanical Newtonian physics does not apply to the elementary fundamentals of sub-atomic physics? The building blocks of the foundation of reality now seem to be made of Potential/Information/Energy instead of Actual/Tangible/Matter. The philosophical implications of that invisible underlying Reality provide plenty of food for thought. At least, for those who are hungry for new knowledge, and can adapt their skeptical filter to accommodate the spooky stuff on the quantum floor of Ideality.
Information is Energy
Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6
Is information the fifth state of matter?
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/
No need for defense. I thought I should take the offense against misinformation.
Quoting Gnomon
You know I don't hold much truck with your theories. We've discussed it in the past and there's no need to take it up again. On the other hand, here you use terminology which has a very specific technical meaning which is universally understood by scientists - The Laws of Thermodynamics. But you use the term in a way which is not consistent with the scientific understanding. That's why I commented. You shouldn't appropriate scientific terminology in a way that misrepresents it's meaning.
I apologize for offering you novel ideas that your background didn't prepare you to understand. But the scientific terminology I used, by analogy, did represent my unconventional meaning. So, it was not intended to mislead.
It's that unorthodox post-quantum interpretation of conventional science that you misunderstand. Information = Energy is not yet mainstream science, but envelope-pushing scientists are finding Information hidden in more & more places. This cutting edge science is mostly discovered on the invisible immaterial mathematical quantum level of reality.
Note that I didn't claim to have scientific authority for my hypothetical analogical postulation on a Philosophy Forum. Besides, mainstream scientists tend to think that most philosophical conjectures are gobbledygook --- not to mention "Gnomodynamics". At the risk of more misunderstanding, here's a non-philosophical scientific equation of Information with Energy. How would you interpret that equation in philosophical terms? :smile:
Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion :
In 1929, Leó Szilárd invented a feedback protocol in which a hypothetical intelligencedubbed Maxwells demonpumps heat from an isothermal environment and transforms it into work. After a long-lasting and intense controversy it was finally clarified that the demons role does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, implying that we can, in principle, convert information to free energy
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821
What great analogy do you know that puts a misunderstood thing into perspective?
https://www.quora.com/What-great-analogy-do-you-know-that-puts-a-misunderstood-thing-into-perspective
Caution : Quora might offer to connect you to ChatGPS.
Bullshit. You've appropriated language that has specific meanings to give your ideas a thin coating of false legitimacy. It's dishonest, no matter what your intentions were. There have been times on the forum when this kind of garbage would not have been tolerated. We lost a lot of our scientific voices - @Streetlight, @TimeLine, and Apokrisis. Apokrisis is still around from time to time.
Go ahead and spout your crap, but don't gift wrap it with scientific wrapping paper.
I'm all done here.
Hi T Clark, back at your favourite pastime I see. Come in, spout some pseudoscience, then state your declaration. Care to tell me what you think you have succeeded in finishing when you say you're "done".
My apologies, where I said "the article explains some of them," above I meant to share this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physics-experiments-spell-doom-for-quantum-collapse-theory-20221020/
Thanks. Interesting. As I mentioned previously, I find spontaneous collapse theories appealing. From what I can tell, those are not necessarily ruled out by the results described in the article, but I'm not sure of that.