Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 14:50:36 GMT -5
Yes, well the conversation is about the standard model of reality and not psychosis, please try to keep up. There's nothing in the standard model of reality that says consciousness is inherent in matter, and nothing about essence or pure consciousness. What do you think the brain is made out of?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 22, 2015 15:14:13 GMT -5
Okay, it's not so much the kitty's life/death probability that's being collapsed by the observation, but rather the decay of a particle in the trigger mechanism. 'dusty's misconception is that the two aren't linked, but they are. The whole cat drama is more of a distraction, and it would be simpler to have a geiger counter that could be observed to have either triggered or not. And that is the root of the misconception. If someone could prove that, they'd win a Nobel, because then they'd have done away with what's known as the "measurement problem", which isn't, as 'dusty thinks, the fact that classical equations emerge in the limit as distances and energies get large. That's actually quite well understood. No, the " measurement problem" is very simply the fact that there is no deterministic information available about a "particle" in between direct observations -- iow, that it acts like a wave when it's not being measured. Said another way, it is the act of observation itself, and not some physical characteristic of that act, that determines the state of the object. He read a book by this Khalili fellow that sold him quantum dechorence as the "solution" to the measurement problem and that's where he caught the false meme that the Geiger counter with no conscious observation could determine the state of the cat. A Geiger counter is central to and is actually used as the device to trigger the potential of the cats doom in the original experiment. Schrodinger used the cat to dramatize the fact that the readout on the counter may or may not have registered a decay upon opening the box. So there are two different sides to the philosophical debate. The mainstream view of the Copenhagen interpretation accepts the end of objectivity, and most people that are on that side of it have an interest in introducing the notion of consciousness into the abstract descriptions of reality that are the product of the science of Physics. Roger Penrose is a good example of someone who is relatively contemporary who holds that view. On the other side are peeps who would like to see a return to a hard objective realism. Copenhagen has been opposed since it's inception, and the original antagonist to it was Einstein. Kalili is following along in that tradition. Despite that constant opposition, It's been the standard interpretation for the past 90 years, and remains so today. This debate used to interest me a great deal. At this point I'm only it the dialog to dispel the obvious myths that peeps with agendas buy into and try to resell. Primary to this is the line where Physics ends and metaphysics begins. Secondary to it is the question of the current mainstream consensus, and the fact is that there is currently no mainstream consensus in the science of Physics that has re-established the assumption of objective material realism. Thanks for saying that so that I can understand. When it's objectivity that is being tested, it's tough to devise an objective experiment for it. I didn't quite get the logic on how dechoherence supposedly resolved the measurement problem. There might have been a bit of slight of hand there, but I wouldn't be the one to catch it. I understand why it's critical for science in general to hang onto objective realism, so there's a lot of motivation to find a way.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 22, 2015 15:16:52 GMT -5
There's nothing in the standard model of reality that says consciousness is inherent in matter, and nothing about essence or pure consciousness. What do you think the brain is made out of? Squishy grey matter. What I mean is that science doesn't say consciousness is inherent in rocks.
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 22, 2015 16:46:17 GMT -5
What do you think the brain is made out of? Squishy grey matter. What I mean is that science doesn't say consciousness is inherent in rocks. Not yet.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 22, 2015 16:55:47 GMT -5
Squishy grey matter. What I mean is that science doesn't say consciousness is inherent in rocks. Not yet. Hopefully, science will never conclude that, since it isn't true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 16:57:32 GMT -5
What do you think the brain is made out of? Squishy grey matter. What I mean is that science doesn't say consciousness is inherent in rocks. Rocks and squishy grey matter are made out of the same stuff, same as stars and planets. Is this something new to you? The standard model of reality states that consciousness is a function of the brain, which is made out of, you guessed it, squishy grey matter...
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 22, 2015 17:49:26 GMT -5
Not yet. Hopefully, science will never conclude that, since it isn't true. ...Something about stillness.....
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 22, 2015 18:07:43 GMT -5
.........bumped for E and L as it seems neither read it the first time. ................. I'm not making the argument that consciousness and matrix mechanics are related and as Khalili correctly points out, neither did Bohr or Heisenburg. That all came later and they just remained silent on the question. The fact is that QM is quite well understood, but it's at best only indirectly related to the nature of consciousness, because it marks a boundary that is the limit at which objective physical experiment is of any use in explaining it. The idea that decoherence is a "real physical property" that can salvage the abstraction of an objective physicality at the quantum level is the exact same type of speculation as either many-worlds or the relationship between consciousness and physical observation. The underlined is exactly this type of metaphysical interpretation and doesn't tell the whole story. The experiments that reduce quantum coherence in a system still leave the system in an uncertain state -- they don't collapse the wave function -- just one that is constrained and less certain, but this could be said generally of any experimental apparatus. You never experience the cat directly as half-alive and half-dead because once you make the observation by opening the box, as Jimmy wrote, "Once we have emerged from the quantum world of superposition, there is no going back, and we are left with simple statistical probability". The read-out on the Geiger counter is just another form of observation, a different act than opening the box, but that reveals the same information. The fact is that if decoherence did indeed solve the measurement problem as Kahili implies, (which is of course, in controversy), someone surely would have won a Nobel for that, because it would resurrect objective physical reality. They haven't because it doesn't. Nobody is trying to salvage an objective physicality at the quantum level, and Al-Khalili didn't claim to solve the measurement problem. The whole point is that there are two levels, the micro quantum level and the macro level where classical laws operate. The question is still, what exactly is taking place when there is movement from one to the other (this is done easily in experiments by 'flipping a little switch'). And yes, this is the measurement problem. Al-Khalili earlier states the problem: "QM describes what goes on in the atomic world when we are not looking (which is a somewhat abstract mathematical description), and yet makes quite stunningly accurate predictions about what we would measure if we chose to. But the actual process of getting from the description of reality when we are not looking to the one we get when we point our measuring devices at it is still something of a mystery. It is known as the measurement problem. The issue is very straightforward to state: how do atoms and their ilk go from tiny localized particles to being spread out into multiple wavy versions of themselves, and back to behaving perfectly sensible as tiny localized particles again as soon as we check up on them"? [by flipping a little switch] (pg 190, emphasis sdp) So nobody can explain this movement from the randomness of the quantum world to "cause and effect" determinism of the classical world of big objects. Al-Khalili still admits this after his discussion of decoherence. "What decoherence doesn't tell us, of course, is how one or the other option is selected. QM remains probabilistic, and this unpredictability of individual measurements does not go away". (pg 198) But decoherence does explain why the (whole) cat, a macro world object, is never in a quantum state. You're just going to have to get past that.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 22, 2015 18:09:09 GMT -5
Okay, it's not so much the kitty's life/death probability that's being collapsed by the observation, but rather the decay of a particle in the trigger mechanism. 'dusty's misconception is that the two aren't linked, but they are. The whole cat drama is more of a distraction, and it would be simpler to have a geiger counter that could be observed to have either triggered or not. And that is the root of the misconception. If someone could prove that, they'd win a Nobel, because then they'd have done away with what's known as the "measurement problem", which isn't, as 'dusty thinks, the fact that classical equations emerge in the limit as distances and energies get large. That's actually quite well understood. No, the " measurement problem" is very simply the fact that there is no deterministic information available about a "particle" in between direct observations -- iow, that it acts like a wave when it's not being measured. Said another way, it is the act of observation itself, and not some physical characteristic of that act, that determines the state of the object. He read a book by this Khalili fellow that sold him quantum dechorence as the "solution" to the measurement problem and that's where he caught the false meme that the Geiger counter with no conscious observation could determine the state of the cat. A Geiger counter is central to and is actually used as the device to trigger the potential of the cats doom in the original experiment. Schrodinger used the cat to dramatize the fact that the readout on the counter may or may not have registered a decay upon opening the box. So there are two different sides to the philosophical debate. The mainstream view of the Copenhagen interpretation accepts the end of objectivity, and most people that are on that side of it have an interest in introducing the notion of consciousness into the abstract descriptions of reality that are the product of the science of Physics. Roger Penrose is a good example of someone who is relatively contemporary who holds that view. On the other side are peeps who would like to see a return to a hard objective realism. Copenhagen has been opposed since it's inception, and the original antagonist to it was Einstein. Kalili is following along in that tradition. Despite that constant opposition, It's been the standard interpretation for the past 90 years, and remains so today. This debate used to interest me a great deal. At this point I'm only it the dialog to dispel the obvious myths that peeps with agendas buy into and try to resell. Primary to this is the line where Physics ends and metaphysics begins. Secondary to it is the question of the current mainstream consensus, and the fact is that there is currently no mainstream consensus in the science of Physics that has re-established the assumption of objective material realism. I just bumped an earlier post that I guess neither you nor E read. It corrects a few of your misconceptions concerning what I have been saying, not edited (which can be easily checked). In it I correctly stated the measurement problem and also the fact that nobody has solved it, including Al-Khalili. Also stated that nobody is trying to salvage the classical view of physics as our best understanding of how reality works. Nobody claimed that decoherence solved the measurement problem. The bumped post (from two days ago) specifically says decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem. I've never said that the measurement problem is "the fact that classical equations emerge in the limit as distances and energies get large". QM doesn't do away with classical physics. Classical physics works quite well for most things in the macro world, we got to the moon with classical physics. There is no physicist alive today who would like to return to hard objective realism, meaning, classical physics, that ship has sailed. I'll try to straighten out the rest of your mess later. But tell me one thing, do you still think a cat can be in a superposition of being 1/2 dead and 1/2 alive? (And please don't tell me you never believed that).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 22, 2015 18:49:05 GMT -5
Squishy grey matter. What I mean is that science doesn't say consciousness is inherent in rocks. Rocks and squishy grey matter are made out of the same stuff, same as stars and planets. Is this something new to you? The standard model of reality states that consciousness is a function of the brain, which is made out of, you guessed it, squishy grey matter... A)Science doesn't know how that happens. B)Even if it were true, it doesn't imply consciousness is inherent in all matter. C)You're being a jerk. Is there a reason for this?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 22, 2015 18:49:49 GMT -5
Hopefully, science will never conclude that, since it isn't true. ...Something about stillness..... What about it?
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 22, 2015 19:07:14 GMT -5
...Something about stillness..... What about it? What? Do I have to do all your thinking for you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 19:48:26 GMT -5
Rocks and squishy grey matter are made out of the same stuff, same as stars and planets. Is this something new to you? The standard model of reality states that consciousness is a function of the brain, which is made out of, you guessed it, squishy grey matter... A)Science doesn't know how that happens. B)Even if it were true, it doesn't imply consciousness is inherent in all matter. C)You're being a jerk. Is there a reason for this? A)I didn't say science knows how consciousness arises from the brain, I said that's the standard model of Reality. B)No one is saying it's true, it's not provable, just like the "Universe is in Consciousness" isn't provable. C)There is always a reason.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 22, 2015 20:43:15 GMT -5
What? Do I have to do all your thinking for you? If that were so, I'd be in some serious trouble.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 2:37:30 GMT -5
I just bumped an earlier post that I guess neither you nor E read. It corrects a few of your misconceptions concerning what I have been saying I lost interest in our direct dialog at the point that it became clear I'd have to explain your own misconceptions to you when you started denying them. If you're happy with your current understanding of the science then that's fine, I've got no interest in trying to convince you that you're misunderstanding it behind the efforts I've already made. You can simply consider me to be wrong in the same way that I consider you to be wrong, no harm no foul. If you really want me to continue the debate I'll go back and pick it up for one more round, but only if you respond to this and say so.
|
|