(April 27, 2012 at 9:33 pm)BrotherMagnet Wrote: Actually Phil it is not an outdated model as it is still only one of the possible models even today. We still don't know how to interpret wave/energy particle duality.

Outdated but still contains some useful ideas. The wave function is necessarily collapsing upon observation in the Copenhagen interpretation. Since the wave function is not a separate distinct function for every object in the universe (even the Copenhagen interpretation says this) it is really the wave function of the universe. Tell me, does the universe exist? Then the wave function didn't collapse.

(April 28, 2012 at 8:13 am)Phil Wrote:

(April 27, 2012 at 9:33 pm)BrotherMagnet Wrote: Actually Phil it is not an outdated model as it is still only one of the possible models even today. We still don't know how to interpret wave/energy particle duality.

Outdated but still contains some useful ideas. The wave function is necessarily collapsing upon observation in the Copenhagen interpretation. Since the wave function is not a separate distinct function for every object in the universe (even the Copenhagen interpretation says this) it is really the wave function of the universe. Tell me, does the universe exist? Then the wave function didn't collapse.

I don't think you can interpret it as one wave function. It is a collection of wave functions. If you do, than yes the average of all the wave functions never fully collapses. It is still in a state of "flux" at all times.

(April 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm)BrotherMagnet Wrote:

(April 28, 2012 at 8:13 am)Phil Wrote:

I don't think you can interpret it as one wave function.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation you can because it is. Read it yourself in a textbook about Quantum Mechanics f you don't believe me.

Personally, I find the Many-Worlds interpretation to be much better.

Yes, you could describe the universe as a wave function itself. A wave function describes the state a system of matter/energy is in and the system could be the entire universe. I never disagreed on this point but the system is also made up of subsystems. You could say the fact the universal waveform has never collapsed is that there is no outside observer, disproving God with this interpretation.

So you could say that before awareness arose the universe was pure chance and probability. Anything could just pop into and out of existence at any time.

Yes, I find the many worlds interpretation more interesting just because of the vast amount of possibilities , but I don't think it's more or less plausible than most of the rest.

(April 29, 2012 at 4:48 am)BrotherMagnet Wrote: Yes, you could describe the universe as a wave function itself. A wave function describes the state a system of matter/energy is in and the system could be the entire universe. I never disagreed on this point but the system is also made up of subsystems. You could say the fact the universal waveform has never collapsed is that there is no outside observer, disproving God with this interpretation.

So you could say that before awareness arose the universe was pure chance and probability. Anything could just pop into and out of existence at any time.

Yes, I find the many worlds interpretation more interesting just because of the vast amount of possibilities , but I don't think it's more or less plausible than most of the rest.

Besides my joke poster above and a mathematical one, show me a true collapse of a wave function. BTW, the wave function of the system is the wave function of the universe (more aptly named the universal wave function). There really is no sharply defined way to define the wave function of a subsystem (partial system). See the work of Hawking and Hartle on the Wheeler–DeWitt equation.

This organism suffered ego death awhile ago.

(April 29, 2012 at 5:15 am)Phil Wrote: Besides my joke poster above and a mathematical one, show me a true collapse of a wave function. BTW, the wave function of the system is the wave function of the universe (more aptly named the universal wave function). There really is no sharply defined way to define the wave function of a subsystem (partial system). See the work of Hawking and Hartle on the Wheeler–DeWitt equation.

The wave function can be used to describe any system including the system of the entire universe. There is a defined way to describe subsystems and they are used all the time from in electronics systems to the electron configurations in chemistry. Using the Schrodinger equation you can describe the position and energy of the electrons in a hydrogen atom and by manipulating the differential equation an infinite amount of other things. Quantum Mechanics is what lead to modern Chemistry btw.

But, ...now using the Copenhagen interpretation, until the position or energy of the electron is measured the wave does not "collapse". This is the entire basis for this model and is the first one you learn in any modern physics course. Not until something is measured will the waveform collapse hence there has to be an awareness doing the measuring.

I don't know what you mean by true collapse. According to the uncertainty principle the waveform will never fully collapse. You could measure the position for example but what you actually measure is just another waveform with a more defined position and a fluctuating energy. The more times you measure the position the more defined it will be but you will never get a waveform that has truly collapsed. So you can't get a wave function to ever fully collapse into a defined state, only a slightly more defined state. There will always be a slight amount of uncertainty whether the moon exists or doesn't.

From what I have read on the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, it is basically the Schrodinger equation used in three or four dimensions, meaning it could be used to describe the universe. I did read a little about Hawkings work on it but don't have time at the moment....

The whole idea of the self is an illusion. Be it perception of one's self, one's ego, they all are manifestations.

---

are all*

(May 7, 2012 at 1:15 pm)jess_essential Wrote: The whole idea of the self is an illusion. Be it perception of one's self, one's ego, they all are manifestations.

---

are all*

By illusion what do you mean?
Does the self change reality because of the self or does reality change the self because of whats real?

Tangential, but have any of you read Sam Harris' book, Free Will?