Nerd alert! -more spooky Quantum stuff

[Porcupine]

By "observer", some concluded, fallaciously, that it meant "conscious" observer.

There's no such thing as a non-conscious observer. So either it's not really an observer at all or it's a conscious observer.

[Peebothuhlu]

By "observer", some concluded, fallaciously, that it meant "conscious" observer.

There's no such thing as a non-conscious observer. So either it's not really an observer at all or it's a conscious observer.

Hello!

Totally not being in any way, shape or form knwowledgable in anything to do with 'Quantum'...

I do believe that 'Any' interaction of said particles counts as an 'Observation'.

So... photons travelling from the Sun to Earth then impacting on a white wall, some of which reflect/refract to be picked up by the photo resceptor nerve ending in your eyes were first 'Observed' by the wall, before being 'Observed' by your retina and THEN interpretid by your neural network.

There's some very 'Lax' usage of terminology I find when people start talking about things beyond their general ken.

Just tossing in two uneducated cents.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[GrandizerII]

I don't think the Copenhagen suggests that our minds have an impact on what we see at the quantum level. I think it's more we're "trapped" into only seeing one specific outcome (when we look "closely", that is), and whatever outcome that is is random in some way. Maybe because it's metaphysically impossible for us to observe all different outcomes simultaneously?

That said, not a fan of the Copenhagen. It feels ... incomplete.

I was under the impression that the Copenhagen interpretation said that the observer at least seems to have an effect on the results. And not merely that we can only observe one perspective or outcome. I mean, there's nothing mysterious or strange about that. That's always the case.

Perhaps I've been wrong all along about what the Copenhagen interpretation is supposed to entail, but I've always associated it with indeterminism/randomness rather than the notion of "observation" having an impact on the results. I'm not arguing that this would be "woo-ey" or anything like that, though.

[Porcupine]

I do believe that 'Any' interaction of said particles counts as an 'Observation'.

Then that would seem to be a re-definition of "observation" so while it may be an example of observation in the scientific sense within the subfield of QM ... it's not the case that it's an observation in the normal sense.

I was under the impression that the Copenhagen interpretation said that the observer at least seems to have an effect on the results. And not merely that we can only observe one perspective or outcome. I mean, there's nothing mysterious or strange about that. That's always the case.

Perhaps I've been wrong all along about what the Copenhagen interpretation is supposed to entail, but I've always associated it with indeterminism/randomness rather than the notion of "observation" having an impact on the results. I'm not arguing that this would be "woo-ey" or anything like that, though.

I'm glad you don't think it's wooy.

Checking out the Wikipedia article it seems to be saying that it's not observation but measurement that affects things, under the Copenhagen interpretation:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probability distribution of a given measurement's possible results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse.

However, curiously, it then goes on to say that objections to the Copenhagen Interpretation involve discontinuous jumps "when there is an observation".

Over the years, there have been many objections to aspects of the Copenhagen interpretation, including: discontinuous jumps when there is an observation,

Now, that could be explained by the word when. It doesn't say that it is the observation that causes the jump. It says there is a jump when it is observed and this could be explained by the scientists doing measurements when they observe as well---so it is really ultimately the measurements rather than the observations that are causing the discontinuous jumps. However, why, then, use the word 'observation' and not simply stick with 'measurement'? And it continues:

the probabilistic element introduced upon observation, the subjectiveness of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining a measuring device, and the necessity of invoking classical physics to describe the "laboratory" in which the results are measured.

the subjectiveness of requiring an observer. Now, it's true that you could just think "Well, this is merely epistemic subjectivity. i.e. the difficulty in understanding the quantum."

However, here are a bunch of experts trying to examine the quantum who also recognize that the nature of reality is ultimately quantum ... and they are realizing that their minds may be limited in grasping it all as, although the mathematics works, and they can have knowledge of structure, the nature seems very "strange" and ultimately hard for anybody to grasp ... even the experts claim to not understand it ... but they do claim that the math works. And the point is that understanding the nature of X and understanding the math about X and not necessarily one and the same thing.

So, what would I argue? Well, for one thing, what reason do we have to suppose that reality has a nature beyond what is observed? Or, more precisely, what reason is there to suppose that reality has a nature beyond "observed by this human", "observed by that human" and---importantly---"observed by this non-human" and "observed by that non-human" and, maybe even, "observed by itself".

If we can't transcend our own observations, as even the math seems to be just abstract knowledge of structure as opposed to empirical knowledge of reality, and even our understanding of math requires our experience of our understanding---so really, it turns out, abstractions are not fundamentally opposed to observations---then why postulate something beyond observations?

[Peebothuhlu]

I do believe that 'Any' interaction of said particles counts as an 'Observation'.

Then that would seem to be a re-definition of "observation" so while it may be an example of observation in the scientific sense within the subfield of QM ... it's not the case that it's an observation in the normal sense.
ly one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse.

Not quite.

As I explained previously. It's people trying to talk about thing of which they have little to no understanding OR people with the education and understanding trying to explain things to other people who do not have the mental tools/training to help them understand the thing.

Also... People 'redefine' words all the time. People make up new words for things or even use existing words for completely new things all the time.

It also doesn't refute or otherwise diminish my lay man's understanding of what's happening in relation to the conversation.

Still, all the best at learning about all the quantum mechanical stuff.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Porcupine]

People 'redefine' words all the time. People make up new words for things or even use existing words for completely new things all the time.

It also doesn't refute or otherwise diminish my lay man's understanding of what's happening in relation to the conversation.

It's true that a re-definition doesn't refute a previous definition. But that's precisely because a re-definition addresses something else entirely.

It's a fallacy of equivocation to say that conscious observation can't really be conscious because observation doesn't have to be conscious in a completely different sense of the word.

[Peebothuhlu]

People 'redefine' words all the time. People make up new words for things or even use existing words for completely new things all the time.

It also doesn't refute or otherwise diminish my lay man's understanding of what's happening in relation to the conversation.

It's true that a re-definition doesn't refute a previous definition. But that's precisely because a re-definition addresses something else entirely.

It's a fallacy of equivocation to say that conscious observation can't really be conscious because observation doesn't have to be conscious in a completely different sense of the word.

You've wandered off what I was saying, actually.

So. We agree with "Any interaction counts as an 'Observation'." ? Cool.

You agree that words are 'Descriptive' and that we change how they are used, thought of, attached to concepts etc all the time?

Aweseom.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Porcupine]

So. We agree with "Any interaction counts as an 'Observation'." ? Cool.

Perhaps in one sense. Perhaps in both senses. But my point is that at least one sense of observation requires consciousness and that was the sort of observation I was interested in.

My own belief is that everything requires conscious observation in some form.

[Peebothuhlu]

So. We agree with "Any interaction counts as an 'Observation'." ? Cool.

Perhaps in one sense. Perhaps in both senses. But my point is that at least one sense of observation requires consciousness and that was the sort of observation I was interested in.

My own belief is that everything requires conscious observation in some form.

Cool.

Don't currently have time to quibble.

Glad you're wrong.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Porcupine]

Okay.