(April 15, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Alex K Wrote:I mean, in QM, there are two fundamentally different ways in which a state function can change: through continuous causal evolution and through collapse at a measurement. Per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the EPR paradox, a sister particle has its position or momentum determined by our measurement of the first, and both have no definite position AND momentum prior to it... I.e. the second is forced into one or the other when we measure for either position or momentum on the first. Of course, there's a lot of speculation about what the wave-function actually represents, but the article Robert posted isn't more drastic as a plausible solution in consideration of the problem, than something like the Everett-DeWitt interpretation.(April 15, 2015 at 4:58 pm)Nestor Wrote: There wasn't any "vague-Chopra-like-pseudoscience" in what Robert posted. In fact, many physicists and philosophers have recognized the difficulties that our Newtonian framework of absolute space and absolute time poses for quantum mechanics, and that any theory that incorporates all phenomena must recognize the fundamental and universal division of "an observing part" and "an observed part."
I don't understand what you mean by that (bold mine)
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza