Nerd alert! -more spooky Quantum stuff

[Fireball]

But we still don't understand the most fundamental reason why the waveform collapses when measured

"Why" is a question that has little relevance in the sciences, which are used to describe "how" things work, to as close an approximation as we can measure. Science isn't the correct venue for "why" questions.

[Porcupine]

The problems come when people try to make it all mystical.

The problem is Chopra and similar goons!

---

But we still don't understand the most fundamental reason why the waveform collapses when measured

Now I am going to say something that sounds wooy but isn't. It could be because observers alter reality because reality is ultimately mental.

That sounds like major woo. But it's not much of a step to say that it could be the case once we start from the premise that there's no reason to think that reality isn't mental as there's no evidence of anything non-mental.

Still, it is a bit of a leap to say that our minds have an impact on the mental nature of reality. As perhaps our minds don't affect other minds even through they're physical and ultimately connected to other physical things because all physical things are fundamentally connected and all physical things are fundamentally mental. But it's less of a leap than saying that our minds have an impact on the physical (as opposed to mental---as if there is actually any evidence of such an opposition) nature of reality. Now that would be wooy.

It's still not clear that there would have to be any meaningful connection between one mental/physical thing and another mental/physical thing. And, it's obvious that silly shit like telepathy doesn't exist. So if there are any connections it may be that they are so weak that they are basically nonexistent (but technically not fully 100% nonexistent) and undetectable. Or almost undetectable. Such as perhaps only detectable on the quantum level? The important thing is that to say that our, human, minds (directly) impact reality on the macro level, or in a way that actually affects our lives, is not just totally without basis but really is completely wooy. But to say that the observer has an affect on the quantum level is nowhere near the same thing as that woo.

To put it simply: To say that our minds can impact quantum mechanics is not wooy. (It's just without clear evidence but not totally implausible or without any basis (hence one theory suggesting that: the Copenhagen Interpretation)). Whereas, on the other hand, to say that we can harness the micro-level of quantum mechanics with our minds in order to meaningfully affect our lives at the non-quantum level, as Deepak Chopra and bullshit like The Secret, suggests---and "ask the universe" to "make our dreams come true" or any of that shit, or anything like it---that is 100% total wooy pseudoscientific bull.

[ignoramus]

But we still don't understand the most fundamental reason why the waveform collapses when measured

"Why" is a question that has little relevance in the sciences, which are used to describe "how" things work, to as close an approximation as we can measure. Science isn't the correct venue for "why" questions.

Which is why our man Einstein said those immortal words. (spooky action at a distance)
But he was wrong by arguing the moon doesn't disappear when we're not looking at it, and God doesn't play dice. (response to Bohr)
Even he was conflating the macro world (Newtonian) with the quantum world. The "why" played havoc on his mind.

[Porcupine]

I agree with Einstein that God does not play dice.

It is said that there are no hidden variables. But to me that is just science working within its own framework and not making statements outside itself. As it shouldn't.

The truth is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And that in response to "there are no hidden variables", when wrongly taken as a truth beyond the scope of science, I would simply ask: how would we know?

Quantum deterministic causation that is far too complex to be examinable by us is indistinguishable from quantum acausality.

Scientific theories simply don't make statements outside their scope ... if something is unfalsifiable science doesn't claim to have absolute knowledge that the unfalsifiable thing is impossible---science just says it isn't real *in scientific terms*. But that's only one way of saying it. Other scientists would say that it isn't knowable by science but still may or may not be real. It depends. As there are scientists who are scientific pragmatists who believe in methodological scientific realism but don't believe in metaphysical scientific realism---they believe that science deals with knowledge of reality rather than with reality itself.

What's more, there are also deterministic models of quantum mechanics too. Not all quantum physicists would agree that God does not play dice (metaphorically speaking). I believe that the model of QM that Sean Carroll holds to is, if I'm not mistaken, a deterministic one.

Also, there is a difference between actual literal indeterminism and acausality on the one hand and indeterminism in the sense of indeterminancy, or in other words, unpredictability and acausality to mean science's inability to find any causes at the quantum level, on the other hand.

To me it's just an error of mistaking the map for the territory. Science is a map rather than a territory. But it's not just a map. It's the best map we have! By far. But it's still a map.

[GrandizerII]

To put it simply: To say that our minds can impact quantum mechanics is not wooy. (It's just without clear evidence but not totally implausible or without any basis (hence one theory suggesting that: the Copenhagen Interpretation)).

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.

[ignoramus]

If I may get "spooky", one spacetime, one universe, one result. All other possibilities are beyond humans' paygrades.

[Little lunch]

I tried to work it out years ago and I couldn't even find out what orbital or intrinsic angular motion is...even though I read it over and over. :-)

[ignoramus]

LL, it's not rocket science!

It's much much worse! (like doing rocket science with your eyes closed)

[Porcupine]

To put it simply: To say that our minds can impact quantum mechanics is not wooy. (It's just without clear evidence but not totally implausible or without any basis (hence one theory suggesting that: the Copenhagen Interpretation)).

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.

[ignoramus]

By "observer", some concluded, fallaciously, that it meant "conscious" observer.
That's been disproven. Any inanimate detector/measurement instrument will collapse the wave function when measured.
Even if you're not peeking!