0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Still no predictions or explanations. I'm beginning to suspect he hasn't got any, which means it isn't science.
dlorde : What about Bell's theorem ?
What makes the universe 'split " ,and how ? How can one falsify that fantasy ?
Why did you ignore that yet another game changer : Bell's theorem , i wonder .
Quote from: alancalverd on 20/11/2014 21:36:17Still no predictions or explanations. I'm beginning to suspect he hasn't got any, which means it isn't science.Don't worry , Alan : I will provide you with way more than you can ever handle .Take care .
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg444884#msg444884 date=1416439722]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/11/2014 18:13:38... Just tell me, dlorde : since the observer cannot but make an intrinsic and inescapable part of the universe or reality he/she is observing , how can he/she be assumed to be separated from that observed reality ?Ah. Clearly you either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. If there's something in particular you didn't follow, just ask, and I'll try to help you understand it.
... Just tell me, dlorde : since the observer cannot but make an intrinsic and inescapable part of the universe or reality he/she is observing , how can he/she be assumed to be separated from that observed reality ?
The whole point of 'Many Worlds' is that the observer becomes part of the system being observed. When a system in quantum superposition is measured by interaction with some apparatus (or observer), the interacting apparatus becomes part of the superposition (the superposed wavefunction encompasses both system & apparatus), and when the apparatus interacts further with the environment, the environment becomes part of the superposition too. By this point, the initial superposition is said to have decohered because it has spread irretrievably into the environment. Each 'aspect' of the superposition sees one outcome of the measurement. This is just an extended evolution of the overall wavefunction of the whole ensemble - no magical 'collapse' involved. What part of this do you find difficult to follow?
If it will help you see the reality of superposition, here's the first undergraduate MIT lecture in quantum mechanics, called 'Introduction to Superposition', which explains very simply and clearly the empirical evidence for superposition, which is all the 'Many Worlds' interpretation relies on.
By all means object to the interpretation, but for your objection to be worth anything, it must be based on what the interpretation actually says, not a misunderstanding of what it says. So what are your particular grounds for objecting to it ? (bearing in mind that the superposition at the core of QM has been empirically confirmed many times).
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg444946#msg444946 date=1416522791]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/11/2014 21:24:55What makes the universe 'split " ,and how ? How can one falsify that fantasy ? I already answered that above. Sadly for you, superposition isn't a fantasy - just watch the MIT 'Introduction to QM' lecture I linked above. You'll notice that the lecturer goes to great pains to emphasise how apparently illogical and unreasonable superposition is - yet it is clearly established empirical fact.
QuoteWhy did you ignore that yet another game changer : Bell's theorem , i wonder .Violation of Bell's inequalities is consistent with MW as mentioned above.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg444997#msg444997 date=1416596956]Don, your repeated statement "since consciousness is not a material process..." isn't a proven statement. Every thing you say after that hinges on an assertion you can't prove.
There's also no meaning in your complaint about the "separation" of the observer and observed in materialism or naturalism.
If anything, materialism is more inclusive because in that view, everything is made of the same stuff,and is subject to the same physical laws.
You're the one making a special case for consciousness and separating it from the rest of the physical world.
All that materialism denies is that subject experience is the same reality. If my thermostat in my house is broken, there is a not another reality in which my house is actually warm. The thermostat is just wrong. If my thermostat cannot detects sound waves, that doesn't mean they aren't there. Likewise our subject experience, what aspects of reality we can detect, has limitations. What is so confusing to you about that?
...In short :If there is some process that can collapse the wave function , then consciousness is the only serious candidate for that , as Von Neumann proved .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 21/11/2014 18:03:23...In short :If there is some process that can collapse the wave function , then consciousness is the only serious candidate for that , as Von Neumann proved .In short, if you start out with the conclusion you want and work backwards, ignoring the evidence, you can believe whatever pleases you.