what do you think of sidewalker's take?
It’s not my take, it’s Niels Bohr’s take, codified as the Copenhagen Interpretation, the most prevalent interpretation among working quantum physicists.
[Sidewalker] Quantum Physics, the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle actually comes into being physically when it is observed.
That's not everything in the Copenhagen interpretation
No shit? Are you saying the Copenhagen interpretationis more than a single sentence, well gee whiz, thanks for clearing that up forus Pumpkin.
but it is correct if you substitute "it is observed" with "wave collapse/interaction occurs"
It’s correct as is, we’re talking Copenhagen Interpretation, Niels Bohr gets to be the authority here, and he insisted that it was a “sentient observer” that was necessary to collapse the wave function.
[Sidewalker] Because of the dual nature of reality at the quantum level
Mysticism
That’s quite a non-sequitur, anyone with even a cursory familiarity of the subject matter recognizes the wave and particle nature of light and matter in quantum physics.
Here’s an idea, try Googling “complementarity”, it’s another term Niels Bohr introduced (funny how that name keeps coming up in discussions about the Copenhagen Interpretation), it was Bohr’s attempt to addresses the fact that although “particle” and “wave” are mutually exclusive terms, “complementarity” accounted for the resultant “dual nature of reality at the quantum level” with the concept of “complementarity” as an explanation for the fact that different conditions of observation could yield conceptually incompatible conclusions of either “particle” or “wave”. This is really basic stuff, if you find it interesting, maybe you should try learning something about quantum physics.
[Sidewalker] particles can be “completely” represented mathematically by a “wave function”, this is a central tenet of quantum physics.
Yes, keeping in mind you're talking about the properties (essence) that manifest on wave collapse in discreet quanta, remember he just said there are no particles in the wave only on collapse.
The sentence being responded to is straightforward and universally accepted as a simple fact of the matter, it really isn’t necessary to “keep in mind” this strange and meaningless sentence. The wave function applies to any quantum system, not just discreet quanta, and “there are no particles in the wave only on collapse” isn’t even wrong, it’s not even a sentence. Maybe you really don’t understand wave/particle duality, which is to say you don’t understand the first thing about quantum physics.
That’s the problem with Google Scholars, they look up facts and repeat them without knowing how they relate, they posture without any real understanding of the subject matter.
[Sidewalker] In quantum theory, a particle exists in a juxtaposition of possible states; only when it is measured does it take on definite qualities, like position and momentum.
The part of the Copenhagen interpretation that confuses people and contradicts itself. "We" just said there is no particle except at the instant of collapse. That is correct. This is not.
LOL, quit your blathering, the sentence is an accurate and straightforward explanation of the collapse of the wave function. In the standard model particles can exist as probability waves in Hilbert space when they are not being observed or measured. This is precisely why the particle can interfere with itself in the double slit experiment.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t dumb it down any further for you, if you really don’t know anything at all about quantum physics, perhaps you should at least try not to embarrass yourself.
[Sidewalker] These are not waves of some underlying stuff
Whatever this is supposed to mean precisely it's probably wrong. The waves involved all satisfy Schrodinger's equation but many were identified long before as waves of force-fields, the most commonly studied (and relevant for most science) are electromagnetic waves.
LOL, you don’t know what it means but you have a feeling it’s wrong, you are a real hoot kid.
[Sidewalker] they are mathematical waves of probability
They are both.
Nope, we were talking about the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function does not directly represent an independent physical reality, it represents a sentient observer's subjective state of knowledge about the underlying reality.
[Sidewalker] a field of pure possibility that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by an observer, theoretically then, the act of observing seems to conjure the particle into existence out of a mathematical haze of probability.
That's what the first statement said, but the unwarranted flowery and misleading language is continuing to snowball.
"observation" can be done by a single atom. That's not what people think intuitively when you say "observation". Again (I'm really a broken record) "interaction" is a better word.
Nope, maybe you should Google “Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics”, I was pretty damn explicit about that being what I was talking about, perhaps you should get a clue and stop embarrassing yourself. You want to thumb your nose at Niels Bohr and say neener neener, that’s fine, but quit pretending that you understand the first thing about the Copenhagen interpretation and its implications. That is the subject matter of my post, don’t care that it upsets you. Get over it.
Or….stop posing and just say you disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation.
I say "manifest", he says "conjure". Whatever makes you happy.
"out of a mathematical haze of probability"
Math describes nature, nature isn't math. This stretches poetic license.
[Sidewalker] The “bigger implication” is not that “our consciousness can affect reality”, it is consciousness actually brings about reality, the particle can be “actualized,” or made “real” by the observation that collapses the wave function, which gives it spatial and temporal existence.
We've now crossed over fully into mysticism with no admixture of scientific theory supported by evidence.
I guess “mysticism” is just something you say when you don’t understand something, I’ll bet you say it a lot. You really have no ability to follow along with a logical chain of reasoning, the statement follows logically from the implications of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.
Try to keep in mind, your sentient “single atoms” that can “observe” do not exist in the Copenhagen interpretation, in the Copenhagen Interpretation only a “sentient observer” brings about the collapse of the wave function, which imparts the qualities of time and space to the mathematically represented particle. I’m really sorry if the Copenhagen interpretation upsets you, maybe thumbing your nose at Niels Bohr some more will make you feel better.
[Sidewalker] The mind-boggling implication is that the objective world cannot even be said to exist outside of the subjective act of observation.
<monty python peasant voice>Now you see what I've been on about, did you see him try to deny objective reality?</monty python peasant voice>
Yes, I always find you comical, but the fact remains that ontologically and epistemologically, the Copenhagen interpretation runs straight into the heart of idealism.
[Sidewalker] This enforces the age-old hypothesis that consciousness is fundamental aspect of physical reality after all, perhaps the only ultimate reality.
It does not. If consciousness creates reality there is no way we can support that conclusion by the fact that physical quanta manifest during quantum wave collapse whether we know about the collapse or not.
It's a thing that happens. End of story. This the makes exactly as much sense as saying "Since color only exists when I see it we know consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality after all"
LOL, my my, relax, count to ten or something, there is nothing to be upset about, the chain of reasoning I presented is straight forward, maybe read the OP again for context, it was about Quantum Physics and the OP asked about the “bigger implications for consciousness affecting reality”. That’s an invitation to speak to the Copenhagen interpretation and its implications, and that’s what I did.
[Sidewalker]As Neils Bohr, John Wheeler, Henry Stapp, and many other quantum physicists believed, perhaps consciousness cannot be considered just a by-product of the physical activity of the brain.
Many people believe that. No one who understands quantum mechanics thinks quantum mechanics supports this thesis.
LOL, you just have to love Google Scholars, the guy with the big floppy shoes and red Styrofoam nose thinks he understands quantum mechanics, while claiming Niels Bohr, John Wheeler, and Henry Stapp, and most working quantum physicists do not. You posers really do crack me up.
[Sidewalker]In the end, we have some scientists trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop.
I would suggest trying to actually understand it by looking at the math and experiments as opposed to watching pseudoscience docuseries.
Nope, I’m a book guy, you should try onesometime, it results in understanding much better than Googling facts andpretending does.
[Sidewalker]I always enjoy seeing our spiritual detractors throw a conniption
I hope Sidewalker is entertained by my conniption. I am less amused by this subversion of the scientific method (and the respect it has earned) to serve anti-rationalism.
LOL, now now, try to calm down, justbecause you don’t understand the subject matter, and can’t follow the logical processof reasoning, that doesn’t mean your scientific knowledge or your ability to berational is under attack, oh wait, yes it does, ummmm…nevermind.
[Sidewalker] if you do think consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness was necessary to make the universe actual in the first place, a preexistent consciousness that transcends the material universe of science.
Well Sidewalker has hit the nail on the head here. Reason is so much easier to leave behind when you have a belief that you've already decided to have faith in.
I’m not making an assertion by any stretch of the imagination, I’m simply pointing out that for those who are so inclined, it can be seen in those terms. You have to have a serious comprehension issue to read “if you do think” followed by “this raises the possibility” and think it’s an assertion, it isn’t. It’s an invitation to discuss.
I saw the OP as an opportunity to solicit some intelligent discussion, but unfortunately my post hasn’t attracted any yet, so far, just a Poser.
