On the Etiquette of dying

[TheLurch]

Consciousness (an observer) being a requirement in quantum mechanics does seem to be odd in a universe without a God. It at least points to some intelligence behind the universe, doesn't it?

The observer doesn't have to be conscious. Any interactions with the environment will force a particle out of a superposition, so this phenomenon is somewhat orthogonal to the existence of a deity.

It's also probably the most frequently misrepresented aspects of quantum mechanics, so you've probably heard otherwise a lot.

[grmorton]

One of the many down sides to chemo. Even things that I always loved are not good. I eat because I need to keep my weight up as much as I can, but it is no pleasure - it is a chore. Not a weight loss program I can recommend.

Absolutely agree Jedidiah. I think I lost 25+ pounds on chemo and I felt awful all the time. It is so odd to taste something that you loved to eat and find it tastes weird now. Like you, I don't really look forward to eating anymore.

[grmorton]

The observer doesn't have to be conscious. Any interactions with the environment will force a particle out of a superposition, so this phenomenon is somewhat orthogonal to the existence of a deity.

It's also probably the most frequently misrepresented aspects of quantum mechanics, so you've probably heard otherwise a lot.

No, I have not run across that in my readings of quantum books,, or in the books on the philosophy books. If one strictly follows the math, as John von Neumann pointed out, everything should be in superposition. The math of quantum (which is actually used regularly in geophysics) gives no way for anything to collapse the wavelet. If you interact with the particle, you go into superposition with it.

"In his rigourous 1932 treatment, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechannics, John von Neumann showed that quantum theory makes physics' encounter with consciousness inevitable. He considered a measuring apparatus, a Geiger counter, for example. It is isolated from the rest of the world but makes contact with a quantum system, say, an atom simultaneously in two boxes. This Geiger counter is set to fire if the atom is in the top box and to remain unfired if the atom is in the bottom box. Von Neumann showed that if the Geiger counter is a physical system governed by quantum mechanics, it would enter a superposition state with the atom and be, simultaneously, in a fired and an un fired state. (We saw this situation in the case of Schrodinger's cat.)"

"Should a second isolated measuring apparatus come into contact with the Geiger counter-for example, an electronic device recording whether the Geiger counter has fired-it joins the superposition state and records both situations existing simultaneously. This so-called "von Neumann chain" can continue indefinitely. Von Neumann showed that no physical system obeying the laws of physics (i.e., quantum theory) could collapse a superposition state wavefunction to yield a particular result."

"However, when we look at the Geiger counter, we will always see a particular result, not a superposition. Von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer doing something that is not presently encompassed by physics can collapse a wavefunction. Though for all practical purposes one can consider the wavefunction collapsed at any macroscopic stage of the von Neumann chain, von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer can actually make an observation."

With all due respect Lurch, I will take the word of John von Neumann over your word. He wrote a seminal book on Quantum. Neither you nor I have done that. As I said in the opening post. If you guys don't like what I am saying about quantum then take it up with the top level quantum physicists, not me. I am just reporting what they say, and they say it over and over and over again. Got loads more quotes just like it. All we have from you is your assertion contra guys like von Neumann.


For those who don't know who von Neumann was, here is part of his bio from Wiki:

[grmorton]

Consciousness (an observer) being a requirement in quantum mechanics does seem to be odd in a universe without a God. It at least points to some intelligence behind the universe, doesn't it?

Yes it is and that is why naturalists try so hard to ignore this fundamental philosophical issue. It doesn't fit their view very well. Lurch must think Von Neumann mis-represents quantum. While I haven't read of his personal life, I get no hints that he was particularly religious. I have met Weinburg and he is definitely NOT religious and he too says that the observer is necessary. I wonder if Lurch thinks he is a better physicist than these guys?

[Jedidiah]

Absolutely agree Jedidiah. I think I lost 25+ pounds on chemo and I felt awful all the time. It is so odd to taste something that you loved to eat and find it tastes weird now. Like you, I don't really look forward to eating anymore.

Yeah.

[Sparko]

Yes it is and that is why naturalists try so hard to ignore this fundamental philosophical issue. It doesn't fit their view very well. Lurch must think Von Neumann mis-represents quantum. While I haven't read of his personal life, I get no hints that he was particularly religious. I have met Weinburg and he is definitely NOT religious and he too says that the observer is necessary. I wonder if Lurch thinks he is a better physicist than these guys?

It is almost as if things are not "real" until observed. Other than God, The only other explanation I have heard from naturalists is that we might be living in a simulated universe, and the computer doesn't bother to actualize a result until it is observed to save computational power (like nothing in a video game is rendered unless the player it looking at it). To me it is easier to believe in God than we are just players in some computer universe.

[TheLurch]

With all due respect Lurch, I will take the word of John von Neumann over your word.

I wouldn't ask you to take my word over his. I would, however, ask you to look into the advances made in quantum mechanics over the years since van Neumann came to his conclusion, and see whether you think it would still be valid. Would you consider a random number generator to be conscious? Would you call a quasar conscious? Because both of those have had the effect that a conscious observer would have.

You can back up and try to argue that you needed a conscious individual to set up the experiments such that this was possible. But the physics that govern it would behave the same way regardless of how this happened.

Lurch must think Von Neumann mis-represents quantum.

No, i just think he died in the 1950s, and our understanding has come a long way since then. Everyone here who knows that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals is more knowledgeable than many, many famous biologists, but only because we happen to live after next-gen DNA sequencing was invented.

[grmorton]

I wouldn't ask you to take my word over his. I would, however, ask you to look into the advances made in quantum mechanics over the years since van Neumann came to his conclusion, and see whether you think it would still be valid. Would you consider a random number generator to be conscious? Would you call a quasar conscious? Because both of those have had the effect that a conscious observer would have.

You can back up and try to argue that you needed a conscious individual to set up the experiments such that this was possible. But the physics that govern it would behave the same way regardless of how this happened.

No, i just think he died in the 1950s, and our understanding has come a long way since then. Everyone here who knows that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals is more knowledgeable than many, many famous biologists, but only because we happen to live after next-gen DNA sequencing was invented.

Lurch you show up with an undocumented assertion, no data, not quotation from a physicist, no nothing and you say you are right and Weinberg, who is quite aware of the latest advances in quantum as was Wheeler and as are Rosenblum and Kuttner, who say effectively the same thing as von Neumann, and you think we should believe what you say. Sheesh, you haven't even shown that you have read one mathematical quantum book. The fourier intetral and transform are the basis of quantum. it is also the basis of signal analysis in geophysics, a profession I have worked in for 45 years. I have also used that math to help invent a new process that me and my partner made a lot of money off of. But you show up lacking a reference, lacking data and say something just so you can avoid the ding to your philosophical position. Either present some data or go away. Consciousness has been the great conundrum of quantum since its inception. Weinberg, Wheeler, Kuttner and Rosenblum are all guys who are either still alive or lived within the past 20 years--Wheeler.


So in short, what you are saying is that you are more up to date with the lastest advances than are those four men. Excuse me if I don't believe you.

[grmorton]

I wouldn't ask you to take my word over his. I would, however, ask you to look into the advances made in quantum mechanics over the years since van Neumann came to his conclusion, and see whether you think it would still be valid. Would you consider a random number generator to be conscious? Would you call a quasar conscious? Because both of those have had the effect that a conscious observer would have.

You can back up and try to argue that you needed a conscious individual to set up the experiments such that this was possible. But the physics that govern it would behave the same way regardless of how this happened.

No, i just think he died in the 1950s, and our understanding has come a long way since then. Everyone here who knows that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals is more knowledgeable than many, many famous biologists, but only because we happen to live after next-gen DNA sequencing was invented.

Lurch you show up with an undocumented assertion, no data, not quotation from a physicist, no nothing and you say you are right and Weinberg, who is quite aware of the latest advances in quantum as was Wheeler and as are Rosenblum and Kuttner, who say effectively the same thing as von Neumann, and you think we should believe what you say. Sheesh, you haven't even shown that you have read one mathematical quantum book. The fourier intetral and transform are the basis of quantum. it is also the basis of signal analysis in geophysics, a profession I have worked in for 45 years. I have also used that math to help invent a new process that me and my partner made a lot of money off of. But you show up lacking a reference, lacking data and say something just so you can avoid the ding to your philosophical position. Either present some data or go away. Consciousness has been the great conundrum of quantum since its inception. Weinberg, Wheeler, Kuttner and Rosenblum are all guys who are either still alive or lived within the past 20 years--Wheeler.


So in short, what you are saying is that you are more up to date with the latest advances than are those four men. Excuse me if I don't believe you.

[JimL]

Yes it is and that is why naturalists try so hard to ignore this fundamental philosophical issue. It doesn't fit their view very well. Lurch must think Von Neumann mis-represents quantum. While I haven't read of his personal life, I get no hints that he was particularly religious. I have met Weinburg and he is definitely NOT religious and he too says that the observer is necessary. I wonder if Lurch thinks he is a better physicist than these guys?

I wonder if you think you're a better physicist that Schroedinger. The observer has nothing to do with it since according to quantum mechanics the universe is determined. Most phycisists don't buy the Copenhagen interpretation any longer.

[TheLurch]

Lurch you show up with an undocumented assertion, no data, not quotation from a physicist, no nothing and you say you are right and Weinberg, who is quite aware of the latest advances in quantum as was Wheeler and as are Rosenblum and Kuttner, who say effectively the same thing as von Neumann, and you think we should believe what you say.

No, i assume you'll do me the courtesy of asking me for references if you want them, rather than assuming i don't have them.

Quantum measurements determined by a random number generator:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2294

And, just out this week, quantum measurements determined by a quasar:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstrac...ett.121.080403

More generally, the whole role of consciousness is something that's as old as the Copenhagen/many worlds debate. It's a philosophical gloss over the real scientific phenomena associated with quantum mechanics, and is currently unresolvable scientifically. The wiki on the issue is actually fairly good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

But the key take home is that consciousness is not required to explain the phenomena we see. And i think the experiments linked above, and many others like them, strongly indicate that consciousness as it's commonly understood can't be involved, since nobody understands a random number generator to be conscious.


EDIT: since this is really off topic to the important things being discussed here, i'll just add this as an edit, mostly for Sparko, who has indicated interest in this topic in the past. The sort of "measurements" being discussed here involve intervening in a quantum system in a way that stops it from being in a superposition of states. Quantum computers depend on the qubits maintaining a superposition of states. And all quantum computers have to operate within a set time, because the qubits will fall out of the superposition of states over time through interactions with the environment. In other words, measurements and environmental interactions both have the same effect of collapsing a superposition state - the only difference is that we don't know what state the system ends up in if we don't measure it.

This is why, on a physical level, measurement and interactions with the environment are largely indistinguishable, and it's clear that there's no consciousness as we understand it involved in the latter.

If you want to say that environmental interactions are a reflection of the consciousness of God, that would seem to be a perfectly valid, but non-scientific interpretation.

[grmorton]

I wonder if you think you're a better physicist that Schroedinger. The observer has nothing to do with it since according to quantum mechanics the universe is determined. Most phycisists don't buy the Copenhagen interpretation any longer.

No, I don't JimL. That is why I quote living guys like Weinberg, Rosenblum and Kuttner and others to let them say what the truth is. It is stated independently of me and no one has to depend on me, they can depend on the experts in the field. And your statement is not quite true, there still are a few of the Copenhagenists around, but the beauty of Rosenblum and Kuttner's book is that they go though every quantum interpretation, from many worlds, to decoherence to Bohm's pilot wave and show how each of them require an observer. No one gets away from the consciousness in quantum. That is why Weinberg's quotation was so important in the OP. Of course, from what I hear about you you won't understand any of this.

[grmorton]

No, i assume you'll do me the courtesy of asking me for references if you want them, rather than assuming i don't have them.

I figure if you have something it is worth your time and effort to put something on the table. If you are not interested in doing a bit of effort in these discussions. shame on you. I will point out to you these quotes I use are from books and articles I have personally read, and not just a quickly cobbled together set of internet grabs.

Quantum measurements determined by a random number generator:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2294

And, just out this week, quantum measurements determined by a quasar:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstrac...ett.121.080403

More generally, the whole role of consciousness is something that's as old as the Copenhagen/many worlds debate. It's a philosophical gloss over the real scientific phenomena associated with quantum mechanics, and is currently unresolvable scientifically. The wiki on the issue is actually fairly good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

I think you just made my point. Schodinger's equation merely takes waves and advances them in time and says what the waves would look like in the future. These waves are a probability wave because it represents the probability that an electron you are interested in will be in any particular point. But when we look, we don't see the electron spread out; we see it at a particular place and time. Shroedinger's equations have no mechanism of collapse to that singular state. There is no mathematics of 'collapse' to predict how things are localized ffrom the probabilistic state.

Your Wiki article says it perfectly:

How are the probabilities converted into an actual, sharply well-defined outcome?

Your Wiki article talks about the many world's hypothesis and the grand superposition of observer cat and instrument--there is no collapse, but observers are still in the mix

Instead, the act of measurement is simply an interaction between quantum entities, e.g. observer, measuring instrument, electron/positron etc., which entangle to form a single larger entity, for instance living cat/happy scientist.

As Weinberg in the OP pointed out, the ideal for a science is that all objects of its study should be objective, not involving a subjective thing like an observer. And this is why those other two articles you posted seem not deal with the observer who is the material scientist observing the results of his quantum experiment. According to Schrodinger's equation, that scientist is as entangled with the quasar and other equipment as one is with the famous cat. So, I think they are irrelevant unless you are trying to say that no observer was needed. The observer was still there sitting in the lab, subject to quantum and entangled with his equipment.


That first article is nothing more than Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. So, I think it supports my view. If by that first article you are trying to say the random number generator is the observer, it isn't. It is like Wheeler's gravitational lensing experiment but letting the photon detector or the diffraction gratting be chosen by a program written by the observer. and the observer still has to observe the outcome, which is a definite set of numbers. The problem I think is that you don't realize strongly enough that if we humans are subject to quantum entanglement as well according to the math, and thus every experiment entangles the observer and Schrodinger's equation has no exit lane--it doesn't have a collapse mechanism.

But the key take home is that consciousness is not required to explain the phenomena we see. And i think the experiments linked above, and many others like them, strongly indicate that consciousness as it's commonly understood can't be involved, since nobody understands a random number generator to be conscious.


EDIT: since this is really off topic to the important things being discussed here, i'll just add this as an edit, mostly for Sparko, who has indicated interest in this topic in the past. The sort of "measurements" being discussed here involve intervening in a quantum system in a way that stops it from being in a superposition of states. Quantum computers depend on the qubits maintaining a superposition of states. And all quantum computers have to operate within a set time, because the qubits will fall out of the superposition of states over time through interactions with the environment. In other words, measurements and environmental interactions both have the same effect of collapsing a superposition state - the only difference is that we don't know what state the system ends up in if we don't measure it.

Quantum computers depend upon two particular particles being entangled with each other and with nothing else. When other stuff interacts with them, they all become entangled or entangled with something else in a menage a many and that destroys the computational work being done.

This guy was writing in 2003. He knows of the progress of quantum since its early days and he says exactly what Weinberg did in the OP.

"But this was only one of the remarkable reversals produced by the quantum revolution. In the opinion of many physicists-including such great figures in twentieth-century physics as Eugene Wigner and Rudolf Peierls-the fundamental principles of quantum theory are inconsistent with the materialist view of the human mind. Quantum theory, in its traditional, or "standard," or "orthodox" formulation, treats "observers" as being on a different plane from the physical systems that they observe. A careful analysis of the logical structure of quantum theory suggests that for quantum theory to make sense it has to posit the existence of observers who lie, at least in part, outside of the description provided by physics. This claim is controversial. There have been various attempts made to avoid this conclusion, either by radical reinterpretations of quantum theory (such as the so-called "many-worlds interpretation") or by changing quantum theory in some way. But the argument against materialism based on quantum theory is a strong one, and has certainly not been refuted. The line" of argument is rather subtle. It is also not well- known, even among most practicing physicists. But, if it is correct, it would be the most important philosophical implication to come from any scientific discovery."

I think Michio Kaku understands quantum advances pretty well, but he wrote:

"However, some of the deepest thinkers in physics have struggled with these questions. For example, there are several ways of resolving the Schr6dinger cat problem. The first, advocated by Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner and others, is that consciousness determines existence. Wigner has written that it "was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way, without reference to the consciousness [of the observer] . . . the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate reality." Or, as the poet John Keats once wrote, "Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced.""

He wasn't writing disparagingly of Wigner either.


And this from Nature in 2006;

The Goldilocks Enigma, Nature[/u]that conscious observers bring about the universe they find themselves in by the very act of observing it, thereby dragging it out of the quantum superposition of all possible paths it could have followed. Actually, I think this is related to what supporters of the Multiverse version of quantum mechanics would argue

In this last quote, there is an interesting answer to the classical problem of evil that many atheists use to pound God away from their lives. Why would a loving God allow, blah blah blah, fill in the blank. Christian theology says that man was given dominion over the earth. Man sinned and messed the world up. If the above bolded statement is true, then all the evil in this world is OUR doing and can't be laid at the feet of God. If we make this world through our collective interaction, the evil we see is what we brought forth. Christian theology of course says Jesus came to rescue those who accept his offer, and that the death of God's son was a loving God's response to the mess we made of the universe. I don't know yet if I fully accept that view, but it is something with deep theological implications to the problem of evil, probably the #1 reason people become atheists.


Your suggestion that I am mis-representing quantum is proven false. I am merely quoting those who are expert in it and so, If you think I am mis-representing it, you must thinke they are too.

[TheLurch]

That first article is nothing more than Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. So, I think it supports my view. If by that first article you are trying to say the random number generator is the observer, it isn't. It is like Wheeler's gravitational lensing experiment but letting the photon detector or the diffraction gratting be chosen by a program written by the observer. and the observer still has to observe the outcome, which is a definite set of numbers. The problem I think is that you don't realize strongly enough that if we humans are subject to quantum entanglement as well according to the math, and thus every experiment entangles the observer and Schrodinger's equation has no exit lane--it doesn't have a collapse mechanism.

Let me focus on this, because i think it's the clearest example of where we differ.

The delayed choice determines whether the photons behave as a quantum object and interfere or not. The choice is made by a random number generator. The results are read out by an entirely automated system.

Let's say the person who set this up dies, and nobody ever looks at the experiment. Are you saying that, even though the measurements are still made, the lack of anybody to look at the data would mean that the physical changes caused by the measurement no longer take place? Because that appears to me to be the obvious implication of your argument.

The alternative option is that the physical changes - the collapse of the wavefunction - still take place, we just have no way of knowing. As far as i can tell, there's no possible way to distinguish between these two options, and therefore we can't scientifically conclude that any sort of intervention by a conscious observer is required.

Which brings us to the "entanglement of the observer", which you're saying i don't understand that. All i'm saying is that this sort of entanglement is not a measurable, defined quantity, unlike the degree of entanglement between particles. It's simply one of a number of possible philosophical interpretations of the ambiguity of the physics described above.

[grmorton]

Let me focus on this, because i think it's the clearest example of where we differ.

The delayed choice determines whether the photons behave as a quantum object and interfere or not. The choice is made by a random number generator. The results are read out by an entirely automated system.

Let's say the person who set this up dies, and nobody ever looks at the experiment. Are you saying that, even though the measurements are still made, the lack of anybody to look at the data would mean that the physical changes caused by the measurement no longer take place? Because that appears to me to be the obvious implication of your argument.

That is what Schroedinger's cat says. Let's put the cat in a box with a massive litter box and two years of food and that hammer, Geiger counter and cyanide bottle--just as originally proposed by Schroedinger Until someone looks, the cat is in the live/dead superposition. The original thought experiment makes no restriction on when one looks in the box so by analogy yeaah, they are not a fixed set of numbers in your experiment until they are observed. You seem to want only part of the experiment to obey Schroedinger's equation, not the entirety of the total system. I think that is where you go astray. The problem with quantum is that it applies to everything. Go look up how many quantum folk believe what is in that other quotation about things not being REAL until they are observed.



Either objective reality goes or locality goes. the term 'space-like' comes from relativity it is the region of space-time that cannot be accessed because it requires faster than light information travel.


For a long time, I didn't like the idea of giving up objective reality. But giving it up seems to easily reconcile quantum with standard views of Christianity, I. e. the observer soul being more important than matter, and now a possible way to answer the problem of evil. Furthermore, it makes spirituality king of the hill and really crumbles the basis of materialism. How can this be a materialistic world when consciousness brings about quantum results?

The alternative option is that the physical changes - the collapse of the wavefunction - still take place, we just have no way of knowing. As far as i can tell, there's no possible way to distinguish between these two options, and therefore we can't scientifically conclude that any sort of intervention by a conscious observer is required.

That is fine if you want to hold that but you are ignoring what the quantum experts clearly say. Loads of folk ignore what science says so they can hold various views, and maybe we all do it in some area or other, but there is no doubt that the observer is required, not only by the quotes I provided but by the wiki article you provided. One of the reasons I left this place around 2009 was that I was tired of presenting evidence for things to people who simply closed their eyes. YECs were notorious about it but I have come to think everyone does it in some area. As I said, if you think Weinberg and the gang of people I quoted are mis-representing quantum, you best start writing them letters to get them to stop. They are doing much damage to science if you are right. But until they say the opposite of what they have clearly said, I will stand on the idea that there is something very very unique and important about the consciousness/soul for the workings of quantum physics. You can choose to ignore it as I said, I don't intend to do a yes it is / no it isn't kind of debate. Either present hard clear statements by physicist that consciousness has nothing to do with the formulation of quantum, meaning Weinberg, a nobel prize winner is wrong or spend time trying to do what Weinberg et al say can't be done--formulate quantum without reference to the conscious observer.

Which brings us to the "entanglement of the observer", which you're saying i don't understand that. All i'm saying is that this sort of entanglement is not a measurable, defined quantity, unlike the degree of entanglement between particles. It's simply one of a number of possible philosophical interpretations of the ambiguity of the physics described above.

the entanglement of the observer simply follows by applying quantum mechanics to all the particles of the in the observer's body. Now, if you can show that quantum doesn't apply to the atoms, protons and electrons in my body, then you might have an escape valve from my argument. I would have to do some thinking on that particular issue. But materialists say all we are is matter. If that statement is true, then quantum laws apply to all my atoms and particles in my body and my wave function should be superposed with the wave function of the equipment and of the particles being experimented on. Maybe it would help if you realized that Hawking spent some considerable time trying to come up with the wave function of the universe. There should be one if the quantum applies to the universe and the universe is entirely material.

Even infidels.org seems to understand the problem a bit because the universal wave function was an attempt to get rid of the soul by Hawking. He failed. He had to omit the initial singularity. Strange how one can claim success when one gets to chose what one ignores.

Hawking's atheistic dreadnought is a 'wave function of the universe'. The wave function is Psi[hij,Phi]. Without bothering overly much about technical niceties, we may take Phi as representing the matter field of the initial state of the universe, roughly, how much matter this state contains and how it is distributed.
Stephen Hawking's Cosmology and Theism
infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/hawking.html


I have enjoyed this Lurch, but TW is a real time stealer--worse than facebook, cause to answer questions I feel I should always do some digging and that takes far too much time--time I am not willing to have stolen from me. While you are not like ol' JimL, there are far too many JimL's here wanted to suck time and attention when they don't know what they are saying. And that goes both for those on the atheist as well as YEC side of this. Life is short my friend, manage your time wisely.