What's your position on the mind-body problem?

[JimL]

If I understand correctly, you're asking me to explain the mechanism of a black box of physics in philosophical terms?

No, i'm asking you to explain your own position on wave function collapse. If i have understood you correctly, your assertion is that the wave funtion collapses due to observation. So i'm am interested in how you square that with the fact that observers or minds have not always existed in the universe? So what collapsed the wave function prior to the existence of observers?

[Volt]

No, i'm asking you to explain your own position on wave function collapse. If i have understood you correctly, your assertion is that the wave funtion collapses due to observation. So i'm am interested in how you square that with the fact that observers or minds have not always existed in the universe? So what collapsed the wave function prior to the existence of observers?

Ah, got it. I'll admit that my knowledge of physics is limited. Why do we need the wave function to collapse, given that it doesn't in the absence of observers? Because we assume that reality as we know it (i.e., collapsed) existed before humans did?

[JimL]

Ah, got it. I'll admit that my knowledge of physics is limited. Why do we need the wave function to collapse, given that it doesn't in the absence of observers? Because we assume that reality as we know it (i.e., collapsed) existed before humans did?

I'm not sure what that even means Volt. If observers did not exist and yet the universe continued to evolve without them, which it obviously did, then obviously it does not take observers to evolve or collapse the wave function. In other words, observation has nothing to do with it, the moom doesn't exist because someone is looking at it, because it existed before there was anyone or anything alive to look at it.

[Volt]

I'm not sure what that even means Volt. If observers did not exist and yet the universe continued to evolve without them, which it obviously did, then obviously it does not take observers to evolve or collapse the wave function. In other words, observation has nothing to do with it, the moom doesn't exist because someone is looking at it, because it existed before there was anyone or anything alive to look at it.

My point is that the wave function, in layman's terms as I understand it, is potentiality. The probabilities of "this," "that" or "the other thing" existing. When the wave collapses, only one of those possibilities actually comes into being as particles. Judging by the delayed Quantum Eraser experiment, observation retroactively collapses the function. Or in other words, the moon existed as particles in the past because we observe it now. It sounds odd I know, but that's just extrapolating from QM to the rest of reality.

To say that the moon existed as a completely independent substance prior to the existence of any minds resurrects the difficulties of dualism. Unless you know of an escape hatch to the Matrix, so to speak?

As to the universe existing before human minds...again, there's wiggle room on the debate. Refer to this post, after the second quote.

[JimL]

My point is that the wave function, in layman's terms as I understand it, is potentiality. The probabilities of "this," "that" or "the other thing" existing. When the wave collapses, only one of those possibilities actually comes into being as particles. Judging by the delayed Quantum Eraser experiment, observation retroactively collapses the function. Or in other words, the moon existed as particles in the past because we observe it now. It sounds odd I know, but that's just extrapolating from QM to the rest of reality.

The wave function is an equation defining the evolution of all possible futures. Collapse of the wave function due to observation is an illusion because all possible futures exist within the wave function. The wave function only seems to us to collapse upon observation because only one of those possible futures is the future that we observe. It doesn't collapse at all due to observation, it evolves deterministicly. In other words the hole in the path that seer stepped into didn't come to be as a result of seer observing it, it came to be because, just like seer stepping into it, it was determined to be. Put it this way, seer needn't have observed the hole at all and yet would still have stepped into it because of the deterministic nature of existence which the wave function describes.

To say that the moon existed as a completely independent substance prior to the existence of any minds resurrects the difficulties of dualism.

How so? Did our universe begin to exist because someone was around to observe it?

As to the universe existing before human minds...again, there's wiggle room on the debate. Refer to this post, after the second quote.

It seems to me that you are trying to argue two contradicting points.

1. That the wave fuction collapses due to observation.
And
2. That the wave function is determined.

[seer]

How so? Did our universe begin to exist because someone was around to observe it?

Of course, God. I think Volt would agree.

[Volt]

The wave function is an equation defining the evolution of all possible futures. Collapse of the wave function due to observation is an illusion because all possible futures exist within the wave function. The wave function only seems to us to collapse upon observation because only one of those possible futures is the future that we observe. It doesn't collapse at all due to observation, it evolves deterministicly. In other words the hole in the path that seer stepped into didn't come to be as a result of seer observing it, it came to be because, just like seer stepping into it, it was determined to be. Put it this way, seer needn't have observed the hole at all and yet would still have stepped into it because of the deterministic nature of existence which the wave function describes.

It's a consistent interpretation of the results of QM, I'll agree. QM in and of itself isn't any kind of hard evidence in favor of Monism vs Dualism. Largely what's been discussed so far--as I understand it--is how QM can be integrated into the model Idealism proposes. Recently the conversation has moved to Dualism vs Monism altogether.

How so? Did our universe begin to exist because someone was around to observe it?

From the perspective of Idealism, yes. God, as Seer said. Though his observations and/or thoughts clearly aren't completely deterministic, as ours are when observing a wave function. See the second half of this post for the reason(s) why.

It seems to me that you are trying to argue two contradicting points.

1. That the wave fuction collapses due to observation.
And
2. That the wave function is determined.

Good point. So if I understand this correctly, you're saying that if observation always collapses the wave function, how can it be determined--by what has to be a mind, i.e. an observer--before we see it? Wouldn't that initial observer (God) collapse the wave function as well?

I can say no for two reasons.

First, it would mean that the results we've already gotten from QM are impossible That is, when scientists observe the wave function, it turns into particles, and when they don't, we know they behave as a wave function. Depending on the existence of human observation, it's either particles or a wave. But if God has already observed this wave function, then it should already have collapsed...and we should never have seen a wave in the first place, since it's already determined by God. But the results show the former, so we can say that God didn't already collapse the wave function himself.

Second, saying that God observes--thinks--as we do and therefore pre-determines the existence of particles in a certain way invokes an infinite regression. (Said infinite regression being mentioned at the end of this post again. His mind perceives and thinks literally in a different way, also explained in that post linked to.

TL;DR Idealism is internally consistent, as is Dualism. If we wished to argue which should be believed, my line of attack would be how the concept of an independent, inert substance from the mind is a strictly meaningless assertion.

[JimL]

Of course, God. I think Volt would agree.

How did I know you would say this seer? If God created the universe then he created the wave function which defines it at the same time as well. The wave function and the universe are synonomous in that the former merely defines the latter, it doesn't cause the latter. The wave function doesn't exist apart from the universe it defines. In other words wave function collapse has to do with and already existing universe, the supposed collapse being merely the direction it takes. Observation doesn't create stuff, which was exactly the viewpoint that you held to in your debate with Volt. Now you want to argue just the opposite? Do you believe now that you create the moon by looking at it?

[JimL]

From the perspective of Idealism, yes. God, as Seer said. Though his observations and/or thoughts clearly aren't completely deterministic, as ours are when observing a wave function. See the second half of this post for the reason(s) why.

God observing the universe into existence due to wave function collapse doesn't make any sense, because the wave function of the universe doesn't exist apart from the universe that it defines, and you can't collapse it if it doesn't exist.

Good point. So if I understand this correctly, you're saying that if observation always collapses the wave function, how can it be determined--by what has to be a mind, i.e. an observer--before we see it? Wouldn't that initial observer (God) collapse the wave function as well?

I can say no for two reasons.

First, it would mean that the results we've already gotten from QM are impossible That is, when scientists observe the wave function, it turns into particles, and when they don't, we know they behave as a wave function. Depending on the existence of human observation, it's either particles or a wave. But if God has already observed this wave function, then it should already have collapsed...and we should never have seen a wave in the first place, since it's already determined by God. But the results show the former, so we can say that God didn't already collapse the wave function himself.

Again the wave function does not collapse upon observation according to the opinions of the majority of contemporary physicists. Most are of the opinion that the wave function evolves deterministicly through hilbert space where every possible future defined by the wave function occurs within the multiple universes existing in that space. The illusion is that the wave function appears to us to collapse because we are only privy to one of those possible futures, the one that we actually observe in our universe.

[seer]

How did I know you would say this seer? If God created the universe then he created the wave function which defines it at the same time as well. The wave function and the universe are synonomous in that the former merely defines the latter, it doesn't cause the latter. The wave function doesn't exist apart from the universe it defines. In other words wave function collapse has to do with and already existing universe, the supposed collapse being merely the direction it takes. Observation doesn't create stuff, which was exactly the viewpoint that you held to in your debate with Volt. Now you want to argue just the opposite? Do you believe now that you create the moon by looking at it?

Jim, I'm not arguing anything - I just pointed to what Volt believes. To be honest I don't think anyone knows enough about QM to make any kind of dogmatic statements. Well at least I don't know enough... Besides, I'm a Realist - I believe that objective reality, independent of our minds, exists...

[Volt]

God observing the universe into existence due to wave function collapse doesn't make any sense, because the wave function of the universe doesn't exist apart from the universe that it defines, and you can't collapse it if it doesn't exist.

[quotes here]

Again the wave function does not collapse upon observation according to the opinions of the majority of contemporary physicists. Most are of the opinion that the wave function evolves deterministicly through hilbert space where every possible future defined by the wave function occurs within the multiple universes existing in that space. The illusion is that the wave function appears to us to collapse because we are only privy to one of those possible futures, the one that we actually observe in our universe.

Both of your points come to the same thing: QM in and of itself isn't hard evidence of Idealism being true. It can be explained otherwise (i.e. as an illusion) and therefore fit within a non-Idealistic philosophical worldview. I'll happily grant you that, and I'll not try to poke holes in the consistency of your interpretation of QM experiments above, because I really don't see any inconsistencies without straying from science to philosophy.

If you do want to move the debate into philosophy, be my guest!

Jim, I'm not arguing anything - I just pointed to what Volt believes. To be honest I don't think anyone knows enough about QM to make any kind of dogmatic statements. Well at least I don't know enough... Besides, I'm a Realist - I believe that objective reality, independent of our minds, exists...

And oddly enough, I believe the same thing. Our only quibble would be over what substance that "independent reality" is made of!

[seer]

Our only quibble would be over what substance that "independent reality" is made of!

Somehow I don't think that would be a minor point... ; )

[JimL]

Jim, I'm not arguing anything - I just pointed to what Volt believes. To be honest I don't think anyone knows enough about QM to make any kind of dogmatic statements. Well at least I don't know enough... Besides, I'm a Realist - I believe that objective reality, independent of our minds, exists...

Yes, objective, or external reality exists independent of our minds, but the future does not exist independent of our minds. What happens is that the future evolves in conjunction with our minds observation of it, which is what has been interpreted as collapse of the wave function. But observation doesn't collapse the wave function at all, we don't create that future by observing it, we observe the future because we are one with it. You don't step into the hole in the path because you created that hole by observing it, which seems to be Volt's interpretation, you step into it because you are determined to do so according to the deterministic nature of the universe which the wave function defines. Not to be dogmatic, but that is the most excepted view of the Schrodinger equation to this point. Otherwise we are left with the non sensical concept of "we as observers create that which we observe." I don't think that we create the future by looking at it, do you?

[seer]

Otherwise we are left with the non sensical concept of "we as observers create that which we observe." I don't think that we create the future by looking at it, do you?

I don't know if it is nonsensical, I certainly do agree with you otherwise. Well except for the deterministic universe part since I'm an advocate of free will as you know.

[Volt]

Yes, objective, or external reality exists independent of our minds, but the future does not exist independent of our minds. What happens is that the future evolves in conjunction with our minds observation of it, which is what has been interpreted as collapse of the wave function. But observation doesn't collapse the wave function at all, we don't create that future by observing it, we observe the future because we are one with it. You don't step into the hole in the path because you created that hole by observing it, which seems to be Volt's interpretation, you step into it because you are determined to do so according to the deterministic nature of the universe which the wave function defines. Not to be dogmatic, but that is the most excepted view of the Schrodinger equation to this point.

So the majority of physicists are Materialists? Not to argue over statistics, I wouldn't know a thing about them. Just curious.

Otherwise we are left with the non sensical concept of "we as observers create that which we observe." I don't think that we create the future by looking at it, do you?

Not at all. That is to say, Idealists don't have any justification to say that human minds are the sole creators of reality. That we define it in some part and interact with some degree of free will, yes. In fact, I would have said that we only interact with it--not create it to any degree--except for the necessary conclusions after integrating the results of QM with an Idealistic philosophy.