EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 335
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On September 02 2015 03:24 Dark_Chill wrote: Here's the part that I don't get, when I hear that simply observing a particle can affect it. If, hypothetically, there was something out in space with a super powerful telescope observing different particles which we happened to be measuring descriptives for, would that change the calculations we're making? For most interpretations, no. However, transactional interpretations notably disagree, albeit in an undetectable way. If the telescope is measuring the particles using, say, light, it can only observe photons that interact with the particle somehow. Since the telescope doesn't exist yet - it will pick up the photons after the experiment - it doesn't affect the photon scattering. However, the photons themselves affect the particle immediately, and if there isn't enough photon-momentum transferred to/from the particle, the telescope can't precisely measure it. From a transactional interpretation, however, the photon is time-symmetric; the telescope's absorption of a photon might transmit quantum information backwards in time that affects how it scatters off the particle earlier, but that effect is meaningless to the experimenters, who can't tell the exact state of the photon anyway. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On September 02 2015 03:24 Dark_Chill wrote: Here's the part that I don't get, when I hear that simply observing a particle can affect it. If, hypothetically, there was something out in space with a super powerful telescope observing different particles which we happened to be measuring descriptives for, would that change the calculations we're making? I think this question is a pretty important one, and source of some of the confusion. The key thing to understand here, is that an electron is not a tennis ball. If you make some measurement on tennis balls, such as speed etc, you use methods such as measuring sunlight that bounces of the tennis ball or maybe you shoot some waves at it and measure the doppler effect when they bounce off. None of these affect the velocity of the ball in any (measurable) way, and there will be plenty of spare bounced light/doppler waves that others may or may not observe. In the case of a tennis ball, your confusion regarding this is very justified: how the hell can the tennis balls velocity be affected by whether someone bothers to measure the bounced waves or not?? And in fact, of course, the tennis ball isn't affected by that. For an elementary particle like electron or photon, that kind of measurements aren't possible. If you try to shine light on it to measure what bounces of it, the electron will be significantly affected by every photon it absorbs and re-emits. If you place a detector that absorbs the electron and converts it into a tiny current that you measure, you also significantly affect the electron. There isn't a bunch of spare stray photons bouncing of the electron that can be observed or not be observed by by-standing physicists or distant telescopes. To measure, we need to get in and touch the electron. This is (one of) the key differences between macroscopic and QM measurements: a QM measurement can only be done by touching the thing you measure, because they are tiny particles, and they don't constantly bounce off random stray light for people to observe. You can't see an electron no matter how strong microscope you have, because they don't shine off light. On September 01 2015 18:48 xM(Z wrote: so quantum physics, allegedly. men, what the hell is up with those people saying(or at least implying) that a photon acts like a particle when you look at it with your consciousness(and like a wave when you don't look at it, but that's irrelevant here), then go on a spree about all these other kind of mental shenanigans/gymnastics all the way up to a universal consciousness/god ...?; because you know, you look at that damn particle with a sensor/detector made up of plastic and metal that's not even remotely similar to the so called consciousness. do they have any ground to sit on?; am i missing something?. (i just watched some random youtube vid) Of course the only thing they got to sit are the clouds they produced while smoking when they came up with these ideas. Or maybe they got piles of money to sit on if they managed to monetise people buying into their ideas... QM doesn't say anything about peoples consciousness, whatever that thing is. And even less about gods (well, apart from the fact that they indeed do play dice  ). | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
On September 02 2015 05:21 Epishade wrote: If I feed a fish weed its whole life and then eat it, will I get high? Interesting concept, assuming the fish you are feeding has a lot of oils in it. If the fish could theoretically survive on marijuana and you fed it for a long enough time that the thc was saturating its fatty tissue, you would probably get much less high than if you cooked the same amount of weed into a brownie. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11835 Posts
On September 02 2015 06:17 Fecalfeast wrote: Interesting concept, assuming the fish you are feeding has a lot of oils in it. If the fish could theoretically survive on marijuana and you fed it for a long enough time that the thc was saturating its fatty tissue, you would probably get much less high than if you cooked the same amount of weed into a brownie. I don't think that is likely to work. Acccording to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testing Someone who uses a lot of cannabis can get to ~500ng/ml concentration in their fat tissues if my very lazy and quick skimming of the text is correct. Assuming a density of the fat of ~1 (pretty reasonable), this is a concentration of about 0.0005%. Cannabis is usually somewhere around 5% THC. Thus, the fish would need to get ~10000 times as high as a pretty serious cannabis smoker for its fat to be a reasonable substitute for cannabis. And most of the fish isn't fat. I am pretty sure that that is not going to work out very well. | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
Really interesting albeit a tad frantically edited video, thank you for linking. I would have not used such a "hollywood disaster movie mood" and tempo. Seems like they want people to not be able to understand what is being said in it. When I was young and enthusiastic for science it was purely theory stuff that was mainstreamed, quantum mechanics were considered "fluffy yet promising"... The cat was in the box alive, dead or not even there. Now we* pretend to have passed the "is the observer negligible or should its importance be refuted" to there is no spoon (matrix end of the movie quote, neo tries to focus and reminds himself of what a kid told him earlier). So I ask you tl: If there no spoon? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On September 02 2015 16:48 fluidrone wrote: Really interesting albeit a tad frantically edited video, thank you for linking. I would have not used such a "hollywood disaster movie mood" and tempo. Seems like they want people to not be able to understand what is being said in it. When I was young and enthusiastic for science it was purely theory stuff that was mainstreamed, quantum mechanics were considered "fluffy yet promising"... The cat was in the box alive, dead or not even there. Now we* pretend to have passed the "is the observer negligible or should its importance be refuted" to there is no spoon (matrix end of the movie quote, neo tries to focus and reminds himself of what a kid told him earlier). So I ask you tl: If there no spoon? As usual, I have a very hard time following you... :/ - What do you mean by "purely theory stuff"? - Not sure how old you are, but QM has been on very solid footing since 1950 or so at least. Essentially nothing has happened in the field after the seventies, apart from more empirical support. But that may not have been reflected in popular media of course. Today popular media is well ahead of the science, in the sense that they happily report new "discoveries" that don't have any empirical evidence whatsoever, such as parallel universes, string theory and all all that crap. - I am familiar with the movie quote, but I struggle to understand that sentence... who are "we*"? Is it different from the usual "we"? How is the matrix spoon related to the role of the observer in QM? "Pretends to have passed"? I'm confused. :/ To answer your question, I ate yoghurt with a spoon this morning, and I believe it is real, or at least it successfully transported the yoghurt to my mouth.  | ||
|
meatpudding
Australia520 Posts
On September 02 2015 03:30 Buckyman wrote: For most interpretations, no. However, transactional interpretations notably disagree, albeit in an undetectable way. If the telescope is measuring the particles using, say, light, it can only observe photons that interact with the particle somehow. Since the telescope doesn't exist yet - it will pick up the photons after the experiment - it doesn't affect the photon scattering. However, the photons themselves affect the particle immediately, and if there isn't enough photon-momentum transferred to/from the particle, the telescope can't precisely measure it. From a transactional interpretation, however, the photon is time-symmetric; the telescope's absorption of a photon might transmit quantum information backwards in time that affects how it scatters off the particle earlier, but that effect is meaningless to the experimenters, who can't tell the exact state of the photon anyway. This isn't quite true. What it means to change a result by measuring it is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. Each "observable" in QM has a range of allowed values. So for example if you are measuring the position, it can be either here or there. If you measure the spin, it could be up or down, and so on. The trick here is that until you measure it, it may be in a superposition state. So the wavefunction is half here and half there, or half up and half down. It's not the same as being both here and there at the same time, but it is a superposition. When you measure the observable, you find one of the values in the superposition. This is the wavefunction collapsing. The particle is no longer in a superposition state, but is in an exact state that is characteristic of that observable. As a side note, it is possible to determine if a particle is in a superposition by observing interference effects. See the electron double slit experiment. Now let's look at the scenario of a distant particle which reflects a photon of light which we detect at some later time. Assume for now that the particle is in some superposition state. Now when the light interacts with it, the photon essentially interacts with all possible states in the superposition. However it does it in a way that still conserves energy and momentum, etc. Hypothetically, let's say that some state of the particle would scatter light towards us and another state would scatter light away. If the particle is in a superposition of these states, then the light would be in a superposition of traveling towards us and away from us. Also the particle would be in a superposition of having reflected it one way or the other. Good job if you're still keeping up with this long-winded explanation. Now when we have a particle and a photon like this, we say that they are entangled. The state of the particle depends on the state of the light and vice versa. However they are both in a superposition. Let's say that this happened a thousand years ago, and we build a telescope today to observe it. No problem. Let's say we do observe the photon. Now suddenly the photon's wavefunction collapses, it's no longer a superposition and acts like it was heading towards us the whole time. Also the particle's wavefunction will collapse, into the state that would have reflected the photon in that direction. This happens instantly, no matter how far away they have traveled. This is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." Also note that to the best of our understanding this process is actually random. In this scenario we set up a 50-50 probability that it would be one or the other, but it could be any distribution, and there could be many more possible states. Even someone in the opposite direction could have collapsed it to give the opposite result, it's possible. Now what this all means is that detecting a photon today can potentially collapse events that happened in the past. This is why two-slit experiments don't cause interference if you try and detect which path the particle is taking, even if you detect the path after the slits. This is (kind of) the basis for the Bell experiments and EPR paradox. However, this is just the observed effect. The interpretation of what it means is still an open debate. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
| ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On September 03 2015 22:42 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: you'd have to activate the active compounds in the weed via heat before feeding it to the fish to have any chance THC probably is not a good candidate, but some other psychoactive substances are claimed be found in fishes, potentially through algae in their diet. (see [Hallucinogenic fish] for a few references) | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On September 02 2015 06:06 Cascade wrote: I think this question is a pretty important one, and source of some of the confusion. The key thing to understand here, is that an electron is not a tennis ball. If you make some measurement on tennis balls, such as speed etc, you use methods such as measuring sunlight that bounces of the tennis ball or maybe you shoot some waves at it and measure the doppler effect when they bounce off. None of these affect the velocity of the ball in any (measurable) way, and there will be plenty of spare bounced light/doppler waves that others may or may not observe. In the case of a tennis ball, your confusion regarding this is very justified: how the hell can the tennis balls velocity be affected by whether someone bothers to measure the bounced waves or not?? And in fact, of course, the tennis ball isn't affected by that. For an elementary particle like electron or photon, that kind of measurements aren't possible. If you try to shine light on it to measure what bounces of it, the electron will be significantly affected by every photon it absorbs and re-emits. If you place a detector that absorbs the electron and converts it into a tiny current that you measure, you also significantly affect the electron. There isn't a bunch of spare stray photons bouncing of the electron that can be observed or not be observed by by-standing physicists or distant telescopes. To measure, we need to get in and touch the electron. This is (one of) the key differences between macroscopic and QM measurements: a QM measurement can only be done by touching the thing you measure, because they are tiny particles, and they don't constantly bounce off random stray light for people to observe. You can't see an electron no matter how strong microscope you have, because they don't shine off light. Of course the only thing they got to sit are the clouds they produced while smoking when they came up with these ideas. Or maybe they got piles of money to sit on if they managed to monetise people buying into their ideas... QM doesn't say anything about peoples consciousness, whatever that thing is. And even less about gods (well, apart from the fact that they indeed do play dice ).not sure if its relevant but their are books on quantum mechanics and its relation to consciousness http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Consciousness-Guide-Experiencing-Psychology/dp/0962618489/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441309467&sr=1-1&keywords=quantum consciousness http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness/dp/0199753814/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441309467&sr=1-2&keywords=quantum consciousness not sure if their using consciousness in a different meaning or something though | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On September 04 2015 04:46 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: not sure if its relevant but their are books on quantum mechanics and its relation to consciousness http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Consciousness-Guide-Experiencing-Psychology/dp/0962618489/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441309467&sr=1-1&keywords=quantum consciousness http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness/dp/0199753814/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441309467&sr=1-2&keywords=quantum consciousness not sure if their using consciousness in a different meaning or something though There are also books on Amazon about how creationism is better than evolution: http://www.amazon.com/God-vs-Darwin-Intelligent-Creationism/dp/1512030104/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441311894&sr=1-3&keywords=creationism Doesn't mean that there is any merit to the idea. edit: Trying to be less condescending, for understanding QM, I find the "sum over histories" (or "path integral" if you want to be mathematical) image the most intuitive, and the closest to the actual maths going on in modern QM (quantum field theory, aka QFT. And by modern, I mean like 60ies or so). The first section of this page explains it pretty well in a couple of paragraphs: + Show Spoiler + A fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum theory is the fact that, in the quantum world, certain predictions can only be made in terms of probabilities A travelling particle As an example, take the question whether or not a particle that starts at the time tA at the location A will reach location B at the later time tB. Particle travelling from A to B Classical physics can give a definite answer. Depending on the particle's initial velocity and the forces acting on it, the answer is either yes or no. In quantum theory, it is merely possible to give the probability that the particle in question can be detected at location B at time tB. The path integral formalism, which was invented by the US physicist Richard Feynman, is a tool for calculating such quantum mechanical probabilities. Feynman's recipe, applied to a particle travelling from A to B, is the following. Step 1: Consider all possibilities for the particle travelling from A to B. Not only the boring straight-line approach, but also the possibility of the particle turning loopings and making diverse detours: IMAGE (go to site) Particle travelling from A to B along multiple paths The illustration hardly does the particle justice. It shows a mere six from an infinity of possibilities. It neglects to show the cases in which the particle visits New York, Ulan Bator, or even the moon or the Andromeda Galaxy before arriving at its destination. Last but not least, it does not contain information about velocities. The first part of the particle's trajectory may be travelled at break-neck speed and the final millimetres at a snail's pace - or the other way around, or completely different; another infinity of possibilities. In short, for the first step, take into account all ways of travelling from A to B, however outlandish they may seem. The second step is to associate a number with each of these possibilities (not quite the kind of number we're used to from school, but we will not bother with the difference here). Finally, the numbers associated with all possibilities are added up - some parts of the sum canceling each other, others adding up. (Readers whom this makes think of waves are on the right track - it is an example of an interference phenomenon.) The resulting sum tells us the probability of detecting the particle that started out at A at the location B at the specified time. Physicists call such a sum over all possibilities a path integral or sum over histories. This sum over (wave) amplitudes contains contributions of different sign (or complex phase) so they can cancel out, aka interference, like in the double-slit experiment. But the final probability of the end state (s) is the absolute square of the sum of the amplitudes, which is always positive. And if you want to consider the probability of arriving at any of several end states (s1 or s2), they are summed at probability level, ie AFTER you absolute-square the sum, which will never cancel anything out. So sums on the amplitude level (different histories to the same end state) can have interference, but you will never have interference between different end states as they are summed on the probability level. So in the case of the double slit experiment, the end state of the electron ending up on a certain position on the detector can be reached by having the electron travel through either of the slits, and the two paths will be summed up on amplitude level, and we can get interference. However, if the electron emits a photon while passing one of the slits (that someone can observe if they feel like), then the two paths are NOT summed at amplitude level, as the end states are not the same: the emitted photon will be coming form different positions. For quantum mechanical interference to happen between two possible paths (left/right slit, live/dead cat), the end states (of the entire universe) need to be exactly, EXACTLY identical. If there is any possibility at all to detect which path was used (electron emitting photons, live cat meowing), it means that the two end states aren't identical, and you do not get interference. That's the maths that explain (almost) everything happening anywhere. No consciousness (or even observer at all) needed. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On September 04 2015 05:26 Cascade wrote: There are also books on Amazon about how creationism is better than evolution: http://www.amazon.com/God-vs-Darwin-Intelligent-Creationism/dp/1512030104/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441311894&sr=1-3&keywords=creationism Doesn't mean that there is any merit to the idea. edit: Trying to be less condescending, for understanding QM, I find the "sum over histories" (or "path integral" if you want to be mathematical) image the most intuitive, and the closest to the actual maths going on in modern QM (quantum field theory, aka QFT. And by modern, I mean like 60ies or so). The first section of this page explains it pretty well in a couple of paragraphs: + Show Spoiler + A fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum theory is the fact that, in the quantum world, certain predictions can only be made in terms of probabilities A travelling particle As an example, take the question whether or not a particle that starts at the time tA at the location A will reach location B at the later time tB. Particle travelling from A to B Classical physics can give a definite answer. Depending on the particle's initial velocity and the forces acting on it, the answer is either yes or no. In quantum theory, it is merely possible to give the probability that the particle in question can be detected at location B at time tB. The path integral formalism, which was invented by the US physicist Richard Feynman, is a tool for calculating such quantum mechanical probabilities. Feynman's recipe, applied to a particle travelling from A to B, is the following. Step 1: Consider all possibilities for the particle travelling from A to B. Not only the boring straight-line approach, but also the possibility of the particle turning loopings and making diverse detours: IMAGE (go to site) Particle travelling from A to B along multiple paths The illustration hardly does the particle justice. It shows a mere six from an infinity of possibilities. It neglects to show the cases in which the particle visits New York, Ulan Bator, or even the moon or the Andromeda Galaxy before arriving at its destination. Last but not least, it does not contain information about velocities. The first part of the particle's trajectory may be travelled at break-neck speed and the final millimetres at a snail's pace - or the other way around, or completely different; another infinity of possibilities. In short, for the first step, take into account all ways of travelling from A to B, however outlandish they may seem. The second step is to associate a number with each of these possibilities (not quite the kind of number we're used to from school, but we will not bother with the difference here). Finally, the numbers associated with all possibilities are added up - some parts of the sum canceling each other, others adding up. (Readers whom this makes think of waves are on the right track - it is an example of an interference phenomenon.) The resulting sum tells us the probability of detecting the particle that started out at A at the location B at the specified time. Physicists call such a sum over all possibilities a path integral or sum over histories. This sum over (wave) amplitudes contains contributions of different sign (or complex phase) so they can cancel out, aka interference, like in the double-slit experiment. But the final probability of the end state (s) is the absolute square of the sum of the amplitudes, which is always positive. And if you want to consider the probability of arriving at any of several end states (s1 or s2), they are summed at probability level, ie AFTER you absolute-square the sum, which will never cancel anything out. So sums on the amplitude level (different histories to the same end state) can have interference, but you will never have interference between different end states as they are summed on the probability level. So in the case of the double slit experiment, the end state of the electron ending up on a certain position on the detector can be reached by having the electron travel through either of the slits, and the two paths will be summed up on amplitude level, and we can get interference. However, if the electron emits a photon while passing one of the slits (that someone can observe if they feel like), then the two paths are NOT summed at amplitude level, as the end states are not the same: the emitted photon will be coming form different positions. For quantum mechanical interference to happen between two possible paths (left/right slit, live/dead cat), the end states (of the entire universe) need to be exactly, EXACTLY identical. If there is any possibility at all to detect which path was used (electron emitting photons, live cat meowing), it means that the two end states aren't identical, and you do not get interference. That's the maths that explain (almost) everything happening anywhere. No consciousness (or even observer at all) needed. I had no idea if the idea of a relation between quantum mechanics and consciousness is actual science or nonsense. Ignore the first book since it seems way off and I barely looked at it before posting it here and I realize that it's probably terrible, at least in terms of science. I was just curious about the the second book since its is actually written by 2 professors of physics. I know nothing about quantum mechanics. I just ran into one of the books randomly and was curious if it's actually legitimate or not. So just to clarify are you saying theories about quantum mechanics relationship to consciousness are nonsense?(or at least outside of science and into philosophy.) looking at similar books it seems to be doing that (I will say though it's hard to tell the real science books from the fake ones or at least the ones that go to being highly speculative.). I'm sorry if It seemed I was disagreeing with you, I should have just asked clearly in the first place instead of making it seem like I was disagreeing with you. My bad and a good lesson for me to not be distracted by the fact that something sounds scientific. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On September 04 2015 14:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I had no idea if the idea of a relation between quantum mechanics and consciousness is actual science or nonsense. Ignore the first book since it seems way off and I barely looked at it before posting it here and I realize that it's probably terrible, at least in terms of science. I was just curious about the the second book since its is actually written by 2 professors of physics. I know nothing about quantum mechanics. I just ran into one of the books randomly and was curious if it's actually legitimate or not. So just to clarify are you saying theories about quantum mechanics relationship to consciousness are nonsense?(or at least outside of science and into philosophy.) looking at similar books it seems to be doing that (I will say though it's hard to tell the real science books from the fake ones or at least the ones that go to being highly speculative.). I'm sorry if It seemed I was disagreeing with you, I should have just asked clearly in the first place instead of making it seem like I was disagreeing with you. My bad and a good lesson for me to not be distracted by the fact that something sounds scientific. Yes, one of the authors of the second book is a professor at a serious university, so should be a "proper" scientist (and outranks me by a fair bit in academia, I only have a PhD and a bit of postdoc experience in particle physics). Skimming the summary of the book, they key part seems to be Quantum Enigma's description of the experimental quantum facts, and the quantum theory explaining them, is undisputed. Interpreting what it all means, however, is heatedly controversial. But every interpretation of quantum physics involves consciousness. So they claim 1) QM maths is on solid empirical foundation, in the sense that they predict experiements very well. 2) Going from the QM maths to what actually goes on in reality (whatever that means) isn't clear, and there are several suggested approaches. 3) All of the approaches require a consciousness. And they go on to suggest that (without writing it out in plain text) 4) Thus QM proves the existence of consciousness. So I happily stand behind 1 and 2, but 3 is a fairly generous statement, and 4 is just plain BS. QM has in no way proven the existence of consciousness. So I think this is a case of a proper physics professor that explains a bit of QM, and then he also ventures well outside what is actually empirically proven and presents his own ideas and interpretations of what is going on. It is a bit like stephen hawkings writing about all these multiple universes and so on. Yeah, that is one way to interpret what we have measured, but it's not like it's an undisputed empirical fact. And as far as QM proving a consciousness, I'd like to invoke the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" clause. And they got nothing in terms of proof anyway. What I atried to argue in my previous post was that you can predict all experiments, and have some kind of interpretation, without using a consciousness, which mostly moves within point 1 above, and maybe partially in conflict with 3. All in all, as we discussed 5-10 pages back or something, it's really not easy to navigate the literature as a non-expect and understand what is consensus, what is possible new explanations, and what is mumbo jumbo. :/ Indeed, how much should you trust what I, a random forum poster, is saying??  | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On September 04 2015 14:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I had no idea if the idea of a relation between quantum mechanics and consciousness is actual science or nonsense. Ignore the first book since it seems way off and I barely looked at it before posting it here and I realize that it's probably terrible, at least in terms of science. I was just curious about the the second book since its is actually written by 2 professors of physics. I know nothing about quantum mechanics. I just ran into one of the books randomly and was curious if it's actually legitimate or not. So just to clarify are you saying theories about quantum mechanics relationship to consciousness are nonsense?(or at least outside of science and into philosophy.) looking at similar books it seems to be doing that (I will say though it's hard to tell the real science books from the fake ones or at least the ones that go to being highly speculative.). I'm sorry if It seemed I was disagreeing with you, I should have just asked clearly in the first place instead of making it seem like I was disagreeing with you. My bad and a good lesson for me to not be distracted by the fact that something sounds scientific. The whole consciousness part comes from layman interpretations of known physicists citations, even in the second book. It is very difficult to always keep a precise description of quantum experiments and everyone has at one point or another stated something similar to "our observation makes the wave function collapse". Take those out of context from a few nobel prize winners and you have enough material for a book promoting that consciousness is the magic ingredient that brings a potential into being. It is not science, could be philosophy until we have an accepted and rational description of consciousness, but it is true a few physicists have defended that line of thought at one point. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18291 Posts
I reject the argument, not Strong AI as a possibility | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On September 04 2015 19:02 Cascade wrote: 3) All of the approaches require a consciousness. I believe this is wrong; Pilot-wave theories do not involve consciousness at all; the analogous role is fulfilled by particles whose paths are adjusted by propagating waves. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On September 05 2015 01:51 Buckyman wrote: I believe this is wrong; Pilot-wave theories do not involve consciousness at all; the analogous role is fulfilled by particles whose paths are adjusted by propagating waves. he's saying that's what the book claims. not that that's what he believes | ||
| ||
