Quantum uncertainty, and Schrodinger's cat

[untermensche]

Physics makes no distinction between a rock and a cat beyond a difference in molecules.

And this is exactly what this cat problem is all about.
You have usual yet profound misunderstanding of what Schroedinger Cat supposed to explain/illustrate.

The blindness of physics, and thus the need for biology, is what the cat problem is all about?

 

[barbos]

And this is exactly what this cat problem is all about.
You have usual yet profound misunderstanding of what Schroedinger Cat supposed to explain/illustrate.

The blindness of physics, and thus the need for biology, is what the cat problem is all about?

You are being intentionally dense, aren't you?

 

[DBT]

A while ago, I had a discussion over at the Prosblogion with a poster who defended a probabilistic/collapse interpretation, and held that observers were required for the wave function to collapse. (unfortunately, I can't find a link; the site underwent some changes, and I suspect older posts are gone.
I pointed out that that was more than an interpretation, since all possibilities that contained no brains were excluded, changing the results; for example, in the past, the probability of at least one Boltzmann brain was 1, even in a finite universe. He accepted that, but bit the bullet. He didn't seem to consider that too much of a problem. A
Since I don't know much about this, maybe I'm missing something crucial, but tentatively, that seems to raise interesting questions for defenders of the dead/alive cat:

Did wave function collapse happen before there were any observers?
If so, why do we need an observer in the case of he cat (regardless of whether the cat is an observer). .

Yet the evidence for BB supports the proposition that matter/energy events were evolving deterministically (definite particle state) on a macro scale, stellar and galactic formation determined by gravity, etc...well before any possible exstence of brains and observers.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A while ago, I had a discussion over at the Prosblogion with a poster who defended a probabilistic/collapse interpretation, and held that observers were required for the wave function to collapse. (unfortunately, I can't find a link; the site underwent some changes, and I suspect older posts are gone.
I pointed out that that was more than an interpretation, since all possibilities that contained no brains were excluded, changing the results; for example, in the past, the probability of at least one Boltzmann brain was 1, even in a finite universe. He accepted that, but bit the bullet. He didn't seem to consider that too much of a problem. A
Since I don't know much about this, maybe I'm missing something crucial, but tentatively, that seems to raise interesting questions for defenders of the dead/alive cat:

Did wave function collapse happen before there were any observers?
If so, why do we need an observer in the case of he cat (regardless of whether the cat is an observer). .

Yet the evidence for BB supports the proposition that matter/energy events were evolving deterministically (definite particle state) on a macro scale, stellar and galactic formation determined by gravity, etc...well before any possible exstence of brains and observers.

I don't understand what you're getting at. The "yet" suggests an objection to something I said. But I don't see anything that you say that is in conflict with any of my points. What are you objecting to?

Or are you raising an objection to a theory that requires observers? (but I'm not defending any such theories).

For what's worth, I seem to remember that the guy I was talking to (who was also a Christian and a Berkeleyian idealist, btw) said that when the wave function collapsed in some stable way (with evolved brains), that fixed a history. Or something like that. I said that that would be a problem for a number of reasons, but he didn't seem worried (I raised a number of other objections to different parts of his theory, but I don't remember the details, so I'll leave it at that).

 

[DBT]

I don't understand what you're getting at. The "yet" suggests an objection to something I said. But I don't see anything that you say that is in conflict with any of my points. What are you objecting to?

I should have been clearer, my remark was in regard to the point of view of the poster that you said you were arguing with.

Or are you raising an objection to a theory that requires observers? (but I'm not defending any such theories).

That's what I was objecting to, but in relation to your opponents position, not yours.

For what's worth, I seem to remember that the guy I was talking to (who was also a Christian and a Berkeleyian idealist, btw) said that when the wave function collapsed in some stable way (with evolved brains), that fixed a history. Or something like that.

That's what I was questioning with my remark about definite particle position and deterministic macro processes at a time in the early universe when there could not have been brains or minds to collapse quantum probablity waves. Of course, some tend to envoke the Mind of God as the collapsing agent.

 

[Bomb#20]

(note: "Yahweh collapses the wave function" is not a viable option, of course ).

The cat is dead, and that is a tragedy. But he is dead because he had no code. He is dead because he had no honor, and God was watching.

 

[untermensche]

The blindness of physics, and thus the need for biology, is what the cat problem is all about?

You are being intentionally dense, aren't you?

You seem to offer nothing but insults.

Again, the reason we need biology is because physics doesn't have a definition of life.

That doesn't mean a cat can be both alive and dead. That is only some nonsense a physicist would believe.

 

[DBT]

Given that the Cat is in quantum superposition and is both dead and alive but being in possession of a brain and a mind of its own, and given the attribute of free will, the Cat is able to collapse quantum wave function to its own benefit in order to become definitely alive instead of definitely dead when the lid of its quantum confinement is cracked open by the ghost of Einstein.

 

[Valjean]

Again, the reason we need biology is because physics doesn't have a definition of life.

That doesn't mean a cat can be both alive and dead. That is only some nonsense a physicist would believe.

This has nothing to do with biology. It could be a potential/indeterminate rock or ice cream cone in the box.
Schroedinger's conundrum is about the nature of Reality; about the fact that there is no fixed Reality. We're not observers of Reality, we're its creators.
We roll the dice.

 

[Juma]

That doesn't mean a cat can be both alive and dead.

You keep saying this but hasnt provided any reason for us to believe you.

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps Untermensche follows Everett's interpretation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I should have been clearer, my remark was in regard to the point of view of the poster that you said you were arguing with.

Or are you raising an objection to a theory that requires observers? (but I'm not defending any such theories).

That's what I was objecting to, but in relation to your opponents position, not yours.

For what's worth, I seem to remember that the guy I was talking to (who was also a Christian and a Berkeleyian idealist, btw) said that when the wave function collapsed in some stable way (with evolved brains), that fixed a history. Or something like that.

That's what I was questioning with my remark about definite particle position and deterministic macro processes at a time in the early universe when there could not have been brains or minds to collapse quantum probablity waves. Of course, some tend to envoke the Mind of God as the collapsing agent.

I see. I raised that objection, but iirc, he believed the universe was all a big non-collapsed superposition or something like that, until the first Boltzmann brains collapsed it - so, in particular, an uncollapsed observer was enough to start collapse on his theory, which I also pointed out but didn't bother him.
On the other hand - and perhaps a bit surprisingly - despite the fact that he was a Christian (Eastern Orthodox) and even a Berkeleyan idealist, he didn't suggest that Yahweh would collapse anything.

 

[untermensche]

That doesn't mean a cat can be both alive and dead.

You keep saying this but hasnt provided any reason for us to believe you.

The complete absence of evidence isn't a good enough reason to reject a claim?

 

[Juma]

You keep saying this but hasnt provided any reason for us to believe you.

The complete absence of evidence isn't a good enough reason to reject a claim?

There is evidens of simultainious states, even in macroscopical (but very small) systems. Why do you think a living thing would behave differently? As you wrote: this is physics, you need biology to talk about life.

 

[untermensche]

The complete absence of evidence isn't a good enough reason to reject a claim?

There is evidens of simultainious states, even in macroscopical (but very small) systems. Why do you think a living thing would behave differently? As you wrote: this is physics, you need biology to talk about life.

The evidence in question is of an animal that is both alive and dead.

If one claims this state is possible they must provide the evidence to support the claim.

 

[Juma]

There is evidens of simultainious states, even in macroscopical (but very small) systems. Why do you think a living thing would behave differently? As you wrote: this is physics, you need biology to talk about life.

The evidence in question is of an animal that is both alive and dead.

If one claims this state is possible they must provide the evidence to support the claim.

Yes. But this is about your claim.

 

[untermensche]

The evidence in question is of an animal that is both alive and dead.

If one claims this state is possible they must provide the evidence to support the claim.

Yes. But this is about your claim.

My claim is that no evidence supports the claim that an animal can be both alive and dead.

Again, there is nothing in physics which can tell the difference between life and not-life.

This is not evidence of the claim about animals being alive and dead. This is a blindness.

 

[ryan]

There is evidens of simultainious states, even in macroscopical (but very small) systems. Why do you think a living thing would behave differently? As you wrote: this is physics, you need biology to talk about life.

The evidence in question is of an animal that is both alive and dead.

If one claims this state is possible they must provide the evidence to support the claim.

This is a thought experiment based on theory. It can probably be a hypothesis because nobody has disproven it yet, but it is theoretically possible according to our present knowledge about quantum mechanics. A hypothesis is "soft" science but it is still science; it's stronger than just a random assumption.

Thought experiments and theoretical physics have been correct in the past. Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted gravitational lensing. QM predicts this.

 

[untermensche]

This is a thought experiment based on theory. It can probably be a hypothesis because nobody has disproven it yet, but it is theoretically possible according to our present knowledge about quantum mechanics. A hypothesis is "soft" science but it is still science; it's stronger than just a random assumption.

Thought experiments and theoretical physics have been correct in the past. Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted gravitational lensing. QM predicts this.

It doesn't matter how you try to couch an unsupported claim.

Without evidence to support it I have no reason to believe in beasts such as cats that are both alive and dead.

 

[ontological_realist]

This has nothing to do with biology. It could be a potential/indeterminate rock or ice cream cone in the box.
Schroedinger's conundrum is about the nature of Reality; about the fact that there is no fixed Reality. We're not observers of Reality, we're its creators.
We roll the dice.

You said, "We're not observers of Reality, we're its creators."

How I wish that you would explain this!