[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 143 KB, 600x600, Thinking_Face_Emoji_grande.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9772374 No.9772374 [Reply] [Original]

Assuming that the theory that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer is correct, then is it possible that the universe went through a short initial period of superposition which ended when the possibility of a conscious observer arose? Then, given that we know from the delayed quantum eraser experiment, that collapse can affect the past, it would cause one of the paths that could give rise to conscious observes to "snap" into reality and propagate backwards into the past. Thus the universe began with a conscious observer and the past was formed by the necessary existence of a conscious observer to remove the universe from a state of superposition.

>> No.9772377

holy shit

>> No.9772379

>>9772374
"observer" imo is a terrible syntax that inherently lends itself to distortion. Measurement literally means any interacting with anything, ie the measurement taken with a n electron microscope doesn't cause wave function collapse because of the sentient scientist working the microscope but because events at that small a level are so sensitive that the interaction between the particle and electron from the microscope disturbs the system leading to uncertainty.

>> No.9772381

>>9772374
Though if you want consciousness to pervade the universe integrated information theory is something to look at.

>> No.9772383

>>9772374
The concept of measurement has increasingly been replaced by decoherence over the past 70 years. I recommend looking into the works by Joos, Zeh, and Zurek.

>> No.9772438
File: 147 KB, 223x222, 1479101968122.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9772438

>>9772374
Why does this actually make sense

>> No.9772446

i'm getting the FBI on you

>> No.9773439

>>9772374
"Observer" means "consciousness" no more than "canali" ("channels" in Italan) means "Canals" ("engineering works" in English.)
It's a distortion by PopSci.
>>9772379 says it well. ANY interaction of the superimposed state which produces a permanent change in something else "collapses the wave function".
Or "decoheres" as >>9772383 said.

The Universe got along quite nicely without life and intelligence for at least a good part of a billion years.
The "quantum eraser" does NOT alter the past. It just shows that the superposition remains until it hits the screen (or a detector which might have measured the polarization of individual photons.)

>> No.9773473

>>9772374
Possibility of observer is not the same as an observer.
Delayed quantum eraser has been debunked; the future doesnt effect the present.

Read an actual qm book before you go off with your popsci memes.

>> No.9773489

>Assuming that the theory that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer

It doesn't though

>> No.9773694

>>9773473
>the future doesnt effect the present
It does though. An interference pattern is formed based on whether you measure the entangled particle AFTER its partner hits the screen. Go watch the SpaceTime episode on it

>> No.9773704

>>9773473
>Delayed quantum eraser has been debunked
No it hasn't.

>> No.9773960

>>9772374
Assuming <wrong> is correct, <bs>

>> No.9774055
File: 281 KB, 490x639, Von Neumann.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9774055

>>9773960
That's the interpretation the smartest man who ever lived thought was correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

>> No.9774061

>>9772374
I like this explanation.

>> No.9774070

since everyone understands this so well how does the Fourier transform work with result of seeing the waves hit the board behind the slits

>> No.9774073

>>9774070
>Fourier transform
What the fuck is that

>> No.9774081

>>9774073
>Fourier transform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

>> No.9774084

>>9774055
>Smart people can't be wrong when they're doing cutting-edge science about fields that have barely even started

>> No.9774133

>>9774084
It's more the fact that he found it credible enough to support. People on /sci/ tend to act like if you think that consciousness plays a part in QM then you're a wing nut.

>> No.9774678

>>9772374
>Assuming that the theory that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer is correct
It's not correct, you're an arrogant retard for even entertaining the possibility that that is correct.

>> No.9774681

>>9774133
It was excusable back then to entertain the retarded idea that a conscious observer was required, because it was a new field and no one knew what they were doing. It is NO LONGER excusable to hold this idiotic idea. Shame on you.

>> No.9774703

>>9774133
That still means nothing.
A lot of very smart people believe the weirdest things. If it seems credible then of course he would back it if there is nothing that sticks out as being wrong. That doesn't mean he wouldn't change his stance in the light of new evidence.

>> No.9774706

>>9772383
>the works by Joos


NB4...

>> No.9774708

>>9772374
He who observes the fall of a sparrow is perfectly capable of observing the collapse of a wave function.

And He has been there since the Beginning.

>> No.9774731

>>9774708
You've lost me.

>> No.9774745

>>9774681
>It is NO LONGER excusable to hold this idiotic idea.
Why? Every experimental result continues to support Von Neumanns interpretation and physicists continue to cling to muh copenhagen and deny there's anything actually happening in reality.

>> No.9774746

>>9772374
>Assuming that the theory that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer is correct
It doesn't so the rest of your argument is nonsense.

The absolute state of /sci/ goddamn.

>> No.9774749
File: 255 KB, 300x453, quantum_enigma_cover_e2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9774749

>>9774746
You should read this. Consciousness is definitely involved.

>> No.9774750

>>9774133
>It's more the fact that he found it credible enough to support
Do you have any idea how many bone-headed hypotheses great scientists have accepted over history? Even the smartest man in the world must be wrong once. Nobody is perfect.

>> No.9774756

>>9774750
This. Anyone who attaches too much weight to an 85-year old hypothesis by a preeminent scientist of that age, because of who came up with it, has so little of the scientist mindset that they unironically have no place on /sci/.

>> No.9774761

>>9774756
>In conclusion, the ‘consciousness causes quantum collapse’ hypothesis – at least when combined with modern neuroscience – is a viable theory of physical and mental reality, which offers a clear research program and distinctive experimental predictions. It proposes a solution to the measurement problem by defining when and where collapse occurs. And it provides a place for consciousness in nature by giving consciousness a causal role. Developing this theory may well enable us to answer even deeper questions; questions such as why consciousness causes collapse and why consciousness exists at all.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Does_Consciousness_Cause_Quantum_Collapse

All the arguments against consciousness causing collapse have been refuted. It's 2018, time to get with the times.

>> No.9774762

>>9774749
>Consciousness is definitely involved.
Every time I see this on /sci/ I don't even bother asking whether the poster analyzed the math, because the answer has always been "no". Some anons are even indignant at the idea that traditional math is worth fully exploring. Usually these people are too young to be allowed to post.

I would so, so love to talk to a real mathematician who believes this shit. I really would.

>> No.9774766

>>9774762
The math has nothing to say on what is happening in reality, that's why we need interpretations. You don't actually think a particle becomes a wave of probability, do you?

>> No.9774770

>>9774761
>philosophynow
Maybe try a scientific source.

If I use a computer to collapse a wave function and no one is around to observe it, does it collase?

>> No.9774774

>>9774770
>If I use a computer to collapse a wave function
Can't happen, requires a conscious observer.

>> No.9774777

>>9772379

It's a great way to filter idiots

>> No.9774778

>>9774766
The math says EXACTLY what is happening! Information about a particle can be described probabilistically BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

>> No.9774793

>>9774778
No the math is merely an abstraction that can be used to predict results. It doesn't tell you anything about the reality of what is occurring.

>Information about a particle can be described probabilistically
Yeah, and you'll get a result but that doesn't mean an electron actually exists as a cloud of probability. That's stupid. That's only how we describe it in our mathematical model so we can predict its behavior.

>> No.9774803

>>9774793
>electron actually exists as a cloud of probability
For all intents and purposes, at the scale of a single atom, the electron does behave exactly like a fluctuating, negatively-charged cloud. It's not really a "cloud" because it is too small to see, but calling it a cloud of probability is actually the physical description of what it is. A cloud is not a mathematical concept.

>> No.9774806

>>9772438
Because you're stupid and don't understand quantum field theory.

>> No.9774808

>>9774745
Because consciousness is not required. ANY interaction will disrupt the wave function, conscious or not. You're too old to believe in magic.

>> No.9774810

>>9774761
No they haven't. Fuck off and stop spreading lies told by the retards at philosophynow.

>> No.9774813

>>9774803
Probability doesn't exist as a physical thing anon, the electron can't be 'probability' in reality anymore than it could be a cloud of unicorn farts, it's conceptual.

>> No.9774814

>>9774810
Consciousness is required for collapse anon. It's time you accepted it instead of getting angry every time science pokes a hole in your autistic deterministic, physicalist worldview.

>> No.9774816

>>9774808
>ANY interaction will disrupt the wave function
But we've done experiments where there was interaction and an interference pattern still formed. It's the collection of data that causes the change in behavior, not the measurement or interaction.

>> No.9774823

>>9774816
How about a citation, because that would have gotten a Nobel prize if true.

>> No.9774825

>>9774813
Jesus, dude. Do you think being this obtuse somehow benefits you?

>> No.9774826

>>9774823
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E

2:40

>> No.9774828

>>9774825
You're the one who can't seem to grasp the simple concept that modelling a particle as a cloud of probability is only abstraction and that is not what it actually is in physical reality. That is why we have interpretations to explain what we think might be actually happening.

>> No.9774832

>>9774826
You've got to be fucking kidding me.

>> No.9775238

>>9774828
>that is not what it actually is in physical reality
You should have learned this in high school chemistry. Electrons exist in orbitals; these orbitals are the clouds. The electron, as a particle, has a high probability of being located near a certain point within the orbital, and the probability of finding it decreases as you move away from that point. The electron is a particle; it moves very fast, to the point that you have to "guess" where it might be. The formation of a cloud (orbital) is a consequence of the properties of the electron, and it is a real physical phenomenon.