Originally posted by Mindship
Still, I find the 'many-worlds' more mind-blowing.
Really? I find it more prosaic.
Copenhagen says we have one fundamentally bizarre world.
MW says we have lots of simple worlds.
Leaving aside the math and science (which is 99% incomprehensible to me for both interpretations) I still don't see any special appeals to MW. The idea of other universes isn't special, we've had it since people looked up and saw the moon or wondered where they went when they dreamed.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, random was the wrong word entirely but there's still nothing privileged about "the mind" in it. Variations of the experiment include mechanical observers.
The...mechanical observer does not solve the problems associated with the observer effect (and measurement problem). It certainly does not remove consciousness from the observation even a little.
I will concede this: a superposed system experiences a wavefunction collapse when it reaches a specific size and/or complexity independent of any observer. So the "consciousness affects the outcome" does't hold true once you pass a certain point...cause...we live in a "collapsed waveform" macroscopic world.
Some say that there is a universally sized waveform and, thus, prevents a waveform collapse from actually occurring but, instead, there are multiple waveforms interacting at different states and scales and the conscious observer phenomena is a form of an illusion.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The...mechanical observer does not solve the problems associated with the observer effect (and measurement problem).
I didn't say it did.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It certainly does not remove consciousness from the observation even a little.
The non-conscious observer disrupts the results before a conscious observer ever gets involved.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I will concede this: a superposed system experiences a wavefunction collapse when it reaches a specific size and/or complexity independent of any observer. So the "consciousness affects the outcome" does't hold true once you pass a certain point...cause...we live in a "collapsed waveform" macroscopic world.
Hmm? You can calculate de Broglie wavelengths for macroscopic objects. Doesn't that suggest waveforms for large objects?
What does "affect the outcome" mean? I assume you mean just causing a collapse rather than quantum mysticism stuff where you get to decide the outcome if you want it enough.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The non-conscious observer disrupts the results before a conscious observer ever gets involved.
Incorrect: a conscious "observer" had to set it up to begin with. They measuring tools didn't randomly create themselves and land in a certain spot to create the experiment. That's the point. That's why it still doesn't remove the "problem".
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI've read where MW is described as 'unwieldy,' what with universes sprouting wildly. But what gets me: the idea that an atom zigging instead of zagging, or a person saying Hello instead of Bite me, compounded by all other possible events, that all this 'bifurcates' the universe again and again...this is about as close as I can get to groking a physical infinity, especially one defined by such simplicity of process yet fullness of effect. Imho, it's insanely eloquent.
Really? I find it more prosaic.
Copenhagen says we have one fundamentally bizarre world.
MW says we have lots of simple worlds.Leaving aside the math and science (which is 99% incomprehensible to me for both interpretations) I still don't see any special appeals to MW. The idea of other universes isn't special, we've had it since people looked up and saw the moon or wondered where they went when they dreamed.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect: a conscious "observer" had to set it up to begin with. They measuring tools didn't randomly create themselves and land in a certain spot to create the experiment. That's the point. That's why it still doesn't remove the "problem".
You can't possibly be saying that if things did get in position randomly then they wouldn't alter the outcome of the experiment...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't possibly be saying that if things did get in position randomly then they wouldn't alter the outcome of the experiment...
Don't make it vague when we are talking about something quite specific.
If we take it the way you're implying, sure, what I'm saying is wrong.
Since I'm referring specifically to waveform collapse, your attempt at making fun of me through a question fails.
As fact, we don't know, beyond consciousness affecting the outcome, what the real "problem" is. Theories have been put forth that explain it without consciousness being involved. Einstein was one of those.
But if you're going to continue to say "consciousness means jack in this, bla bla bla", you really lack an understanding of the entire debate...which has been raging decades.
Originally posted by GRIMNIR
big bang theory came from a catholic priest called lemaitreit should be called the big bullshit theory
just because it is accepted by scientists does not mean it is law, it is THEORY not LAW
remember when the world thought the earth was flat and at centre of the universe
well now they gone back to believing the earth is centre of universe and some scientists talk about how the universe is FLAT
such a joke scientists of today, same ones who talk Bullshit about dangers of CO2 on future of mankind, yet the solution is not to stop the problem, but instead charge people for the use
****in idiot planet
Yes, I'm aware that there was a time when we thought the world was flat. It's true that science evolves as we discover more.
It isn't logical to say that we should just dismiss the current scientific findings just because there is a possibility they are wrong or will be changed in the future. By that rational, we can't believe ANY discovery we have ever made. As there is always the chance that it will one day be proven wrong.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, I'm aware that there was a time when we thought the world was flat. It's true that science evolves as we discover more.It isn't logical to say that we should just dismiss the current scientific findings just because there is a possibility they are wrong or will be changed in the future. By that rational, we can't believe ANY discovery we have ever made. As there is always the chance that it will one day be proven wrong.
I think we should use caution on discoveries that are uncertain in explanation, of course.
FTL neutrinos, for one.
That's just too crazy to say it's 100% proven, at the moment.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we should use caution on discoveries that are uncertain in explanation, of course.FTL neutrinos, for one.
That's just too crazy to say it's 100% proven, at the moment.
Heh. I heard about that. It would be pretty incredible if it were true.
One step closer to starships... Jumpy
This universe has been created with properly planning and management, it can't be all coincidence, this beautiful universe is being controlled by one GOD.....who is the Allah.....we must accept his oneness.