The World is a Verb (something approaching "scientific/mathematical" proof)

[Rev. Thwack]

Incidentally, in case you were gonna go

The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.

If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.

Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.

You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.

I take it you understand/have knowledge of the basic experiment showing an atoms paradoxical nature?

Things are only a paradox if you don't understand them or are following an incorrect view of them.

[LMNO]

The "Heisenberg uncertainty relation" emerged in an atmosphere of confusion from which it has never quite escaped. Much of the fault lies with Heisenberg himself who was not content with setting forth the bare theory, he also tried to make the result more comprehensible with suggestive physical arguments.

For example, he implied that the uncertainty has its origin in the inevitable disturbance caused by the measurement process (which is not inherently a quantum concept). Bohr objected to these explanatory efforts, convinced that the matter was deeper than Heisenberg made it out to be.

As I see it, most problems of interpretation are resolved by the simple fact that the microscopic theory does not refer to any physical waves or particles. It refers to well-defined detectors and unambiguous events of detection.

Accounts that ascribe position to particles and momentum to waves apply macroscopic language inappropriately to microscopic nature. You can set a detector to register an event with well-defined momentum, or you can set it to record an event with well-defined position. That does not entitle you to say that the event is caused by a "wave" or by a "particle."

...

Schrödinger's cat
Quantum theory does not tell all we would like to know about things. It does not attempt to describe "things" at all, only their potential impact on our senses (or on any other registration device). Physicists like to theorize about simple systems that are conveniently isolated (more or less) from their surroundings, such as a single electron moving about an atomic nucleus.

But real things can be large and complicated. Schrödinger envisioned a wave function for a cat to emphasize the absurd inadequacy of the quantum viewpoint. The 'wave function' does not have to look at all like a wave. Its key feature is a list of probabilities for registrations corresponding to a set of well-defined events – one probability for each event.

For the cat the events are determinations that the animal is dead or alive. Schrödinger imagined a cat confined to a box containing a flask of poisonous vapor linked to an apparatus that would smash the flask when a detector clicked in response to the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Radioactive decays occur at random with a characteristic average time – the "half-life." After the lid is closed, you wait one half-life. At that time, quantum theory implies a wave function that gives the cat a 50% chance of being observed alive when you open the box. Well, is the cat dead or not? The wave function does not judge.

To Schrödinger, that is a ridiculous state of affairs. Obviously the wave function could not be telling everything about the cat. Quantum theory appears to be saying that until the box is opened the cat is in a smeared-out state, a superposition of possibilities, in this case half dead and half alive. Your act of opening the box appears to resolve the situation. Does your act decide the cat's fate? Must you bear responsibility?

No. The wave function does not pretend to describe the cat. The information it contains is about measurement probabilities, not entirely about what causes them. The cat's fate is sealed as soon as a radioactive emission effects an irreversible consequence in the world – certainly by the time the first detector clicks. We simply do not know what has happened until we open the box. If we want to reassure ourselves that our action did not kill the cat, then we can perform an autopsy to determine the instant of demise.

Bohr grasped intuitively the mouse-trapping that converts the possibilities inherent in a microscopic system into macroscopic reality. Much of the century passed, however, before physicists developed a satisfactory theoretical account of this process. It is complicated by the fact that irreversibility entails the disturbance of many pieces, as in the dissipation of energy in friction, or the dispersal of a drop of ink in water. The quantum version of the process is called decoherence, but the image of a mousetrap will serve our purpose.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The world is a Verb... but not for the reasons listed in the OP. Our experiential reality can be considered a verb, because its an active process. There is not a Red House, there is the interaction between my neurological system and a bunch of stuff in Objective reality which we'll label house and based on the wavelengths bouncing off of it, we'll label it a Red House.

In Objective Reality, the house may be a noun. In experiential reality, the house is a part of an  interaction and thus a verb. Humans, more importantly tend to always be verbs, since few are rarely in static state long enough to be properly labeled as nouns.

The Barstool is also a verb.

[LMNO]

Also, getting back to Crowley, from the same lecture:

All phenomena of which we are aware take place in our own minds, and therefore the only thing we have to look at is the mind; which is a more constant quantity over all the species of humanity than is generally supposed. What appear to be radical differences, irreconcilable by argument, are usually found to be due to the obstinacy of habit produced by generations of systematic sectarian training.

All of this seems to be pointing to Crowley's main thesis:  That humans ascribe subjective perceptions to objective phenomena, without realizing their own subjectivity.

He does not say that objective phenomena does not exist; he says that we can only percieve it subjectively.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, getting back to Crowley, from the same lecture:

All phenomena of which we are aware take place in our own minds, and therefore the only thing we have to look at is the mind; which is a more constant quantity over all the species of humanity than is generally supposed. What appear to be radical differences, irreconcilable by argument, are usually found to be due to the obstinacy of habit produced by generations of systematic sectarian training.

All of this seems to be pointing to Crowley's main thesis:  That humans ascribe subjective perceptions to objective phenomena, without realizing their own subjectivity.

He does not say that objective phenomena does not exist; he says that we can only percieve it subjectively.

Precisely. The idea that objective reality doesn't exist seems to require as much faith and belief as believing that objective reality is exactly as we perceive it ST00PID Post Modernists!!!

[Roaring Biscuit!]

@Rev Thwack: see edited post on the page before

@LMNO:  I'm not really sure if we're saying the same thing, but the way I have been interpreting it is that the atom does exist as a probability until it is measured and that the very act of measuring it (the way it is measured) causing Stuff to Happen.  i think I understand your point about lack of correct measuring equipment, but I would say:  work with evidence you have not evidence you wish you had.
(though I have almost definitely got the wrong end of the stick there, so be gentle  :/)

e.g.  If a fossil was found that definitively disproved the theory of evolution, we would rework the theory, not conclude that our understanding and our ability to discover/interpret fossils was incorrect.

But I think we may be talking about different things here :/

Also, getting back to Crowley, from the same lecture:

All phenomena of which we are aware take place in our own minds, and therefore the only thing we have to look at is the mind; which is a more constant quantity over all the species of humanity than is generally supposed. What appear to be radical differences, irreconcilable by argument, are usually found to be due to the obstinacy of habit produced by generations of systematic sectarian training.

All of this seems to be pointing to Crowley's main thesis:  That humans ascribe subjective perceptions to objective phenomena, without realizing their own subjectivity.

He does not say that objective phenomena does not exist; he says that we can only percieve it subjectively.

But each mind does not exist outside itself, so what difference does it make whether there is objective reality, if we can only interpret it subjectively?

x

Simon

[LMNO]

@LMNO:  I'm not really sure if we're saying the same thing, but the way I have been interpreting it is that the atom does exist as a probability until it is measured and that the very act of measuring it (the way it is measured) causing Stuff to Happen.  i think I understand your point about lack of correct measuring equipment, but I would say:  work with evidence you have not evidence you wish you had.
(though I have almost definitely got the wrong end of the stick there, so be gentle  :/)

A wavelength is defined as "the distance between repeating units of a propagating wave of a given frequency."

In order to find a wavelength, you must measure it over time.  By definition, it will not have a specific position when measured.

Accordingly, if you define a specific position at a specific moment in time for an occilating particle, you cannot determing it's wavelength.  So it's not about evidence.  It's about the nature of what we are measuring, and how it is measured.

The atom isn't in some sort of "between" state that becomes "either/or" when we pull out a ruler.

But each mind does not exist outside itself, so what difference does it make whether there is objective reality, if we can only interpret it subjectively?

That's where our measuring devices come into play.  While the subjective experience is unique, If I tell you that "a meter" is the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second", we now have a common frame of reference.

So, if I tell you that an object was measured to be 2 meters long, the length of that object is common between us.

That is to say, by using a reference that is defined objectively, we remove the subjective.

One of Einstein's insights was to remove the observer even further, which resulted in Special Relativity.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

coolies   

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

@LMNO:  I'm not really sure if we're saying the same thing, but the way I have been interpreting it is that the atom does exist as a probability until it is measured and that the very act of measuring it (the way it is measured) causing Stuff to Happen.  i think I understand your point about lack of correct measuring equipment, but I would say:  work with evidence you have not evidence you wish you had.
(though I have almost definitely got the wrong end of the stick there, so be gentle  :/)

The Map is not the Territory.

Just because our MAP models the atom as a probability doesn't mean that it IS a probability.... only that it appears that way to us, based on the measuring devices we're using and the models we're applying.  

[LMNO]

Yeah, that too.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Oooohhh...  actually I'm not sure I do agree, I thought I was talking about something different...  It's not really to do with measurement at all (I don't think)...

The basic "quantum experiment" was to split an atoms wave function in half and have each half contained in a "box" (for want of a better word) and a screen (some sorta magic screen that I can't remember the proper name for :/).  You could then either open the "boxes" simultaneously or seperately.

If the boxes are opened simultanteously, an interference pattern emerges (you seem to have a pretty good grasp of this stuff so I assume you understand what that means...)*, if the boxes are opened seperately the atom comes out and hits the screen at a singular point.  This, does not appear to fit your measurement thing cited earlier (thought that is a very relevant point to the general understanding and I'm glad you brought it up).  This example is called the Quantum Enigma (physics's skeleton in the closet) and regardless of measuring equipment points to consciousness effecting physical reality.

That's paraphrased from a book of the same name that I read a while back.

*in canse you don't really get the implications, this isn't a matter of us measuring an atom in two different ways and getting two different results, here all that is measured is an atoms interaction with a screen and the two approaches cause different physical realities, a wave (more than that, two seperate halves of a wave (which is two seperate halves of an atom) interacting with each other to form an interference pattern), and the second which involves wave form collapse, the probability of a wave being in one place or another dissapates when it is seen to be in exactly one place.

I hope that makes sense, and even if you don't think it is relevant to the argument, at least constituted a fairly interesting read.

x

James

EDIT:

for completeness:  the website with some "in a nutshell" explanation of what i tried to say above, probably far better than my post.

http://quantumenigma.com/71/

[LMNO]

TSo, I'll take a look at the site, and think about it a bit.

[Samuel Boone Johnson Thomas Frederik Douglas III]

Have any of you actually studied math?  I mean beyond differential equations.  I don't think anything I've seen in this thread counts as logic, it's reasoning (I know, semantics, but meaning is crucial in math). 

Just for shits here's a nice little mind warping thought:

There are infinitely many numbers each with infinitely many digits that contain as substrings every single number.  The proof is pretty simple, but it's a neat way to start wrapping your mind around the concept of varying levels of infinity.

[Xooxe]

I checked the link out. It simply looks like the two slit experiment.

I checked out the FAQ:

Your book’s subtitle says, “Physics Encounters Consciousness.” How?

With the advent of quantum mechanics, physics found that observation created a physical reality. By freely choosing a different observation, you could have created a physical reality inconsistent with the one you actually chose to create. (And therefore a different history!)

  The what?

Though, because of randomness and the complexity of big things, you can’t bring about just the future you want–as purveyors of pseudo-science imply. Quantum mechanics reveals a mysterious encounter of “free choice,” conscious free will, with the physical world. Does this impact your world-view? It sure does impact mine.

Still don't follow. These aren't actually answers. They look like an ambiguous sales pitch to hoover up the crowd who are weary of pseudo-science yet still want to bask in the glamour of strange interpretation.

This example is called the Quantum Enigma (physics's skeleton in the closet) and regardless of measuring equipment points to consciousness effecting physical reality.

That's paraphrased from a book of the same name that I read a while back.

So how does the book link consciousness with reality?

(more than that, two seperate halves of a wave (which is two seperate halves of an atom) interacting with each other to form an interference pattern)

In the experiment you mention, photons were used. Not atoms. Even so, the split wave function is not two halves of the photon. The wave function is a man-made mathematical tool for calculating the probability of where a particle is likely to be found and is not the particle itself.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

(more than that, two seperate halves of a wave (which is two seperate halves of an atom) interacting with each other to form an interference pattern)

In the experiment you mention, photons were used. Not atoms. Even so, the split wave function is not two halves of the photon. The wave function is a man-made mathematical tool for calculating the probability of where a particle is likely to be found and is not the particle itself.

Yes thats true, but in the experiment, which has been conducted with atoms and other things up to the size of small molecules, it can be shown, that conscious decision makes the atom (or photon, whichever you are more comfortable with) is either present in both boxes, or present in one box.

This is to answer your earlier question, physics encountering consciousness.

An explanation of interference patterns may be in order:

An interference pattern is a set of peaks and troughs that (obviously) can only be formed by a wave, or more precisely, the interaction of two seperate waves, this is why two musicians playing the same tune are not twice as loud as one musician, because some of the wave patterns start to cancel each other out.  If an atom can be shown to produce an interference pattern, that means it was present in both boxes.

I hope that serves as some explanation...

x

edd