Please review this paper

[Wozza]

As Feynman said: ‘If you think that you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics’.

I’m constantly bemused by the number of people who make definitive claims based on the most esoteric aspects of the most widely misunderstood theory in physics.

 

[lelinator]

I’m constantly bemused by the number of people who make definitive claims based on the most esoteric aspects of the most widely misunderstood theory in physics.

Right, I mean come on, it’s barely one step above religion.

Except for the fact that it’s actually observable and all.

(Attempting to channel my inner Bradskii snarkiness)

 

[lelinator]

I’m constantly bemused by the number of people who make definitive claims based on the most esoteric aspects of the most widely misunderstood theory in physics.

People tend to get stuck inside their own little boxes, and although they may peek outside of it every once in awhile, they’re definitely not going to step outside of it. But the funny thing is that they have no real control over the box that they’re in. They don’t choose what they’re going to believe. They don’t choose the boundaries of their box. They just accept their box with barely any questioning.

So who’s really delusional? The person who dares to risk stepping outside of their box, or the person who doesn’t even realize that they’re stuck in one?

 

[Wesrock]

Wozza:

I’m constantly bemused by the number of people who make definitive claims based on the most esoteric aspects of the most widely misunderstood theory in physics.

People tend to get stuck inside their own little boxes, and although they may peek outside of it every once in awhile, they’re definitely not going to step outside of it. But the funny thing is that they have no real control over the box that they’re in. They don’t choose what they’re going to believe. They don’t choose the boundaries of their box. They just accept their box with barely any questioning.

So who’s really delusional? The person who dares to risk stepping outside of their box, or the person who doesn’t even realize that they’re stuck in one?

There’s always another box.

 

[IWantGod]

People tend to get stuck inside their own little boxes, and although they may peek outside of it every once in awhile, they’re definitely not going to step outside of it. But the funny thing is that they have no real control over the box that they’re in. They don’t choose what they’re going to believe. They don’t choose the boundaries of their box. They just accept their box with barely any questioning.

So who’s really delusional? The person who dares to risk stepping outside of their box , or the person who doesn’t even realize that they’re stuck in one?

I appreciate the analogy. The problem is it can go both ways. How do you know you are not in a box right now, trapped in some kind of idealism you find yourself incapable of reasoning yourself out of.

If you really do like being out of the box, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to take a leap of faith, a reasonable one. I don’t know about you, but i find it hard to believe that we were born into this world with the intellectual-powers and emotional experiences that we have and there not be something amazing going on. Right now we are kind of like the gold fish swimming around in a limited environment unaware of the larger picture outside. It seems to me that it is only the theist who is brave enough to look outside of that box; it is the metaphysical-naturalist who wants to keep us in and cry fool of anyone who has faith.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Hi John,

I’m not qualified to review the substance of your paper, but I have taught English to a reasonable standard. Your paper is almost illegible because of the extraordinary proliferation of commas. You would do well to remove every single one with a search-and-replace function, and then go through your paper again only replacing those which are really necessary. Good luck with your publication!

 

[lelinator]

The problem is it can go both ways. How do you know you are not in a box right now, trapped in some kind of idealism you find yourself incapable of reasoning yourself out of.

Oh I’m in a box alright, maybe it’s a little bigger than everyone else’s, and maybe the walls aren’t quite as fixed as everyone else’s, but it’s still a box. You know me, I still prefer quantum physics over metaphysics. Although metaphysics seems to think that it has almost everything figured out, and quantum physics seems to have almost nothing figured out. Maybe I just like it outside the box. And maybe you’re right, maybe it’s better inside the box. I’m just not an inside the box kind of person. I just can’t stop asking why. Why does this do this? And why does that do that?

For me, the answers have to make sense, and maybe you believe that you’ve found some that do, but I haven’t. So if you think that you’ve got the answers, then you can rest assured that I’m going to make you defend them. And in the process maybe one or both of us will learn something. After all, we’re both pretty bright people I think, so we should be able to learn something, not much maybe, but something.

 

[lelinator]

The argument that you just formulated is valid, and attacks the second premise of this argument. But again this point, you just raised is scientifically testable, since all is needed is to confirm whether from there is a genuine superposition from the perspective of observer 2(Wigner), at the exact moment in which observer 1 claims to know the outcome. This would undoubtedly demonstrate that there is a paradox. I believe that I raised such an objection in premise 3, and then mentioned this experiment in response.

I finally had time to look at Premise 3, and unfortunately for you, you’ve just happened to run into a solipsist. And not only that, but a solipsist that just loathes assumptions.

The first assumption that you’ve made is that the superposition actually exists as something more than just an abstract mathematical construct. But I don’t see how you can possibly address this, without running into the measurement problem. So you can’t prove that the superposition actually exists.

But should you choose to argue that even an abstract concept can’t contradict an observed reality, you still run into assumption number two.

The second assumption that you’ve made is that Wigner’s friend actually exists outside of Wigner’s own conscious awareness of them. From Wigner’s perspective there’s no contradiction between his friend knowing the state of the system, and Wigner not knowing the state of the system. The two things are completely compatible from Wigner’s perspective.

So you not only need to show that consciousness collapses the wave function, but you also need to show that there’s more than one consciousness at play here. Such that they can be in contradiction with each other. If there’s only one consciousness, and it’s Wigner’s, then there’s no contradiction. Wigner’s friend knows the state of the system and Wigner doesn’t. Perfectly reasonable.

Now if I’m not mistaken, proving the existence of two conscious observers is impossible, therefore you can’t use the Wigner’s Friend paradox to prove the existence of God.

 

[lelinator]

Contrary to popular belief there are a variety of physicists who support the idea that consciousness causes collapse. Most notably Von Neumann, Bohr, Henry Stapp, Eugene Wigner and John Wheeler. I admit that it is not a verified aspect of quantum theory and is a minority view.

The problem is that demonstrating that consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function really doesn’t gain you anything, because you can still argue for anything from solipsism to panpsychism. And beyond that you would also have to demonstrate that you have the causal relationship right. Is it consciousness that causes the collapse, or is it the other way around, that it’s the collapse of the wave function that causes consciousness?

But in any case, arguing that consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function simply opens up a veritable minefield of possibilities, it doesn’t actually get you any closer to demonstrating the existence of an ultimate conscious observer.

The only consciousness that can be demonstrated to exist with a high degree of certainty, is your own.

And it seems as though mine is the only consciousness with any interest in this subject. Dang.