Come on, Creationists!

[Audie]

It depends on what you mean by "explain." I can understand that the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean that I can explain why it's blue.

By explain i wont mean identify.

 

[Ella S.]

That begs the question: if you have no clue, how can you possibly trust anyone else?especially what you get from the internet, which is unreliable by default.

Well. Your problem is that the consensus shifted. Now the consensus is that the observation process, and the observers, must be included in the wave function. And that resolves all problems concerning measurements affecting reality, and similar nonsense. With the great advantage of using the same mathematical framework already available.

so, your case does not obtain. Not even ad popolum, since most physicists subscribe to this view, nowadays.

ciao

- viole

Can you provide me evidence that what you're claiming is the consensus is actually the consensus?

And I haven't trusted anyone on the internet, I trusted experts that I knew in person, although I don't really see the relevance of this. Many reputable academic journals have internet resources. Are you arguing that these resources are untrustworthy?

I don't think it's realistic to never rely on expert opinion. Do you also refuse to use the medicine that your doctor prescribes you because you can't explain why it works?

 

[Ella S.]

By explain i wont mean identify.

Yes, I agree that "explain" doesn't mean "identify." I suppose I could also ask what level of understanding you're talking about here.

 

[viole]

Can you provide me evidence that what you're claiming is the consensus is actually the consensus?

And I haven't trusted anyone on the internet, I trusted experts that I knew in person, although I don't really see the relevance of this. Many reputable academic journals have internet resources. Are you arguing that these resources are untrustworthy?

I don't think it's realistic to never rely on expert opinion. Do you also refuse to use the medicine that your doctor prescribes you because you can't explain why it works?

Nope, but we have alternative explanations how it works.

If you had two choices:

1) observing collapses the wave function. Ergo, the very act of observing affects physical reality in a fundamental way. The description of that is nowhere to be seen in the equations of physics

2) observers are also quantum systems, like everything. Ergo, when they measure they cause an entanglement state correlating observed with observer. All of this is part of the mathematical framework already available.

Which one would you choose considering that they both explain the same phenomena? What would Occam razor suggest?

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

Nope, but if you hadtwo choices:

1) observing collapses the wave function. Ergo, the very act of observing affects physical reality in a fundamental way. The description of that is nowhere to be seen in the equations of physics

2) observers are also quantum systems, like everything. Ergo, when they measure they cause an entanglement state correlating observed with observer. All of this is part of the mathematical framework already available.

Which one would you choose considering that they both explain the same phenomena?

ciao

- viole

Well, I already supported the second one earlier in this thread. However, as I said, that understanding relies on the opinions of experts that I can't publicly point to.

As such, I wouldn't choose either and would choose to withhold my opinion until I had more credible information to work off of.

 

[Audie]

Yes, I agree that "explain" doesn't mean "identify." I suppose I could also ask what level of understanding you're talking about here.

Greater understanding, more complete explanation

 

[Ella S.]

Greater understanding, more complete explanation

I think, currently, there could always be greater understanding and a more complete explanation and we could never fully disprove that there isn't still more of that greater understanding or an even more complete explanation of a topic to be had.

 

[Audie]

I think, currently, there could always be greater understanding and a more complete explanation and we could never fully disprove that there isn't still more of that greater understanding or an even more complete explanation of a topic to be had.

Huh?

 

[viole]

Well, I already supported the second one earlier in this thread. However, as I said, that understanding relies on the opinions of experts that I can't publicly point to.

As such, I wouldn't choose either and would choose to withhold my opinion until I had more credible information to work off of.

Supporting the second implies that observation does not affect reality at all. If I observe the state of a spin, I do not cause any collapse of the wave function of the electron. That woukd lead to absurd and unjustifiable theories about the role of consciousness (which would be absurd anyway, since even a virus can cause that collapse). That is favored by new age people, for obvious reasons.

What really happens is that I get entangled with the electron. Ergo, it is not the case that viole measures up. Or down. It is the case that viole measuring up, and measuring down, are both true, but in a superposition of states. The superposition of states of the observable, is transmitted to the superposition of states of the observed plus observed.

Easy, and requiring no ad hoc changes in the theory that cannot possibly fit.

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

Huh?

Sorry, I'll try to rephrase.

I think that, given any topic, there's usually more that we could understand about it. I also think that it would be hard to tell whether we understand everything about a given topic or not, because there's always the potential of unknown unknowns.

So I think there's always probably some way that leads to greater understanding, but I don't think that means that we have no understanding whatsoever.

 

[Ella S.]

Supporting the second implies that observation does not affect reality at all. If I observe the state of a spin, I do not cause any collapse of the wave function of the electron. That woukd lead to absurd and unjustifiable theories about the role of consciousness (which would be absurd anyway, since even a virus can cause that collapse). That is favored by new age people, for obvious reasons.

What really happens is that I get entangled with the electron. Ergo, it is not the case that viole measures up. Or down. It is the case that viole measuring up, and measuring down, are both true, but in a superposition of states. The superposition of states of the observable, is transmitted to the superposition of states of the observed.

Easy, and requiring no ad hoc changes in the theory that cannot possibly fit.

ciao

- viole

Uh, I think you have those mixed up?

 

[viole]

Uh, I think you have those mixed up?

Is that a question? What does that mean? You can use Swedish if you prefer.

ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Sorry, I'll try to rephrase.

I think that, given any topic, there's usually more that we could understand about it. I also think that it would be hard to tell whether we understand everything about a given topic or not, because there's always the potential of unknown unknowns.

So I think there's always probably some way that leads to greater understanding, but I don't think that means that we have no understanding whatsoever.

Nobody has all the answers, theres always more to learn.

Sure.

But the thread is specifically about creationist
beliefs based on falsehoods,faulty thinking,
total misunderstanding of the subject matter.
Etc.
None of their ideas get far when they try to
explain, if they try at all, simply because they've
no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Ella S.]

Is that a question? What does that mean? You can use Swedish if you prefer.

ciao

- viole

Not that it matters, because I've already rescinded my earlier claims, but I was originally arguing against the "New Age" conception that observation has some effect on the observed in some way that has to do with consciousness. That's what your first option seemed to describe.

(eta: I was arguing against that interpretation of the consensus by pointing out that that's not what the consensus is, I wasn't arguing against that interpretation itself because I'm not a quantum physicist.)

The second option that you provided is more similar to my original claim, which is why I said that it's the one I chose, but you seem to be saying I shouldn't have chosen the second option and instead chosen the second option.

This is doubly strange given that I explicitly stated that I no longer would choose either option, and so your point about either one is sort of irrelevant.

 

[Ella S.]

Nobody has all the answers, theres always more to learn.

Sure.

But the thread is specifically about creationist
beliefs based on falsehoods,faulty thinking,
total misunderstanding of the subject matter.
Etc.
None of their ideas get far when they try to
explain, if they try at all, simply because they've
no idea what they are talking about.

I see. So your response was not in reference to the tangential debate about quantum physics that viole is trying to rope me into?

 

[viole]

Not that it matters, because I've already rescinded my earlier claims, but I was originally arguing against the "New Age" conception that observation has some effect on the observed in some way that has to do with consciousness. That's what your first option seemed to describe.

(eta: I was arguing against that interpretation of the consensus by pointing out that that's not what the consensus is, I wasn't arguing against that interpretation itself because I'm not a quantum physicist.)

The second option that you provided is more similar to my original claim, which is why I said that it's the one I chose, but you seem to be saying I shouldn't have chosen the second option and instead chosen the second option.

This is doubly strange given that I explicitly stated that I no longer would choose either option, and so your point about either one is sort of irrelevant.

Well, according to your post 142 that is not the case. You seem to claim that measuring changes the measured.

According to case 2, that is not the case. there is no effect on the measured by measuring it.

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

Well, according to your post 142 that is not the case. You seem to claim that measuring changes the measured.

According to case 2, that is not the case. there is no effect on the measured by measuring it.

ciao

- viole

Are you not saying that they directly affect what they're measuring when they measure it here?

...when they measure they cause an entanglement state correlating observed with observer

What am I misunderstanding?

 

[Audie]

I see. So your response was not in reference to the tangential debate about quantum physics that viole is trying to rope me into?

Strange interpretation.

 

[Ella S.]

Strange interpretation.

Which part is the strange interpretation and why?

 

[viole]

Are you not saying that they directly affect what they're measuring when they measure it here?

Of course not.

What am I misunderstanding?

Everything.

ciao

- viole