Wavefunction Collapse and Dreams

[George-ananda]

Not when the actual observations go as they have here.

Maybe in an entirely different formulation, there might be a hint of the idea left, but the evidence we have now isn't ambiguous.

Umm, but then why would Penrose and Hammerhoff not abandon the theory? So, I think there is still intellectual weight in the room for the theory.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, the real world works via the laws of Quantum Mechanics. We are now at the place where we can use those laws to get new technologies. The laws may be counter-intuitive to many, but they are understood and are not mysterious.

But it is cool we are using them for things like this.

I would suggest they are indeed mysterious, and are far from being fully understood - for now anyway.

But yeah, it's cool that they can be applied in ways which would once have been considered miraculous.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't see using a wave function as doing that any more than using any other sort of math is. Do we 'step outside of the parameters of the material world' when we use math to find the area of a field?

The calculations in QM are not impossible, irrational, nor unimaginable. There consequences are counter-intuitive for those who are accustomed to classical physics and the assumptions of some out-moded philosophies, but there is nothing 'non-material' going on in QM any more than there was in classical physics.

The point is that QM *describes* the material world. The material world may not act as some philosophies have thought it *needed* to act, but that is a fault in those philosophies, not in the material world.

We step outside the parameters every time we use maths to measure anything, yes. Plato saw this. Maths is a magnificent abstraction, is it not?

It may be that there is nothing non material going on in our universe, but science has not so far established this; would you not agree that everything we think we know about the material universe turns out to be unsatisfactory and incomplete? This is a pattern that has been repeated from Euclid to Ptolemy to Newton to Einstein.

I absolutely agree that the fault lies not with the universe, but with our philosophies.
"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamed if in thy philosophy".

 

[exchemist]

Sufficient? It strikes me that the consensus opinion can flip decades later.

It can, but usually it doesn't.

 

[exchemist]

We step outside the parameters every time we use maths to measure anything, yes. Plato saw this. Maths is a magnificent abstraction, is it not?

It may be that there is nothing non material going on in our universe, but science has not so far established this; would you not agree that everything we think we know about the material universe turns out to be unsatisfactory and incomplete? This is a pattern that has been repeated from Euclid to Ptolemy to Newton to Einstein.

I absolutely agree that the fault lies not with the universe, but with our philosophies.
"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamed if in thy philosophy".

Now you are posing an entirely different question.

The point @Polymath257 and I have been trying to make is the specific and narrow one that quantum theory is not evidence for anything non-material going on in the universe.

In fact, it seems to me that no theory of science can ever provide such evidence, due to the methodological naturalism of science. Whatever ideas are invoked to explain what we observe, they are invoked on the basis that they form some part of the material world, surely? Though I guess it comes down to what means by "material". According to physics, fields are more fundamental than matter, apparently.

The fact that science is incomplete is likewise not evidence of anything non-material going on.

We can certainly speculate about non-material things going on and we may feel they are needed aesthetically. For instance where do the laws of physics come from? Science expresses no opinion. But I feel it is a mistake to look for evidence in theories of science.

 

[exchemist]

Umm, but then why would Penrose and Hammerhoff not abandon the theory? So, I think there is still intellectual weight in the room for the theory.

Scientists have personal motives and get wedded to their own creations, just as anyone else does. Especially when they get very old, as Penrose is now.

When Penrose dies, I think Orch OR will die. (Hameroff is a lightweight and getting crankier by the day). I don't see any signs of anyone else picking up the baton, which one would expect if the hypothesis had had any successes. But it has had none, so far as I can see, so nobody else in science seems interested.

 

[Polymath257]

We step outside the parameters every time we use maths to measure anything, yes. Plato saw this. Maths is a magnificent abstraction, is it not?

Yes. It is a language that is useful for describing certain things in the universe.

It may be that there is nothing non material going on in our universe, but science has not so far established this; would you not agree that everything we think we know about the material universe turns out to be unsatisfactory and incomplete? This is a pattern that has been repeated from Euclid to Ptolemy to Newton to Einstein.

Do we have a full explanation for every phenomenon? No, certainly not. In that sense, what we have is incomplete.

On the other hand, what we have so far is incredibly satisfactory for almost everything on a day to day level. To get to stuff we don't understand requires going way, way beyond anything at the ordinary, human level.

I certainly see nothing that would require the introduction of a supernatural.

I absolutely agree that the fault lies not with the universe, but with our philosophies.
"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamed if in thy philosophy".

Exactly. Way too much of modern philosophy is based on Aristotelian metaphysics. From my perspective, that is a HUGE mistake. From his analysis to causality, to his preconceptions about matter, most of what Aristotle said was simply wrong. We need to eliminate such concepts as 'necessary or contingent existence', or that matter is 'dead and inert'. Those are simply two examples, but they come up frequently and show how philosophy needs an overhaul.

 

[Ostronomos]

Actually, it does because Planck's constant is *small*. And entanglement, along with other quantum effects, are determined by the size of that constant.

In particular, entanglement is an incredibly difficult state to maintain. it usually takes temperatures close to absolute zero and minimal interaction with an external environment. Neither of those conditions is found in the living brain.

Your science only applies to the waking world.

Even though the size of Plank's constant is so small that it makes Quantum effects negligible for a massive object, the Quantum world still applies. It can be maintained when materialism is in question.

Remember, reality only appears to be space, time and object. This triality is a meager imitation of ultimate reality.

You are correct that it takes minimal interaction with an external environment to maintain. Hence dreams.

 

[Ostronomos]

How much 'reality' to give the wave function is a matter of debate.

It is far more fundamental than the space, time and object that we see around us in the waking world.

There are certainly some aspects that can be observed using 'weak measurements'. There are also some experimental results that seem to point to needing to say the wave function is 'actually real'. Some care is needed, though, because terminology can be an issue (what does it mean to be 'real'?)

The wavefunction is the reason why mere thought can influence the probability of an event occurring in the supernatural dimension.

And no, particles DO NOT act differently depending on whether they are observed or not. They act differently depending on whether they *interact* with other things in their environment.

Yes. Media physicists often use the term "observed" to mean interact.

For example, in the classical double slit experiment, the interference pattern disappears when the electrons going through the slits interact with photons that give 'which slit' information. If the wavelength of the photons is too large to give such information, the interference pattern returns. No conscious observer is required to collect the information showing the 'quantum strangeness': only photon or electron detectors.

And, to *detect* anything requires *interaction*, which changes behavior.

I take issue with your dismissal of consciousness as having a role. Many real physicists would beg to differ. You are defensive of your materialism aren't you?

 

[Ostronomos]

Again, not quite. The pre-collapse wave function need not have 'infinite possibility'. In fact, quite often it has only one or two possibilities. Once a 'permanent' record of a state is made (by an interaction), there are two *equivalent* ways to look at things: one has the wave function continuing after being modified by the interaction.

YES!

Thank you!

 

[Polymath257]

Your science only applies to the waking world.

Even though the size of Plank's constant is so small that it makes Quantum effects negligible for a massive object, the Quantum world still applies. It can be maintained when materialism is in question.

Remember, reality only appears to be space, time and object. This triality is a meager imitation of ultimate reality.

You are correct that it takes minimal interaction with an external environment to maintain. Hence dreams.

Dreams are just effects in the brain. Don't mistake their delusions with reality.

It is far more fundamental than the space, time and object that we see around us in the waking world.

A nice claim. prove it?

The wavefunction is the reason why mere thought can influence the probability of an event occurring in the supernatural dimension.

What supernatural dimension. I see none mentioned in the wave function. I do see space and time mentioned.

Mere thought does NOT affect the probabilities from the wave function. If you disagree, provide an experiment showing they do.

Yes. Media physicists often use the term "observed" to mean interact.

And interaction does not required consciousness.

I take issue with your dismissal of consciousness as having a role. Many real physicists would beg to differ. You are defensive of your materialism aren't you?

Not at all. Which *modern* physicists differ? Remember, we have learned quite a lot since the time of Bohr and Einstein. Your thinking about a quantum event doesn't change any probabilities.

Again, if you think it does, provide an experiment showing this. It should be easy to do.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In order for wave function to work - and for psi to have value - the phase element must exist outside the physical universe. Even if only as an abstract concept.

The same holds true for for addition in the sentence "One apple plus one apple equals two apples." Mathematics is largely concerned with, and rooted in, the abstract conceptions and their patterns and structures. Classical physics is no less dependent upon would-be Platonic ideals than is the wavefunction of QM as you describe it above.

Quantum theorists such as Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrodinger all wrestled with the concept of quantum factors which can only exist beyond time and space

They didn't. They were all very, very well acquainted with mathematical models, descriptions, and similar abstractions from classical physics that also "exist beyond time and space" in this manner.

psi in Schrodinger’s equation effectively inhabits a realm outside time and space, something known to physicists as Hilbert space - an abstract space of unlimited dimensions attributed to David Hilbert.

Hilbert space is a space. So is the phase space of classical mechanics, the Fock space of QFT, the pseud-Riemannian space of (most of) general relativity, the various differentiable manifolds of the Lie algebras underlying the symmetries and invariants that are "responsible" for conservations in both classical and quantumm fields, etc. Even the Euclidean space of Newtonian mechanics exists beyond time and space, as time is a parameter in most of physics and spaces are generalized abstractions in all physics.
Also, the importance of Hilbert spaces (which can, in axiomatic approaches to quantum theory such as algebraic QFT, be derived aspects of the theory rather than fundamental or even necessary) are less important than separability and the requirement for complex numbers when calculating probabilities.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I suggest nobody can seriously think a QM system behaves differently when the experimenter goes off to get a cup of coffee.

"The questions with which Einstein attacked the quantum theory do have answers [does the moon exist only when it is looked at]; but they are not the answers Einstein expected them to have. We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 397-408.
In point of fact quantum theorists like Mermin are perhaps in the majority here. Many adopt the approach that the wavefunction is Ψ-epistemic, and therefore it makes no sense to talk about its behavior independently of an observer of sorts (and indeed the contextualists, who oppose this notion vehemently in many respects would tend to agree here). Fuchs, Mermin, and the other QBists assert that that their position is realist yet maintain that QM is inherently subjective and it is nonsensical to think otherwise. The ontological interpretations in which the behavior of quantum systems is independent of what the observer is doing are actually in the minority. The question isn't so much that quantum systems are defined in terms of observation or that their properties make sense only with respect to the observer (and in a manner fundamentally different from that in special or general relativity), but how.

What would be supposed to happen if the experiment is "observed" by the laboratory cat? Or a passing wasp?

Put a little differently:
"It would seem that the theory is exclusively concerned about 'results of measurement', and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of 'measurer'? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system... with a PhD?"
Bell, J. (1990). Against ‘measurement’. Physics world, 3(8), 33.
Bell had basically the same troubles with the standard approaches to understanding QM as you express. Yet the actual answer is "we don't know." Not everyone is anywhere near as extreme as Stapp's approach to observation (which builds upon and extends that of Wigner, among other founders) nor as extreme as Wheeler's participatory universe in which the past literally can be understood as not existing until information about it is observed. But the fundamental role that measurement and observers play in QM remains, despite decades of attempts to solve the problem.

The "observer" in QM is no more than the "observer" in relativity. An entity, in a particular frame of reference or informational environment, that interacts with the phenomenon in question.

In relativity, one simply uses the appropriate transformations. In QM, perfect knowledge of a system corresponds formally to a kind of statistical distribution of properties that are typically mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (which is the big problem modal interpretations have- they need to explain how properties that are described mathematically but never observed and which can be more or less "probable" and therefore more prevalent, important, or some similar kind of description are somehow made so such that e.g., the deadness of the cat can be smaller or largle depending upon the the probability density associated with the relevant amplitudes).
The difference played by observers is fundamental. In one, it is a matter of reference frames and units. In the other, it is fundamental properties of the system.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Isn’t this what is meant by the ‘collapse’ of wave function? The collapse is from a position of infinite possibility into a defined state?

No. The possiblity isn't necessarily infinite, nor is this all that relevant but rather is a confusion of language. Any continuous probability distribution over arbitrarily small intervals (or generalized volumes) is uncountably infinite in terms of the possible outcomes that can be realized vs. those that are. Also, preparing a quantum system in a definite state can assure that the result of measurement results in a known, deterministic state. Finally, one can "collapse" the "wavefunction" of quantum systems that describe only e.g., two possible outcomes. Quantum computing relies heavily, for example, on finite states and finitely-valued functionals (as does quantum information theory).

 

[RestlessSoul]

The same holds true for for addition in the sentence "One apple plus one apple equals two apples." Mathematics is largely concerned with, and rooted in, the abstract conceptions and their patterns and structures. Classical physics is no less dependent upon would-be Platonic ideals than is the wavefunction of QM as you describe it above.


They didn't. They were all very, very well acquainted with mathematical models, descriptions, and similar abstractions from classical physics that also "exist beyond time and space" in this manner.


Hilbert space is a space. So is the phase space of classical mechanics, the Fock space of QFT, the pseud-Riemannian space of (most of) general relativity, the various differentiable manifolds of the Lie algebras underlying the symmetries and invariants that are "responsible" for conservations in both classical and quantumm fields, etc. Even the Euclidean space of Newtonian mechanics exists beyond time and space, as time is a parameter in most of physics and spaces are generalized abstractions in all physics.
Also, the importance of Hilbert spaces (which can, in axiomatic approaches to quantum theory such as algebraic QFT, be derived aspects of the theory rather than fundamental or even necessary) are less important than separability and the requirement for complex numbers when calculating probabilities.

So can we say than an infinitely complex, perfectly precise, and often breathtakingly beautiful network of patterns, which exist beyond time and space, effectively underpins every function of the natural world?

And that this multi dimensional network of seemingly consistent laws and patterns is both real and illusory? (Real because measurable. Illusory because abstract)

 

[Polymath257]

So can we say than an infinitely complex, perfectly precise, and often breathtakingly beautiful network of patterns, which exist beyond time and space, effectively underpins every function of the natural world?

You seem to be stuck on the 'beyond space and time'. No, the patterns are *within* space and time. They exist in the behavior of things within the universe in space and time.

And that this multi dimensional network of seemingly consistent laws and patterns is both real and illusory? (Real because measurable. Illusory because abstract)

I would simply say it is real. The abstraction is how we describe it to ourselves. And language is necessarily abstract.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You seem to be stuck on the 'beyond space and time'. No, the patterns are *within* space and time. They exist in the behavior of things within the universe in space and time.



I would simply say it is real. The abstraction is how we describe it to ourselves. And language is necessarily abstract.

Not sure if I'm stuck on 'beyond time and space'. Enchanted by the poetic beauty of the concept, is how I'd prefer to put it. It might be a red herring or a dead end, of course. I'm inclined to think not. Taoists have been pursuing it for centuries.

We have to be prepared to step - metaphorically, if you like - beyond the natural world, and we have to construct idealisations that do not conform to it's laws, in order to understand it. Idealisations like Hilbert Space, for example.

Yes, language itself is an abstraction, of course. It seems that all the functions of the conscious mind are abstractions. Isn't the harmonisation of the abstract with the material, a goal of science and philosophy, and theology? That, and knowing the mind of God?

 

[exchemist]

Not sure if I'm stuck on 'beyond time and space'. Enchanted by the poetic beauty of the concept, is how I'd prefer to put it. It might be a red herring or a dead end, of course. I'm inclined to think not. Taoists have been pursuing it for centuries.

We have to be prepared to step - metaphorically, if you like - beyond the natural world, and we have to construct idealisations that do not conform to it's laws, in order to understand it. Idealisations like Hilbert Space, for example.

Yes, language itself is an abstraction, of course. It seems that all the functions of the conscious mind are abstractions. Isn't the harmonisation of the abstract with the material, a goal of science and philosophy, and theology? That, and knowing the mind of God?

We "step beyond the natural world" whenever we employ abstract concepts of any kind, whether they be mathematical or something else. This ability to work with abstract concepts is fundamental to human intelligence.
If we could not deal in abstractions, I agree we would not be able to understand the world nearly so well.

 

[Polymath257]

Not sure if I'm stuck on 'beyond time and space'. Enchanted by the poetic beauty of the concept, is how I'd prefer to put it. It might be a red herring or a dead end, of course. I'm inclined to think not. Taoists have been pursuing it for centuries.

We have to be prepared to step - metaphorically, if you like - beyond the natural world, and we have to construct idealisations that do not conform to it's laws, in order to understand it. Idealisations like Hilbert Space, for example.

I don't see the idealization of a Hilbert space to be much more than the idealization of saying there are two gallons of water in a vessel. Both are language devices we use to model the world around us to better understand it. I really don't see that as 'going beyond the natural world'. Instead, it is *using language to model the natural world*. In this situation, mathematics is the language used.

The reason math is so good as a language for building models is that it can be made precise, which leads to testable (falsifiable) models. If the math predicts something will have a value of 3 and the observed value is 4, then we know the model is wrong.

Yes, language itself is an abstraction, of course. It seems that all the functions of the conscious mind are abstractions. Isn't the harmonisation of the abstract with the material, a goal of science and philosophy, and theology? That, and knowing the mind of God?

I don't see it as a 'harmonization of the abstract and the material'. The goal is to get testable models to help us understand the natural world.

There are many, many aspects of the abstract world of mathematics that have NOTHING to do with any models of the real world. There is no goal to *force* those abstractions to correspond to something real. Just like we can make up the concept of a dragon or a unicorn and NOT expect them to be real, we can make up abstract concepts and not expect them to correspond to anything real.

BUT, even though language does not HAVE to correspond with reality, it can be used to understand reality. So *some* abstractions are useful for understanding, but not all.

The question then becomes whether the abstraction of a supernatural or the abstraction of a deity are useful for understanding anything. Because they don't lead to *testable* models, I would say that they are not.

 

[Ostronomos]

Dreams are just effects in the brain. Don't mistake their delusions with reality.



A nice claim. prove it?


What supernatural dimension. I see none mentioned in the wave function. I do see space and time mentioned.

Mere thought does NOT affect the probabilities from the wave function. If you disagree, provide an experiment showing they do.



And interaction does not required consciousness.



Not at all. Which *modern* physicists differ? Remember, we have learned quite a lot since the time of Bohr and Einstein. Your thinking about a quantum event doesn't change any probabilities.

Again, if you think it does, provide an experiment showing this. It should be easy to do.

The question you should be asking is what is perception? It is not matter, however it is not separated from reality. Otherwise a photon could not enter the eye.

This leads us to ask what is matter if not non-matter(as distinguished from it)?

Everything is subjective.