How did the discoveries of quantum mechanics change the philosophical conception of metaphysics and ontology?
>>954275
It made metaphilosophy completely irrelevant but philosophers aren't good enough at math to truly comprehend how badly QM bent our fundamental understanding of reality on its head so they persist in their meaningless mind exercises.
>>954275
They didn't from a Nietzschean perspective.
>>954322
Some philosophy is still useful - but only as an adjunct to scientific inquiry. Most useful philosophy of the last few centuries was either inspired by science or dealt with science.
Meanwhile, the most useless and vacuous philosophy (a la French "critical theory" and postmodernism) is a disgrace at a level that is found nowhere in science.
>>954322
What?
>>954322
QM only explains how, nothing else.
>>954329
What's useless about critical theory?
>inb4 cultural marxism
>>954329
Areas like moral philosophy are still relevant since science can only serve as a guide in those areas since they're subjective subjects.
But watching philosophers like William lane Craig (including the secular ones - I'm just familiar with some of his arguments) attempt to incorporate modern theories of space and time into philosophical arguments when they know 0 math and have read about this shit in plain English is utterly laughable.
You can't understand physics at all until you learn a LOT about math. Once you understand the math you usually realize your view of the theory prior to that was essentially caveman tier and completely useless.
>>954341
The problem with modern official theoretical natural science is that it did not separate itself from philosophy but integrated itself through Einsteinian mathematical idealism back to the weakest trend of natural philosophy – the mathematical idealism of Pythagoras and Plato.
Quantum phenomena were the iceberg on which the Titanic of causality based natural science had a shipwreck. Einstein wanted to rescue the old treasures and notions of certainty, continuity, universality, eternity etc. of rationalism and theology by steering the sinking ship to the calmer waters of mathematical idealism and to a concept of the reality of the world based on “continuous field” as the new ontological truth and by taking over the helm from the dying master captain - God This way he tried to bypass the iceberg of quantum uncertainty.
the task of rescuing the shipwrecked natural science must fall on philosophy. Because there is good reason to doubt that by turning reality into a “continuous field”, the damaged ship can go around the quantum iceberg. This doubt was expressed by none other than Einstein himself in a letter to his friend Besso
> I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics”
-A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”
>>954336
>QM only explains how, nothing else.
Right but when you understand it you see how silly certain lines of philosophic argument are.
How many metaphilosophic arguments have you seen about causality? Then you learn QM and realize 'electroweak symmetry breaking is necessarily acasual and it HAS to be that way' and it immediately invalidates whole lines of argument.
>>954356
Metaphysics is really a turtles all the way down discussion. People are still gonna ask shit like why it's random and what made it random etc etc.
Hell maybe it's not even probablistic, maybe the many worlds theory ends up being true.
>>954355
But the fundamental nature of reality is so fucked up the ONLY tool with which you can explore it (outside experiment) is hardcore mathematics. You can gain nothing by thinking at it.
Einstein was completely left in the dust the last 2 decades of his life because he refused to accept that reality wasn't how he wanted it to be.
>>954341
>tfw you finally grasp that metaphysics is nothing but a path to morality
>tfw you realize that the essence of the human being involves within itself a set of moral and metaethical principles and that these are the only things Reason can argue about with any meaning
>tfw you realize that moral science, political science, and natural science are not separate from each other and that philosophy is the activity which advances understanding of the ontoethical principles
>>954367
>People are still gonna ask shit like why it's random and what made it random etc etc.
>Hell maybe it's not even probablistic, maybe the many worlds theory ends up being true.
Right. But our only reliable tool is to craft more theory and test it. A lot of the "open questions" have really been answered at some level. It's probabilistic because the fundamental nature of the objects that are interacting with each other requires that it be that way. If an electron didn't behave probablisitically it wouldn't be an electron.
And the many world theory will probably prove true in my mind, simply because it can be. It's not a fundamental answer to anything, it's just not disallowed and so alternate realities exist.
>>954329
>critical theory is french
>>954322
>>954275
It might explain another layer of matter, but we still don't know exactly what it is or why it's here.
>inb4 muh string/M theory
Unsubstantiated bullshit. There's no such thing as a deductive proof of a natural phenomenon. Come back to me when you have some empirical proof.
>inb4 muh gravity wave
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that every guess will turn out to be right.
>>954369
And what an imperfect tool it is.
>Incommensurableism
>Irrational numbers
>IMAGINARY numbers
Math just keeps making up bullshit to make itself work and somehow keeps getting things close, but it's never actually exact. Pi has an infinite number of digits, so you can't know the EXACT dimensions of a circular figure. That's a failure.
>>954441
You forgot the boson particle.
>>954379
>tfw you realize that science is philosophy's bitchy 15-yo daughter
>>954453
So the Standard Model is right, but it still doesn't prove string theory. Nobody has perceived a string or a "membrane". They're just speculation.
>>954356
>How many metaphilosophic arguments have you seen about causality? Then you learn QM and realize 'electroweak symmetry breaking is necessarily acasual and it HAS to be that way' and it immediately invalidates whole lines of argument.
Electroweak symmetry breaking doesn't stop a billiard ball from moving when I push it, and it doesn't stop planes from crashing, or car accidents from happening in causal chains.
Trying to inflate the microlevel to the macrolevel is retarded, because for all intents and purposes causality functions the way it should be on our level of existence.
The question you should be asking, is how non-causal and statistical systems based on probability can become causal at a large enough scale.
>>954275
> How did the discoveries of quantum mechanics change the philosophical conception of metaphysics and ontology?
As far as I know, next to nothing. There's only two instances where I've heard anyone mentioning quantum mechanics.
One is regarding free will. The idea is that free will can't exist in a deterministic universe, and that QM shows us that the universe isn't deterministic. So some people say that since QM show us non-deterministic things exist then human can be non-deterministic.
However there's two problem with this, the first is that the idea that humans due to our composition or w/e wouldn't have to be deterministic is a very old idea so QM doesn't really bring much to it, and the other one is that even if QM show us quantum particles being non-deterministic, it seems as if bigger things are deterministic and as such QM becomes irrelevant.
The other one has to do with nothingness, why there's something instead of nothing. Some have argued that something can pop out of nothing due to quantum fluctuation, that "nothingness is inherently unstable". However this is nonsense since it isn't "nothingness" in the philosophical sense if it has properties such as being unstable.
>>954336
Then it already explains more than philosophy ever did.
>>954341
>moral philosophy
I don't need a self-proclaimed master of wisdom (*tips le silly hat*) to tell me what to feel or think. "Ethics" is a matter of subjective preferences and a random nigger on the street is just as qualified to hold opinons as a philosophy PhD.
>>954503
Pajeet pls
>>954491
Non-determinism isn't free will either.
If matter is simply rolling the dice where it's position is going to be next, it's not like your choice plays into that, anymore than it does if it's completely determined prior.
>>954451
>>954510
> Non-determinism isn't free will either.
True. The idea is more that since not everything is deterministic, then humans don't have to be it. The debate weather non-determinism really means there's free will isn't affected haven't been affected by QM at all as far as I know.
Why is this a thread? Quantum mechanics, like all science, has nothing to do with philosophy and does not supersede it or make it obsolete as a result, but its discovery was aligned with the latest evolutions in philosophy aka with Nietzsche anyway.
Science will also never attribute value to anything aside from truth, which is Enlightenment tier philosophy, which is to say an outdated (but still useful for certain practical matters) form of philosophy.
>>954508
Few moral philosophers would deny that. The main value of ethics is to escape degenerate thought patterns about morality which block your motivation to genuinely act compassionately.
>>954508
>"Ethics" is a matter of subjective preferences and a random nigger on the street is just as qualified to hold opinons as a philosophy PhD
Everything is a value judgment, not just ethics. Only someone who is philosophically wise enough (which means they have thoroughly studied philosophy, a field focused on the nature of the mind and existence which spans thousands of years) can understand this.
>>954451
the only failure here is your comprehension of math. Numbesr (as Pi for example) aren't even math, thats applied maths.
>>954275
Any philosopher worth his salt stays away from quantum mechanics. It's only philosophy undergrads that try to make broad claims about existence about a field they know nothing about.
And no, when a physicist says observer he doesn't mean a conscious observer with a soul that is connected by metaphysical strings to the dualistic luminous aether which contains his mind.
>>954560
Holding opinions and having preferences does not require any philosophy. I don't need to read Kant in order to decide whether I'll eat chicken or fish today.
>>954567
"Observer" in quantum mechanics always means a conscious human being.
>>954576
No, it doesn't.
>>954580
It does though. Are you one of those pop sci kids who think they understand QM after watching a youtube video?
>>954592
I have a bacherlor's degree in physics.
>>954568
>I don't need to read Kant in order to decide whether I'll eat chicken or fish today.
Yeah, it's not needed for everything. I don't need it to know this is a terrible troll attempt for example.
>>954598
And I have a PhD. That means I have more authority than you.
>>954592
Explain Schrodinger's Cat to me and what the purpose of the thought experiment is.
>>954604
>Oh no, the anon I disagree with has a piece of paper! I better lie and say I have a better piece of paper!
Who are you trying to fool, anon? Everybody else or yourself?
>>954606
Why don't you read Schrödinger's original paper "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik" and figure it out on your own? The part where he talks about the cat is merely one page.
>>954616
>oh no, this anon's better piece of paper makes me envious
>better deny it and accuse him of lying
>>954617
Clever.
>STEMfags are so autistic about science being the special snowflake among intellectual fields they continuously make science vs. philosophy threads on /his/, /lit/, /sci/ etc.
>>954634
>implying OP is a stemfag
If he were he wouldn't be making philosophy out as relevant within physics.
>>954635
Nah, the monkey image is a dead giveaway.
>>954658
>implying you aren't the OP
>implying you aren't on a crusade to discredit stemfags
>>954328
This. If anything the OP question is assbackward. That a whole active thread stemmed from this is shameful. Stop.
>The Declaration of Independence of the man of science, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the more subtle after-effects of the democratic form and formlessness of life: the self-glorification and presumption of the scholar now stands everywhere in full bloom and in its finest springtime—which does not mean to say that in this case self-praise smells sweet. "Away with all masters!"—that is what the plebeian instinct desires here too; and now that science has most successfully resisted theology, whose "hand maid" it was for too long, it is now, with great high spirits and a plentiful lack of understanding, taking it upon itself to lay down laws for philosophy and for once to play the "master"—what am I saying? to play the philosopher itself. My memory—the memory of a man of science, if I may say so!—is full of arrogant naivetés I have heard about philosophy and philosophers from young scientists and old physicians (not to speak of the most cultured and conceited of all scholars, the philologists and schoolmen, who are both by profession—). Now it was the specialist and jobbing workman who instinctively opposed synthetic undertakings and capacities in general; now the industrious laborer who had got a scent of the otium [leisure] and noble luxury in the philosopher's physical economy and felt wronged and diminished by it. Now it was that color blindness of the utility man who sees in philosophy nothing but a series of refuted systems and a wasteful expenditure which "benefits" nobody.
Many philosophers were elites in other disciplines, including natural sciences. Often the synthesis and comprehensiveness philosophizing required allowed thorough critiques of the science of their days.
>>954275
It didn't, which is why philosophy has drifted towards irrelevance.
>>954336
Meanwhile philosophy explains....?
>>954466
>Trying to inflate the microlevel to the macrolevel is retarded, because for all intents and purposes causality functions the way it should be on our level of existence.
Wrong, reality is probabilistic even at macro scales.
>The question you should be asking, is how non-causal and statistical systems based on probability can become causal at a large enough scale.
You don't understand how many particles you're dealing with. Each one is probabilistic, but when you average out countless zillions of them, you get what appears to us to be a single "average" state.
>>954491
>One is regarding free will. The idea is that free will can't exist in a deterministic universe, and that QM shows us that the universe isn't deterministic. So some people say that since QM show us non-deterministic things exist then human can be non-deterministic.
People do say this but they're wrong. QM is strictly deterministic.
And free will is another area where philosophy lags behind science. All that ink spilt over the topic, and neuroscience comes along and reveals the whole notion of free will to be an illusion.
>>954670
/thread
>>954723
>People still don't understand that these antithetical positions don't disprove each other
What the fuck, man, Kant lived over 200 years ago
>>954567
>Any philosopher worth his salt stays away from quantum mechanics.
They shouldn't, because QM gives us information about how reality actually is, which you would think would be of interest to philosophers.
>>954576
You're an idiot.
>>954718
>reality is probabilistic even at macro scales.
[citation needed]
>You don't understand how many particles you're dealing with. Each one is probabilistic, but when you average out countless zillions of them, you get what appears to us to be a single "average" state.
Right, so for all intents and purposes it is this single "average" state for us, and whatever happens on the micro-level is irrelevant.
>>954621
There is no possibility that someone who has finished even highschool physics would thin "observer" means "person". This is a level of ignorance only found in the completely uneducated.
>>954728
Kant knew nothing at all about neuroscience, why would I care what he thought on the topic?
>>954737
>[citation needed]
This is not a secret, try reading a basic science book.
http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/quantum-mechanics-on-the-macroscale/
>Right, so for all intents and purposes it is this single "average" state for us, and whatever happens on the micro-level is irrelevant.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>954466
>The question you should be asking, is how non-causal and statistical systems based on probability can become causal at a large enough scale.
It's called quantum decoherence and it's exquisitely complicated math but yes, we understand that.
>>954729
Reality as understood through mathematics. The closest thing to philosophy that has been been discussed in modern physics is whether or not information can be lost, and it wasn't philosophers doing the discussing. You need a lifetime of experience in physics to discuss that shit with any authority.
>>954737
>Right, so for all intents and purposes it is this single "average" state for us, and whatever happens on the micro-level is irrelevant.
No. Fuck no.
>>954739
>b-but the Dr. Quantum video explained it perfectly clearly to me.
>>954757
>Reality as understood through mathematics.
Wrong, mathematics used to model reality as it is observed.
>The closest thing to philosophy that has been been discussed in modern physics is whether or not information can be lost, and it wasn't philosophers doing the discussing.
That's the point, it's NEVER the philosophers who ask these questions. They're too toad fatuous about their certainties to admit to the kind of radical scepticism necessary to tackle these topics.
>>954762
Then you should try watching your little video again because somehow you failed to understand it.
>>954576
>"Observer" in quantum mechanics always means a conscious human being.
It literally never means a conscious human being you turbo retard.
Spend 6-8 years learning math and get a book on quantum decoherence.
>>954765
>Wrong, mathematics used to model reality as it is observed.
Uh, yes? Why did you think I was disagreeing with that?
>That's the point, it's NEVER the philosophers who ask these questions. They're too toad fatuous about their certainties to admit to the kind of radical scepticism necessary to tackle these topics.
If it isn't people with backgrounds in physics doing the discussing then I wouldn't clall it philosophy. I'd call it physics, since it is physicists with physics degrees discussing physics.
The problem with philosophy is that it is retardedly broad, as it used to be the only degree and is why we call the most pretigous pieces of paper in any field PhDs. Sure, you can call physics philosophy, same as you can call virtually anything philosophy. The point is that in modern times fields are so specialized that it is silly to call such things so entrenched in a specific field philosophy without at the very least a footnote elaborating on what you mean by it.
>>954768
It's a bad video, anon. I don't recommend anyone watch it. That or shut the video off before the last minute.
>>954787
If you knew it was a bad video why did you base your understanding of the observer effect on it?
>>954784
>Sure, you can call physics philosophy, same as you can call virtually anything philosophy. The point is that in modern times fields are so specialized that it is silly to call such things so entrenched in a specific field philosophy without at the very least a footnote elaborating on what you mean by it.
A huge point of contention in the thread is that metaphilosophy is basically a worthless pursuit unless you also hold a PhD in physics (there are people with both) yet people persist in the study of metaphilosophy in their own little academic vacuum and it's fucking stupid to be frank. They're incredibly intelligent people wasting all of their talent on a worthless exercise.
>>954784
>>Wrong, mathematics used to model reality as it is observed.
>Uh, yes? Why did you think I was disagreeing with that?
Because you put it the opposite way round? The observations come first, math is used to build models that correspond to the observations, it isn't "reality understood thru maths" at all.
>If it isn't people with backgrounds in physics doing the discussing then I wouldn't clall it philosophy.
Philosophers lack the intelligence to understand the physics, so physicists end up doing their job for them.
>>954791
I didn't. I was mocking any defensive response you might get. It's pretty apparent due to the greentext.
>>954798
Except I've never heard of this video, and you are the one who doesn't understand the observer effect. So either you cited that video because you yourself had gotten your wrong ideas from it, or you cited it because you're a moron. Take your pick.
>>954797
Again, I'd call that physics, not philosophy. At the absolute very least I'd recommend calling it the philosophy of physics, but that isn't something I would do.
>>954800
It used to be quite the joke on /sci/ years back.
>>954801
You mean it isn't something you COULD do. And yet philosophers tell us that they are the ones who tackle the deep questions about reality, even while physicists rip up the conventional understandings all of their philosophy is based on.
>>954491
Bigger things aren't deterministic, it's just that thanks to statistical effects it's pretty much impossible to detect quantum non-dererminism. It's an illusion.
>>954846
You said "deterministic" when you should have said "probabilistic". QM is a deterministic theory.
>>954460
String theory isn't even mainstream. I don't know what your point is.
>>954753
What the fuck is that article supposed to prove?
That a billiard ball doesn't move when I push it, and causation doesn't apply?
Face it, causation still functions on the macro-level the way it always has.
If I smash someone in the head with a hammer several times, they are going to die, even though there is a probabilistic chance all the particles in his head can suddenly disappear and reappear somewhere else in the universe.
>>954901
>What the fuck is that article supposed to prove?
That quantum mechanical probabilistic effects exist at all scales of matter, not just the micro.
>>954918
>That quantum mechanical probabilistic effects exist at all scales of matter, not just the micro.
Yes, but I never said they didn't exist, I said for us, as a species, living our day to day existence, it is irrelevant.
>>954935
Ok. Fine. You got me.
Now explain how this influences causation in the everyday life of a human being.
>>954723
>QM is strictly deterministic.
The collapse of the wavefunction isn't.
>>954739
John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner, two of the most important founding fathers of quantum mechanics, disagree with your stupid pop sci dribble. Get rekt, you moronic child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation
>QM isn't strictly deterministic because there is a cosmic random number generator involved
>this often used as justification for free will existing because the inverse is determinism
This rustles my jimmies. The two uses of "determinism" aren't even related.
I just wanted to get that off my chest.
As a philosophy major, I can confidently say that I have absolutely no idea. I prefer to stick to areas of ethics, moral and political philosophy, as well as more down-to-earth scientific questions. I I wouldn't go so far as to say that philosophy has no place in the discussion of quantum mechanics - obviously any fundamental alteration in how we understand the universe will have profound philosophical implications. However, I think it's fair to say that most philosophers are not really qualified to discuss these implications.
>>954275
It opened up more questions and even less answers, honestly. Physicists stick to the formalism of quantum mechanics and use it as a predictive tool, nothing else. What the theory says about nature and what the meaning of the signs used in the math is are open ontological/metaphysical questions.
>>955223
>What the theory says about nature and what the meaning of the signs used in the math is are open ontological/metaphysical questions.
But anyone with only a philosophy background has 0 insight in how to interpret them. They literally have no knowledge of anything relevant to guide them.
>>955001
If philosophers aren't qualified then no one is. The implications we're talking about here are philosophical. Discussion of them is a philosophical discussion, and being very good at analyzing this discussion and providing a solid perspective on it would make you a philosopher.
>>955471
>If philosophers aren't qualified then no one is.
How about quantum physicists?
>>955516
Read the rest of the post.
>>955383
That's not true. There is a healthy literature on the philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics by a number of philosophers of physics. Just because you haven't bothered to look into it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
I'd be fairly interested in hearing someone who actually understands quantum mechanics try to talk about the philosophical implications of it, because all that I've heard on that subject is deepak chopro using spooky language and talking about "universal quantum consciousness infinity".
>>955516
Why would a physicist be qualified to talk about philosophy.
Some basic logic should tell you "philosophy of quantum physics" requires you be an expert in BOTH disciplines in order to comment on it.
>>955717
Nobody understands quantum mechanics. Even the guys at CERN don't know yet how it works.
>>955980
this. It doesn't make sense to talk about philosophical implications per say so much as it does to discuss philosophical problems with the theory. The first step is to work out what the theory actually means and then derive conclusions from that.
>>955558
>That's not true. There is a healthy literature on the philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics by a number of philosophers of physics. Just because you haven't bothered to look into it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
>Reading english to understand math
>Reading english to understand math
>Reading english to understand math
>Reading english to understand math
>Reading english to understand math
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>955749
Philosophy means little else than "the study of". "The study of" quantum mechanics is best done by quantum physicists. Making complete bullshit up about quantum physics based on a nearly complete lack of education on the issue is done by undergrad philosophy majors.
The people who discuss the finer points of qualitative quantum mechanics like whether or not information is lost in black holes are physicists, not philosophers.
Also if you think "observer" in quantum mechanics means a "conscious human observer" then you've been hoodwinked.
>>954275
We created Quantum computers. Which will make technology even more advanced raising, questions like is there a limit for technology? If so how long till we reach it?
Technological singularity
>>956509
I know you're baiting, but the philosophy doesn't involve much math, and when it does it's usually explained quite lucidly.
>science tells us what
>this somehow solves all human inquiry
Why not just make this thread in /sci/, you are already too invested in this to listen to any other arguments.
>>954466
>functions the way it should
And this is exactly where philosophy fails, because you have some notion that the universe should be understandable.
I'm going to have a field day once the first macroscale entanglement experiment works out.
>>954491
>Bigger things are deterministic
>Humans are made of very small things
>Like neurons
Honestly, could you stop with this "big things small things" nonsense, all objects are comprised of "small things", in a uniform system you can easily sum away all the "small effects" to get the macroscopic details of the system. Humans are not uniform in the slightest.
>>954491
"nothingness is inherently unstable"
It's clear you've read quite a bit of pop science, so I'm just going to quickly point out that it's not that "nothingness is unstable", it's just that reality admits solution to QFT that allow the spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles on certain timescales. It's not a property of "nothingness", it's a property of any section of space, occupied or not in the universe.
As a result, the philosophical definition of "nothingness" doesnt exist within this universe.
>>954576
>Confirmed for not knowing the fuck is going on
Observer is just a measurement; for example
I have systems A, B, C and D. A and B are in a superposition and C performs a measurement on them resolving either A or B. However D will observe C as being entangled with the state of A and B, when D performs a measurement on C it will then agree with C's outcome of A or B.
Let's perform a quick experiment using the above.
I have a biological physicist sitting on one side of the planet with a fibre optic cable reaching around the planet to the experiment. A computer takes a measurement of a quantum state and reports it back to the physicist. I have a second physicist sitting on the moon, and the first physicist sends his report to the second.
Until that result reaches the second physicist, the first physicist, despite being a biological entity is entangled with the result of the experiment (or more accurately a few of their neuron's states are)
So no, being "biological" does not grant you any magic powers or any position above non biological objects.
>>956803
Unnecessarily introducing entanglement in your post doesn't change the fact that the collapse of the wave function has to be caused by a conscious being.
>>956826
>Unnecessarily introducing entanglement
You quite clearly do not understand quantum at all.
>the collapse of the wave function has to be caused by a conscious being.
There is no notion of consciousness in quantum, just the notion of measurement, there is no reason that "conscious" beings are at all required to collapse a wavefunction when it can occur naturally from decoherence. Stop trying to make humans out to be somehow special, they're not, they're just a bag of atoms.
In particular, let us assert that collapsing the waveform only occurs when a "biological being" measures the state. I prepare a quantum state 0.994|a> + 0.1|b> and take a measurement at some point in time t, then I reprepare the state and repeat the experiment for different t.
I quickly discover that the longer I leave the experiment, the less coherent my superposition is, so clearly somehow I'm losing coherence without a conscious being measuring it. If I leave it long enough my waveform collapses before I can get around to making that measurement.
In short, you're a human centric moron who needs to stop thinking of consciousness as some non-physical magic box.
>>956880
>You quite clearly do not understand quantum at all.
I understand it better than you. Entanglement is irrelevant to the topic of discussion.
>There is no notion of consciousness in quantum, just the notion of measurement,
Except the measurment has to be conducted by a conscious observer.
>when it can occur naturally from decoherence
Decoherence =/= collapse
Why are you even commenting if you don't understand the basic concepts of QM?
>>956891
>Decoherence =/= collapse
because we now know that collapse doesn't EVER occur and that decoherence IS what happens.
>>956652
I'm not baiting at all. I have a physics degree and pretty much every time I learn something from a text book in English my understanding is revolutionized when I learn the math.
>>956919
>collapse doesn't EVER occur
>>956891
>Entanglement is irrelevant to the topic of discussion.
Observation is measurement, measurement entangles you with the state you're observing. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>Except the measurment has to be conducted by a conscious observer.
Literally no reason for this, again there is absolutely no notion of consciousness under quantum mechanics, you keep dodging that point. Show me where in the equations for the measurement of a state do I need to be "conscious". You keep spouting this, when there is literally no definition in all of physics for consciousness, let alone one with the magic property "the only thing that collapses waveforms".
>Decoherence =/= collapse
No, decoherence is not collapse, but it's the leakage of information that allows a measurement to collapse the state, if only "consciousness" was able to collapse a state then leakage would only occur to "consciousness", unfortunately it doesnt, decoherence occurs due to literally anything in the vicinity.
Let me pose another experiment on the lines of the last one now that we have the notion of decoherence down. I think we can all accept that decoherence is a time dependent function. So firstly I perform the above experiment varying the time between measurement and preparation, however this time I also repeat the experiment with the physicist doing the observation performing their observations at different times (so 1 second after the experiment finishes, several days after the experiment finishes) etc. If the wavefunction of the experiment has not collapsed then the measurement equipment must somehow also contain this wavefunction and must be subject to decoherence. So we expect that for a fixed time between preparation and measurement and varying the time between the measurement and the experimentalist performing an observation of the equipment the more decohered the experiment. Except this isn't the case, the waveform has collapsed and you're incorrect.
>>956930
>collapse doesn't EVER occur
because the reality of decoherence is much more nuanced. Total collapse doesn't fucking occur.
>>956990
>Total collapse doesn't fucking occur.
Scientists discover what Christians already knew for 2000 years.
>>957015
Either you know what you're talking about and we just disagree on our interpretation of certain aspects of QM or you're a troll.
>>956970
>measurement entangles you with the state you're observing
And it collapses the wave function.
>Show me where in the equations for the measurement of a state do I need to be "conscious".
Collapse of the wave function is interestingly never encoded in the equations. It's an additional axiom that says after measurement you end up in an eigenspace.
>if only "consciousness" was able to collapse a state then leakage would only occur to "consciousness"
Did you repeatedly fal the logic section of the IQ test? I already told you that decoherence is not the same as collapse. Collapse requires consciousness, decoherence doesn't.
>Let me pose another experiment on the lines
Your experiment is conceptually flawed because in both cases a conscious observer is involved.
>>957040
(You do realise that there are three of us here?)
>>957052
Well yeah, I interjected myself into the middle of another argument.
There's at least one other physicsfag too... are there 3 physicsfags here?
>>957071
I'm a mathfag. That means I'm intellectually superior.
>>957051
>And it collapses the wave function.
It collapses the wavefunction from your frame of reference, to another observer it entangles you with the measurement outcomes
>Collapse of the wave function is interestingly never encoded in the equations. It's an additional axiom that says after measurement you end up in an eigenspace.
Take another look at the equation for the state of a system following a measurement
>Collapse requires consciousness, decoherence doesn't.
I think you need to double check your definitions for decoherence. Decoherence does not collapse the state by itself, I stated as much above. Measurement of the information leaking from a decohering state collapses the state.
>Your experiment is conceptually flawed because in both cases a conscious observer is involved.
Ok, so you lack a proper refutation. Let me try rephrasing it:
Exp1: Observe decoherence by varying t_1 then measuring using lab equipment, your "conscious" experiment performs their measurements a fixed t_2 after the lab equipment. We expect to show that with a fixed t_2 we observe decoherence of the state with t_1 indicating that the wavefunction has not collapsed over period t_1. This does not distinguish between whether the wavefunction has collapsed at t_1 or t_2.
Exp2: Fix t_1 and vary t_2, if the wavefunction did not collapse at t_1 then the decoherence we observe should be greater than the fixed decoherence for the same t_1 from exp1, if the wavefunction did collapse at t_1, then we should observe no more decoherence than the first experiment at t_1.
Given every experiment in quantum forever, the notion that only consciousness collapses waveforms is quite clearly bunk.
>>957071
Wait, I injected myself as well, so there have been at least 4 physfags in this thread.
>>957081
Why the fuck is a mathsfag trying to interpret quantum, go back to your cohomologies.
>>957081
All that really matters it that we're both infinitely superior to philosofags
>>957028
The christian genesis story actually meshes up pretty well on a metaphorical level with how science is discovering the universe was actually formed. Obviously the "days" shouldn't be taken as literal, but a lot of the other stuff works.
>>957126
>
>
>
>>957146
A very well thought out and presented rebuttal.
>>957113
>It collapses the wavefunction from your frame of reference, to another observer it entangles you with the measurement outcomes
"The measurement outcomes" are what we are talking about here.
>Take another look at the equation for the state of a system following a measurement
Why? That's irrelevant.
>Measurement of the information leaking from a decohering state collapses the state.
Nope, that's not a collapse of the state.
>Ok, so you lack a proper refutation
I told you why your experiment is flawed and does not prove anything about the role of conscsiousness.
>Given every experiment in quantum forever, the notion that only consciousness collapses waveforms is quite clearly bunk.
Empty claim and factually wrong. There are very simple experiments which would confirm the importance of consciousness as the cause of collapse, but unfortunately those experiments are considered "politically incorrect".
>>957175
>There are very simple experiments which would confirm the importance of consciousness as the cause of collapse, but unfortunately those experiments are considered "politically incorrect".
Oh man, are you that guy from before who was talking about reverse causality and how if you think about it too hard your mind explodes so mainstream science was suppressing the results? Glad to see you're still trucking.
>>957172
>A very well thought out and presented rebuttal.
I mean, where do you want me to start? A genesis story is presented in the bible twice in a row.... they contradict eachother... the word for sky is literally the same word as metal... the whole thing is retarded.
Probably you should be the one to prevent evidence when you make a claim like that.
>>957200
present evidence*
>>957198
Nah, wasn't me. I must have missed that thread.
>>957175
>You end up in an eigenstate of the property measured after measurement
>Look at the equation for the state of a system after measurement
>"That's irrelevant"
Didnt you just claim that the eigenstate solutions are not a part of quantum but an external axiom? Go lookup the equations, it's part of quantum.
>Nope, that's not a collapse of the state.
Ok, you're officially not actually reading what's being said.
Let's take two photons and interact them with a state in a superposition such that the state decoheres some small amount. The state of the photons is now entangled with the original superposition state. I now measure one of those photons and collapse the superposition.
Decoherence does not collapse a state, I've said this multiple times now. Measuring decoherence does.
>I told you why your experiment is flawed and does not prove anything about the role of conscsiousness.
No, you asserted that any experiment that contains a conscious observer cannot be correct, given all experiments must contain a conscious observe you provided a blanket statement by which you assert that no experiment can refute your original permise. This is scientifically bullshit.
You have failed to actually tackle the experiment. We both agree that only states in superposition are influenced by decoherence as a time dependant function. From here it can be determined when a state stopped being in a superposition, i.e. when the wavefunction collapsed. If I require a conscious being to collapse the wavefunction then the conscious being should observe decoherence related to f(t_1 + t_2), if I do not require a conscious being then I only observe f(t_1).
>Empty claim and factually wrong. There are very simple experiments which would confirm the importance of consciousness as the cause of collapse, but unfortunately those experiments are considered "politically incorrect"
State your experiment design, I call absolute and utter bullshit.
>>957218
>There are very simple experiments which would confirm the importance of consciousness as the cause of collapse, but unfortunately those experiments are considered "politically incorrect"
No.
>>957200
Fair enough about the two stories thing. I was referring to the first one. It's not some grand theory that will end the science/religion debate. It's just like... my opinion man.
I was mainly referring to the order in which things happen in the story.
>“Let there be light,”... and he separated the light from the darkness.
Big bang, stars/space created
>“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it...God called the vault “sky.”
Earth created
And just the general order in which the creatures were created: fish, then birds (dinosaurs), then land mammals, then humans.
Again, this is an incredibly loose interpretation, but if you look at it from the point of view of some bewildered early man being shown visions of shit he can't possibly understand, and trying to describe them the best he can, it sort of makes sense.
>>957218
>Didnt you just claim that the eigenstate solutions are not a part of quantum but an external axiom?
The process of randomly obtaining an eigenstate, i.e. the collapse of the wavefunction, is not encoded in an equation.
>Measuring decoherence does.
not necessarily
>you asserted that any experiment that contains a conscious observer cannot be correct
Are you illiterate? I only told you that you cannot refute the importance of consciousness in measurement by applying this very consciousness in every experiment. Also your experiment relies on the error of mistaking decoherence for collapse.
>State your experiment design
Use a known non-conscious being as observer and let it report the outcome of a measurement. Since animals however cannot talk, we'd first have to accept the fact that women don't have consciousness. This goes against the modern fascist dogma of "political correctness" and would thus be rejected by any university.
>>956919
Okay, what does that have to do with what I said? Literature on the philosophy of physics (particularly quantum mechanics), at least from what I've read, have been pretty clear when it comes to the mathematics involved. The philosophical interpretation of the math is what's important.
> Honestly, could you stop with this "big things small things" nonsense
I don't know if you're pretending to be retarded or not since I never claimed that bigger things aren't made out of smaller things.
> It's clear you've read a lot of pop science
The term "nothingness is inherently unstable" is famously pushed by Lawrence Krauss, followed by STEMshitters reading him. Now while I would agree that he due to being a mere professor in physics with a Ph.D from MiT isn't qualified to discuss philosophy, it doesn't change the fact that he have a grounded foundation in physics.
Did some philosopher undergrad steal your gf or something?
>>956565
>Philosophy means little else than "the study of". "The study of" quantum mechanics is best done by quantum physicists. Making complete bullshit up about quantum physics based on a nearly complete lack of education on the issue is done by undergrad philosophy majors.
Holy shit, you are a fucking retard.
We are not talking about the mere study of quantum mechanics here. We are talking about its PHILOSOPHICAL implications. Its implications on philosophy; a philosophy is like someone's personal value system and interpretation of reality. Philosophy reaches into the territory of ethics, how we should live, what is valuable to us, what these things mean to us, what the nature of these things even are and how they relate to us.
This is beyond the scope of merely talking about quantum mechanics itself. Once you begin discussing the existential value of a thing, you enter the philosophical discussion of a thing. It is no longer a scientific discussion. And people who are exceptionally good at pushing this discussion forward and solidifying a perspective on the discussion would be known as philosophers.
>>954356
Has to be is not is. QM is still largely a theory, a rather well established one and the fundamentals are still being tested and reworked.
The problem of QM is how do you interpret the data from the machine and the mathematical theories. Our perception don't match what the data tells us. This is fundamentally a philosophical question.
