I remember learning that Einstein refered to the movement of electrons as "a spooky action at a distance". 4.06 on the youtube. What was observed, was not fully understood and not predicted or logical. But very interesting.
Kate xx
Interesting video on quantum mechanics
by willmarite 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
willmarite
I'm not sure bohm. I haven't made up my mind. David Bohm and coauthor Basil Hiley write in their book "The Undivided Universe" "
"Throughout this book it has been our position that the quantum theory itself can be understood without bringing in consciousness and that as far as research in physics is concerned, at least in the present general period, this is probably the best approach. However, the intuition that consciousness and quantum theory are in some sense related seems to be a good one."
Bruce Rosenblum writes in his book Quantum Enigma "Does consciousness collapse wavefunctions? That question, raised at the beginning of quantum theory, cannot be answered. It can’t even be well posed. Consciousness itself is a mystery."
I guess we'll have to wait for more information to come in and keep our minds open.
-
KateWild
I have also mentioned Shrodinger's wave equation and cat experiment on the board before. The video at the end wasn't really woo woo. They are being dogmatic, but the opinion that it is probable that God exists I agree with.
Kate xx
-
cofty
Is everybody bored with the immense amount of wonderful things that we can know already?
There is nothing wrong with speculation but let's be sensible. The video in the OP is unadulterated woo.
-
bohm
Willmarite:
Like I said, there is absolutely no need to introduce consciousness in quantum theory. Outside a small fringe community the collapse of wave functions is believed to be caused by the act of measurement by measurement devices, not when someone later look at the output or has the oppertunity to look at the output.
Sure you can say that view might be true. I can also say the backside of the moon change to cheese when nobody is looking -- there is no way to test it.
Here is the problem and what I want to ask you: If there are two interpretations of QM, one that involve consciousness to understand wave function collapse (held by a small fringe) and one that does not (held by the wast majority of scientists for the past 50 years), and both are experimentally equally well-supported, how do you support and argument such as the one in the video which build on the premise the first interpretation mustbe correct and (dishonestly) support this assertion by quoting scientists who believe no such thing and experiments which support the other, physical, interpretation equally well?
This is not about QM, its about basic logic and honesty.
To flesh out the fallacy:
- Interpretation A or B of quantum mechanics might be correct.
- By construction, we cannot tell A from B experimentally. The vast majority of scientists support interpretation A because it is the simpler.
- If interpretation B is correct, this support an argument for God*.
- Therefore God exist and materialism is false.
What am I missing?
* actually not, as I pointed out there are problems with the argument aside the above fallacy.
-
prologos
thinking about it is not measurement, ?
-
bohm
prologos: No, measurement is a physical process in QM. For instance carried out by a photon detector.
The video rest on the premise (which I repeat is only held by a small fringe of scientists) that what happens when the photon detector interact with the system is determined either when "someone"* look at the photon detector, or because someone has an oppertunity to later look at the photon detector or something similar.
*question: what happens if that someone is a dog, monkey or a senile person with a reduced consciousness?
-
willmarite
Bohm, so you would like everyone to just adopt any theory that the majority of the current scientific establishment has? Hell, why even think for oneself? I guess I'll just accept as 100% truth whatever the government establishment says about anything as well.
No thanks. I won't confine myself to any mental boxes. As I said I haven't made up my mind.
-
John_Mann
If (1) conscious observation collapses the wave function, and (2) God sees everything, and (3) we have wave functions everywhere.
So there is no God.
-
bohm
Will: Bohm, so you would like everyone to just adopt any theory that the majority of the current scientific establishment has?
You are just giving an emotional response without addressing anything in my comment. Which theory are you talking about?
I discuss two interpretation of QM. The video pretend there is only one and, dishonestly, use quotes and experiments performed by scientists who accept the other theory to support that piece of misinformation.
I debunked the argument on technical grounds; you refuse to address my points or change your mind, yet you accuse me of not thinking for myself?
At least I am doing my own thinking, not just accepting views presented in a video which I cannot defend!