|
Author
|
Topic: The Copenhagen Interpretation
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 11. November 2004 21:45
QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY IN ID
Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.' This is sometimes stated a bit differently as the momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and velocity, however, its meaning doesn't change: the action of measuring one quality of a particle, be it its velocity, its mass, or its position, causes the other qualities to blur into something unknowable. With a casual glance at this concept one might draw the conclusion this is due to lack of technology in precise particle measurement, but this is not the case. The blurring of these properties is a fundamental property of nature.
The uncertainty principle mathematically described this relationship between the measurable properties of a particle and as Heisenberg's work began to be diffused throughout the scientific community, many scientists were left scratching their heads. Some seemed to feel that maybe the entire field of quantum mechanics had somehow "missed the point." Albert Einstein was one of those and being Einstein, he was not shy about routinely pointing out his opinions; "God does not play dice with the universe." He once stated to Niels Bohr. Bohr shot back, "Don't tell God what to do." Bohr meant by this that the universe we live in abides by quantum laws and inherent uncertainty, whether Einstein liked it or not!
Werner Heisenberg began collaborating with Niels Bohr on this strange, new concept in Copenhagen, Denmark around 1927 and came up with other underlying theories, one of which was termed the Copenhagen Interpretation named after Bohr's place of birth. Bohr and Heisenberg took the uncertainty principle and extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wave-function, proposed earlier by Max Born. The Copenhagen Interpretation was their attempt to answer some perplexing questions which arose as a result of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics and how the role of an observer in that process seemed to change what could, and could not be accurately measured considering particles and the waves they produce. Heisenberg had written in his original paper: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Interesting. But was it true?[insertion mine]
English scientist Thomas Young in the 1800s had attempted to resolve the question of whether light was really particles (the "corpuscular" theory), or was comprised of 'waves traveling through some ether,' much as sound waves travel in air. Interference patterns that were observed in the original experiment questioned the corpuscular theory and the wave theory of light dominated well into the early 20th century, when evidence began to emerge which seemed instead to support the particle theory of light.
Young's famous double-slit experiment became a classic gedanken experiment (thought experiment) for its efficiency in articulating some of the many conundrums of quantum mechanics. But is was not until the 20th century that the double slit experiment was performed on individual particles and once it was, particle physicists began to catch a glimpse into a strange quantum world where particles themselves seem to interact with information and Heisenberg's observer hypothesis came to the surface.
Could it be true that particles may know when we are and when we are not, looking at them? Can particles exhibit the intelligence to know that we're going to look at them before the event actually occurs? In other words can particles look into the future and prophesy what will happen before it does? No, the old man has not finally gone off the deep-end as my 16-year-old sometimes asserts, there are documented experiments conducted by prestigious universities that actually imply this.
Energy and matter are so closely related that many times we can view energy either as a wave or a particle and in fact it is both. Some examples are light waves which can be viewed as either waves of light or flowing photons and electricity can be measured by the frequency of the wave or by flowing electrons. Feynman pointed out, one of the strangest things about quantum-mechanical description of an object is its duality: quantum objects are neither particles nor waves. They are neither, yet they are both? Kind of, and if you think you hear the weirdness siren sounding right now, you are correct but this is cool enough to put up with for a bit.
The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits in a box producing patterns on a monitor, plate or a piece of film. When the light hits the film, it leaves a spot, so we can actually see where distinct photons hit the back of the box. One can view the image and see the basic concept .
Our light source is going to be a gun that shoots light through the opening of the box. If we turn the light gun on high, where it is shooting a great deal of light at once, and shine it toward the opening, we will see an interference pattern on the monitor, patterns of light and dark showing where light waves interfere with each other to the point that certain parts of the waves (where crests meets crests) work to enhance both waves and where other parts of the waves (where crests meets troughs) serve to cancel one another out..
Let's turn our light-gun down to the point we are only shooting one photon at a time with each pull of the trigger. I'm going to cover one of the two slits with opaque tape that photons cannot penetrate and shoot a burst of photons into the opening. We will discover the film will record a clump of individual particles in a pattern much like bullets would make when shooting a bull's eye target and it will record them behind the open slit as we would expect. If we remove the tape from that slit and place it over the other one, the same thing happens. This pattern would be fully expected, since we are shooting individual particles, not waves of light.
Let's try it a different way. I will shoot one photon at a time into the box when both slits are open and the results are quite astounding. Now the photons begin to build up the interference pattern identical to the scenario that was recorded when we imported massive photons, as in a bright light. If I cover one slit and shoot again, this interference pattern disappears. What is happening here? The same photon seems to be going through both slits at the same time. This is confusing me because I don't understand how a single photon can interfere with itself, or for that matter, how an individual particle can go through two holes at the same time.
Next I place a detector at each slit to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the film so I can understand what is happening. But when the experiment is arranged in this way, the interference pattern disappears -- for reasons still not well understood, when the photon is not being observed, it acts as a wave but when detectors are placed at each slit to observe the photon, the wave function collapses and it acts only as a single particle! Thus, how the particle behaves seems to depend on whether that particle is being observed or not. How do particles know when they are, or are not being observed?
Theoretical physicist John Wheeler of Princeton took the double slit experiment a step further. His version is called the 'delayed choice experiment.' In the above experiment, the physicist's choice whether to observe the particle or not seems to cause the photon to choose between acting like a wave or a particle. What would happen, Wheeler mused, if the researcher could devise a system where the photon was observed only after it had passed the two slits but before it hit the monitor at the back of the box?
If one uses common sense to reason Wheeler's question through (if there is such a thing as common sense in quantum mechanics), it would seem that if the physicist doesn't observe the particle before it goes through the slits, the particle will not know it is being observed and will act like a wave, go through both the slits at once and cause the interference.
Nope. According to independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich the photon acts like a single particle and goes through only one slit as if it had known that it was going to be observed at some point in the future. Of course, once the detector is removed from the system, the particle then 'decides' to go through both slits again, interferes with itself, and the monitor shows the interference pattern.
These experiments pose many questions about the quantum aspect of our universe. How could 'dumb' particles know that observers will be watching them in the future? Or better yet, do the observers actually alter the behavior of the particles in the past by observing them in the present? As it must be to some readers, this is quite maddening to scientists who have had enough trouble understanding the quantum world without having to deal with mysterious, intelligent and even prophesying particles.
With the passage of time the Copenhagen Interpretation has been more specifically refined with this concept known as the collapse of the wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation draws distinction between the observer and what is observed; when there is no observer in a system, the system seems to evolve deterministically according to wave equations, but when an observer is present, the wave-function in the system "collapses" to the observed state. Of course, just as ID makes no attempt to discern a designer, the Copenhagen Interpretation states the observer has special status in that a system must be observed in order to exist as individual particles but it cannot explain or identify the observer itself, nor does it attempt to.
John Gribbons writes: "They say, according to the standard interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), that nothing is real unless you look at it, that an electron (say) exists only as a wave of probability, called a wave function, which collapses into reality when it is measured, and promptly dissolves into unreality when you stop looking at it."
Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed. It seems that for our universe to exist as it does at all, the universe must be observed by a supreme, conscious observer. Of course, waves also exist in our universe but if this is truly a conscious observer, then it requires little imagination to understand this observer could choose to observe, or not to observe a particular system in order to achieve a desired result. But who/what might this observer be?
Enter chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, world renowned cosmologist and avid atheist, Frank Tipler. Actually, I must clarify that although Tipler was once a confessed atheist, through his research in physics he has shown mathematical evidence for this supreme observer to exist and today seems very much the ardent IDist. Tipler shows this supreme observer to be quantum mechanics acting within the universe. He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Tipler constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate Omega Point which he implies to be a god of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past. Tipler's advanced math and physics is well beyond the scope of this paper, however, I would encourage the interested reader to research this further as it is quite fascinating.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the more temporal humans learn about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person to accept and fully embrace intelligent design recognizing that the designer could have been something other than an entity of the human realm, yet not any single deity that must be identified. The point becomes moot.
FURTHER READING:
Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
Q is for quantum : an encyclopedia of particle physics. John Gribbin ; edited by Mary Gribbin ; illustrations by Jonathan Gribbin ; timelines by Benjamin Gribbin. New York, NY : Free Press, c1998. Call Number: QC793.2 .G747 1998.
Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, M.I.T. Press, 1965.
John Gribbin, In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat, Bantam New Age Books, 1984.
Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality, (1994: ISBN 0-385-46798-2)
IP: Logged
|
|
Vinícius O. Botelho
Member
Member # 1303
|
posted 14. November 2004 12:27
The experiences are indeed astounding but there are some points that should be discussed.
What is to observe: to have the intention of observing (an assertion that requires the conscience of the observer)or to observe in fact? What is the effect this observation has in the particle that makes it change its behavior; or does it has the conscience necessary to understand what is to be observed? Although this idea of having the "supreme conscience" legitimates the experience, it leaves much more gaps than answers, I think. It is not because we do not know yet how to explain a phenomenon that we should embrace the theories that explain it partially. To me, the ID thesis is consistent and I believe in some parts of it, but the explanation given is very precipitous. Again, it is necessary that the observation creates an effect on the particle or that the particle has conscience, but if it does, where is it? Furthermore, if it comes from a conscience, how can we be certain that all particles define "being observed" the same way? However, if the particle has no conscience, paranormality is in some sort proved true. Furthermore, this being that observes everything is not material, right? How can the particle, being material, feel the consequences of something not material? This discussion is very old, a metaphysical one, if my memory does not betray me, Plato was the first to arise the question, and we never got an answer at least satisfactory. We are saying things that we do not know even if are consistent or making assertions that lead to questions not able to be answered. Let us try to avoid this sort of conclusions first because they are precipitous; second because they bring insoluble trouble.
Second, I think this part has more to do with this forum, what is life? Quoting Nicola Abbagnano in his "Dictionary of Philosophy", "Life is the characteristic of certain phenomena of self-producing or self-conducting, or the totality of these phenomena. This definition is here given only forasmuch as it is the one with most part of philosophers and scientists agree".
Therefore, the change of information is a hypernym of life. Furthermore, inasmuch as information can be of three different kinds: empirical (S), non-empirical and dogmatic (D), non-empirical and non-dogmatic (R), i=S+D+R. Therefore, to exist life it must occur the change of information. Known such, we are killing this "supreme conscience" by making his or her work, are not we? We are removing their work by observing these particles daily. In addition, if there is a future absolutely accessible to any sort of existence, than life has never existed, because everything was always the same... there is no creativity and so the word "possible" equals to "probable" that equals to "necessary". We are not free, so this discussion is useless, insomuch as it leads to an epistemologic system impossible not for reality but for us to understand.
Have these scientists tried to make this experience in other ways, with other materials to see if there is a flaw in the method or something similar? It is very important to be sure that this situation is not particular, but general, because up to now we must assume that, in this case, this "supreme conscience" is collaborating with our studies, because if not, he may observe the particles while we are not and then the whole experiment is over. Has someone asked if this may have any connection with the binary system (0 = wave; 1 = particle)?
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 15. November 2004 00:50
Hi Jerry!
I'm pleased to mention that Frank Tipler is a Fellow of ISCID! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I very much appreciated your essay.
I thought I'd mention that Copenhagen is only one of several interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. However, most of those interpretations would still result in an ID inference.
I just thought I'd mention it in case any one suggested the Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong. It would still not negate the ID inference.
Recently, there has been the emergence of Transactional Interpretation (one I like). But the Transactional Interpretation will be ID friendly in the end, imho. So no problem.
Great to see you!
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
Vinícius O. Botelho
Member
Member # 1303
|
posted 15. November 2004 19:48
I would like to make some points clear.
I am not neither impressed nor discussing the fact that some interpretations of QM validate the ID; I am discussing just the problems of the Copenhagen's one (which is very peculiar). Ascertaining that exists a supreme conscience that controls the duality wave-particle is very problematic.
However, I have not said it is "wrong", just that the assertion that this duality is controlled by an "observer" (see that the word "observer" is not the most recommendable, forasmuch as this "observer" is much more an "actor" than an "observer") is precipitous. It may even be true, in spite of the problems this consideration has, but it is early to make so astounding affirmations. If the observation changes the behavior of the systems, then all the experiences are false, saw that, for instance, it will become impossible to know if the things fall only when we are looking to them or not. Therefore, the nature of Physics, the observation, is flawed. Thus, even this experience is the result of a great mistake: we do not know anything. If there is a supreme conscience that manipulates the universe, there is no law, no knowledge. Hence, all these discussions and science itself become useless. This is the range of this assertion; hence, it is good to find other ways of explaining the phenomenon, right? Specially before saying "it requires a conscious observer".
The Copenhagen Interpretation gives a very mystical answer to a physical phenomenon (I am not saying ID is mystical, but this interpretation is overestimating ID's range, and becomes very doubtful due to this). If people are still discussing Guernica, how can we cede to the temptation of saying ID is the structural explanation of a physical phenomena? To say that "it requires a conscious observer", as asserted, is to say that the existence of such observer is necessary. ID used as a conjectural explanation, ok, but structural? This is very astonishing and so caution is required before taking any conclusion, specially before making such impressive assertions. Before creating a new gnoseological, linguistic, and scientific system able to accept this idea, and it must be substantially different of ours, this remains precipitation. For instance, it needs to answer the following questions:
1.What is the effect the observation cause in the phenomenon? Are these effects a result of the conscience of observing or of the observation itself?
2.How is it possible to develop knowledge if the universe is controlled by an intelligent entity that can change the aspect of everything simply by "closing his eyes"?
3.What is to observe?
4.What effects does the observation bring to a system? How do these effects "navigate"? Can them be repeated in the vacuous? Do they require an "ether"?
5.Do the particles have conscience of what an existence is to say if they are being observed by conscious or unconscious systems? Do they look everywhere at the same time? What is the range of their vision, sense, or whatever? In other words, if I observe a photon (the example is not valid, I know, but is just to illustrate the idea) using a telescope 300.000km far from it, will it know that I am observing it?
6.How do this metaphysical world that necessarily exists interact with the physical?
7.What does explain the conscience of these particles?
8.What is the criterion used by this "supreme conscience" to look or not to a particle?
9.How do the observation go through the metaphysical world up to the physical?
And also to consider absolutely dogmatically true that:
1.This observer is collaborating with our studies.
2.There is a metaphysical world we are not able to understand.
The QM is a very complex part of Physicas. Undoubtedly. Ergo, it is too soon to make such statements as if they were universally valid or incontrovertible. The words like "requires" should be at least avoided. Furthermore, this explanations leave much more gaps (and problematic gaps) than answers. Why to consider such ideas absolutely valid by now? I am not saying that the ID thesis is wholly flawed, just justifying the reason for having criticized this precipitation. My discussion is about this peculiar post, not about the others that validate the ID. As I said, I like the design, but this post was really overestimating what it should treat with more care.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 15. November 2004 22:42
SAL:
Great to hear from you--you are the guy that initially got me thinking in this vein.
Vinicius
The double slit experiment was first accomplished in the 1800s, so yes, it has been repeated many times with similar results. What we know is that an observer seems required to collapse the wave-function. The emphasis in that latter sentence should be placed on the word 'seems.'
Have we proven this to be true? No, we've only shown that Heisenberg's initial assertion: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it," seems a plausible posit supported by experimentation. We now have a theory rather than an observation in accordance with the scientific method. I will be the first to admit that science never proves anything. It probes, pushes and prods, but it doesn't prove. Thus, I'm simply stating that the Copenhagen Interpretation is supported by empirical evidence and considering this with Tipler's work, one can conclude that the possible existence of a supreme observer is not a metaphysical musing, but an observation based on science which will stand until refuted or is replaced by a better theory to explain the phenomenon.
I would certainly agree that we should continue to look for ways to falsify this theory and for better theories to describe the phenomenon, but until we accomplish either, this would seem to be what we have. And, as is much of ID, the Copenhagen Interpretation is not "ID" or even exclusive to ID, it is science available to all who desire to employ it for understanding.
There are many questions still not answered by this relatively new science (particle physics) and you certainly pose some valid ones. My answer to them would be that science does not toss the baby out with the bathwater. We take the knowledge we have and run with it hoping to answer tomorrow those questions unanswerable today.
The more we learn about our universe, the more evidence we uncover to support the notion that many of us have had for years: Matter, energy and information are all tied firmly together and may even be different manifestations of the same thing and a metaphysical dimension may be in there somewhere as well.
But understanding that the Copenhagen Interpretation has its place in science, I see this concept as quite useful to those of us who study the science of ID in two ways. First, it pulls ID firmly out of the realm of theology in that it opens up a possibility that the designer may have been something other than human or deity.
If one is to accept the notion that Tipler's "god" of quantum mechanics is within the realm of possibility, then one can incorporate the Omega Point into their own personal belief system. This concept can be viewed as Christ, Allah, Khrishna, Jehovah or some Pagan god of the moon. Atheists and agnostics can view this as nothing more than quantum mechanics in action and ID becomes a one-size-fits-all epistemology acceptable to all who are willing to embrace it.
Second, ID then has a proposed mechanism for the formation of life exclusive of deities and *poofs* of organisms into existence. In fact, ID can utilize the same concepts that molecular design engineers use to describe molecular evolution: the microscopics define the macroscopics. Molecular design engineers begin with chemical elements, go to quantum mechanics and end up with a macroscopic product. Why cannot ID:
And with this, my dear Vinicius, we have proposed abiogenesis for intelligent design. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 16. November 2004, 03:49: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 16. November 2004 11:57
Jerry,
Well written essay, thanks for getting something started. QT still seems to be viewed as a square peg in a round science hole. As T. Kuhn implies as a general statement, a new paradigm may need to come forth that changes the overall context before we can have an understandable view regarding the actual phenomena described by quantum calculations. Can it be suggested that Informational Realism, a concept first defined by K. Sayre in 1976, is a big start in this direction? Seeing information as an ontological attribute equal to matter/energy - makes it a little less shocking when reality tells us particles are not fully deterministic as to their energy state but must also accommodate the causal principles dictated by information structures. These ordered constructions are described by science as: thermodynamics, formal logic relating to causality and communication theory.
We can look to a more constrained and hence a more reductive worldview, when tracking in tandem both the material/energetic transformations that define an event, as well as the informational transformations, creating greater specificity about past and future interaction. This is how Watson and Crick did it. They had a physical model of DNA going, based on the chemical bond distances. They also reasoned that it had to split off a copy, which would fulfill the information transfer properties it was believed to have. The clue from the information transfer requirement gave the idea they needed to shortcut the pains-taking work of the physical model. By using both domains where processes occur they got their correct model quicker than L. Pauling.
Let’s do the same. Can quantum events be defined better if you take material causality as one domain and the information transfer as another? Both sets of transforms MUST be fulfilled in unison, within the constraints dictated by appropriate scientific principles. This would seem to be true in any actual circumstance. Reality, thus constrained to meet two masters, can be perceived in greater depth.
The uncertainty principle should be a natural outcome of the relationship of information, a particular space/time event and a future open to multiple probability vectors. In other words, could it be that any single particle cannot be fully measured because the information must stay open to future potentiality? That when we divide something for study to smaller and smaller components, we don’t get closer to specificity, we get closer to its infinite potential for interaction.
An observer theoretically “collapsing a wave” is not a pragmatic fact like intelligent agents being able to create information structures, which increase order in a process flow. The internal environment of particles and their associated energetic states cannot be causally closed to the influence exerted by observation with intent, which integrates elements into an ordered structure. An intelligent agent can make changes to the information of a particle not only by changing its physical location or affecting its energy state directly. Through augmenting its relationship with other elements, such as an application of measuring equipment, the effect of changed information caused by being included in a higher level of order of a system, appears as a changed physical array of the diffusion pattern. If we didn’t see a result such as the double slit experiment displays, how could a case be made that supports the fact that mental work creates order, which does make a difference in the physical output of systems. The current paradigm sees that order as “abstract” or ghost-like, rather than as caused by an actual structuring of information. Considering the effect of information structures creating higher-level states of order as real - brings this “mystery” back down to a logical naturalistic result.
[ 16. November 2004, 15:22: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 16. November 2004 13:33
I just did a historical term paper for my professor of Quantum Mechanics, Cosmologist James Trefil at George Mason University.
In the process, I found this expanation of the University of Maryland experiment Jerry mentions. It's part of a sermon! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) But really, it has some of the best diagrams of the experiment I've ever seen.
Diagrams of the University of Maryland Prophesying Particle Experiment
ISCID fellow Frank Tipler is a graduate of MIT and University of Maryland.
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
Vinícius O. Botelho
Member
Member # 1303
|
posted 16. November 2004 20:37
Jerry, I thank you for your attention in posting a reply to me and agree with your weighting. However, for me, the Transactional Interpretation mentioned by Salvador is more epistemologically viable. Anyway, most part of my opinion about the interpretation is already expressed: although it is impossible to fully embrace the interpretation it is also its negation, but there are some points presented that I would like to comment.
Jerry:
quote:
Matter, energy and information are all tied firmly together and may even be different manifestations of the same thing and a metaphysical dimension may be in there somewhere as well.
Of course, our method of standardization may require a sort of isomorphic theory for the explanation of reality that would ask for the creation of a metaphysical system. In addition, in this system, it would not be necessary to ask how do the metaphysics interact with the physical, forasmuch as the metaphysics would only be a tool for the development of our knowledge.
quote:
There are many questions still not answered by this relatively new science (particle physics) and you certainly pose some valid ones. My answer to them would be that science does not toss the baby out with the bathwater. We take the knowledge we have and run with it hoping to answer tomorrow those questions unanswerable today.
I agree with the assertions, but some of my questions (as the second) require an epistemological revolution to be answered. What I tried sometimes to express is that this revolution will cause changes in everything we already know and illegitimate some phenomena that are considered sufficiently explained.
My focus is not on the explanation of this particular interpretation, but on the remaining of the whole acquaintanceship we have, insomuch as the main problem of this interpretation is the questions it raises in the most deep structure of epistemology, negating the most universal principles of knowledge, as the presented in my second question, because it is impossible to develop knowledge when we are subordinated to an intelligent entity in the way this interpretation suggests; the question was almost rhetoric.
At the same time, it is indubitable that anything can be proved, but the scientific evidence may be turned to a scientific proof. It is not an absolute truth, just a scientifical theory, this was the meaning I gave to the word "prove".
Stephen:
quote:
A new paradigm may need to come forth that changes the overall context before we can have an understandable view regarding the actual phenomena described by quantum calculations
And then the necessity of the metaphysics that I cited above comes true.
Now, I would like to present a logical possibility for the phenomenon (an epiphany that came up to my mind now, while thinking about this subject). First, the light is both a particle and a wave (it would be a paradox if I were not going to consider something as true only if it is true that this something is true and false that this something is false); therefore, it can be both. For some reason (a physical preference of some sort), the light in this experiment is first a wave, but it has no unbreakable reason to be so. Thus, when we put a "photon detector" in the system, it raises the question "are you a photon?" by looking for its characteristics. The answer given by the wave is "Yes", by demonstrating them. Then, the wave comes up into a particle and both parts come together again making the photon, insomuch as there was only energy to make one photon. I know the solution ignores the physical meaning of the phenomenon, but it provides a possible aswer without the necessity neither of giving a conscience to the particles nor of making the observation a "reagent" of the phenomenon's equation.
In this case it is not the observation that makes the wave turn to a particle, but the question, the act of looking for a photon that makes the melt of the waves into a particle.
It is a brief epiphany (well, a longer one does not exist anyway) and I did not have sufficient time to discuss it with myself or to try to subject it to the rest of my knowledge now, I know that I am probably going to prove myself this idea is absolutely flawed in the next 15 minutes, anyway, this probability may be wrong and I would like to post this here.
And before I forget, Salvador, thank you for the diagrams, I also liked them.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 16. November 2004 23:10
Thank you all for the kind comments. ISCID is a nice place to discuss these issues.
I want to re-assure Jerry the thesis of Omega is compatible with other interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The "Observer" exists both in Transactional and Copenhagen.
Let me clarify something. Quantum Mechanics is based on this formalism:
(courtesy ISCID fellow Walter Bradley) in The Generally Accepted Fundamental Laws of Science and Math
there are various interpretations of this formalism of which Copenhagen and Trascational are but a few.
However, the existence of the All-Powerful, All-Knowing Omega is a reasonable deduction from the above equation, independent of interpretation.
Note the Psi in the above equation. Recasting the Psi for the entire cosmos, Barrow and Tipler formulated the Universal Wave Function:
Simply stated, some observer is needed to "collapse" this function to actualize the universe, just as the delayed choice experiments collapse the wave function of the photons. There is essentially no reality without an observer somewhere in the pipeline. For the Cosmos to exists, there must be some Ultimate Observer to bring it into existence through his observation. That is a very straightforward deduction from the equations. The fact that it has religious and metaphysical implications is what I believed had hindered it's acceptance.
I quote ISCID fellow Frank Tipler, Physics of Immortality:
quote:
It is quite rare in this day and age to come across a book proclaiming the unification of science and religion. It is unique to find a book asserting, as I shall in the body of this book, that theology is a branch of physics, that physicists can infer by calculation the existence of God and the likelihood of the resurrection of the dead to eternal life in exactly the same way as physicists calculate the properties of the electron. One naturally wonders if I am serious.
I am quite serious. But I am as surprised as the reader. When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straight-forward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.
The implication of Omega's existence is straight forward from the Shrodinger Eqaution. Every physical system to be actualized needs an observer. The cosmos is a physical system. It's that simple.
From Peer Review Process
quote:
More than this, quantum mechanics is actually teleological, though physicists don’t use this loaded word (we call it “unitarity” instead of “teleology”). That is, quantum mechanics says that it is completely correct to say that the universe’s evolution is determined not by how it started in the Big Bang, but by the final state of the universe. Every stage of universal history, including every stage of biological and human history, is determined by the ultimate goal of the universe. And if I am correct that the universal final state is indeed God, then every stage of universal history, in particular every mutation that has ever occurred, or ever will occur in any living being, is determined by the action of God.
We have an intriguing quote -- Tipler writes of Nobel Laureate Weinberg:
quote:
I have now known Weinberg for over thirty years, and I know that he has always taken the equations of physics very seriously indeed. He and I are both convinced that the equations of physics are the best guide to reality, especially when the predictions of these equations are contrary to common sense. But as he himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn’t take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics.
[ 16. November 2004, 23:11: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 17. November 2004 12:12
Vinicius wrote in response to a call for a new paradigm regarding structured information as context for QT
quote:
“And then the necessity of the metaphysics that I cited above comes true.”
I would like to keep my points in a pragmatic vein. I am suggesting that what we see as order and organization creates an enhanced “state of field” in terms of information content. Of course, the state of a field as expressed in quantum mechanics has no direct analogue in information theory that I know of. But a holistic property, like order in a system, may be envisioned in this manner, if only in an asymptotic fashion. It would be the presence of this added state of measurable order (in terms of information output) that changes the diffusion pattern. If it didn’t, then order would rightly be labeled an abstraction rather than an empirical property. When it’s not present - the physical pathways of the double slit experiment are in one arrangement, when it is - the physical pathways are in another.
Everyone seems to accept, as a received view, that in an ordered system the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The natural sciences should be able to address this, as IMHO there is no such thing as “magic matter” that produces an overage of useful information or animates matter with a mind of its own. I think we need be careful of reification. Order is a real state of affairs and makes a difference in system output. Order doesn’t come spontaneously from nothing – it leverages pathways that are definable in terms of local systemic processes. Higher outputs of work from an ordered system come from higher level organization, directed into a pattern that takes advantage of potentials in nature that preexist.
Ordered systems like a solar system can occur from random events and fall into an equilibrium that creates stasis. It is clearly understood by current science. Physical energy is spent in realignment of the matter into a new pattern. The new pattern is more complex and leverages physical advantages to become an interconnected unified whole, until entropy degrades it.
However, when ordered systems are created through design, generated by the mental work of an organism and actualized, as well as maintained in specificity - there is another level going on. This mental work creating order is different than random events. But it appears to this writer as perfectly natural.
quote:
“man has the power to establish real patterns in nature, the reality of which is manifested by the fact that their future implications extend indefinitely beyond the experience which they were originally known to control.” – Michael Polanyi – Personal Knowledge, page 37
The question that is fascinating is how is time seemingly trumped by ordered states.
[ 17. November 2004, 13:34: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 17. November 2004 17:29
Stephen:
You do make some interesting points in your posts; I‘ll address a few. I believe the case has already been made that ‘mental work’ creates order when we define this work for what it is: intelligent design in action. And I think that today we are finally putting together that which has remained little more than mystery up until the new millennium. It’s no longer abstract--it’s no longer ghost-like--it’s no longer elusive to us informationalist geeks. That’s why I believe ID will make a dent in science that will cause a few red faces among its detractors some fine day.
I know my old Bud, Rolf Landauer in no stranger to this forum. Landauer found that erasing information involves the expenditure of heat energy basing his work on Maxwell‘s hypothetical demon.
Two compartments filled with gas are separated by a wall. An ornery but cute little "demon" sits by a tiny trapdoor in the wall between the two chambers. Max the demon looks at oncoming gas molecules, and depending on their speeds he opens or closes the trapdoor with a precise object in mind: to eventually collect all the molecules faster than average on one side, and trap the slower ones on the other side.
What Max is doing is concentrating heat energy in one side of a duel chamber system because hotter particles move faster. He ends up with a hot, high energy gas on one side, and a cold[er], low energy gas on the other. He has reduced the entropy in the high energy gas by simply cornering and trapping some of this entropy in a separate chamber of the system. Note that Max is taking a system at equilibrium and moving it away from that state and if he continues this long enough, he might conceivably produce a far from equilibrium system which we know thermodynamically includes living organisms among them. Maxwell’s little demon uses intelligence to concentrate information. He intelligently observes, classifies each molecule and makes a conscious decision to accept or reject that particle.
Landauer showed that when concentrated information of this nature is destroyed, heat is released into the environment at the rate of Boltzmann’s constant, (1.38 x 10^-23 J/K) * T ln2 per bit of erased information. The Physics of Forgetting leads us all the way from loss of information to an increase in thermodynamic entropy.
We are discovering that ALL complex specified information involves intelligence to form; a hypothetical demon, preprogrammed information such as computer programs and/or DNA or an intelligent agent. I believe we just need understand the difference between certain complexities.
Fortunately we have a very specific definition in ID for complexity concerning organisms and credit must go to Mike Gene for conceiving it.
Gene writes: "Imagine we invent a new machine called the 'Expander.' The Expander works as follows: material that is placed inside the Expander is magnified in size, i.e., it expands to becomes many times larger than the original. Now, if we cut off a small piece of the Sun or a small piece from a mountain, and place it in the Expander, we could essentially generate a new sun or mountain. This is because both the Sun and mountains can be viewed as 'aggregates,' where a mass of parts are loosely associated with each other in an unorganized fashion.'"
Here we see D. E. Berlyne’s definition of complexity as in: “a pattern can be considered more complex the larger the number of independently selected elements it contains. As opposed to M. H. Emden’s different theory which you referred to: “complexity is the way in which a whole is different from the composition of its parts.”
Berlyne covers rocks, bags of marbles, grains of sand on the beach and the like, but there is something missing: specificity. An aggregate does not really do anything to aid the function of the rock. In fact, what is the function of a rock? They're just there. And if I remove a few grains of sand from a beach, what does this do to our system, the beach? Nothing at all. So although this is a form of complexity, it has no intelligence in it's construction.
Now let's contrast two different types of complexity. The former I have referred to as aggregate complexity in other writings and we can see it is entirely different from specified complexity.
More Gene:
"But if we were to take a chunk of skin from a mouse and put it in the Expander, we would not generate a new mouse. This is because a mouse is not truly an aggregate, but instead composed of many different parts that are tightly organized......given that expansion/enlargement lend themselves nicely to such process, it is not clear at all that biotic organization follows suit."
Gene makes a clear distinction between the two types of complexity and draws a conclusion that 'middle ear bones,' and 'avian lungs' are quite different than simple aggregation of the same parts. Because these complex parts "form as the result of a genetic program which, in turn, is run by encoded instructions deciphered by nanomachines. Stars and mountains are not built by nanomachines or encoded instructions."
Ahhh...We have intelligence and design back into the scenario again. What could code instructions for a future purpose but focused intelligent design? Answer: nothing. The latter is specified complexity.
Finally, just some nitpicky input on order. Total order is perfect equilibrium which is always maximum entropy.
Jeffrey S. Wicken, author of The Generation of Complexity in Evolution, writes: “‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’”
Thus, a solar system is a far from equilibrium system and stays in existence only as long as it is organized rather than ordered. In colloquial language we use the term ’increased disorder” to describe increasing entropy. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. But as an organism, I am highly organized but disordered and only when I die will I become disorganized but perfectly ordered, at perfect equilibrium with my environment and my internal entropy will be maximized.
Schrodinger noted in his lecture papers entitled What is Life?, “Every process, event, happening—call it what you will: in a word, everything that is going on in Nature means an increase in entropy of the part of the world where it is going on. Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy—or as you might say, produces positive entropy—and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death."
[ 17. November 2004, 18:08: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 17. November 2004 18:00
Vinícius
Thanks for your contributions to this thread.
We may never understand exactly how metaphysics ties in with physical law. Is gravity caused by a space-time warp as Einstein proposed or is it an effect of gravitons as some modern physicists seem to think? We still don’t know and we may never know but I will continue to use it firmly knowing that when I sit my television across the room, it will not float off into the ether. People will continue to study the big bang although it may have never happened. Science will continue to debate whether or not the universe is closed and finite or open, flat and infinite, yet this will always be unknowable
Since you mention your second question again, I might take a stab at it. You asked, “How is it possible to develop knowledge if the universe is controlled by an intelligent entity that can change the aspect of everything simply by "closing his eyes"?”
Well, I don’t have any knowledge that the observer is a ‘he.’ But the observer isn’t really changing everything, is it? The universe is the way it is, and we can study the ‘way it is’ and glean knowledge through those studies. I think all the Copenhagen Interpretation is telling us that if there were no observer, the universe might be different. So, I would think the observer is changing nothing, it’s just responsible for the reality around us. Does that make sense?
Salvador: A most excellent post. It needs no comments from me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Vinícius O. Botelho
Member
Member # 1303
|
posted 18. November 2004 21:38
I had to be one day out, sorry for missing some part of the discussion.
Jerry:
First, I would like to thank you for having started this thread.
You are right, the fact that there are no absolute laws is the only epistemological truth we are able to in fact know. However, we have a structure of knowledge that possibilities us at least describe a self-coherent universe. It is due to this reason that I call so much the "epistemological truths". As asserted by Hume, our scientific acquaintanceship is based on our habits, being therefore inconsistent. However, I have some interesting theories about this "rapid change of the laws of Physics" (Philosophy of Science is one of my areas of preferential work). I think your television will not float off into the ether, but when we say the empiricism is not consistent we are not meaning only this (it is just a note on my post, of course it is not the essential axis, just a curiosity that maybe someone that is reading this post may have not ever thought about). I will use a tangible example: the government can edit the Constitution. Therefore, it can change the laws of a country, altering the lives of its citizens. It is not necessary an abrupt change in the order of a country to change its structure. The same occurs with the laws of Physics. It is not necessary that matter, from now on, start repelling matter immediately for it to change, but in the true structure of reality (which we do not know, even though it is possible that if we knew it we would be able to understand it, because any process can be a pattern even changing another patterns) may something normal happen that cause what I call supervenience of essences, a procedure that disassembles the former structure of any system (in this case we are talking about all material systems) to create others. In other words, there would be a change in the matter's arrangement or whatever that, in a velocity compabible with the process, changes everything. It is nothing something necessarily abnormal or eccentric, but maybe a characteristic of reality we have never experienced. Furthermore, when I aver such things I am talking not only about our reality, but to all possible and imaginable realities, because my focus on epistemology is to develop a self-valid system able to, by the use of information, describe all possible relations and existences by the use of a sort of "informational hypernyms".
The use of "he" was a mistake caused by the influence of my native language. Where is written "he", please read "it". It is the influence of the impression that the text causes that made me think in a God, and insomuch as God, in my language is "he", I used "he" unconsciously, sorry for any bad interpretations it caused.
My second question is not related strictly to the CI, but it is to a consequence of it. Here we have two points: the first is the discussion of our freedom being tested by this experience and the second is the discussion of the range of the power of the observation. Contradicting the expectations, I will start with the second. The observer is in fact changing reality, because it makes that reality that "might be different" the one we live in. However, it does not stop here. This observer is controlling aspects of the universe that are able to change the way we think. It is able to manipulate our knowledge deliberately and forasmuch as it is intelligent it is indeeed able to make we divert from what we should know. In other words, if the reality is different due to this observer, as you asserted, then being our knowledge based on our reality, our knowledge about this specific subject is what the observer wants. Nevertheless, if the observation can change the effects of this event, how can we accept that it is not able to change any other phenomenon we know. This sort of observation could explain everything. The pen only falls when we look to it. When we do not, it is going up, but when we look back, it goes to the position it would be if it had fallen down, insomuch as matter does not attracts matter, but it is the result we expect unconsciously. If we observe on "the right way", we could change it. We do not need to create physical laws, it is just the behavior we unconsciously or consciously want the universe to have. Hence, there is no pattern, but a constant change. The "observation" is not a regular variable when explaining a physical phenomenon because Physics is based on observation; when it becomes a variable we have a great problem: the method becomes inconsistent. Do that observation of the "observer" is different from ours? It cannot be different if it is a simple observation, because this we can do. If it is different, it is an action and then "why not to change the quantum world focusing on the results this would cause in the macroscopic world?", and of course these results happen, doing them the "observer" consciously or not, this is a question we will not be able to answer. It is controlling the wave-particle duality, then there is no reason for the movements of Na in our brains to be absolutely free, they may be changed by another sort of "observation" we have not yet observed. To try to understand the pattern of the behavior of an intelligent system, as this observer is, is almost impossible. We are stating that there is an "All-powerful and all-knowing Omega" is acceptable, but then reality can be easily changed by it and then our knowledge becomes much more inconsistent.
Now the first point I mentioned above: how is our freedom inserted in this experiment? Of course that the distance traveled by the photon/wave is very short for the photon/wave. Therefore, the photon detector was probably turned on by a machine. Hence, it was absolutely possible to foresee the future for the particle. Nevertheless, if there was a way of prolonging the distance and reducing the velocity of light in a way that would possibility that someone uses his/her freedom to choose turning on or off the photon detector after the first slit we would test the knowledge of this observer about our will. Again, if it is possible to anticipate all our behavior, there is no knowledge too and this discussion is too classic to be reproduced here. If there is an absolutely necessary will for us, then the possible becomes the probable that is the necessary and so our paths are not being but already planned.
Now, Stephen:
First, thank you for mentioning me.
I disagree with the idea that order does not come from nothing. The idea of order-from-disorder I think is well accepted. Thus, I will use it. The nothingness is the only state in which disorder is acceptable, insomuch as the order comes from the regularity that comes from the existence itself. if something exists, it has a characteristic and this is a sort of order. Of course, it is a primary state of order (or small order, if preferrable), but it comes from the non-existence, because if nothing exists there are no laws, insomuch as there is no existence; therefore, having no patters. So, spontaneous generation is not an insane idea, negating it is to consider the state of nothingness as the state of the absolute determination. The nothingness hsa no rules and then it has a strong tendency to create something, insomuch as it is much more probable. Then this something exists and has a characteristic, creating what can be called order, insomuch as the existence itself depends on characteristics that makes this object of reality predictable, in some sort ordered. The states of order that vary substantially, but this variation is the result of the interactions of all these existences.
Furthermore, when I talked about a metaphysic, I mentioned subliminally the idea that there is not any absolute truth. Thus, we need to create self-coherent systems that explain reality, but which are isomorphic to it and not absolutely corresponding, because such is impossible, we would need to know the universe's true nature. Then, the metaphysics are the information systems that explain self-coherently our universe and not something out of the physical that influentiates it.
The question about the time is the most complex to comment. Time is the measure of change; therefore, it is the variance of information. Quoting the article of Ph.D.William Dembski (Information as a Measure of Variation, page 3): "I(A)=-log2(p)". In other words, if a system is absolutely determined, the probability of its events is high. Then, if time is the measure of the variation of information, insomuch as information does not increase too much, the considered reality will be slow. Nevertheless, this is much more complex, as you do know. This is the fact, but the discussion goes further. Our second is, for instance, 1/31,556,925.975 of the tropic year of 1900 or the duration of 9,192,631,770 times of the period of determination of the radiation emitted by the Cs-133. In other words, when my car is traveling at 20km/second, it means that it is producing the change of being moved 20km while the Earth changed its position on 1/31,556,925.975 of the tropic year of 1900. It is a comparison of changes. If the car is moving slowly it is producing a change smaller than if it is moving quicly. It is producing less time. Thus, time passes more slowly for it. This is an explanation of a part of the Theory of Relativity using information. However, see that the change it caused is different from the change it suffered. It suffered almost no change (I will consider the "no change", but in fact it suffers the change of the disappear of the risks the travel presented), since the velocity is constant (then: I(A)=-log2(1)). Nevertheless, to an observer that is on the road, the presence of that specific car was not expected, then it causes information change, and then time. If it is moving faster, it is causing more impressions, if it is not, it is causing least. Then, the ordered systems make time "slow", or, in other words, time is "seemingly superated by ordered states".
[ 22. November 2004, 17:54: Message edited by: Vinícius O. Botelho ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 19. November 2004 13:30
quote:
I think that today we are finally putting together that which has remained little more than mystery up until the new millennium. It’s no longer abstract--it’s no longer ghost-like--it’s no longer elusive to us informationalist geeks. That’s why I believe ID will make a dent in science that will cause a few red faces among its detractors some fine day. –Jerry
Dang Jerry, I am already known as a geek in my professional field. I was hoping for a context of “wearing a smoking jacket in the lobby of a high society venue” for my interest and involvement in informational philosophy – as imaged by F. Adams in his wonderful essay tracking the progressive development of concepts in this field of study.
quote:
“Collectively the philosophers above saw what needed to be done and saw that information was a key ingredient in understanding how purposive systems work. Different philosophers saw different pieces of the overall picture, and contributed and moved the project forward in different ways and to different degrees. There is still much more to be done, but there is no turning back. Like the Hotel California, once you take the informational turn-you can check in (you even can check out), but you can never leave.”
Concluding statement of – “The Informational Turn in Philosophy” by
Frederick Adams
Professor of Cognitive Science & Philosophy
University of Delaware
http://www.udel.edu/Philosophy/infoturn.htm
But seriously, your post included many very valuable conceptualizations. In particular I was informed by the quotes from Mike Gene and your comments and references defining the difference between order and organization. Great stuff. I am in full agreement that specification of elements – as defining the structured information – is a key idea in all of this. However, there is still an issue here. I am somewhat uncomfortable about a jump from an overall specified state of order in an organized system being causal – to saying a conscious observer caused it. I think that there is a step in between.
I would use the following comparison and try to draw an approximate line between measurable facts falling within the ability to be reviewed under the tenets of Scientific Realism and those that are addressed solely by Metaphysics. While the anthropic principle has a scientific basis for reviewing the pattern of fine-tuned values, it still is a metaphysical leap to say that the pattern is a purposeful design originating in a single mind. This reveals a dipole continuum, open to a personal choice. A placement decision, as to repsect to one's stance on this issue, is made possible after accepting the inference to connect the material universe with a pattern that reveals a bias towards living things. This line-graph can have the labels - objective on one side and subjective on the other.
A metaphysical preference, towards the objective side, could be made referring to a bias generator that is not personal at all – like Spinoza and Einstein’s philosophical implications. A metaphysical preference for a personal mind, and all that implies, may be seen as the other polarity.
I think that keeping the latter viewpoint as strictly a decision of individual belief, may permit many skeptics to embrace a “naturalized” version of the former, the objective type view, which is consistent with the facts of science. In other words keep the metaphysical as separate as possible from the aspects that can be seen as pragmatic evidence. In this manner great thinkers like S. Weinberg may feel ok to approach the facts, as they present themselves, and not be cautioned by biting off more than the data allows. I see no reason to exclude the possibility that an objective and non-personal aspect of the universe fulfills the observer function. Let me take some time and work up a line of thought that makes my point clearer.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 03. December 2004 15:48
Vinicius wrote -
quote:
“I disagree with the idea that order does not come from nothing. The idea of order-from-disorder I think is well accepted. Thus, I will use it. The nothingness is the only state in which disorder is acceptable, insomuch as the order comes from the regularity that comes from the existence itself.”
Well expressed. It may well be the majority view and is therefore a logical stance. If I understand you correctly – you view order emerging in reality on a regular basis from a “black-box”, a nothingness - that comes from all physical events that have no direct cause from the mental work of intelligent agents. The order behind regularity is a given and is not open to reductive investigation.
I do respectfully disagree with this viewpoint. I offer the Transformational Mode of tracking causality as giving us a methodology to see inside the box. Investigators can track material and energetic events, as far as we have established in the material sciences the causal relations. Modern understanding allows reductive exploration of the past and an analysis of probable vectors in the future – with some strong degree of certainty. Here the values from recently measured transformations solve enough of the equations to be used in exploring the backwards and forward transformation pathways. This is standard fare and clarifies things outside of the “black box” where we can see some but not all facts from ordered circumstances.
Likewise, Information Theory offers a parallel transformation pathway. Investigators can track informational transfer from events, as far as we have established successfully the causal relations in the informational sciences. Likewise we can infer the process as proceeding backwards and be advised about the past and predict information that could be transferred in the future. When we can detail both sets of transforms - material and informational, like our eyes converging to reveal depth perception, and start to understand what is happening inside the “black-box”.
J. A. Wheeler’s brilliant insight regarding the universe as having a built-in observer should influence our ontological ideas. The diagram of the U with the right hand line sporting an eye is a great iconic description. As a pragmatic fact the universe has powers of observation that are integral with reality. As to their starting time, we at best have very limited data.
Any system where information is transferred from physical representation into a format where it becomes “mutual information” with an observer is not only a passive act - it is also an additional state of order imposed by the specific structure of elements that permits the transfer. I think that it is the “state of order” that is causal in terms of QM and not just the presence of the observer.
Vinicius wrote -
quote:
“nor of making the observation a "reagent" of the phenomenon's equation”
This is a great way of putting it. It forces a critical eye to the actual functionality of what may be happening. I would suggest a common general perception - expressed in folk psychology terms –of lines of force coming from the observer’s eyes changing reality, as was pictured in the Superman comics. This animated drawing may represent this same idea at a less refined level. This is an exaggeration but it does point out that there are no pragmatic findings that support a direct influence from observer to observed. Even though we as humans have an intuition about our vision as a reaching out.
Direct observation does transfer information. A system containing a sender, a channel and a receiver is required and this in itself is a state of order with emergent properties - such as the creation of mutual information. A specified structuring of elements, which are isomorphic with a known state of emergent order, can produce an increased output of work. Here is where there are established findings showing causal changes to physical systems. Not from observation directly, but from a structuring of elements where order that leverages information output, or physical work output, is in place.
It is the enhanced or emergent state of order, from the specification and structuring of the elements in the experiment that may be the measurable effect found in the double slit experiment.
[ 03. December 2004, 15:52: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic