[two replies combined here, one to RS and one to maru]
On Mar 3, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
it'sI really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is thatour perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will.
So.....in your opinion Schrodringers Cat is a false or unfalsified theory?
Schrödinger's Cat is not a theory; it's a model to illustrate one of the more unusual effects of QM at a subatomic level. It's a kind of real-world interpretation of (example) the electron slit experiment (BTW, apparently that experiment has been replicated in a modified way, this time along the time axis -- and it still happens.)
I know that there are various tests that confirm observation appears to cause some events to collapse into realities that, until the observation is made, don't exist (or exist equally, which amounts to the same thing). I'm not questioning that the math behind QM, the science, appears to work. I am simply suggesting that there are some very wrong conclusions being drawn about how the universe happens, and they're based in QM. Or rather, we are vastly miscomprehending what QM is telling us about ourselves.
The weak or strong anthropic theories?
Those aren't valid either, IMO; I think they're inverses of the situation. That is, we seem to think this universe is ideal for (weak:life || strong:human life) because we happen to live in it. Well, obviously if nothing lived in a given universe, one conclusion to be drawn would be that it's nonoptimal for life, but there wouldn't be anyone there to figure that out. It's only the inhabited universe/s where you get life saying, "Huh, how interesting; if things weren't just so, we wouldn't be here..."
Let me express that in a slightly different way. Imagine a gingerbread man looking at the cookie cutter that has just cut him out of the dough. He thinks to himself, "Gosh, it sure is amazing how well that cutter mold fits around me -- obviously this cutter has to exist in this way." That would be the strong piskotothropic principle.
Or he might think, "If the conditions of this oven weren't just right, I couldn't be baking here in this pan right now." That would be the weak piskotothropic principle. But his reasoning is inverted; he seems to fit the cutter so well only because he has been so precisely molded by it.
That's what I think is happening in this universe; the anthropic principles -- either one of them -- are a bit like the gingerbread man fantasizing that his presence somehow implies rules about how the cookie cutter can be shaped, or how the oven, eggs, flour, sugar and pan can work.
Or he might think "By seeing the cutter, I've caused it to come into existence. My observation has shaped the cutter, and in fact observation has caused the oven, the heat, *and* the pan to all come into existence. Until I and my kind saw these things, they simply weren't there at all." That's the "quantum Darwin" principle, and it is by far the most ridiculous conclusion the gingerbread man can reach.
The objections I have to "quantum Darwinism" are certainly emotional, or maybe you could call them philosophical.
From the perspective of an atheist, I don't like what qD suggests about the history of this universe or the way it leaves a big gaping hole for a deity to appear. From the perspective of a pragmatist or realist, I don't like what qD suggests about history; it might render history meaningless.
Ethically and philosophically, don't like what qD suggests about *us* -- if we're really shaping the universe, then starvation, genocide and general human and animal suffering must exist only because we've dreamt them up, and every moment we let it endure is another moment of needless suffering foisted off on millions. We die only because we believer we do? Horseshit.
Worst of all, that qD would mean the rock-fondlers are correct in their blatherings about "consensual reality" and other inane, feel-good drivel.
But I *also* don't think "quantum Darwinism" is particularly parsimonious. It suggests there *must have been* observers (other than us) in the past, which is not necessarily false but a tall thing on which to hang one's hat; or it suggests that our observance of the past -- possibly by the lightyear delay in astronomy, who knows -- has affected the history of the universe even as we observe it, and frankly I think prior observers are more likely in this case. Otherwise, again, all of history is useless. It is rendered, to quote Ford, bunk.
qD suggests that consciousness has a deep underlying effect on all of what might be called objective reality; and at its core it seeks to re-enthrone humanity in a way that hasn't been viable since the Copernican revolution.
That said, there may be some evidence for qD, and it might be solid. If there is, what that indicates to me is that we've reached a limit. Our understanding won't yield anything but bizarre and experientially unsupportable conclusions.
That does not, however, mean the universe operates that way. It means that we've hit a boundary on what we're capable of perceiving about the cosmos. Possibly our technology is simply too limited for us to grasp what's happening and it may be that our tech will never be advanced enough; or our reasoning is not subtle enough. Of the two possibilities, I'm not certain which I prefer, but I'll lean toward the latter as being most likely.
That is, I feel reasonably sure that there will come a time, and it might be damned soon, when no matter how much tech or thought we throw at a problem, we simply won't be able to penetrate further. A kind of Planck limit to our comprehension, if you will.
I think the universe's capacity for richness might be infinite, and I am certain our capacity for intelligence is not.
==
On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:11 PM, maru wrote:
So I take it you don't like the Copenhagen interpretation, Warren. But, what do you think of the other interpretations, like the Tegmark multiverse?
I think it's an interesting idea. I think they all are. And the fact that *all* of the possible interpretations of QM are equally valid should show everyone involved that QM is incomplete, and that it simply isn't fully describing What's Really Going On.
I don't know What's Really Going On either. But when you start suggesting that -- with zero apparent energy input -- infinite universes split off with every possible decision node, you've got to see that, objectively, you're dealing with a crackpot idea.
The problem, again, is not with our universe. I really, honestly think it's with how we're seeing things. To paraphrase the Bard, the fault lies not in our world, but in our eyes.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
