On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
Collapse "appears" to instruments as well as people
We don't have any evidence for that, indeed, if we take either the
concept of Wigner's friend or Rovelli's RQM seriously, this is not the
case.
- that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them.
Or, we can deduce those phenomena simply from the coherence of our
personal systems.
I'm not sure what you mean by "account for" collapse.
I mean that if there is a unitary linear dynamics, with no collapse, as
in Everett, no physical collapse, then there is the appearance of
collapse only 'in consciousness'.
At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and
Omnes for example, is that the "collapse" is purely epistemological.
All that changes is our knowledge or model of the state and QM merely
predicts probabilities for this change.
Fits my view.
Brent
On 3/4/2011 9:46 AM, Andrew Soltau wrote:
The measurement problem is the question of why, or even if, collapse
occurs. Certainly no coherent concept of how and why collapse occurs
has been formulated in a manner which meets with general acceptance.
It appears, as Davies and others explain, the appearance of collapse
is purely subjective, as Everett demonstrates. In this case,
consciousness is necessarily central, as it is consciousness, and
only consciousness, which encounters this appearance of collapse and
change. We know there is an effective collapse, or the appearance of
collapse, because we experience this subjectively. On the other hand,
nothing in the physical world, including the physical body and the
physical brain, can account for this. Whatever consciousness is, it
appears to be the phenomenon at the centre of this process. In
consciousness, change is encountered, the appearance of collapse,
and, it increasingly appears, no where else. My paper Logical Types
in Quantum Mechanics
<http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00005554/> explains this in
detail.
Andrew
On 04/03/11 16:31, 1Z wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau<andrewsol...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suspect we all may.
Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be, "... it
is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of
consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most fundamental
aspect of physics."
How does he know consciousness is fundamental?
Given that conciousness seems all too clearly to be centrally involved
in quantum mechanics,
That isn't clear at all
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
