Do electrons think? (1949) • Hacker News Board

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#21

Post by lmm » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #2

Note that, contrary to popular understanding, it isn't even established that quantum mechanics is indeterminate or not subject to strict cause-and-effect. It's indeterminate according to the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation, but de Broglie–Bohm theory [1] ("pilot wave theory") is an interpretation that is entirely deterministic, and its assumptions result in exactly the same final equations as the Copenhagen one.…

It's just many-worlds style wave-function realism with some extra epicycles on top. Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable. Treating the wavefunction as physically real and then assuming there are also pseudoclassical particles on top adds nothing except appealing to the confused - "oh no, the particles aren't in a superposition, the particles are just ordinary classical particles... all of whose properties are determined by the pilot wave... which is in a superposition. Totally different."

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#22

Post by Koshkin » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

macmac wrote: post #9

No.

Well, for most definitions of 'think,' sure. But they can get excited - at least for some definitions of excitement.

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#23

Post by Koshkin » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

[Meta] A light, hard to read shade of gray. (Never understood why would anyone want to do that to the reader.)

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#24

Post by thraway180306 » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 10:30 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #21

crazygringo wrote: post #2

Note that, contrary to popular understanding, it isn't even established that quantum mechanics is indeterminate or not subject to strict cause-and-effect. It's indeterminate according to the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation, but de Broglie–Bohm theory [1] ("pilot wave theory") is an interpretation that is entirely deterministic, and its assumptions result in exactly the same final equations as the Copenhagen one.…

It's just many-worlds style wave-function realism with some extra epicycles on top. Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable. Treating the wavefunction as physically real and then assuming there are also pseudoclassical particles on top adds nothing except appealing to the confused - "oh no, the particles aren't in a superposition, the particles are just ordinary classical particles... all…

Not true, a lot of mathematical problems behave better (but other semiclassical approaches also exist).

As for the epicycles comparison, it's actually apt. They could have given complex plane and Fourier analysis for free if they had a chance (not to mention Copernicus actually used more of them than Ptolemy)(which incidentally is also the case with Many-World-necessiated landscapes and parameter spaces - just as much additional layer but with additional problems that are, in contrast, untractable by current math).

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#25

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 10:35 PM UTC

thraway180306 wrote: post #24

lmm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just many-worlds style wave-function realism with some extra epicycles on top. Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable. Treating the wavefunction as physically real and then assuming there are also pseudoclassical particles on top adds nothing except appealing to the confused - "oh no, the particles aren't in a superposition, the particles are just ordinary classical particles... all…

Not true, a lot of mathematical problems behave better (but other semiclassical approaches also exist). As for the epicycles comparison, it's actually apt. They could have given complex plane and Fourier analysis for free if they had a chance (not to mention Copernicus actually used more of them than Ptolemy)(which incidentally is also the case with Many-World-necessiated landscapes and parameter spaces - just as muc…

[deleted]

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#26

Post by westoncb » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 10:35 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #21

crazygringo wrote: post #2

Note that, contrary to popular understanding, it isn't even established that quantum mechanics is indeterminate or not subject to strict cause-and-effect. It's indeterminate according to the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation, but de Broglie–Bohm theory [1] ("pilot wave theory") is an interpretation that is entirely deterministic, and its assumptions result in exactly the same final equations as the Copenhagen one.…

It's just many-worlds style wave-function realism with some extra epicycles on top. Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable. Treating the wavefunction as physically real and then assuming there are also pseudoclassical particles on top adds nothing except appealing to the confused - "oh no, the particles aren't in a superposition, the particles are just ordinary classical particles... all…

> Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable.

What's your justification for that? I remember Arthur Eddington pointing out that it could be interpreted as modeling our limited knowledge of a quantum system just as well as its 'physical reality'. But there's obviously justification for the first one, while the second one appears to be a large unjustified leap.

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#27

Post by tezthenerd » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 10:36 PM UTC

codethief wrote: post #12

testvox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think this disproves pilot wave theory? > Physicists also compulsorily reject Bohm’s construction because it explicitly builds nonlocality into its framework—even though violations of Bell’s inequality have conclusively shown that the stage of our universe is nonlocal. This is perplexing. Nonlocality is unavoidable in any theory that recovers the predictions of quantum theory. Therefore, any criticism of a…

> even though violations of Bell’s inequality have conclusively shown that the stage of our universe is nonlocal They have not. What they have shown is that the universe cannot be local and deterministic at the same time.

Bell's theorem rules out locality even for non-deterministic theories as well. Don't get determinism and realism confused...

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#28

Post by lmm » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 10:57 PM UTC

westoncb wrote: post #26

lmm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just many-worlds style wave-function realism with some extra epicycles on top. Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable. Treating the wavefunction as physically real and then assuming there are also pseudoclassical particles on top adds nothing except appealing to the confused - "oh no, the particles aren't in a superposition, the particles are just ordinary classical particles... all…

> Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable. What's your justification for that? I remember Arthur Eddington pointing out that it could be interpreted as modeling our limited knowledge of a quantum system just as well as its 'physical reality'. But there's obviously justification for the first one, while the second one appears to be a large unjustified leap.

> What's your justification for that?

Occam's razor. The wavefunction is the simplest construct that explains our experimental results (it appears in every interpretation to some degree or another, certainly in pilot wave theory where it is the pilot wave), so it's simplest to assume it just is what's really happening.

> I remember Arthur Eddington pointing out that it could be interpreted as modeling our limited knowledge of a quantum system just as well as its 'physical reality'.

Hidden variable approaches are incompatible with our experimental results unless you introduce some seriously undesirable properties (e.g. nonlocality).

I didn't say that wavefunction realism is the only reasonable approach, just that it's a reasonable approach. Pilot wave theory isn't - it introduces an extra layer of complexity justified by nothing more than human intuition (not even innate intuition, but the experience of classical mechanics).

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#29

Post by edem » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

From what I understand "seeing" is an active proccess, since it needs light. If we want to observe small things we need more precise light, which means more energy. The problem is not that small particles are somehow become aware when we observe, but the observation itself adds energy to the system, thus alters it. Is this correct?

Re: Do electrons think? (1949)

#30

Post by mentos » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 11:06 PM UTC

If electrons are the lowest level of granularity when it comes to determining state in computers then maybe it is the same in the mind?

I imagine a computer made of silicon with the trillions of grooves that the mind has in biological form would find itself to have a conscious just the same. Remove the silicon from the computer or biomass from the brain leaving just electrons behind and you would have a network I would argue gives rise to the seat of consciousness.