Let us not forget about Pilot-Wave theory, where it has both particle and wave-like properties simultaneously. In fact, I don't quite get why people are so enamored by these fanciful interpretations when Pilot-Wave is so much more down-to-earth.
Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
71–80 of 249 posts
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#72In the time of Empiricism, the philosophers George Berkeley and John Locke proposed something similar. I believe it was called it immaterialism, or the idea that nothing exists without being perceived. Berkeley went further saying that objects only exist in the mind, or something like that.
They're not saying "nothing exists without being perceived", because the probabilities of things at the quantum level all do exist. It seems sort of unfortunate that physicists would call these quantum probabilistic behaviors "not reality", because they are just as real as anything else.
Right I'm aware of that. I just thought it was an interesting parallel.
Locke based his works off of the physics known at the time (Newton, etc). His theories were later definitely refuted by advancements in physics. Though it wasn't his intended meaning, it is interesting at least to see similar language being brought back by physics.
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#73Most of these articles / experiments focus on the perspective of being the observer...
What is the conclusion if you are the thing being observed?
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on the similarities? I took a course on medieval philosophy and theology (Anselm, Aquinas, Avicenna, and so on) so I am earnestly interested, but the connection isn't jumping out at me.
I think he means Aquinas' Quinque Viae
Hmm, it does bear resemblance to the argument from contingency, thanks!
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wanted to read (or write?) a book about us determining we are in a simulation, but we find subtle flaws like this we're able to exploit in weird ways. Kind of like breaking out of a VM through register flaws or something. Anyone know of a story along those lines?
Check out Greg Egan's Permutation City in which sort of the opposite happens.
I just finished reading Permutation City a couple weeks ago. Good fun. The core conflict is between two different approaches to modeling, via mimicry of existing systems versus really interesting cellular automata. The automata version doesn't need to 'cheat' in the same way, and is thus a bit harder to find the edges of... (Hopefully that doesn't count as spoilers.)
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#76This is of course extremely interesting and probably important for understanding our universe—but how is it helping anyone to say something like, "...with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured." The statement is like a distraction at a magic show, drawing the reader to the glittery 'reality' and 'exist,' which are totally undefined so the reader's imagi…
"Maybe this is really just a fundamental challenge to our assumptions about motion of particles or information transfer in the universe." Check out this TED talk on just that subject. http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as... Here's the punch line, space, time and matter are components of a user interface produced through evolution. We don't take the desktop and icons of our computer UI literall…
Is thought part of this UI as well?
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, but how do you know the simulation doesn't just slow down the simulated flow of time so it can keep up? Think of a bullet-time like concept. The universe can be simulated as fast as the underlying hardware can keep up.
Maybe the universe doesn't do it for the same reason games and movies don't do it, the people watching expect smooth playback.
But if you're enmeshed in the simulation, you would never notice the slowdown! The only reason the video game is annoying is because we experience time outside of it.
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#78maybe time is not a one way street
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#79This is of course extremely interesting and probably important for understanding our universe—but how is it helping anyone to say something like, "...with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured." The statement is like a distraction at a magic show, drawing the reader to the glittery 'reality' and 'exist,' which are totally undefined so the reader's imagi…
"Maybe this is really just a fundamental challenge to our assumptions about motion of particles or information transfer in the universe." Check out this TED talk on just that subject. http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as... Here's the punch line, space, time and matter are components of a user interface produced through evolution. We don't take the desktop and icons of our computer UI literall…
There's a great quote in the comments.
> Perhaps humanity is the only species burdened with distinguishing the truth.
Re: Reality doesn’t exist until it is measured, quantum experiment finds
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make an observation of a system whose state is undetermined. By interrogating the system for its state, a state becomes determined. Suppose, for example, that you have a flipped coin and sent it rotating in space, never hitting the floor. Is it heads or is it tails? Until it is looked at, the question doesn't really make sense. And for this case, we'll define "looking at it" to mean sticking out your hand and…
> You can make an observation of a system whose state is undetermined. By interrogating the system for its state, a state becomes determined. For QM, this is not correct, although it's a common misstatement. The correct statement is this: you can make an observation of a system which is not in an eigenstate of the measurement operator you are using. After the measurement, the system is now in an eigenstate of the mea…
>The correct statement is this: you can make an observation of a system which is not in an eigenstate of the measurement operator you are using.
I should have distinguished better, but what you're more rigorously calling an eigenstate of a measurement operator, I'm calling an observable state. There is something lost in translation to an audience unfamiliar with terms like eigenstate, but that was my attempt. Would you suggest a better one?
>Note that this is only true on a collapse interpretation, like Copenhagen. On a no-collapse interpretation, like MWI, the "observation" is just an interaction that entangles the state of the measuring device with the state of the system being measured
The greater point being addressed is that MWI is no more deterministic than Copenhagen.
>Yes, it is; but it isn't observable by a simple method like looking to see if the coin is heads or tails. But according to QM, every state is an eigenstate of some operator
Some hermitian operator? But more to the point, if looking at the coin is the only operator at our disposal in the simple example, then its eigenstates are the ones we care about.