Kyrie eleison posted:You claim that I don't understand the Copenhagen interpretation, but I think Wikipedia supports my understanding of it. I also think you misrepresent Bohr's opinion. It seemed it was mainly Einstein who wanted to insist on classical determinism, but he was never able to prove it, and Bohr would disagree with them. Einstein believed that "God does not throw dice." They had famous debates on the subject which Bohr won. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm Measurement in quantum physics is not conditional on consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
No-one takes the Copenhagen interpretation seriously anyway. There's not some magical "measurement" phenomenon, there's just different states' inner products getting smaller and smaller as more variables become dependant on the result. (There is one thing that matters and it is Hugh Everett)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You claim that I don't understand the Copenhagen interpretation, but I think Wikipedia supports my understanding of it. It doesn't, and Wikipedia is also not a go-to resource. But no, the Copenhagen interpretation is about quantum events. I don't know any simpler way to put this. If the cat actually 'collapsed' only on observation, that would involve time travel. It doesn't. The cat dies or not when the atom decays. Is there some reason you think the cat isn't an 'observer', even if you limited observation to minds--and observation is not, actually, limited to minds. quote:
Nope. You don't know poo poo about this. quote:I'm aware that the cat would appear to have been dead for a period of time, but its history would not have been until observed. It would have existed in a state of alive and dead simultaneously, in a waveform of potentialities, until it was observed, at which point its history would collapse into one of the potentialities. This is time travel, and not possible. You're just jabbering nonsense. "Apparent history" is meaningless. There is only what actually happened. You can't be alive and dead simultaneously. Particles are not the same thing as cats. quote:This is just like the particle in the double slit experiment which suddenly appears to have always been heading towards only one of the slits. Observation decides the apparent past as well as the present, without actually changing the true past, in which it existed as a potentiality. You don't understand the double slit experiment either. No surprise. You don't even need a detector to show that the light is both particles and waves, you can just see it on the screen. There is no such 'suddenly' moment as you describe. quote:I wanted to address something you mentioned earlier but I forgot to reply to, which is the consciousness of the cat. I think this is a good point which I also thought of myself. This all depends on whether or not the cat is "conscious." I cannot say for certain if it is, but the thought experiment takes as assumption that the cat does not qualify and that human reason is required to observe. If the cat is capable of observation, then this would be a fault in the experiment. But we have no evidence for this either way and I can't think of any way to determine if cats or other non-human creatures can collapse wave-form potentialities. No, the thought experiment has nothing to do with human consciousness, at all. You're just really stepping on your own dick now. Do you think that where the particle landed on the detection screen in the double-slit experiment is uncollapsed until a human looks at the screen? The detection screen is the 'observer'. So would be any device used to truly detect the path--you can't detect that without absorption. quote:In order for this view to become solipsist, you'd have to believe that you yourself have the unique ability to collapse wave-form potentialities. But assuming there are actually other conscious observers, which is certainly the Christian view, then one would not be a solipsist. Otherwise I think you'd be believing that you are uniquely God, essentially. Oh, actually, that metaphysics kind of fucks you to the hilt, because if god observes the sparrows fall, then he collapses all waveforms all the time and the double-slit experiment wouldn't even be possible. If your bullshit, moronic idea that it's actually consciousnesses alone that can collapse stuff, then God's omniscience would continually collapse everything. Anyway, you didn't get my point. If you, alone, are walking through the woods in somewhere nobody has walked for a hundred years, do you actually think the woods are appearing before you as you 'detect' them--or at least the leaves on the floor of the forest, if you're going to say that satellites would have observed the trees? As Effectronica's source indicates, the point of this is that observation affects. The more you observe, the less interference you get--the more the observation had an effect. To you, this seems like magic. To any reasonable scientific person, it means what the experiment has always meant--that observation has an effect, not that history suddenly changes. You do get that if you fire the photon at the double slit, you just get a single point on the detector screen afterwards, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
I might be out of my depth here, but Ive always thought applying quantum physics to the macro world (as people like Kyrie tend to do so they can justify their beliefs) is just a misuse of the theory and has no scientific basis. Quantum physics isn't the theory of everything, it's only a theory of the extremely small.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:I might be out of my depth here, but Ive always thought applying quantum physics to the macro world (as people like Kyrie tend to do so they can justify their beliefs) is just a misuse of the theory and has no scientific basis. Quantum physics isn't the theory of everything, it's only a theory of the extremely small. Yep. That's why Schrodinger's cat was intentionally an absurd example, not meant to be taken literally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:I might be out of my depth here, but Ive always thought applying quantum physics to the macro world (as people like Kyrie tend to do so they can justify their beliefs) is just a misuse of the theory and has no scientific basis. Quantum physics isn't the theory of everything, it's only a theory of the extremely small. Not very true. It's not practical, but QFTs work for everything except strong gravity right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:Not very true. It's not practical, but QFTs work for everything except strong gravity right now. Well, he asked about applying it to the macro world. Quantum applied to macro is, as you say, not practical (and that's putting it lightly).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Who was it on these forums that said that a cat couldn't measure it's own quantum state because he'd never seen one use a Geiger counter before? Was it Brandor or Victor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It doesn't, and Wikipedia is also not a go-to resource. But no, the Copenhagen interpretation is about quantum events. I don't know any simpler way to put this. If the cat actually 'collapsed' only on observation, that would involve time travel. It doesn't. The cat dies or not when the atom decays. Is there some reason you think the cat isn't an 'observer', even if you limited observation to minds--and observation is not, actually, limited to minds. I'm not going to lie, this response is a bit disappointing. I won't reply to all of it as a result, but I will start at the top and expend some of my precious energy on answering it, before abandoning the subject as no longer worthwhile to discuss here. You deny that my understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, but rather than say why not you just segue into saying that Wikipedia is illegitimate. I'm actually surprised that even today we have people on the internet saying this, especially people who agree with Wiki's narrative for the most part. Some people might critique Wiki as overly pushing a left-liberal narrative, but you seem to think it has some pro-mystical Christian slant on the pages about quantum mechanics, and thus dismiss it as a resource. I'm not sure what resources you would consider acceptable for internet discussion, but honestly, I don't particularly care. Nothing you're saying is consistent with Wiki's page, anyway, which clearly says that Schrodinger's Cat is a logical consequence of the Copenhagen interpretation. You are perfectly free to resist that and to believe whatever you want to believe but I don't think you are very open to my perspective and I don't really think your perspective is really that convincing to sufficiently open-minded bystanders, so I'll leave it at that. Those who are insistent on materialism are going to deny the implications of quantum physics, and those who are interested in the consensus on quantum physics are going to realize that it suggests a non-materialist universe, and does not match your personal "Wiki is corrupted" interpretation. I'm rather annoyed by your dismissal of what I said about the Bohr-Einstein debates which I think was perfectly factual and all you did was give it a cursory and insulting response. It's clear this is upsetting you a bit and you can't seem to respond in any really logical way so again I'm just going to leave it as is and not bother with the rest of your post. We can talk about something else now because I feel the materialists have failed to refute the consensus view on quantum physics and have resorted to insults and complaining about Wikipedia. Well I will answer this one bit about God observing everything. There is no need for God to waveform collapse the entire universe and clearly this is not the case or else waveforms would not exist. We know scientifically that humans cause waveform collapse but it is not a necessity that the observation of God causes waveform collapse. Rather it requires a conscious human observer (apparently) in order to collapse waveform potentialities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
This really seems to be getting you agitated, Kyrie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Are we really to the point of trying to use Physics and Quantum Dynamics to justify Kyrie's belief in god?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Are we really to the point of trying to use Physics and Quantum Dynamics to justify Kyrie's belief in god? No I'm just defending the consensus view in quantum physics as held by the majority of physicists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:No I'm just defending the consensus view in quantum physics as held by the majority of physicists. It suggest a non-materialist universe, but that is about where it ends. It seems you are skirting the lines in trying to justify the idea of believing in a deity of creation by citing physics. And neither Bhors nor Einstien were suggesting that the universe must be observed to be real, and that observation must be from the outside. You are trying to stretch a scientific argument to fit your world view. None of this has anything to do with god, and pretty much flies in the faith of trust in 'faith' for your belief rather than go looking for evidence. This is approaching Quantum Woo levels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It suggest a non-materialist universe, but that is about where it ends. It seems you are skirting the lines in trying to justify the idea of believing in a deity of creation by citing physics. I didn't claim quantum physics suggests anything of the sort. All I did was defend the mainstream view of quantum physics. Sorry you think that's "woo". I'm glad you acknowledge the universe is non-materialist though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Sorry you think that's "woo". No, I'm worried that its being used to appeal to woo, given this thread and your tendency to make such arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
No, i also said why it was not correct. quote:Nothing you're saying is consistent with Wiki's page, anyway, which clearly says that Schrodinger's Cat is a logical consequence of the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is a paradox, something that cannot exist. That's why Shroedinger came up with the idea. The Copenhagen interpretation may be applicable on the quantum level, but cannot be on the macro level. It was an argumentum ad absurdem. quote:You are perfectly free to resist that and to believe whatever you want to believe but I don't think you are very open to my perspective and I don't really think your perspective is really that convincing to sufficiently open-minded bystanders, so I'll leave it at that. Those who are insistent on materialism are going to deny the implications of quantum physics, and those who are interested in the consensus on quantum physics are going to realize that it suggests a non-materialist universe, and does not match your personal "Wiki is corrupted" interpretation. First of all, the copenhagen interpretation is not the only interpretation of quantum physics. It makes no sense that quantum physics, which is only about the material universe, suggests a non-materialist universe. quote:I'm rather annoyed by your dismissal of what I said about the Bohr-Einstein debates which I think was perfectly factual and all you did was give it a cursory and insulting response. It's clear this is upsetting you a bit and you can't seem to respond in any really logical way so again I'm just going to leave it as is and not bother with the rest of your post. We can talk about something else now because I feel the materialists have failed to refute the consensus view on quantum physics and have resorted to insults and complaining about Wikipedia. You can't respond to the rest of my post. You lack the ability to do so, because you're a fraud. I doubt you're even a sincere Catholic, since they tend not to be woo-woo mystics but respect science. quote:I also think you misrepresent Bohr's opinion. It seemed it was mainly Einstein who wanted to insist on classical determinism, but he was never able to prove it, and Bohr would disagree with them. Einstein believed that "God does not throw dice." They had famous debates on the subject which Bohr won. Bohr's opinion was not that God throws dice, and it was not that conscious minds collapse superpositions, which is your belief. You don't understand any of this, since you think a human consciousness collapses superpositions. That is not an idea held by any scientist, it is mystic crap. quote:Well I will answer this one bit about God observing everything. There is no need for God to waveform collapse the entire universe and clearly this is not the case or else waveforms would not exist. We know scientifically that humans cause waveform collapse but it is not a necessity that the observation of God causes waveform collapse. Rather it requires a conscious human observer (apparently) in order to collapse waveform potentialities. Again, this would imply that if you go walking in a forest where no other human has walked, the forest literally coalesces ahead of you (since, at the root of it, it's made up of a huge number of quantum events). This is the sort of absurdity that Schroedinger was mocking in his example. Since everyone can clearly see that all the quantum physicists talk about an 'observer', not a human observer, and even talk of devices as 'observers', your position is incoherent. It also becomes obvious you're just making poo poo up as you go along, because previously you said: quote:The entire universe only exists because it is observed by conscious entities, and is otherise merely a waveform of potentiality. And now you say: quote:Rather it requires a conscious human observer Why, according to quantum physics, would god's observation not collapse waveforms? Do you honestly believe that, say, the bottom of the ocean, which is not observed by humans, is a set of superpositions? That the inside of any object is? That what is behind your monitor right now is a set of superpositions, since you can't observe it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
If the universe were merely a waveform of potentiality, surely "creation" would have actually begun with the creation of Adam, with that merely collapsing all of God's previous setup into position. Even a fundamentalist reading of Genesis disagrees with Kyrie. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
"Measurement requires Consciousness" is most definitely not the conclusion of mainstream physics, the majority of physicists, or any of the popular 'speculative' interpretations floating around (ie- many-worlds), Kyrie. Your homework for becoming less of a moron is to try and prove your claim that it is - you won't find it possible. Remember to show your working and label your axes. LookingGodIntheEye posted:I guess it can provide some comfort, but I'm coming from this viewpoint more because consciousness as tied to one physical brain doesn't make sense to me with our current knowledge. considering that the brain is plastic and what we define as a self is a very tenuous, malleable concept. There doesn't seem to be one singular part of the brain that makes you conscious, one part that ties you down permanently to your own corner in time and space..
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
The self has a pretty illusory quality to it imo, and meditation is a particularly useful method to experience this quality. Through regular practice you begin to recognize your constant mind-chatter is the driving force behind this notion of self, and once turned off, the self seems to disappear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Consider the following. A double slit experiment is set up, and an unconscious laboratory measurement device is set up by one of the slits to capture the light particle's location. However, there is no one to consciously observe the results. The experiment is instead locked away into a box and activated via remote control. Also in the box with the experiment is a cat and a radioactive atom with amplifier and a bit of gunpowder. You keep the box in the corner of your room. One day you notice the box is singed from an apparent explosion. You wait a month and then you open it. Out comes a fully healthy cat who apparently was able to eat the entire time. The experiment reports that all of the particles only went through one slit. The cat looks at you and opens his mouth and says, "Materialism is defined as a universe that exists absolutely and irrespective of observation. Quantum mechanics demonstrates without a doubt that materialism is false, and all physicists involved reject materialism, including Einstein. And although many of them would not like to admit it because the consequences were too shocking, observation by necessity requires consciousness." The cat then snuggles you adorably, thus proving his innate consciousness and that he has a soul. A materialist walks into the room in utter denial of experimental scientific reality and of his own soul. The cat agrees that he is an empty automaton whose consciousness is merely illusory and shows him no affection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
A talking cat sounds like heresy or the work of the devil kyrie. Lucky for you, cat's can't do philosophy or math, on account of having no use of it to own people in arguments. So I guess if they're gonna say anything, it would be the kind of stuff where you equivocates between 'definite particles' with 'material/matter' or 'existence' with 'local hidden variables'. But that's why human beings get to wear the pants in the house.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Oh I see, so it works by the principle of "I decide what these things mean and everyone else is wrong because lol" Like his tremendous insights into Jewish and Buddhist religious practice! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Also you better stop offending automatons, cuz when we get around to building them they're probably gonna scour the internet for remarks like that. Think of it as a kind of pascal's wager, only not dumb as poo poo because it'll actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also you better stop offending automatons, cuz when we get around to building them they're probably gonna scour the internet for remarks like that. Think of it as a kind of pascal's wager, only not dumb as poo poo because it'll actually happen. AI is completely bogus and will never ever happen. Humans are not smart enough to understand how the human mind works and will never be able to replicate something that mimics it to even a hundredth of a thousandth of a degree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
You're just afraid that someone will invent a chat-bot with a better trolling gimmick than you. You want to stay competitive, you've got to up-skill boy, or you'll go the way of farriers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
Have you ever looked at chat bots? They are completely incapable of conversation. They have absolutely no concept of what they are saying. The words mean nothing to them. This is true in 100% of chat bots. Humans are nowhere even slightly close to creating a chat bot that could pass as a human being for more than a few lines. And if it was confused as a human temporarily, it would be because (a) the conversation is exceedingly simple and (b) pure chance as the bot would just be putting sentences together based on a database of prior responses without any conception of its meaning. Inevitably (and quickly) the illusion breaks down. This is nothing like the AI of science fiction, which is capable of actual thought and abstract understanding, not meaningless scripted regurgitation. The best one that exists is Cleverbot and it's not so clever. Observe this sample conversation: http://www.cleverbot.com/j2log-yCoSAjCMSCZQWABMEQXE-detail_ais_9dvGZUcug8T%2BIrhTjed6Uw Kyrie eleison fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
I've yet to see you demonstrate understanding of the topics you talk about, so on that square you're pretty even.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
At least Cleverbot believes in God.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Consider the following. A double slit experiment is set up, and an unconscious laboratory measurement device is set up by one of the slits to capture the light particle's location. Wow this was a more pathetic response than I was expecting, and even in that you managed to show you don't understand the double-slit experiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
A machine for scripted regurgitation that lacks critical thought? Yeah, sounds like a true believer all right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Muh ideology. As if you aren't regurgitating Marxist platitudes all over the place. Or atheists in general aren't reciting the same tired arguments over and over again, half of which are based on a faulty conception of traditional Christian theology. Critical thought means being able to see all perspectives. A person chooses Christ because it is both the best framework for living one's life and for obtaining eternal salvation in the afterlife, and also because he wishes to give thanks for his life to his Creator, and converse with him, and apologize for his sins. Nobody who does a critical assessment of the cost/benefit analysis between the two ideologies can decide on atheism. And the "cold, hard, ruthless materialism" viewpoint is in shambles, not to mention exceedingly depressing. And you wonder why you're all miserable! It's a good thing it's not true and that consciousness and love are real.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
Uggh, to be honest I do feel bad for being that snarky. But your quantum quackery gave me a headache, so if I managed to rile you up then I guess we're even. I'll accept being a ruthless materialist, but on the contrary, I do it all for love and happiness. So that's real enough. As for whether consciousness is real, I leave that up to future philosophers to determine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
I'm glad you realized that you have no actual grip on quantum mechanics and have abandoned that line of thought, because it was really only making you look ridiculous. However, simple proselytizing is kinda boring. Also, a cost/benefit analysis depends on what's real.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/612848788500312064
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:45
|
|
Hybrid children watch the sea Pray for Father, roaming free
Kyrie eleison posted:Muh ideology. As if you aren't regurgitating Marxist platitudes all over the place. Or atheists in general aren't reciting the same tired arguments over and over again, half of which are based on a faulty conception of traditional Christian theology. If materialism is in shambles, why are you using rational choice theory? Thomas Aquinas would be very disappointed in you.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Muh ideology. As if you aren't regurgitating Marxist platitudes all over the place. Or atheists in general aren't reciting the same tired arguments over and over again, half of which are based on a faulty conception of traditional Christian theology. It's a good thing you're projecting so hard I pointed you at a blank wall and sold tickets
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:AI is completely bogus and will never ever happen. Humans are not smart enough to understand how the human mind works and will never be able to replicate something that mimics it to even a hundredth of a thousandth of a degree. As discussed before, entertainingly, an AI doesn't have to be as intelligent as a human, it just has to be able to look as intelligent as a human 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Hey Kyrie, your welcome to your arguements as a matter of academic debate, but could you at least extend me the courtesy of believing I'm living as much of a happy and fulfilling life as you? When theists start railing on skeptics for having depressing lives because of their thoughts on supernatural beliefs it really is kind of embarassing and silly and sort of offensive too? If you can't see a reason for why this could be so maybe you can use that handy dandy faith of yours to believe it. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The cat then snuggles you adorably, thus proving his innate consciousness and that he has a soul. A materialist walks into the room in utter denial of experimental scientific reality and of his own soul. The cat agrees that he is an empty automaton whose consciousness is merely illusory and shows him no affection. Stop. No. Here's the woo I was talking about. You are attempting to assign a 'theological' property to a physics property. This isn't what the double slit experiment means nor implies. Stop trying to appeal to your theological ideology with physics. Obdicut posted:I'm glad you realized that you have no actual grip on quantum mechanics and have abandoned that line of thought, because it was really only making you look ridiculous. However, simple proselytizing is kinda boring. Also, a cost/benefit analysis depends on what's real. He has a tenuous grasp of it, but he's trying to hard to take Quantum Physics and yank it into his theology. And that isn't how/what Quantum Physics is for nor what the interpreted results imply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Also, on the matter of AI: if you do some digging on it you'll find its gotten a lot more sophisiticated than chatbot. There's a reason the Tony Stark of our times has put out a warning against it: the genie seems to be coming out of the bottle. Neuroscience, while still very much in the dark as a field of study, is just building up the evidence for how the brain behaves, and we're finding brain behavior, while much more elastic and sophisiticated than a digital intelligence (for now), has a lot features we might be familiar with: scripted behaviors, meme transfers, and so on. There's a hell of a lot of underlying activity that goes on in that brain of yours that if very much measurable by fMRI and other techniques. Once its much better understood, and consequentially mimiced digitally - passing the Turing test and so on - I think the theists will have to cede ground to science once again (as they have been doing for the past few thousand years) or come up with something new. Maybe AI's have an immortal soul after all? Or maybe this AI was god all along? Looking forward to what believers come up with on that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:45
|
|