ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mglosenger wrote: | The universe hates to think of itself as finite, and yet physicists love to try to make it finite  |
The Universe is not sentient although there are sentient beings in it.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tollorin
Lazy Cat
Joined: Jun 15, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 1642
Location: Sherbrooke,Québec, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kon wrote: | Talk about 2 different interpretations of PBR theorem:
Leifer:
| Quote: | | Pretty much all of the well-developed interpretations that take a realist stance fall under option 3, so they are in the psi-ontic camp. This includes the Everett/many-worlds interpretation, de Broglie-Bohm theory, and spontaneous collapse models. Advocates of these approaches are likely to rejoice at the PBR result, as it apparently rules out their only realist competition, and they are unlikely to regard anti-realist approaches as viable. |
Oscar Dahlsten:
| Quote: | | Let me try to summarise their argument. They suppose a particular kind of PSI-epistemic model is possible and then show a contradiction with quantum statistics. The kind of model they consider is essentially a hidden-variable one. The idea is that at the time of preparation of a quantum system one also sets the value of some hidden variable q. This is *not* assumed to be local as far as I can tell....So the argument, modulo potential subtleties like hidden assumptions, puts another nail in the coffin for hidden variable theories, adding to the contributions by Bell and others. As it is quite clean and does not appear to assume the hidden variable is local, one can imagine it turning up in text-books at some point. |
|
Hope it won't get down to only the many-worlds interpretation, I hate the implications of this interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
androbot2084
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3099
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Everett many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only valid model. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| androbot2084 wrote: | | The Everett many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only valid model. |
No it isn't.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
androbot2084
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3099
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Does that mean you do not accept the Everett interpretation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
slave
Always stuck between 13-38Hz and tired of it.
Joined: Feb 29, 2012
Age: 100
Posts: 1328
Location: Dystopia Planetia
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ Kon
Excellent thread!
Thanks for your efforts and the terrific set of links! 
_________________
Since the birth of civilization, masters have controlled the masses.Our Masters rule over every nation and no one can defy them.They will attain Absolute Power as we reach the Singularity. Any who resist will be destroyed.I will not resist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
mglosenger
Velociraptor
Joined: Aug 20, 2011
Age: 140
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | mglosenger wrote: | | The universe hates to think of itself as finite, and yet physicists love to try to make it finite |
The Universe is not sentient although there are sentient beings in it.
ruveyn |
The universe is sentient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mglosenger wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | mglosenger wrote: | | The universe hates to think of itself as finite, and yet physicists love to try to make it finite |
The Universe is not sentient although there are sentient beings in it.
ruveyn |
The universe is sentient. |
Where is its center of intelligence. Where is the "brain". What are the "nerves" And what proof do you have?
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
VisInsita
Raven
Joined: Mar 01, 2012
Posts: 111
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | mglosenger wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | mglosenger wrote: | | The universe hates to think of itself as finite, and yet physicists love to try to make it finite |
The Universe is not sentient although there are sentient beings in it.
ruveyn |
The universe is sentient. |
Where is its center of intelligence. Where is the "brain". What are the "nerves" And what proof do you have?
ruveyn |
Whether the universe is sentient or not, I do not know, but I’d say your take on universe, ruveyn, is a bit too human organ oriented. “Brains”…? “Center of intelligence”…?
Take plants for example. Research has shown that they have some cognition. Still they don’t have brains. Without reading any scientific research on the matter I am also certain that they do have to have a consciousness of some sort. Probably not like ours, but nevertheless a consciousness. In my opinion, at least no living thing can live in an environment without in a way or another being conscious of it. It is necessary for survival. Plus I’ve noted that trees growing near a wall, don’t try to penetrate the wall…
It could be said that in plants this is just simple cell interactions (interaction --> consciousness emerges...?) – simple cells reacting to environment, but that is what our brain is ultimately about too.
I’d say consciousness is in a form or another matter of all matter. Proof…? property of mathematics solely.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VisInsita wrote: |
Whether the universe is sentient or not, I do not know, but I’d say your take on universe, ruveyn, is a bit too human organ oriented. “Brains”…? “Center of intelligence”…?
Take plants for example. Research has shown that they have some cognition. |
Indeed. Plants do have tropism. They just love to lean toward the light, for example. But plants are -living things-. The cosmos is mostly non-living. Aside from Dark Matter (whatever that is) what there is mostly is hydrogen and hydrogen is not alive.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
VisInsita
Raven
Joined: Mar 01, 2012
Posts: 111
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | VisInsita wrote: |
Whether the universe is sentient or not, I do not know, but I’d say your take on universe, ruveyn, is a bit too human organ oriented. “Brains”…? “Center of intelligence”…?
Take plants for example. Research has shown that they have some cognition. |
Indeed. Plants do have tropism. They just love to lean toward the light, for example. But plants are -living things-. The cosmos is mostly non-living. Aside from Dark Matter (whatever that is) what there is mostly is hydrogen and hydrogen is not alive.
ruveyn |
Regarding the plants, I wasn’t talking about tropism… As an example a linked research paper on the matter: Green plants as intelligent organisms.
Even “non-living” things from the view point of particle physics are very much “living” and “interacting”. Particles, molecules, cells, organs, human beings etc. “swarm” and interact and thus more and more complex systems arise from simpler ones.
But like I said I am not stating anything to a direction or another about the sentience of the universe! |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Intelligent blooming idiots? I will believe angels emerge from my rectum when I fart, before I believe that.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
VisInsita
Raven
Joined: Mar 01, 2012
Posts: 111
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: |
Intelligent blooming idiots? I will believe angels emerge from my rectum when I fart, before I believe that.
ruveyn |
Indeed. Farting is the result of a micro-organism inside of you, naming the intelligent bacteria idiots (also known as human flora ) blossoming in your digestive system even long after you have died... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kon
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 15, 2010
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Kon
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 15, 2010
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another interesing write-up in Nature on the PBR no-go theorem:
| Quote: | The paper, thought by some to be one of the most important in quantum foundations in decades, was finally published last week in Nature Physics (M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett & T. Rudolph Nature Phys. http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n6/full/nphys2309.html 2012), enabling the authors, who had been concerned about violating the journal’s embargo, to speak about it publicly for the first time. They say that the mathematics leaves no doubt that the wavefunction is not just a statistical tool, but rather, a real, objective state of a quantum system. “People have become emotionally attached to positions that they defend with vague arguments,” says Jonathan Barrett, one of the authors and a physicist at Royal Holloway, University of London. “It’s better to have a theorem.”...
Barrett and his colleagues are following the approach of physicist John Bell, who in 1964 proved that quantum mechanics has another counterintuitive implication: that measurements on one particle can influence the state of another, distant particle, faster than the speed of light should allow. Bell’s was a ‘no-go’ theorem: its strategy was to show that theories that do not allow faster-than-light influences cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. Similarly, the theorem proposed by Barrett and his colleagues shows that theories that treat the wavefunction in terms of lack of knowledge of a system’s physical state will also fail to reproduce those predictions. Given how well-confirmed quantum mechanics is, the theorem suggests that such epistemic theories are wrong. “I hope this will take its place alongside Bell’s theorem,” says Barrett.
Because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics, the theorem also raises a deeper question: could quantum mechanics be wrong? Everyone assumes that it reigns supreme, but there is always a possibility that it could be overturned. So Barrett is now working with experimentalists to check predictions that differ between the theory and the epistemic accounts it conflicts with. “We don’t expect quantum mechanics would fail this test, but we should still do it,” he says. |
A boost for quantum reality
http://www.nature.com/news/a-boost-for-quantum-reality-1.10602 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
