Copenhagen

[Resha Caner]

I just read an article at Philosophy Now regarding the mind/body problem. It hinged on an interesting logical puzzle that used statements by some physicists as its warrant.

I think using those statements as the warrant is probably too thin to stand up to scrutiny. But I am curious. Where do people here stand on the question raised by the Copenhagen Interpretation?
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That question being: Do things at the quantum level literally remain only a potential (unmanifested) until we observe them, or is it merely an artifact of the way the results are presented (a consequence of our instrumental use of science)?

And be careful. Given the horrible ulterior motive lurking in my question, your answer may force you to accept Christianity against your will. (Sorry. Just in that kinda mood.)

 

[pgp_protector]

Q: "Do things at the quantum level literally remain only a potential (unmanifested) until we observe them, or is it merely an artifact of the way the results are presented (a consequence of our instrumental use of science)?"

A: I don't know.


(Also tagging thread)

 

[Tomk80]

Purely for aesthetic reasons I prefer interpretations like those of Penrose, where the probability equations reflect the "real" world, in the sense that the position of particles is really undertermined until the wave function collapses. I.e., it is not merely an artifact of measurement but a really undetermined.

Scientifically, I do not know enough to be able to choose between one of the multiple different suggested interpretations.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I dont know either.

 

[Resha Caner]

Purely for aesthetic reasons I prefer interpretations like those of Penrose, where the probability equations reflect the "real" world, in the sense that the position of particles is really undertermined until the wave function collapses. I.e., it is not merely an artifact of measurement but a really undetermined.

Well, that is the position the article speaks against. The author uses Penrose as an example. I'm not well enough aquainted with Penrose to say if he is properly presented. To quote the article:

Penrose makes several remarks indicating that perception/consciousness is fundamentally entangled with quantum reality. Furthermore, Penrose has apparently always hated this conclusion. However, he was forced by the evidence to conclude that in the quantum realm, “the place where ‘the buck stops’ is provided by our conscious perceptions.” (Shadows of the Mind, 1995, p.309). In a sense, one might say Penrose’s work has been a desperate but failed effort to avoid this conclusion.

The issue the author then presents is that if the mind depends upon the material, and yet the material does not manifest without a consciousness to perceive it, such a position is circular. The further claim, then, is that if physics now holds that the "reality" apart from us is only a quantum potential, then an immaterial consciousness must exist that can perceive the material to make it obtain.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That question being: Do things at the quantum level literally remain only a potential (unmanifested) until we observe them, or is it merely an artifact of the way the results are presented (a consequence of our instrumental use of science)?

Yes, certain quantum variables in a system remain indeterminate until they 'are observed', but this does not require a conscious observer. Perhaps a better term than 'are observed' would be 'interact with another system'.

A more modern wrinkle on Copenhagen includes Quantum Decoherence. In a couple more posts, I'd be able to share a link, but you can use the googles to find out more about decoherence.

 

[Strathos]

I am not an expert to say which one is true or not, but I always thought the transactional interpretation was neat.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The issue the author then presents is that if the mind depends upon the material, and yet the material does not manifest without a consciousness to perceive it, such a position is circular.

 

[Resha Caner]

Oh, yeah. You gotta love Escher ... and Hofstadter's attempt to break the infinite regress.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, certain quantum variables in a system remain indeterminate until they 'are observed', but this does not require a conscious observer. Perhaps a better term than 'are observed' would be 'interact with another system'.

Right. I thought of that. But if everything that manifests depends on that interaction, then what is there to interact with when all one has is a field with potential? It seems like it might still end in circularity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Right. I thought of that. But if everything that manifests depends on that interaction, then what is there to interact with when all one has is a field with potential? It seems like it might still end in circularity.

Can you expand on what you mean?

Even now, physicists can carefully set up systems in some indeterminate state, and by isolating it, can keep it in that indeterminate state for a 'long' time. There is nothing impossible or contradictory or circular about this lack of interaction.

 

[pgp_protector]

Right. I thought of that. But if everything that manifests depends on that interaction, then what is there to interact with when all one has is a field with potential? It seems like it might still end in circularity.

Other fields

 

[Resha Caner]

Even now, physicists can carefully set up systems in some indeterminate state, and by isolating it, can keep it in that indeterminate state for a 'long' time. There is nothing impossible or contradictory or circular about this lack of interaction.

I'm confused. Of course it would remain indeterminate. That's the problem isn't it? The wave function doesn't collapse until it interacts. But if there is nothing for it to interact with ... well, then nothing material ever exists.

But now you have me wondering if I've completely left the path and wandered off into the weeds.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm confused. Of course it would remain indeterminate. That's the problem isn't it? The wave function doesn't collapse until it interacts. But if there is nothing for it to interact with ... well, then nothing material ever exists.

Just because something is in a superposition of quantum states doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can set up an electron so that its wavefunction is a mixture of both spin up and spin down simultaneously. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just not in a definite particular spin state.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just because something is in a superposition of quantum states doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can set up an electron so that its wavefunction is a mixture of both spin up and spin down simultaneously. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just not in a definite particular spin state.

OK, I see what you're saying.

But I think the challenge goes a bit deeper than that. I think the article is implicitly relying on macro properties for "material", and then noting that those properties don't obtain at the quantum level. I suppose, then, that this might all depend on how one defines the material.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, that is the position the article speaks against. The author uses Penrose as an example. I'm not well enough aquainted with Penrose to say if he is properly presented. To quote the article:

Penrose makes several remarks indicating that perception/consciousness is fundamentally entangled with quantum reality. Furthermore, Penrose has apparently always hated this conclusion. However, he was forced by the evidence to conclude that in the quantum realm, “the place where ‘the buck stops’ is provided by our conscious perceptions.” (Shadows of the Mind, 1995, p.309). In a sense, one might say Penrose’s work has been a desperate but failed effort to avoid this conclusion.

The issue the author then presents is that if the mind depends upon the material, and yet the material does not manifest without a consciousness to perceive it, such a position is circular. The further claim, then, is that if physics now holds that the "reality" apart from us is only a quantum potential, then an immaterial consciousness must exist that can perceive the material to make it obtain.

I did not know Penrose was among the "quantum consciousness" interpreters, which in my mind is absolute bunk, and that is probably an understatement. The reasoning you describe is one of the reasons I hold to that position. Another is that I think a mind-body duality is internally contradictory, i.e. does not exist, therefore consciousness is a function of the body, therefore the collapse of the wave function is not triggered "consciousness".

The position I have encountered ascribed to him, stated that the undeterminedness of quantum states occurs with particles that "contain" little energy, but I might have him confused with someone else. Photons and electrons require little energy to persist in the quantum state, while larger particles would require more energy to remain in the same undetermined state. Collapse of the wave function is then a function of the amount of energy needed.

edited to add: In this idea, at the earliest moments of the big bang all the fundamental particles existed in a quantum state since the amount of energy was extraordinarily high. When space time expanded and energy diminished, wave functions started to collapse.

All what I've written here is of course a very rough approximation of other descriptions I've read that were simplifications to begin with. And therefore probably entirely inaccurate and most likely incorrect.

 

[usexpat97]

God observes all things, therefore all things are observed. Therefore it happened.