But isn't that what some are saying about quantum physics that its the observer that is determining the final effects.
People say a lot of silly things. In physics, an observer is anything that makes a measurement. A measurement is any interaction with the system under consideration. So a particle that interacts with a system is an observer. This must be distinguished from the everyday idea of a conscious observer, which is something else. In quantum theory, this distinction was made clear around 70-80 years ago. The only influence consciousness has on the outcome is in setting up the conditions for the observation, although it's worth bearing in mind that the outcome of the measurement must spread out into the environment, including any conscious observers (so they come to know what happened). This spreading is called decoherence, and delineates the observational boundary between quantum and classical probabilistic behaviour. However, as a consequence, conscious observers will become part of the modified system, which may be relevant to the particular interpretation of the quantum formalism you feel most comfortable with.
In QM, the kind of measurement you make determines the kind of outcome you see, but in a counter-intuitive way (wave-particle duality, etc). An analogy is looking at a cylinder; looked at in one way, it appears to be rectangular; looked at another way, it appears to be circular. But it is neither.
So what is averaged out that we end up seeing is only seen that way because it is us that is determining that.
Not really, no. In everyday life decoherence occurs long before we get to see the results.
What we end up seeing isn't what happens in the lead up. So therefore some come up with the many world idea to address this. In another parallel world someone may end up seeing and experiencing a different end result.
Not quite. The mathematical description (the wave function) of an uncertain quantum system before measurement is as a superposition of states (e.g. for a particle, it could be a superposition of spin up
and spin down). These are not just descriptions of two
possible spin states it could have (i.e. a measure of our ignorance of it's actual spin), but it really is, in some deeply strange way, actually in both states at once.
When you make a measurement (by some interaction), that superposed state resolves to one observed outcome, (e.g. either spin up or spin down). This has been called 'the collapse of the wave function' because, from the conscious observer's point of view, the wave function now describes a particle that is no longer in superposition. But, importantly, there is no collapse of the wave function in the quantum formalism. The overall wave function (described by Schrodinger's wave equation) evolves continuously; at the point of interaction, it encompasses the interacting (measuring particle), which joins the superposition, then with further interactions with the environment, it spreads out until it encompasses the conscious observers and beyond - they all join the rapidly diverging superposition. The Many Worlds interpretation takes this mathematical description literally, eschews the notion of an arbitrary unexplained wave function 'collapse', and instead, accepts that the conscious observer is now in a superposition of having observed both a spin up result and a spin down result. By the time decoherence has occurred (the superposition has spread into the immediate environment) the superposed states can no longer influence each other, they are effectively totally independent, and in 'separate universes' - so the superposed observers are also effectively in separate universes, one where the outcome was spin up, one where it was spin down.
This is all a somewhat parochial view of wave function evolution, because it's just looking at local aspects of the evolution of the global wave function of the universe in Hilbert space, and one could say that, in a sense, the universe doesn't really 'split' each time this happens, because the superposition was really there all along, but the separate 'leaves' of the universe were otherwise identical.
Check out Sean Carroll's '
Why Many Worlds is Probably Correct' and '
Wrong Objections to Many Worlds'.
They are merely trying to unite things together and the only way to do so is to appeal to these ideas beyond the logical realms.
Appealing to ideas 'beyond the logical realms' is not science. QM behaves predictably, according to logical mathematical rules; they are just strange and unfamiliar rules.
Afterall if we go back to the point of where something comes from nothing and this is where things have to go then it has to have something beyond logic and beyond the classical physics to be able to explain things.
There is no point where something comes from nothing. As Lawrence Krauss says, when physicists talk of something coming from 'nothing', they mean empty spacetime (i.e. with no particles or non-zero fields [apart from the Higgs field]). They don't literally mean nothing as in the absence of anything (because that is just a conceptual abstraction of negation). Empty spacetime is subject to quantum fluctuations, which means virtual particles, and so-on.
Some say that there are some scientists who are speculating about quantum woo and pseudoscience by bringing in these far fetched ideas. But even the mainstream science is more or less coming up with the same sort of speculations. Things like multiverses, hologram worlds, string theory, black holes, worm holes, ect are along the same lines. Yet even prominent scientists are using this type of language.
There's a significant difference between pseudoscience & quantum woo, and multiverses, holographic universe, string theory, black holes, worm holes, etc. The latter are reasoned extrapolations based on the possible implications of the mathematics behind well-tested theories, the former are not.
So even though some are saying that the brain cannot be linked with the quantum world at the moment who knows what we will find in a couple of years time. I think thats why some are speculation that the brain maybe connected to the quantum world because there is a rational. That rational started with the findings of quantum physics with things like the observer effect and that everything has to have started in the quantum world even our brains.
We already know that brains are - like everything else - connected to the quantum world, because they're constructed out of it. We also know that it's possible that they may make use of some interesting quantum optimizations at the neural or sub-neural level - although there's no evidence that this is the case. But we equally know that quantum field theory tells us that there are no particles, fields, or forces that operate at human scales that could mediate mind over matter, or any other paranormal or supernatural phenomena. It's basically electromagnetism or nothing. It's disappointing, I know, but there it is. When you invoke quantum mechanics or any other field of science, you can't choose to accept only the bits you want and reject everything else in favour of wishful thinking.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
