Marty's interpretation of quantum physics

[Peter Soderqvist]

MWI Properties of the theory
MWI removes the observer-dependent role in the quantum measurement process by replacing wave function collapse with quantum decoherence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Properties_of_the_theory

Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer by David Deutsch Interpretational implications page 16.
I have described elsewhere (Deutsch 1985; cf. also Albert 1983) how it would be possible to make a crucial experimental test of the Everett (‘many-universes’) interpretation of quantum theory by using a quantum computer (thus contradicting the widely held belief that it is not experimentally distinguishable from other interpretations). However, the performance of such experiments must await both the construction of quantum computers and the development of true artificial intelligence programs.

In explaining the operation of quantum computers I have, where necessary, assumed Everett’s ontology. Of course the explanations could always be ‘translated’ into the conventional interpretation, but not without entirely losing their explanatory power. Suppose, for example, a quantum computer were programmed as in the Stock Exchange problem described. Each day it is given different data. The Everett interpretation explains well how the computer’s behavior follows from its having delegated subtasks to copies of itself in other universes. On the days when the computer succeeds in performing two processor-days of computation, how would the conventional interpretations explain the presence of the correct answer? Where was it computed?

Appeared in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 400, pp. 97-117 (1985)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030915061044/http://www.qubit.org/oldsite/resource/deutsch85.pdf

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Um, yeah, sure. [Clears throat]

My understanding of quantum mechanics is almost negligible, but Marty's bald statement [my emphasis] of "quantum theory’s demonstration that consciousness affects, and may even create, the physical universe" would not, I think, garner much agreement in scientific quarters.
...
Paul

I agree. QM does not really have anything to do with spirituality.

Every invocation of QM into spiritual arguments essentially follows this formula.

1) Borrow the concept of 'Observer Effect' from QM.
2) Use the word 'observer' in a sentence but substitute the common meaning of the term 'observer' and abandon the scientific one, but keep the 'observer effect' for use as a metaphor.
3) Say the metaphor proves your spiritual position.
???
5) Profit. (refer Deepak Chopra).



Step 2 is an unjustifiable leap. These are two rough definitions and they are not interchangeable.
Observer: [common] an individual who watches or observes; [scientific] an apparatus which can collapse the wave function of a quantum particle such as an electron.

If you want to conduct an experiment to demonstrate the observer effect, you need an apparatus to conduct the experiment. You cannot use a person instead. The reason is that an observer (person) is not an observer (scientific apparatus). You and I are not observers, we are primates; half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee (and it shows).

We have demonstrated the observer effect in laboratories with observers (scientific apparatus), but never with observer (persons). So if you use the term 'observer' in a scientific context to describe a person, you don't have a single experiment to support you.

Now if you are to say in response (as people often do) that it takes a person to use the machine, it still doesn't get you out of the dilemma. It is the apparatus that collapses the wave function, not us. We can switch on a light, but we cannot glow. We can switch on a machine to collapse the wave function, be we cannot ourselves collapse the wave function. So it is a false analogy.



With step 3, an argument by analogy is fallacious in this case for 2 reasons.
1) The quantum world isn't like anything else. You cannot make an analogy with something that isn't like anything.
2) Arguments from analogy are fallacious to begin with. Here is one:

Water is like electricity.

The flow of water and electricity can be described as 'current.'

The thinness of pipes can be analogous to the resistance of a electrical component.

Electrical voltage can be likened to water pressure, more is dangerous in both cases.

If you increase the pressure, more current flows.

If you increase the voltage, more current flows.

If you decrease the resistance, more current flows.

etc

If I now say that because they are similar, I can charge my phone by dropping it in the toilet, you can see that a metaphor cannot be used to prove anything. If you can't see it then I would like to extend a warm introduction to the world of empirical verification to you, your phone and your toilet.

Marty, if you are reading this. Please stop. Just stop. Stop with QM. Stop selling books. Stop selling Scientology. See if you can use your thetan powers to make your heart stop.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Marty's bald statement [my emphasis] of "quantum theory’s demonstration that consciousness affects, and may even create, the physical universe" would not, I think, garner much agreement in scientific quarters.

For whatever my statement here may be worth, this is my research field and I'm about as expert on it as anyone is.

Paul's right.

For what it's worth, though, quantum mechanics as currently understood does treat measurement as a special kind of event. This is weird because if you look at any kind of measuring device or meter, including human eyes or brains, you can't identify any part or process involved that doesn't seem to be just another physical element or event, like any other. So it's distinctly odd that quantum mechanics effectively asks us, about every process we're trying to describe with our theory: "Wait, does this happen to be a measurement? If so, go to Page 17 for special procedures."

That much is an accurate picture of what quantum mechanics says. What's not at all clear, and not at all widely accepted, is that measurement has anything in particular to do with consciousness. Clearly our brains do perform measurements — however you choose to define 'measurement', it had better include human perception. But so do all kinds of quite inanimate devices. So, no, there does not seem to be any special role in quantum mechanics for consciousness as such.

If you want you can try to argue philosophically that measurement only really counts if it's observed by some conscious being, but this would just be your philosophical addition to quantum mechanics, not part of the scientific theory itself. Still, it might be a tenable, self-consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. In that sense, if Marty or anybody else wants to argue that their 'thetans create reality' theory is consistent with quantum mechanics, then maybe that would be valid. To claim that quantum mechanics actively supports that sort of view, though, is not valid.

Quantum mechanics is weird, and although we know very well how to apply it, I don't know anybody who really feels they grasp it intuitively. I would guess that only a rather small minority of physicists really believe that QM is the whole truth. It is certainly mostly true, in the sense that the phenomena it describes aren't going to go away. But probably the picture it gives of the universe is in some way fundamentally misleading, the way Newtonian mechanics remains mostly true, yet is now known to give a basically wrong picture of how things are.

Finally, if you do want to hitch your thetan wagon to quantum mechanics, you should be aware that when I say QM is weird, I don't just mean that it leaves the door open for thetans. QM has weird implications that even thetan-theory believers may not like.

 

[BardoThodol]

The indignation felt by supporters of Quantum Physics about spiritualists and metaphysicians co-opting concepts attributed to QP is somewhat ironic, sort of disingenuous.

Sometimes, you walk in on your kids bickering. Son claims the daughter tossed his toy out the window. Bad. Then you find out, it was retaliation for the boy sticking her doll's head in the toilet. Bad.

Here's all this bickering over the term "observe." Perfectly good term, used a lot by people in everyday life.

Then these nerds coopt the term to apply to some esoteric event that isn't even understood by most in the scientific community.

"Observation leads to wave function collapse?" Okay. Fine and dandy.

I asked my daughter, a zoologist. She didn't have a clue. Talked to her boyfriend, a botanist, he didn't have a clue. Called up her friend who's studying chemistry (got a 35 on his ACT and was a National Merit Scholar) and he sort of, kind of, maybe had a vague idea.

So, you take a term and completely esotericize (made it up) it's exoteric meaning, then become indignant because those who actually use the term on a daily basis have no clue what you're talking about.

And when those with a different perspective try to understand the meaning of life and the true nature of the universe take that term and apply the generally accepted meaning, Oh God! how stupid are they!!?

Parts of QP and QM have become metonyms in the spiritual community. "observer affects perception." Certainly, this is based on a misunderstanding of what those physicist are trying to explain. But, also based on poor explanation that often obscures rather than clarifies for those not in that inner circle.

Those seeking spiritual enlightenment are also looking at sort of the same thing from a different angle. What is the underlying cause of physical phenomena? Is it all illusion? Is it created? By whom or what?

How does all this interact?

We're all using language to express what we've experienced. And what we'd like to experience.

As far as I know, quantum theorists have yet to explain and map out exactly what underlies the quantum states. Nor do they understand how quanta acquire velocity. What propels those particles and sets the wave functions in motion? The work-energy relations of discrete quanta momentum relations? Hmmmm.

So, you've got this language evolving. Research into Quantum Physics has been going on for over a century with an evolving language. It's a semantic progression.

Math, even "higher math", is a language. A language of values whose formulas predict outcomes. And just as exceptional linguists use and manipulate words, mathematicians use and manipulate the language of math. The symbols of the formulas. Observing and correcting and predicting.

Even the symbols of math have denotation and connotation. 1 + 1 = 2. The connotations of this formula present all manner of possibilities. 1 what? One goat plus one rock equals two what? Implication and inference.

Humans are dirty little creatures. Sexual in nature. Which colors everything. Denotation and connotation steal away under the bleachers, banging away at one another, sometimes producing embarrassing offspring.

But, you see the child, not knowing she's a bastard, and you still can fall in love with her. And, maybe if you're a decent soul, the illegitimacy of the child isn't so important.

I've got an image of the Milky Way for a screen saver. Earth is way, way, way out on the edge. Sort of like a tribe living well away from the hustle and bustle of civilization. We discover that tribe and are amazed by what they don't know. How quaint.

Our science, as useful as it is in making microwaves so I can heat up my hamburgers, is probably pretty primitive compared to what it will be someday. (Hopefully, we'll last that long.)

 

[Jquepublic]

I don't know...all of it seems like a moot point to me. I don't need to know anything about quantum physics, spacial relationships, mathematics or collapsed waves to feed a stray, help a little old lady with her groceries, or appreciate the beauty of the ocean. I sure don't need to understand any of it to talk to an ashtray.

Life is too short to spend it trying to figure out how to prove some dead man's theory about something that, when you get right down to it, means nothing at all. Better to spend it trying to ease a little suffering where you can and to experience the majesty of what is right in front of you. I don't need to be a godlike being to be worthy. I'm happy being a flawed, frail and fallible human.

 

[Gadfly]

As far as I know, quantum theorists have yet to explain and map out exactly what underlies the quantum states. Nor do they understand how quanta acquire velocity. What propels those particles and sets the wave functions in motion? The work-energy relations of discrete quanta momentum relations? Hmmmm.

Science is what science does.

It observes and categorizes BEHAVIOR. That is all it has ever done. And, all related theories, models and mathematical equations are designed to "explain" and "predict" future BEHAVIOR.

When it comes too "why", "how come", and the "source" of it all - they don't have any idea - and most scientists don't pretend to have any idea. They might speculate and guess, but that is all they are doing.

But, that doesn't mean that there aren't actual "whys", "how comes" and "sources" - that possibly transcend, underlie or supercede everything we can measure, detect and experience through matter and energy in space and time. And, maybe not.

Though, I suspect there is a great deal MORE going on than meets the eye. And, the understandings of "what is going on" (on all levels) are on paths of constant evolution and change just like everything else.

No doubt, as you said, the scientists and philosophers in 200 or 500 years from now (if Mankind manages to survive that long without any major interruptions) will look back and LAUGH LOUDLY at our current "understandings" of all-that-is.

When a scientist staes that the universe began with a "big bang" or from a singularity, how different is that from saying that BANG, it all suddenly appeared? Now, "how" and "why" it all began in that milli-mico second of creation is anyone's guess. And, yes, there are LOTS of theories from both scientists and religious/spiritual folks.

I like to be familiar with a great many theories and ideas (spiritual, religious and scientific), but I don't really invest any strong belief in any of them. There may never be sufficient "proof" to justify grasping firmly onto ANY exact "belief", but in the meantime I can and do select various theories and models as my current personal favorites (understanding that these might change today or tomorrow as new observations appear).

 

[BardoThodol]

I don't know...all of it seems like a moot point to me. I don't need to know anything about quantum physics, spacial relationships, mathematics or collapsed waves to feed a stray, help a little old lady with her groceries, or appreciate the beauty of the ocean. I sure don't need to understand any of it to walk over to a wall or talk to an ashtray.

Life is too short to spend it trying to figure out how to prove some dead man's theory about something that, when you get right down to it, means nothing at all. Better to spend it trying to ease a little suffering where you can and to experience the majesty of what is right in front of you. I don't need to be a godlike being to be worthy. I'm happy being a flawed, frail and fallible human.

Humans have this great need to be valued.

Some want to be valued above all others.

One way to acquire the altitude necessary to be admired is to have that which others value. Nice cars, nice clothes, mansions.

Another is to have "valuable ideas."

Value often depends on scarcity. So the more esoteric the idea, the more it can seem important. As in: look at how smart I am because I understand what you don't.

I value what I understand. Not what is difficult to grasp.

I find far more value in sharing an ice cream with my daughter than pondering quantum physics.

Last winter, a stray cat took up residence in our back yard. It weighed 3.2 lbs and the vet said she had less than a 1 percent chance of survival because her kidneys were failing. And he thought the 1 percent was generous. That's nine months ago and she's 7 lbs now. The vet was shocked that she survived.

Holding that little cat and knowing we saved her life brings joy to all of us. And was far more valuable to me and my family than QP, Marty, or trying to find ways of seeming important.

I think, on that note, I'll take my daughter out to lunch as she's going back to school tomorrow.

 

[Smilla]

Marty's great talent is poetry. He should forsake all else.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Marty's great talent is poetry. He should forsake all else.

 

[Jquepublic]

Marty's great talent is poetry. He should forsake all else.

I was going to say he should fish moar!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I thought Mark was saying Marty is a doofus when I read it, but he may well have been saying that I am a doofus. Either way, I'm good with it.

I was. The poster to whom you responded, as usual, didn't understand that which he was commenting about.

Moreover, if there is a doofus on esmb then it isn't either thee or me.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

He's saying Hubbard wasn't a doofus ...

No. As usual your "analysis" is completely wrong.

Learn to read. Or better yet. Learn.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. Do the world a favor. Stop posting venomously.