Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

At Forbes: What we are getting wrong about Schrodinger’s cat

Spread the love

Don’t miss the cute kitten in the hedder photo:

In other words, pretty much everything you’ve ever heard about Schrödinger’s cat is probably a myth, with the sole exception of the fact that quantum systems actually are well-described by a probabilistically weighted superposition of all possible, allowable states, and that an observation or measurement will always reveal one and only one definitive state.

This is not only true, but it’s true irrespective of which quantum interpretation you choose. It doesn’t matter whether you’re selecting one outcome out of the ensemble of all possible outcomes; it doesn’t matter whether you’re collapsing an indeterminate wavefunction into a determinate state; it doesn’t matter if you’re falling into one particular Universe out of an infinite suite of parallel Universes.

All that matters is that a quantum observation has occurred.

Ethan Siegel, “Ask Ethan: What Are We Getting Wrong About Schrodinger’s Cat?” at Forbes

If a cat is involved, we bet there is more to the story.

35 Replies to “At Forbes: What we are getting wrong about Schrodinger’s cat

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    It must be referring to a con-cat-enation of quantum states. (Sorry)

    I know I’m going to regret asking this but, if the final or collapsed state is entirely dependent on an observation being performed, what was the Universe like before we were aware of quantum phenomena and began observing them?

  2. 2
    aarceng says:

    How many cat’s died during the “Schrodinger’s cat” experiment?

  3. 3
    Eugene says:

    > what was the Universe like before we were aware of quantum phenomena and began observing them

    We have no idea what it is which collapses the wavefunction (and where is the random number generator involved located and who runs it). We don’t know if anything (other than pure mathematical equations) “exists” at all.

    Do not ever visualize atoms or electrons as little “balls”. They are anything but. They are basically complex functions in space and time, and they are “spread” nearly infinitely in space.

    “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” Niels Bohr

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    AAR, Nil, This is strictly a thought experiment, though one could rig up a mouse and a RA controlled vial of poison or the like. KF

  5. 5
    BrunoAr says:

    This is an old joke, but still makes me laugh

    Is he gonna get hurt during the expirement?
    Schrödinger: Yesn’t

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    In his article Ethan Siegal states,

    Erwin Schrödinger himself didn’t present his “cat” idea as a proposed experiment. He didn’t devise it to ask deep questions about the role of a human being in the observation process.,,,
    Schrödinger’s original purpose in putting forth this thought experiment. His true purpose? To illustrate how easy it is to arrive at an absurd prediction — such as a prediction of a simultaneously half-dead and half-alive cat — if you misinterpret or misunderstand quantum mechanics.,,,
    Einstein wrote the following to Schrödinger himself, asking rhetorically, “Is the state of the cat to be created only when a physicist investigates the situation at some definite time?”
    The answer, perhaps unfortunately, is “of course not.”

    Siegal is trying to salvage a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. An interpretation in which the human observer is not to be consider special over and above inanimate objects in making measurements,.. a ‘realist interpretation’ in which an objective reality exists apart from our own personal conscious observation of it,

    In fact, Siegal went on to state,

    the cat itself is a perfectly valid observer. The fact of the door or gate opening, and the mechanism controlling it getting triggered, is a perfectly valid observation. Throwing a Geiger counter in there, an instrument which is sensitive to radioactive decays, would count as an observation. And, in fact, any non-reversible interaction that occurs within that system, even if it’s completely sealed off from the outside world in that box, will reveal one and only one definitive state: either the atom has decayed or it has not.

    Unfortunately for Siegal, the answer to Einstein’s question, “Is the state of the cat to be created only when a physicist investigates the situation at some definite time?” is NOT, as Siegal himself put in quotation marks, “of course not.”

    For crying out loud, if the answer was “of course not”, as Siegal believes, then all the heated arguments over which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct would never have taken place.

    For instance, as to Siegal’s claim that “any non-reversible interaction that occurs within that system, even if it’s completely sealed off from the outside world in that box, will reveal one and only one definitive state: either the atom has decayed or it has not”,
    ,,, Richard Conn Henry responds thusly to that argument, “the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    Here are a few examples of ‘interaction-free” measurements that get Dr. Henry’s point across,

    Interaction-Free Measurements
    In physics, interaction-free measurement is a type of measurement in quantum mechanics that detects the position, presence, or state of an object without an interaction occurring between it and the measuring device. Examples include the Renninger negative-result experiment, the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-testing problem [1], and certain double-cavity optical systems, such as Hardy’s paradox.,,,
    Initially proposed as thought experiments, interaction-free measurements have been experimentally demonstrated in various configurations, 6,7,8,,
    6. Kwiat, Paul; Weinfurter, Harald; Herzog, Thomas; Zeilinger, Anton; Kasevich, Mark A. (1995-06-12). “Interaction-Free Measurement”. Physical Review Letters. 74 (24):
    7. White, Andrew G. (1998). “”Interaction-free” imaging”. Physical Review A. 58 (1):
    8. Tsegaye, T.; Goobar, E.; Karlsson, A.; Björk, G.; Loh, M. Y.; Lim, K. H. (1998-05-01). “Efficient interaction-free measurements in a high-finesse interferometer”. Physical Review A. 57 (5):
    – per wikipedia

    Thus Siegal’s claim that “an instrument which is sensitive to radioactive decays, would count as an observation.,,,, any non-reversible interaction that occurs within that system, even if it’s completely sealed off from the outside world in that box, will reveal one and only one definitive state” is simply a wrong claim for him to make and is contradicted by experimental evidence.

    Of related interest, the following video also explains why “decoherence” does not solve the measurement problem: Mainly, there is a breakdown in the mathematics in that there is a irresolvable dilemma for decoherence in deriving the “Born rule” within the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation). This irresovable dillemmma is discussed at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video,

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    As to Siegal’s specific claim that “a Geiger counter,,, would count as an observation”, Stephen Barr responds thusly, “Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement”? (NO) That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: “,,, “as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump.”

    Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr – July 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement”? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump.
    That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=jP0lDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q&f=false

    As well, Steven Weinberg himself, an atheist, rightly rejects the Siegal’s ‘realist approach’ to quantum mechanics, (mainly because of the insanity inherent in the ‘many worlds interpretation)’,

    Yet, on the other hand, it is interesting to note the main reason for why Weinberg, as an atheist, rejects the ‘instrumentalist approach’ to quantum mechanics. Weinberg rejects the instrumentalist approach because, ” the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin,,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg
    – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    Thus, Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach, not because of any inherent insanity with the instumentalist interpretaion, (such as the insanity that is inherent in the Many Worlds Interpretation), but simply because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and simply because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within.

    So what? Darwin’s theory can’t even stand on its own merit, much less should Darwin’s theory ever be allowed to dictate which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics we are willing to accept.

    “I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – David Berlinski

    In fact, although Siegal claims that, in regards to quantum mechanics, a human observer is to be considered no different than a Geiger counter. the fact of the matter is that there is an irreducible subjective element to quantum mechanics that forever separates the two.

    On The Comparison Of Quantum and Relativity Theories – Sachs – 1986
    Excerpt: quantum theory entails an irreducible subjective element in its conceptual basis. In contrast, the theory of relativity when fully exploited, is based on a totally objective view.
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    And as John von Neuman stated, “we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.”

    John von Neumann – (1903-1957)
    Excerpt: “We wish to measure a temperature.,,,
    But in any case, no matter how far we calculate — to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.”
    John von Neumann – 1903-1957 – The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 – 1955
    http://www.informationphilosop.....s/neumann/

    And as Eugene Wigner stated, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
    Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays” – 1970;

    Thus, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. As far a quantum mechanics is concerned, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”.

    For instance, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Experimental test of local observer-independence – 2019
    Excerpt: The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Likewise, and as leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    The Kochen-Specker theorem undermines the realist approach of quantum mechanics, and/or the strict determinism of atheistic materialists, in the most fundamental way possible in that “it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way.”

    The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen,,,
    Since the free will theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed (pre-determined) independently of the choice of measurements.
    http://www.informationphilosop.....eorem.html

    As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

    Going even further, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    per sciencedaily

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.

    First and foremost, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

    November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178

    The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019
    What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

    To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    per westvirginia

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Of supplemental note. Here are two experimental falsifications of ‘realism’:

    Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment and Leggett’s inequality
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wow-panpsychism-gets-a-respectful-hearing-at-scientific-american/#comment-691134

  8. 8
    AaronS1978 says:

    @seversky
    “I know I’m going to regret asking this but, if the final or collapsed state is entirely dependent on an observation being performed, what was the Universe like before we were aware of quantum phenomena and began observing them?“

    Why regret that question!? That’s an honest and legitimate question no has be able to answer with any level of certainty. I’ve often asked that myself. Seriously this is a good question

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    The one thing we know Schrodinger got right was that cats like boxes.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Also, Erwin Schrödinger apparently did NOT have a cat and it did NOT look like this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo5h-A3J4w8

    Where did the article’s variation about poisoned cat food behind a door come from and why?

    -Q

  11. 11
    BobRyan says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat is one of my favorite thought experiments, but I don’t use it to ponder the multiverse hypothesis. I use it more for things like alien life in the universe, regardless of intelligence. Aliens either exist or they don’t. Until we can know for certain, they will exist and not exist at the same time. Discovery or non-discovery has no bearing on anything in regards to what we know of the universe and what we will learn in the near future.

  12. 12
    jawa says:

    “The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” – Confucius

  13. 13
    Retired Physicist says:

    @Seversky “observation” is misleading to a lot of people, and even some kooky physicists have made crazy statements about it. Observation really just means an interaction with the outside world such that the state is collapsed. A photon can bang into the system and that can be an “observation”.

  14. 14
    Retired Physicist says:

    For instance, if you’re doing a double slit experiment, you can set up a detector such that you know which slit the photon goes through (you’re interacting via photons really) and have it recorded on a piece of paper. Even when you’re not in the room, or conscious, the observations are still happening and being recorded on the piece of paper. You don’t have to be a conscious observer for those marks to hit the paper. You can die, and another person can come along and find the paper. The paper is not in an uncollapsed state while you’re dead.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    seversky:

    I know I’m going to regret asking this but, if the final or collapsed state is entirely dependent on an observation being performed, what was the Universe like before we were aware of quantum phenomena and began observing them?

    The Intelligent Designers were around, observing. 😎

    With Intelligent Design there was always an observer/ consciousness in the universe.

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    Retired Physicist: Observation really just means an interaction with the outside world such that the state is collapsed.

    That’s right, it doesn’t mean a human observation; no consciousness required.

  17. 17
    Retired Physicist says:

    Yep.

  18. 18
    Retired Physicist says:

    If there’s one book that physicists hate, it’s the dancing wu li masters. That book did more than anything to spread misinformation.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    JVL:

    That’s right, it doesn’t mean a human observation;

    Exactly!

    no consciousness required.

    To be an atheistic materialist

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Consciousness, specifically the two mental attributes of ‘the experience of the now’ and of ‘free will’, are far more tightly correlated with measurement, and/or observation, in quantum mechanics than atheists would prefer people to believe.

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

  21. 21
    Querius says:

    What many people forget with regard to quantum mechanics is the transfer and conservation of information along with the collapse of wave functions as a manifestation of the probabilistic nature of existence.

    Vlatko Vedral is a professor of Physics at the University of Oxford who specializes in quantum theory and whose research papers are widely cited expresses the concept this way:

    The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.

    It’s truly amazing to observe the heroic efforts by some people to try to maintain a believable case for materialistic determinism in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it.

    -Q

  22. 22
    Retired Physicist says:

    Querius, when Vlatko is talking about information, he’s using it as a synonym for Von Neumann Entropy. That’s his gig and he’s very good at it. VNE is the quantum version of Shannon information. It’s about matrix math, not meaning.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_entropy

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius quotes Vlatko Vedral

    The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.

    And then states.

    It’s truly amazing to observe the heroic efforts by some people to try to maintain a believable case for materialistic determinism in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it.

    To which Retired Physicist responds,

    when Vlatko is talking about information, he’s using it as a synonym for Von Neumann Entropy. That’s his gig and he’s very good at it. VNE is the quantum version of Shannon information. It’s about matrix math, not meaning.

    And what in blue blazes does that have to with what Querius was talking about? In a nutshell, he is claiming, rightly so, that materialism is falsified since “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information”!

    This is simply devastating to Darwinian materialists since they hold that (immaterial) information is ’emergent’ from a material basis and not material to be ’emergent’ from an information basis.

    Vlatko Vedral is hardly alone. Wheeler himself stated that, “every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.
    It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”

    I, like other searchers, attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from Bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.
    It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
    – John Archibald Wheeler
    https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/

    Likewise leading Quantum experimentalist Anton Zeilinger himself also holds the same view,

    48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

    Anton Zeilinger went even further and stated that, “It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum mechanics
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    Moreover, entropy, (a subject that Retired Physicist brought up), and how entropy relates to quantum information theory is also devastating to Darwinian presuppositions.

    Specifically, recent experiments in quantum mechanics have shown that “entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

    As the following article states, the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,, In the new paper, the researchers,,, show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,,
    The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    Moreover, in the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, it was demonstrated that knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position converts information into energy.

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    These developments in quantum information theory go to the heart of the ID vs. Evolution debate and, number one, directly falsify Darwinian claims that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from some material basis.,,,
    And secondly, this distinct physical entity of immaterial information is, via experimental realization of the Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, shown to be a product of a immaterial mind. To repeat, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    Moreover, this quantum information that is now shown to have a ‘thermodynamic content,’ and which is also shown not to be a property of a system but “a property of an observer who describes a system”, is now found to be ubiquitous within living organisms. As the following paper explains, Quantum Criticality is in a wide range important biomolecules,

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    And as Dr Rieper notes at 24:00 minute mark of the following video, practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    The following video deals with ‘Quantum Biology’ in a bit more detail,

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    The interesting thing about finding quantum information to be ubiquitous within living organisms is that quantum information, like quantum entanglement itself, requires a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, cause in order to explain it. As the following article noted, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Moreover, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

    In short, Christian Theists now have very strong empirical support for their claim that we have immaterial souls that are capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

  25. 25
    Querius says:

    Nicely addressed, Bornagain77! Neither Anton Zeilinger nor I made any claims about information content. Regarding the Shannon information that Susskind first posited in relation to black holes, the difference is insignificant if not nonexistent.

    I do think “Shannon information” is a misnomer and should actually be called Shannon data, but that’s a different issue.

    -Q

  26. 26
    Retired Physicist says:

    Shannon Information can be caused by random data, as can Neumann‘s entropy. You’re looking for meaning when it’s not there. Abusing quotes from authoritative physicists is a weird hobby to have.

    I encourage everybody to learn the actual science involved, but sadly it takes years and a lot of work. Misconstruing quotes is easy and fun and anybody can do it. I worked on solid-state physics and not quantum information, but I have had the 10 or so classes necessary to understand it, and I would love to see people accurately quoting his academic papers instead of pop science stuff. You don’t change science by coming up with clever sounding arguments based on misunderstandings.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    RP-While it is true that Shannon was not interested in meaning, that’s only because the equipment used to transmit and receive the signal do not care about meaning. His was a special mathematical model pertaining to a specific engineering problem. Information is, and always has been, about meaning.

    The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The signi?cant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. The system must be designed to operate for each possible selection, not just the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design. – Claude Shannon

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Retired Physicist states

    “I encourage everybody to learn the actual science involved, but sadly it takes years and a lot of work. Misconstruing quotes is easy and fun and anybody can do it. I worked on solid-state physics and not quantum information, but I have had the 10 or so classes necessary to understand it, and I would love to see people accurately quoting his academic papers instead of pop science stuff. You don’t change science by coming up with clever sounding arguments based on misunderstandings.”

    Retired Physicist claims that Querius misconstrued Vlatko Vedral’s quote, i.e. “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information”

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    – Vlatko Vedral

    Yet Vedral’s quote means exactly what he said it means and it is certainly not being misconstrued or misunderstood. In fact it is the lead off quote in his book description for ‘Decoding Reality” on Amazon

    Amazon | In Decoding Reality, Vlatko Vedral offers a mind-stretching look at the deepest questions about the universe — where everything comes from, why things are as they are, what everything is.
    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, he writes, but information — and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.” This view allows Vedral to address a host of seemingly unrelated questions: Why does DNA bind like it does? What is the ideal diet for longevity? How do you make your first million dollars? We can unify all through the understanding that everything consists of bits of information, he writes, though that raises the question of where these bits come from. To find the answer, he takes us on a guided tour through the bizarre realm of quantum physics. At this sub-sub-subatomic level, we find such things as the interaction of separated quantum particles — what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” In fact, Vedral notes, recent evidence suggests that quantum weirdness, once thought to be limited to the tiniest scale, may actually reach into the macro world and make teleportation a real possibility. It is in quantum physics, he writes, that we really can find the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.
    Vlatko Vedral is one of the key researchers in quantum science. In this book, he offers a mind-bending account of this leading-edge field.
    https://www.kurzweilai.net/decoding-reality-the-universe-as-quantum-information

    In fact, it we were to take what Retired Physicist said that Vedral really meant by information,,

    “when Vlatko is talking about information, he’s using it as a synonym for Von Neumann Entropy.

    And insert what RP claims he meant into Vedral’s sentence in place of the word information,

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but Von Neumann Entropy–and it is the processing of Von Neumann Entropy that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    – Vlatko Vedral

    Then, as we can see, that renders Vedral’s sentence basically nonsensical. Thus, if anybody is guilty of misunderstanding and trying to misconstrue what Vedral actually meant by what he said then it would be Retired Physicist himself who is guilty of what he accuses others of.

    Moreover, since RP appealed to Von Neumann entropy, then is is very interesting to point out that John von Neumann himself, contrary to what Retired Physicist believes, held that the observer holds a special position within quantum mechanics,

    “We wish to measure a temperature.,,,
    But in any case, no matter how far we calculate — to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.”
    John von Neumann – 1903-1957 – The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 – 1955
    http://www.informationphilosop.....s/neumann/

    Von Neumann goes on.

    “The boundary between the two is arbitrary to a very large extent. In particular we saw in the four different possibilities in the example above, that the observer in this sense needs not to become identified with the body of the actual observer: In one instance in the above example, we included even the thermometer in it, while in another instance, even the eyes and optic nerve tract were not included. That this boundary can be pushed arbitrarily deeply into the interior of the body of the actual observer is the content of the principle of the psycho-physical parallelism — but this does not change the fact that in each method of description the boundary must be put somewhere, if the method is not to proceed vacuously, i.e., if a comparison with experiment is to be possible. Indeed experience only makes statements of this type: an observer has made a certain (subjective) observation; and never any like this: a physical quantity has a certain value.”
    – von Neumann

    In fact, the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics “is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.”

    Von Neumann–Wigner – interpretation
    Excerpt: The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as “consciousness causes collapse”, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

    Thus Retired Physicist’s appeal to von Neumann entropy to try to get around the fact that “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information”, is self defeating in that von Neumann himself, contrary to what RP believes about decoherence rendering a conscious observer unnecessary, instead held that “consciousness causes collapse”.

    Thus RP shoots himself in the foot twice. First he is guilty of the very thing that he accuses others of, namely, trying to twist Vedral’s words to mean something other than what they clearly meant, and secondly, his appeal to von Neumann entropy, in and of itself, defeats RP in that von Neumann himself held that “consciousness”, not decoherence and/or entropy, “causes collapse”.

    Since he struck out twice, RP is running out of feet to shoot himself in! 🙂

    Moreover, RP is not really contesting the fact the basis of reality is found to be information, not matter or energy, (which is what, in and of itself, falsifies Darwinian materialism and which was Querius’s, and my, main point in the first place), but RP is instead claiming that the information and/or entropy is not meaningful. Specifically he claimed,

    “Shannon Information can be caused by random data, as can Neumann‘s entropy. You’re looking for meaning when it’s not there.”

    Yet, meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. So let’s see if we can find ‘meaning’ with entropy where RP apparently can find none.

    In the ‘Quantum Zeno Effect’ in quantum mechanics, we find that “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”

    Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018
    The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf

    Likewise, the entry on wikipedia about the Quantum Zeno effect also provocatively states that “a system can’t change while you are watching it”

    Quantum Zeno effect
    Excerpt: Sometimes this effect is interpreted as “a system can’t change while you are watching it”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

    Atheistic materialists have tried (as is usual for them) to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment are sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect (i.e. decoherence).

    Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018
    Excerpt: The references to observations and to wavefunction collapse tend to raise unnecessary questions related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, all that is required is that some interaction with an external system disturb the unitary evolution of the quantum system in a way that is effectively like a projection operator.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf

    Yet, the following interaction-free measurement for the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrated that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom.

    Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015
    Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....S-20150415

    Thus, regardless of how atheistic materialists may feel about it, the quantum zeno effect is experimentally shown to be a real effect that is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation. And thus the statement, “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay”, stands as being a empirically true statement for a person to make.

    Moreover, as was highlighted in post 23, within recent developments in quantum information theory, we now find that “entropy is (NOT) a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-forbes-what-we-are-getting-wrong-about-schrodingers-cat/#comment-705804

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    The reason why I am very impressed with such experiments as the preceding is that the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, is very foundational to any definition of time that we may try to put forth.

    As the following article states, “Entropy explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,”,, “Even gravity,,,, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,,”

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    On top of the fact that “(Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe”, Entropy is also, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated that, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”

    “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    In the following video, Dr, Bruce Gordon touches upon just how enormous that number truly is. Dr. Gordon states, “you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with a zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is.”

    “An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you’ve got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ”
    Dr Bruce Gordon – Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 – video – 1:50 minute mark – video
    https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110

    In fact, entropy is also the primary reason why our own material, temporal, bodies grow old and eventually die in this universe,,,

    Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007
    Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,,
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.0030220

    And yet, to repeat the last sentence from the quantum information paper that I cited at post 23, “we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    That statement is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions which also happen to explain time itself, even care if I am consciously observing them, and/or describing them, unless ‘the experience of ‘the now’ really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is? To state the obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality.
    For instance Romans chapter 8: verses 20 and 21 itself states, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”

    Romans 8:20-21
    For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    Psalm 102:25-27
    Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

    Thus Retired Physicist may claim that, in regards to entropy, “You’re looking for meaning when it’s not there.” but clearly when we ‘look’ at entropy, specifically when we ‘look’ at unstable particles, via the quantum zeno effect, we find far more ‘meaning’ for the universe, and for our lives in this universe, than Retired Physicist, as an atheist, would prefer to believe existed for our lives in this universe.

    In short, our lives are not nearly as inconsequential in this universe as the nihilism inherent within atheistic materialism entails.

    You Chemical Scum, You – Raymond Tallis
    Excerpt: Voltaire got things off to a jolly secular start quite a while back, by instructing the eponymous hero of his novel Zadig (1747) to visualise “men as they really are, insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.” …
    “Man” Gray asserts in Straw Dogs (2003), “is only one of many species, and not obviously worth preserving.” And in case you’re still feeling a bit cocky, he adds: “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” …
    Stephen Hawking’s declaration in 1995 on a TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken, that “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet, orbiting round a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a billion galaxies” is much quoted. If we beg to differ, perhaps is it only because we are like the mosquito who, according to Nietzsche, “floats through the air… feeling within himself the flying centre of the universe”? (‘On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense’, 1873.),,,
    There is something repugnant about this nihilistic grandstanding. For a start, it’s insincere. Voltaire did not consider himself merely an insect, any more than Gray considers slime mould his peer, or Hawking regards Hawking as a quantum of chemical scum.
    https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You

    In Retired Physicist’s quote,,,

    I encourage everybody to learn the actual science involved, but sadly it takes years and a lot of work.

    In that quote, Retired Physicist is, in large measure, referring to the years of work that it takes to learn and understand the mathematics, and concepts, that lies behind science. And indeed, much of the math of modern physics can be quite formidable. But for Retired Physicist to try to claim that an increased understanding of the mathematics that lies behind science will somehow enable us to finally see, as he claims that he does, that the universe is meaningless, even atheistic, in its foundational essence, is for Retired Physicist to make a wildly unsubstantiated claim and is in fact for him to reveal that he does not really even understand the ontology of mathematics in the first place.

    Mathematics is immaterial in its foundational essence and thus the very existence of mathematics itself can never have its explanation grounded within atheistic materialism. Much less can Darwinian materialism ever offer an explanation as to why we have an innate mathematical intuition.
    As David Berlinski explained, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    In fact, the birth of modern science itself was, in large measure, based on the belief that mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe this universe, was contingent upon the Mind of God for its existence.

    KEEP IT SIMPLE by Edward Feser – April 2020
    Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    There is also a very different answer, in which the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him. According to this view, mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the material world, but also independently of any mind, including the divine mind. They occupy a “third realm” of their own, the realm famously described in Plato’s Theory of Forms. God used this third realm as a blueprint when creating the physical world, but he did not create the realm itself and it exists outside of him. This position is usually called Platonism since it is commonly thought to have been Plato’s own view, as distinct from that of his Neoplatonic followers who relocated mathematical objects and other Forms into the divine mind. (I put to one side for present purposes the question of how historically accurate this standard narrative is.)
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    Physicists today, especially with the proof of Godel’s incompleteness theorems sitting right before them, simply have no basis for their belief that mathematics, all by its lonesome, can somehow function as a God substitute,

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    As the following article states, “Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous.”

    Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
    1. Validity … all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
    2. Consistency … no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
    3. Completeness … all statements made in the system are either true or false.
    The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
    Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
    Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
    http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#

    Stephen Hawking himself, an atheist, honestly admitted that “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”
    – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    As well, Steven Weinberg, also an atheist, also honestly admitted that, ” “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”

    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    – Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video
    – Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    In fact, there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that could have described the universe but don’t, As Gregory Chaitin pointed out, “what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. ”

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    Mathematics, contrary to what the vast majority of theoretical physicists believe today, simply never will have the capacity within itself to function as a God substitute.

    As Dr. Bruce Gordon explains, “The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.”

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    As to “a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them” it is also interesting to note that ‘free will’, i.e. “a mind that can choose”, plays a fundamental role in Quantum Mechanics itself,

    As Steven Weinberg explains, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    For instance, and as leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    Thus regardless of how smart Retired Physicist may regard himself as being in regards to understanding the mathematics behind science, the fact of the matter is that the ontology of mathematics itself, as well as the verification of free will within quantum mechanics, refutes his atheistic worldview, especially refuting the atheistic materialism that lies at the foundation of Darwinian evolution.

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Supplemental quote:

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

  31. 31
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77,

    Thank you for diving into the information. I’ve read quite a few books on quantum mechanics and I watched several complete presentations by Anton Zeilinger. The quote I provided is clearly unambiguous.

    I think it’s important to free oneself from preconceptions and to simply listen to what the experiments seem to be telling us. Heavy-handed interpretation of the data into ideological positions (regardless of what they are) obscures truth and hinders science. Sabine Hossenfelder famously points this out as one cause for the apparent impasse in QM . . . the other cause being the current priority for beauty and symmetry in choosing mathematical models for QM.

    Nevertheless, I’m intrigued by the subject of information. For example, in modern cryptography, the goal is to make encrypted information appear as white noise as much as possible. Perhaps, RP’s reference to “random data” is simply information that we cannot decode–sorta like the infamous “junk DNA” blunder in biology.

    I especially appreciated your supplemental quote from one of Einstein’s letters. It demonstrates the precise difference between a scientist and a pedagogue.

    -Q

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius, indeed Einstein’s quote does get to the precise difference between a scientist and a pedagogue in rather short order.

    And while Einstein resisted quantum mechanics and tried to disprove it, I hold that he was big enough to accept experimental results that falsified his ‘hidden variables’ theory and be a ‘believer’ today.

    Einstein vs quantum mechanics, and why he’d be a convert today
    by Margaret Reid – JUNE 13, 2014
    Excerpt: Einstein’s belief was to resolve the problem in the simplest way: to introduce hidden variables consistent with no spooky action that would complete quantum mechanics.,,,
    In a nutshell, experimentalists John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat and colleagues have performed the Bell proposal for a test of Einstein’s hidden variable theories. All results so far support quantum mechanics. It seems that when two particles undergo entanglement, whatever happens to one of the particles can instantly affect the other, even if the particles are separated!
    https://phys.org/news/2014-06-einstein-quantum-mechanics-hed-today.html

  33. 33

    .
    #14

    if you’re doing a double slit experiment, you can set up a detector such that you know which slit the photon goes through … and have it recorded on a piece of paper

    So it is your position that “which slit a photon goes through” during a double-slit experiment is specified among alternatives by a mark being “recorded on a piece of paper”?

    Is that correct?

    You don’t have to be a conscious observer for those marks to hit the paper.

    And so?

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    UB, and, notice, experiments like that do not spontaneously set themselves up. They are FSCO/I rich and are designed. KF

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    Since Retired Physicist brought up Von Neumann, the infinite regress of the von Neumann chain in quantum mechanics is discussed at the 2:09 minute mark of the following video.

    The Measurement Problem – video
    https://youtu.be/qB7d5V71vUE?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&t=129

    And as to this claim in 14 from Retired Physicist, “You don’t have to be a conscious observer for those marks to hit the paper (in the double slit).”

    Yet in the very first part of the following video we find that, “The question of whether detectors in double slit experiments physically cause the wave function to collapse was settled by experiments like the 1999 ‘Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser’ experiment. ,,, The experiment showed that the wave property of a photon could not possibly be collapsed into a particle by some physical effect of the detectors.”

    “The question of whether detectors in double slit experiments physically cause the wave function to collapse was settled by experiments like the 1999 ‘Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser’ experiment. It was performed by a team of physicists led by Dr. Marlan O. Scully,,,. The experiment showed that the wave property of a photon could not possibly be collapsed into a particle by some physical effect of the detectors. That’s because there were no detectors between the slit and the screen so that the which path information was effected after the photons were already registered on the screen. Here is David Watkinson explaining the experiment.,,,”
    Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bXolOFAB8

    Moreover, the double slit itself, where a detector is placed at only one slit, is a type of interaction free measurement in that the ‘waves’ at the ‘unobserved’ slit still collapse into a particle state although there is no physical detector at that other slit. Thus proving that interaction with the measuring device (i.e. decoherence) is insufficient to explain the collapse of the wave function to a particle state in the double slit experiments,

    Quantum Experiment without Interaction
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY

    As Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics John Hopkins University, noted, it is just such ‘interaction free measurements’ in quantum mechanics that proves, in and of themselves, that, “The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

Leave a Reply