Faith
Offline I was thinking earlier about what faith is, and the more I think about it the more a single explanation makes sense to me. Theists will no doubt find this definition unfair, but I believe I can justify it.
"Faith is the ability to believe ridiculous things for no good reason."
For example. If I were to say that an invisible blind werewolf named Ethel lived in the sky and watches over us, you would of course oppose this idea. You would say that such a being couldn't possibly exist. You would say that werewolves are simply ideas make up by humans and not to be taken seriously. You may even point out that Ethel cannot watch over us because he is blind. My reply would then be "I have faith that Ethel exists." You can see the sort of effect faith can have. If a person has faith, it doesn't matter how stupid the idea is, they can believe it.
Even a quick look at the bibles content shows that it explicitly and without question requires faith of believers. It doesn't just say that faith can help you, or that it is a good idea, but it requires it.
So this is my question to you theists. "How can something that not only encourages faith, but absolutely requires faith, be true?"
The universe is so much more beautiful when seen without the bible in front of you.
- Login to post comments
I am an atheist; however, i do not think that things which require faith are necessarily false. I just think that it is unjustifiable to have a belief in something that requires faith.
Here is an example of something that absolutely requires faith, but still could be true: the multiverse hypothesis
The multiverse hypothesis could be true. However, a belief in it could only be established through faith. A belief in it would be unjustified; but, that does not preclude it from being true.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
This also depends on what you consider "faith". Is faith simply holding a belief that may have some evidence but nothing that is sufficient or considered scientifically valid, or is faith a belief in something *despite* the evidence?
One could consider the former version of faith in everyday occurances, such as "I have faith that my wife loves me." She tells me she does, she acts like she does, and the evidence that I do have suggests that she loves me, but I can't possible put it against the test of scientific scrutiny. The latter version would be a belief in ID, despite the large quantity of evidence against it.
This is where I hear many theists confuse what many atheists consider faith, and why I hear atheists either use the words "confidence" or "trust" rather than faith, or they separate the difference between "faith" and "blind faith", where blind faith is the latter definition.
In everyday life, many of us interchange the words, so perhaps nailing down the definition first may be in order. You either need to separate "faith" from "blind faith", or use "faith as opposed to trust". If in reference to the latter definition, the question does become more interesting. How can something that requires blind faith, a faith that goes against evidence that can be held to scientific scrutiny, even be true?
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
Okay, that's a good modification to the definition.
This discussion I think has to do with a concept I call "the line of external verification." This line is the threshold for how stupid an idea is before you need an objective source to verify it. All statements a person can make falls on one side of this line or the other.
For example. "I had a cup of tea this morning." Do you have any evidence to suspect that statement is false? No, but you believe it anyway. Now, what if I said, "I saw a headless man drinking a cup of tea this morning." You would require a substantial collection of conclusive evidence to accept that statement as being true. Understand that this is not the line of what you are willing to believe or reject. When I first heard of evolution, it fell on the same side as the headless tea enthusiast, but it was significantly verified from outside sources for me to justify a belief in it.
Now, the main problem is that theists put the concept of a bronze age sky daddy as not needing outside verification. This makes no sense to me. Even when I was a christian, I only had faith because I believed parts of the bible were verifiable and that they vindicated the other parts. But to think that the bible needs no external source of verification is absurd.
With this new way of looking at faith, maybe a new definition of faith is required. "Faith is the inability to correctly assess the likelihood of a claim."
The universe is so much more beautiful when seen without the bible in front of you.
I would think something that requires faith, may or may not be true. If the basis for it is observable in some way it can make it more plausible. However if there is another explanation for the same thing that can actually be tested, it pretty much negates the faith based observation, at least to me.
You can have faith in anything you want, but it may only be real in your own mind.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
For me, the whole idea of the word brings up so many problems.
You can't have faith in something without first believing it. I personally don't believe, I think. Thinking doesn't require any definative and leaves my thoughts fluid. As soon as I put a hard structure to my thoughts, I lose something.
The same with 'knowledge' and 'understanding'. As far as genreal definitions of the words, I don't know if I can ever truely know or understand anything.
Also, I think some people confuse faith with trust or assumption.
For example. The Sun is almost definately going to rise tomorrow. We don't know it for certain, but it has done for as long as anyone can remember and we have no reason to assume otherwise. This doesn't require any faith, we just base our assumption on previous occurances.
One definition is: Faith: Belief that is not based on truth.
What is 'truth'?
What is 'belief'?
I don't think I have a structured thought pattern here.
Faith is the surrender of reason.
Money = Debt = Slavery.
You are False Data.
With this I agree. It could be necessarily false if it is logically impossible, though if not logically impossible, the fideist could have just gotten extremely lucky in guessing right.
One could have absolute faith in the outcome of a coin toss, for example.
Faith would be most aptly defined as the difference between a rational degree of certainty in something and actual certainty (augmented by emotion, or whatever else).
So, in the case of a coin toss, the rational certainty is 50%- anything beyond that would be faith.
Now, if you had evidence that the coin was rigged to land on the side opposite of that which you had faith in, and ignored that evidence in your contemplation of the certainty, that would be blind faith.
That's a kind of bad example- the evidence is fairly overwhelming on that one. However, without knowing the evidence, one could call it faith.
I think a coin toss is a bit better of a universally understood example.
I would say that faith is belief in excess of that which is rationally probable given the evidence.
That evidence wouldn't include logical fallacies, delusions, or other bad evidence, though, which require faith to believe in themselves. (Transitive property of faith?)
Unless there's a degree of certainty there that is beyond the rational, it isn't faith.
For example, if we know that only one percent of the population are psychopaths (and even fewer than that are capable of feigning emotion convincingly), as long as you are no more than 99% certain, you are not displaying faith.
Like the chances of a coin toss, there's less than a 1% chance that your wife is a psychopath, and if she isn't, then the chances are overwhelming that she loves you, unless there are other motivations there (such as if you are exceedingly wealthy; although most women who do that are likely psychopaths too).
There are other things you could look for, if you wanted, to further narrow those chances.
For example: Does the like animals?
If so, you've got something like a 99.999% chance that she loves you.
If not (as people overwhelmingly like pets, for example), then you might be ignoring evidence to the contrary if you still have a 99% certainty.
It's just not faith if it's rational statistical certainty.
It's like saying it's faith to believe that there's a 50% chance of a coin toss landing on heads- that kind of definition is frivolous.
i realize that this is off-topic, but what is the overwhelming evidence for the multiverse hypothesis? i have never heard of it.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
It's logistical deduction, rather than empirical evidence (which isn't accessible)- logic providing a higher degree of certainty, and only relying on the empirical premises (so, insofar as those remain true):
Bell's inequality demonstrates that local variables cannot control wave function collapse- relativity generally prevents non-local ones from doing the same, leaving us with with either manyworlds (all events happen), or a truly random resolution of wave collapse.
A random resolution has some serious logistical problems- namely, information genesis, which presumes biased information can be spontaneously created from nothing. Is should be adequate in itself to say it doesn't require faith to disbelieve that 0 = 1. There are, however, other issues with the prospect of random collapse, such as the lack of a universe wave-- and I would ask how one does construct a universe which is a particle out of verifiable waves.
In a nut shell.
You can probably find a better explanation elsewhere. Suffice it to say, a coin toss is probably a better example.
Or option C: Something that has not been thought of yet
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
That's very much like saying a probable outcome of a coin toss is that the coin transforms into a flying albino squirrel made of pure white chocolate in mid-air, who will then perform a mid-air tap dance and recite hamlet while floating around the room.
Not likely. To such a degree that it verges on insane to suggest it.
'Hidden variable'- a magical variable that is neither local nor non-local, which exists everywhere and nowhere (sounds like something I've heard of before), and is hence logically impossible- is largely advanced by theists as being their deity.
What are you talking about? The possible outcomes of a coin toss are empirically observable. The mechanism behind the collapse of quantum wave functions has not been observed. This analogy is not relevant.
The many worlds interpretation is only one of many possible ways of interpreting quantum mechanics.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
Relativity is empirically observable too- satellites, for example, which drive global telecommunications and allow us to do what we do in the modern world run on software that assumes relativity, and it works. Without it, much of what we have in the realm of telecommunications wouldn't be here.
Do you deny relativity? Because at this point, given the severely overwhelming evidence, that's tantamount to bringing back geocentrism.
The thing is, if you do accept relativity, you're accepting the principle of light speed- it's a special kind of speed limit in the universe, and exceeding it results in what is effectively reverse time travel (or loops thereof).
And *this* results in causal paradoxes (like the ability to kill your own ancestors, or stop yourself from traveling back in time, etc.).
To open up the "hidden variable" options, we either have to surrender logic (unless you're a dialetheist, in which case you are insane, you can't do this), or surrender relativity to give up locality (which is far better observed than coin tosses).
See Bell's inequality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
What this leaves us with is the true nature of waves, as they have thus far been demonstrated, and one of two basic resolutions (to which small iterations reduce to):
Many worlds, or Copenhagen.
Now, Copenhagen is absurd- and you don't have to look far to see this. Occam's razor would clearly dis-prefer it given the myriad assumptions that must be made in order to make it resemble coherency.
There are a number of problems, namely:
1. The assumptions that a universe which is a particle can be composed entirely of demonstrable waves.
2. That biased information can be created from nothing (which conservation should prevent).
3. That true randomness exists and is the fundamental nature of things.
4. That somehow the actions and proliferation of causality in the outside world physically collapse wave functions.
Even given all of those assumptions, an integration of the implications of Copenhagen across infinite time might tend to be functionally indistinguishable from manyworlds if it doesn't run into problems such as Gödel's incompleteness.
Many worlds is true due to logical deduction from known and well studied empirical factors, with any alternatives having the probability on the same order of magnitude as us spontaneously rearranging our atoms into fruit hats.
Of course i do not deny relativity... I don't see how relativity is even remotely relevant to this argument though.
Ummm... you can't exceed light speed. The equations dictating the amount of energy it takes to increase the velocity of an object are asymptotic to v=c
the local hidden variable options have been refuted experimentally, why are you bringing them up? Also, why does giving up locality refute relativity?
this is a false dichotomy
whether or not copenhagen is absurd is an opinion and irrelevant. however, occam's razor does not prefer the many-worlds interpretation over any of the other many ways of interpreting quantum mechanics. the many worlds interpretation makes several assumptions as well
well, if you make logical fallacies such as false dichotomies you can show that anything is true... it does not mean you have a valid argument
the argument for the many-worlds interpretation is currently just an argument from ignorance.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
Because in the context of relativity, the effects of 'spooky action at a distance' demonstrated by such quantum phenomena as entanglement cause issues if not reconciled.
If you don't believe in relativity, then it wouldn't be an issue.
Of course of massive particles- accelerating a proton to the speed of light would take an infinite amount of energy (practically impossible). But this does not apply to massless things. We're talking about the hypothetical distant (instant) communication in the case of collapse of entangled particles that would be required to create the effects observed without relying on the alternative theories that permit counterfactual indefiniteness.
That is, the myriad hidden variable theories rely on this instant communication-- and to boot, make fallacious assumptions about synchronous time which are just as problematic in the framework of relativity.
What are you on about?
You seriously don't know why I'm bringing up Bell's inequality and relativity together in order to refute hidden variable to use the process of elimination to yield many worlds as the remaining most viable interpretation?
You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. These aren't just random resolutions people have thought up as if they were flinging darts blindly at a target; these are resolutions that are reasoned by way of logical deduction to take into account over possible solution.
There are iterations and slight variations in the flavour of these three (such as "Consistent histories" which is an iteration of Copenhagen)- maybe this is what is confusing you?
After hidden variable is eliminated due to problems of non-locality, that's what's left.
I'm going through this step-by-step for your benefit.
If you aren't interested, I can easily leave it at that.
That you didn't understand my argument- that is ignorance. Whether it will persist and become willful ignorance or not is yet to be seen.
If you want to continue this discussion, perhaps it would be best for you to start another thread? This is quite the tangent.
yea, I don't really want to continue this discussion
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
I've been refining my definition of faith over the last couple of years, and here's what I've come up with. There are two colloquial uses of the word "faith":
Faith(S) - Belief in something based on sufficient but incomplete reliable evidence.
Faith(R) - Belief in something despite sufficient reliable evidence to the contrary, and/or despite a total or near total lack of reliable evidence.
This definition includes some tweaks to the original, which was "belief despite contrary evidence or lack of evidence." The thing is, there's lots of evidence for god. There's just no reliable evidence. For instance, there are lots of people who claim to have heard the voice of god. If we were in court trying to decide if John Smith was alive, a person who claimed to have recently heard his voice would be considered evidence, right? So, in the strictest sense, there's evidence. But there's no reliable evidence. And just like in court, if there's no reliable evidence, there's no conviction.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Don't be melodramatic, Blake.
I would be shocked if a professional physicist would go on record saying that MW is obvious to such a degree that to question it is an absurdity.
I'm not going to fight about it though, because I don't have a doctorate in quantum mechanics and so I don't feel I can speak to the truth or fiction of advanced quantum physics as easily as you seem to be able to.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'm not being melodramatic, I'm just being assertive.
All of the theories reduce to:
1. Woo- which is false, period, no matter what.
2. Hidden variable- which is false in the context of relativity and quantum entanglement
3. Copenhagen- which makes an absurd number of assumptions, several of which are arguably illogical
4. Many worlds
It's not so much as saying that questioning it is absurd- things should be questioned- but advancing one of the alternatives is.
Or something else no-one has thought of yet, or a version of MW that is drastically different than what is currently talked about. Many worlds is a theory in the most basic sense, it isn't verified (If it ever will be, if it *can* be). If it makes it to the point where physics textbooks are calling it difinitive then you'll be justified, but it isn't at that point yet, no matter how hard you assert it is. Now that it means much, but the wiki page for manyworlds doesn't make it sound like accepted 'fact'.
And if that level of hyperbole is 'assertive' I shudder to think what melodramatic is.
I'm not arguing that manyworlds is the best or the worst, because I'm not qualified. But I don't think you are qualified to say manyworlds is the only possible explanation for quantum events, now and forever and anyone who disagrees with that or doubts that also doubts that a coin tossed in the air will remain a coin as it falls.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I changed my mind, I would like to discuss one aspect of this a little bit further. I have a couple of questions for Blake.
Did you come up with the idea that it is unreasonable to disbelieve in the many worlds interpretation, or did you get the idea from somewhere else?
If you got the idea from somewhere else, could you please provide a source?
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
This is acceptable.
As I've said, there are many subtle variations and iterations upon MWI, and I can't say definitively which, if any, are most accurate.
Although I would say RQM is probably the most likely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics (yeah, I know he argues it isn't many worlds- on very shaky grounds, seeing as it very much is)
Discussing the difference between them, though, while a great pursuit, is roughly equivalent to discussing whether, within the understood framework of evolution, mutation due to chemical transcription errors, ionizing radiation, or viral genetic material is most significant to the evolution of life (I'm in the third camp- buy hey, I could be wrong- Evolution as a whole isn't; Manyworlds isn't).
There's still technically debate over the very veracity of evolution going on by poorly qualified fringe scientists- and in the years following the discovery, there was substantial disquiet in the community of biologists. Non-consensus doesn't indicate questionability- it just indicates that the people questioning it aren't privy to all of the facts, or are under unfortunate delusions.
You rightly fear the melodrama.
That's not exactly what I said.
Hidden variable is certainly wrong. Spiritual quackery is certainly wrong. Copenhagen has a trail of absurdity stretching behind it well out of sight. MWI is all that is left.
Show me another that is not one or more of these and I will be astounded. As it stands, these are complete categories which assess all logical (and even a few illogical) reconciliations with currently demonstrable paradoxes.
Interpretations which are...
Hidden variable:
transactional (a very strange one), stochastic (quantum foam)
Pseudoscientific quackery:
Pondicherry (spoon + throat = gag), Conscious Cause Collapse (I don't even read shit that starts with that- it isn't worth my time)
Copenhagen:
Ensemble (not too out of the ordinary here), Consistent Histories (be more consistent please)
But really, just go look at them for yourself.
If you can find me one that isn't fundamentally an iteration on Copenhagen, MWI, Hidden variable, or isn't just plain spiritual quackery, I'll be astounded. You will witness my astonishment (a rare thing to witness indeed).
Too late; you already bowed out. You may not return to the conversation now. *That* would be drama.
Go play outside now while the grown ups talk.
In the Christian religion, the faith argument to justify your beliefs is a tautology.
According to Christianity, faith is "Belief and trust in God". Because faith IS the belief in God, it does not answer the question "Why do you believe in God?" or "Why should I believe in God?"
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
I guess my intention by asking that question was a bit misleading. I wasn't trying to engage you in further debate. My intention was to gain information. I don't actually expect to gain real knowledge on how quantum mechanics works from an internet forum; however, I think I could learn a lot from the academic sources you got your information from.
edit: and btw, do the rules of this forum really forbid people from changing their minds?
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
There are no rules.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Seriously, there are more options out there than Many Worlds and Copenhagen. The whole point about bringing up "something nobody thought of yet" is to demonstrate that logic does not demand MW xor Copenhagen. Just because the two are competing theories doesn't mean they're the only possible theories. That is, not MW does not imply Copenhagen in any strictly logical manner, and vice versa. Thus it's entirely possible that BOTH are wrong. And when/how did you come to reject the superposition interpretation?
How in blazes did you bring Gödel's incompleteness theorem into this? Also, when did the universe become "a particle." Last I checked, there's far more than one particle in the universe.
As to the original topic, I think it's important to separate belief from working assumption. That is, when there's very little evidence to be had, it's often beneficial to act under a working assumption. The key thing about working assumptions, though, is that you realize they're temporary from the get-go. Any new evidence input is going to make you re-evaluate a working assumption. But new evidence doesn't typically cause people to re-evaluate their faith-based beliefs.
Faith: Belief in something regardless of the reliable evidence for any possibility. Belief based on little or no reliable evidence and without the skepticism required of working assumptions.
In my experience, people with faith typically don't acknowledge and accept evidence, but then choose to believe unsupported stuff anyway. They're far more likely to ignore or dismiss the evidence. People who have faith in a belief often also have faith in the falshood of most evidence against that belief.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Someone has noted the difference in faith and blind faith. Just because there is no evidence does not mean it is not real. However with no evidence at all there is no reason to believe, and something so obviously concocted by man is a huge strike against it and should cause it to bear even more scrutiny. This is why I am an atheist, and pretty much an anti theist.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
No, but I tend to ignore people who say "I'm taking my toys and leaving forever!" and then "No, I'm back, haha!" followed usually by "I'm leaving forever again!"-- particularly when there are other people in the conversation.
I suspected you were engaging in drama.
I need to know a bit more about your science background to recommend some resources for you. In order to really understand why Hidden Variable and Copenhagen are wrong, you need to have a fairly good grasp on the overall picture of quantum mechanics, so I would suggest you start there.
A good and popular Layman's book might be: http://www.amazon.com/Search-Schr%C3%B6dingers-Cat-Quantum-Physics/dp/0553342533
There are dozens of others... don't know if any of them will help.
When you have a basic understanding (I don't know where your understanding is), then I suggest that you just read the proofs and thought experiments directly and independently. I'm not aware of anywhere in particular they have all been combined- although I wouldn't be surprised if they had. Mostly, you'd be looking for academic criticisms of the particular interpretations.
Most importantly, however, you'd be using your brain.
Read below if you're curious...
Seriously, no there aren't.
Yes, there is hidden variable- which is wrong.
Look:
Either wave function collapse depends on some causal function we haven't measured- "hidden variable"
Or it doesn't.
If it doesn't, either it:
1. Doesn't collapse- MWI (many worlds, universe wave, etc)
Or:
2. It collapses a-causally/randomly (having no cause)- Copenhagen
Show me where my reasoning is wrong there.
Is something having a cause or not having a cause a false dichotomy?
Is a wave function collapsing or not collapsing a false dichotomy?
I *really* don't think so.
You don't even have to understand quantum physics very well to see those options.
I contextualized that- there is "hidden variable" too, but it has been demonstrated to be wrong by what we know. I contextualized it by reliance on our current understanding of relativity- which is very unlikely to be completely wrong.
No, not on its own. It only does so in the context that hidden variable is wrong- e.g. in our thus far understood empirical reality.
Absolutely- with about the same force of possibility that the 'Spherical Earth' theory is wrong and we are in fact on a giant disk hurtling through the universe at an acceleration of g surrounded by an ice wall.
Actually, I would much more readily accept the flat earth theory than the hidden variable interpretation, since I've seen much less proof of a spherical earth that that for wave mechanics independence from local variables. FYI, I'm a world traveler.
Superposition is not in contention- it is the nature of collapse that is.
It is a suspicion of mine that a random result from collapse in a copenhagen universe, over an infinite expanse of time, approaches one [a universe] that is identical to a many-worlds universe/multiverse (with the incidental exception of the structural order of time, which I consider somewhat arbitrary a difference).
Whether it reaches that point at the limit may be in contention with Gödel's incompleteness theorem- could it, as one universe representing a series of many-worlds universes stacked end on end (which in themselves may be infinite) ever be both complete and consistent as a representation of those universes?
I don't know. If it does, then both are accurate descriptions (because they are equivalent), though one making quite a run-around to get there. If it doesn't, then only MWI is accurate.
In so far as the universe exists as a single entity with discrete qualities (rather than having the universe itself experience universal superposition, such as in the universe as a wave phenomena itself), it could be called "a particle".
Particles can be made of many components; it is the behavior that I am referring to, regarding particle vs. wave behavior.
Copenhagen represents the universe as as whole as displaying the behavior of a particle, not of a wave, which contains limited waves which are frequently collapsed, yielding an overall particle with a single and potentially discrete overall state.
Following?
Many worlds represents the universe itself as a wave, and makes no further assumptions about how the waves it is composed from have to be hammered into shape for their final presentation.
Copenhagen attepts to construct a particle (the universe) from things that are definitively waves. Many worlds does not attempt to do this, and makes far fewer assumptions in the process.
This assumption is the fundamental difference between the Copenhagen interpretations (in all of their flavours), and MWI (in all of the flavours of that).
This assumption leads to a number of absurdities which MWI has nothing to do with.
Maybe some of these are a bit subjective as absurdities- some others (nutters like Deepak Chopra or Eloise) may find them natural- but these are those absurdities as I see them:
Absurdity #1
The source of this collapse is a human-centric (and yes, it *is* arbitrarily Human/Earth centric- why not the alien Zergons who just entered our causal sphere instead?) source of measurement/observation, which has variably been described as "superstitious" by scientists and "revelation" by spiritualists -- you can decide for yourself what you believe on that one; I don't know which camp you are in.
Absurdity #2
The universe gets to peel away into a multiverse anywhere observation isn't collapsing waves- with a superposition of every possibility just as "complex" as anything MWI suggests.
See Schrödinger's cat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
That is, you *still* have to assume everything you'd assume with MWI (including complex interractions and a cascade of possibilities which all exist), but the absurdity here is that is isn't consistent, and it just peels away where we aren't- with our magical powers- collapsing it down to one single objective universe.
To use an metaphor, Copenhagen assumes many worlds, but then goes over it with a hot iron and a scalpel, flattening out and slicing away every 'world' but one wherever Human people happen to be collapsing it.
Occam's razor might have something to say about that.
Pursuant to #1 and #2, FYI:
Turns out: Poor planet Zergon, and all the Zergon people, which are *just* outside our current causal sphere exist in many worlds, not Copenhagen (no, that magical universe collapsing power is *just* for us)- unfortunately for them, the majority of their myriad histories and lives are obliterated as soon as they are observed by humanity. It is the lucky Zergon indeed who just happens to be in the right slice of superposition.
Seriously, Copenhagen *is* the new geocentricism, for a new generation of egotistical human-centric idiots.
Medieval people were afraid to make the universe bigger. Modern people are afraid to let it be a multiverse on top of that.
Dear heavens no- that would just make it "too big" = Argument from what one is comfortable with.
Absurdity #3
Non-causality; that is, true and objective randomness is a form of absurdity. It's an assumption that must be made, and it doesn't make sense.
The spiritual woo-woo interpretations like to use "free will" here in place of randomness, granting humans further magical powers (oooh, spooky!).
I consider both of these to be profoundly ridiculous, and equally worthy of contempt. Like Einstein, I do not believe that the universe plays dice- you may differ here. Regardless of your opinion of this point, the former two, and the next, still stand.
Absurdity #4
Acausal results to wave function collapse are a form of Information genisis- Information (the result of the collapse) is just being conjured from nothing.
This information creation event could be considered the same event as the destruction of information in the superposition:
In that little diabolical contraption of Schrödinger's, the cat lived out myriad lives ending at various points, thinking its cat thouts, and doing its cat things.
A human- even you- could be equally placed in that position.
At the point of collapse, all but one of those is entirely obliterated from existence, not a trace of that information remaining.
Whether you consider it negative or positive (and no, these don't cancel each-other out); New information is being added to the universe.
A slight violation of conservation of information there.
In conclusion:
Hidden variable is often tempting, and there are so many versions which are all very interesting, but it is wrong in accorance with Bells' (and due to relativity in non-local cases) given our current understanding of reality regarding quantum mechanics and relativity (which is really fairly well evidenced).
Copenhagen is subjectively absurd, objectively violates Occam up the ass with his own razor, and is completely f*cking arbitrarily human-centric to the point of profoundly arrogant idiocy.
Many worlds (at least one of the many variations of this- or a variation of MWI we haven't thought of yet) is the only viable basic interpretation remaining.
[/lecture]
Accepting in the Many Worlds Interpretation (in general- not necessarily a specific one) does not require an ounce of faith.
So, in other words, you came up with this argument all by yourself and you have not even checked to see if there is a single credible peer-reviewed source which agrees with you?
Between posts #15 and #20, I had physics class. The professor is a man who has dedicated his career to studying the interactions and properties of quarks and gluons. Obviously, he would have a much better than average understanding of quantum mechanics. After the class, I went up to him and asked him if it is reasonable to establish a belief that any of the current proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics are true. He said no. For obvious reasons, I find him to be a much more reliable source than you are, and I'm not about to insult him by referring him to an internet forum.
edit: I realize that my appeal to authority is not a complete refutation of your argument. However, it is very hard for me to believe that our current evidence of quantum mechanics leads to one single type of interpretation being valid, but the logic that leads to this conclusion is absent from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
No, hah, I wish I came up with it all by myself. This is largely common knowledge.
Criticisms of both hidden variable interpretations and copenhagen are plentiful. I suspect one would find comparisons of the thought experiments in any article addressing a particular MWI-esque theory, but I don't know if any single article addresses every point I've made in the same place. I wouldn't be a little surprised if there wasn't.
So, you're saying that just because there are credible peer reviewed articles disproving hidden variable, and credible peer reviewed articles addressing the absurdities in Copenhagen, if there might not be a single source that covers those in the same article, one can't dare mention both perspectives in the same place?
Come on. You aren't *that* idiotic, now are you?
I'm not going to go digging for you. If it's not easy to find and link to, I'm not going to reference it. Maybe if I was on a university computer and had good access to academic databases- but I'm not now, so you'll have to wait.
I will give you key words, if you like:
Double slit experiment
(very basic background)
Bose-Einstein condensate
(practical example)
Special relativity
Quantum Entaglement
(you need to understand these to understand the next part)
Bell's Inequality
(disproves local hidden variables)
Relativity of simultaneity
(makes arbitrary any non-local hidden variables)
Schrödinger's cat thought experiment
(demonstrates the absurdity of Copenhagen)
Then... re-read my post.
Wonderful, it's good to hear that you have a little physics background.
I should hope that would make you more susceptible to reason, and more willing to learn.
Perhaps, but not necessarily of their implications.
Next time, ask him if there's any reason to believe one or more of them may be false. If he says no, I'm sorry, he's an idiot. You probably asked much too specific a question- no, there isn't necessarily a reason to believe that one particular MWI is better than another MWI.
So start from the top, and use process of elimination:
Ask about Bell's inequality and local hidden variables. He may then say that there's some reason, then, to believe that any based on local hidden variables are false.
Ask him then about non-local hidden variables. He will probably suggest it is possible. Remind him of special relativity, and how it makes simultaneity of time relative too. Ask him if, then, non-local hidden variables wouldn't only be relative to one arbitrary absolute time frame. Ask him, then, if all frames were considered equal and our current understanding of relativity respected, that might imply the spawning of a discrete and diverging universe for each reference frame. He'll probably say it might. Ask him if then, if need for an arbitrary absolute universal frame of simultaneity might at least make the theory seem slightly less likely.
I could go on, but I've really already covered that. Just because somebody has studied rocks, doesn't mean they'll know the names of the planets; we're talking about quantum mechanics on the extreme ends of the scale. There's a good chance that he just hasn't thought about it that much.
I would tend not to refer anybody to an internet forum either. Feel free to copy my text, edit out the profanity, sarcasm, and insults (or not), and ask him to look it over in an email. If you only take *his* words as gospel, well, I hope he proves to be as reliable as you think he is.
I used to argue with my physics professors all of the time; I can't begin to express how specialized these fields are. I've proposed thought experiments they had to refer me to other professors to solve (that ultimately weren't solved practically until I figured it out on my own). There's a great deal of tunnel vision in the field- with some evident exceptions.
However, if we're having a contest of appeal to authority, I assure you I will win:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking (may or may not be a reliable quote, but he's a well known advocate)
But really, it's not necessary to drop names, because it *is* self-evidently correct. Just use your brain.
Beyond that, the only alternatives have been largely proven false through empirical results, and our understanding of other principles of reality such as relativity.
Many worlds, like hidden variable and Copenhagen, is a kind of class of interpretation- not necessarily "one single" interpretation- it's an umbrella under which many distinct (and even some conflicting) ideas fall. There is disagreement between various theories that have iterated from the original, or have arrived at similar conclusions independently.
While I find Relational most convincing as the source of wave phenomena (it's a sort of MWI interpretation from my perspective, although the author likes to call it something else), I wouldn't necessarily say I'm 100% positive on that. MWI, though, at least one form of it or another, is correct.
Correction (kind of):
Three posts above, I should have probably said "objectively non-deterministic" not "acausal" in #3 and #4.
Acausality is entirely possible, and potentially only refers to (or at least implies) time- regarding cause and effect of things within the context of time. Non-Deterministic is more accurate, in this case, if only because it's more general and vague- since there seems that there is not a good word for something that fits the quality of neither having a causing state nor any reason for its distinct behavior vs. lacking a causing state but having a reason. (Not that anybody would notice the difference- I realized after posting and didn't get to fix it in time).
Of course, debate over which word to use could in itself stretch pages.
Blake, where did you obtain your physics education?
Seriously?
Wow, I should definitely answer that question! While I'm at it, I should give you my home address, and my mother's maiden name on this here perfectly secure interweb forum!
I'll tell you this much: An accredited university in the U.S.A., with a relatively well renowned physics department (relatively, being, generally in the top 100 in the states for undergrad physics programs). I did not major in physics, FYI.
Not that it would be relevant anyway, for anything short of ad hominem- which I assume is where you are trying to go with this?
"Oh noes, he's un-fearful of making bold claims! Everybody, attack!!"
Godlessness forbid that an atheist ever be able to confidently answer questions about the universe!
You assume wrong. Some people are just curious.
You are a rare breed. Sorry if I assumed incorrectly; no offense intended. I'm not really comfortable answering certain personal details publicly- particularly being under attack by several people as I am here.
Particularly as it was a small school, and my professors almost undoubtedly remember me (I kind of stand out).
If it was a big university that had hundreds of Blakes, might not be as much an issue.
Feel free to PM me... err... if I can read it (which I'm not sure I can).
Copenhagen is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics. The first course I took in quantum mechanics took many ideas from the Copenhagen interpretation: stuff on wave functions, wave-particle duality, measurement collapses the state, etc. Are you saying that most physicists are wrong, Blake? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm just asking.
Also, how is non-causality logically absurd? I can't say I like it; it's one of the most counterintuitive concepts in physics. But, if I rejected everything that was counterintuitive, I would have to reject much if not most of what I learned in the last two years. I haven't seen any logical reason to reject it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
No, not really... in many ways, copenhagen is kind of a "non-interpretation", wherein the wave phenomena are just grafted onto our Newtonian reality without thinking about it much-- very much like how it's taught that we only start using relativity when we reach 'relativistic speeds'. Strictly speaking, things are *always* relativistic, but it's just not necessary to understand that to get the math right.
Copenhagen pans out experimentally identically to many worlds. That is, the assumption works; it's just not really a reflection of reality.
Yes and no; all of those things are functional depictions.
The difference is that Copenhagen is sort of a botched patch-job: it's only a depiction of what's happening from our perspectives, whereas MWI presents those properties as emergent from the basic premise and tells us what *is*.
The difference is not in application, but in the understanding of reality we draw from them- primarily a philosophical issue. Most physicists are by no means philosophers, and most I've known don't really care enough about the philosophy to make any damning statments about the Copenhagen interpretation when depicted as a real thing (and not just a functional/mathematical precedent- therein there is no serious problem yet).
I made an amendment a couple posts later- I should have said something like objective indeterminism. Acausality is fine, in a temporal sense. It is a matter of objective randomness (rather than subjective, retrospective randomness- which is true) that is problematic.
I'm not necessarily saying you should reject anything you learned in class!
Or, at least that which was within your teachers' bounds to teach you.
But if your teachers went into the real-world implications of those things and advocated Copenhagen (which I doubt they did, as few are willing to), they overstepped their bounds (and in a way that was strictly absurd).
It's the implications that I'm talking about.
Is wave collapse an objectively real thing, or a useful mathematical construct that reflects a particular perspective?
Virtually nobody is denying the latter. Only die-hard Copenhagenists also assert the former. You'll find a majority of physicists are interpretation agnostic.
If your teachers spoke on this (in particular) in class, only then would I suggest that you reject it, and decide for yourself.
Okay, let's see.
You're saying that Copenhagen is not really a description of reality, but, in a sense, merely a good estimate within some limits, in a way analogous to that Newtonian mechanics is a good estimate for velocity << C ?
Okay.
I think I got that part.
What's problematic about it?
Of course.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Sort of, except for Newtonian mechanics are always slightly inaccurate.
A better comparison might be calculating the bouncing of a ball, wherein the ball is stationary, and the entire universe is bouncing on the ball.
That's even a bad comparison (though maybe the two together can give you an idea of what I'm getting at). One can get the same result, but certain ways of doing it just don't reflect what's going on in reality.
And more importantly, attempting to extrapolate the consequences of that method of doing it can give a very incorrect overall picture of the universe.
One way of using Copenhagen is strictly as an agnostic mechanic for describing, mathematically, what's going on so problems can be solved- this way is not incorrect. It's wherein it becomes an overall interpretation of what's actually going on, with regards to reality, to yield those results that it is wrong.
It has no precedent or logical origin. It is, in short, a pretty extreme and superfluous assumption about the universe (particularly when things can easily be explained in a strictly deterministic means while using far fewer assumptions, particularly discarding this strictly a-logical one).
If it is that commonly known, wouldn't it be in almost every physics textbook which covers anything more complicated than the classical model?
I didn't ask for a single article which addresses every point you've made. I asked for one that comes to the same conclusion as you have. I don't really care if the logical reasoning is perfectly identical to yours or not.
I am not asking you to show me one article which covers Both hidden variable and Copenhagen. That would be kinda pointless and irrelevant.
What I am asking you to do is provide a source which comes to the single conclusion that MWI is the only reasonable interpretation to come to. That is one claim, not two.
I would think that a claim that is so fundamentally important to the nature of our existence would be incredibly easy to find if it existed.
O.K. so Stephen Hawkings finds it self evidently correct. However, in that same quote it says that many people do not find it self-evidently correct (i.e. it contradicts your previous claim that this is common knowledge). I would hope that he actually has some sort of argument for this claim. Perhaps at some point he expanded on this idea in a way that is more substantial than a sarcastic response during a verbal interview? That would be what I am looking for.
I am aware of this. If you reread my post you will see that I did not refer to it as "one single interpretation" I referred to it as "one single type of interpretation"
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
Text books are not only behind the times, but also rarely go beyond the mathematics and history of things. It would be a strange tangent to be covered in 'almost every physics textbook'.
I understand that what I'm saying sounds like a conspiracy theory from your perspective, because you are under the mistaken impression that this is a minority position- largely because you have a sample bias; you are considering the wrong body of opinions.
The majority of physicists do not specialize in this, and just know the older theory as far as application, if even that (being perhaps passively aware of many worlds), and don't care enough to have a strong opinion on the matter- they are, putting it kindly, humble, and putting it less so, scared of making a mistake.
More and more, the majority who learn about MWI are coming to agree upon it- and in light of the death grip Copenhagen has had on physics, that in itself is evidence not of the truth of MWI, but at least of the convincingness of the evidence.
Both Hawking and myself (among many other names I could drop, but shouldn't need to), have good reason for saying MWI is obvious- it IS.
You might like this short piece, though, as it explains some of the indifference and gives a sense of where contention is coming from (largely from ignorance):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9709/9709032v1.pdf
No, it's the process of elimination.
Here you go, here's a source that discusses my same crazy idea of this mystical 'process of elimination':
http://academic.udayton.edu/LegalEd/barpass/MultipleChoice/mc06.htm
I know it may be a very advanced concept for you, but please, bear with it- I'm sure you'll figure it out.
If you're just looking for an argument for MWI, any book or article advocating the interpretation is going to be doing that.
Perhaps look for something by DeWitt (still happily debunking Copenhagen in an alternate universe) or Deutsch (still doing it in this one).
Finding a peer reviewed article in an archive of academic journals, sure.
Finding a credible peer reviewed article on the internet without access to those databases? No; it would be hard even to find anything on evolution that wasn't from some web-rag- the internet is an information glut, with precious little academic material on it. You have demanded certain quality of "evidence" that isn't easy to find on the internet.
Would you like me to refer you to a book or something advocating MWI? Because you can give up on me finding you a tailor made link.
I'm not going to subscribe to anything for your gratification, and I'm not going to spend hours searching on the internet to try to find evidence you will accept for something that is patently obvious, and that I have already sufficiently demonstrated.
Give me free login information to a good academic database for articles in physics, and I'll find you one.
Otherwise, if you want to hear it from someone other than me, you'll have to accept something a bit less professional on the net:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/
Plenty of links *from* there you could follow too... I don't have the patience.
That the Bible is not a reliable source is common knowledge.
That most people don't know this, or don't believe it? Irrelevant.
The people who know anything about credibility, or history- the samples one wants to consider- know this. It is common to the people who actually have knowledge on the subject.
If you open up what is common knowledge only to popular consensus rather than to the scope where it belongs, then the very ideas of bacteria and viruses aren't common knowledge- a large portion, potentially a majority, of the world's population still believes sickness is caused by demons, bad karma, and other magic.
With regards to the people who actually matter, this is well known.
Anybody who doesn't accept a form of MWI as the most practical and likely interpretation is either ignorant, or an idiot. Those who don't assert that a version of MWI is the *only* currently viable and rational interpretation-- they're just a little cowardly.
I doubt he has ever gone into it in very much detail- he doesn't strike me as a person to argue with stupid people to attempt to convince them of something obvious.
He believes in evolution- that doesn't mean he's composed a persuasive essay on the issue. I should imagine such pursuits would be a waste of his time.
It's obvious, and self-evident. It doesn't *need* arguing for. Any argument is only for the benefit of those who are in denial.
It seems to me that this is what he was saying. I highly doubt he has composed anything for your benefit, though he may mention it in passing in some of his books.
O.K. so you are saying that it is only a minority opinion when looking at the wrong population, and that population is any group of people who do not agree with the claim. You are saying that we have enough evidence to determine beyond reasonable doubt how quantum mechanics should be interpreted down to a certain class of explanations, yet the people who understand the evidence are not vocal about it enough to even convince other quantum physicists. You are also saying that these people never tried to write about their findings, or only wrote them in obscure places. You are saying that the claim is self evident, yet the majority of quantum physicists do not agree with it.
I have started reading this link. It is very long and will take some time. I would like to mention though that he has some fairly strange ideas. He is suggesting that the only reason that MWI is not universally accepted is that the experts have some sort of emotional attachment to single world interpretations. I have never known such sort of irrational thinking to be a strong force in academic writings.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
No, some of the people in the 'right population' disagree with the claim; those people are being idiots, however. Most are brilliant in their own right, but in regards to this particular instance, they are being idiots.
They know the arguments against Copenhagen interpretations, and against the non-local hidden variable ones, but they persist anyway with the intent to rationalize them.
Yes. Largely because it's irrelevant to them.
Opinion polls yield the not entirely astounding result that most people genuinely feel that it is a 'waste of time' because they consider it currently untestable. That is, they're worried more about what is currently being tested, remaining agnostic to interpretations, and since this has no real bearings on on the empirical facts, they don't care.
If it was demonstrated that there was any way in which knowing the difference would aide scientific progress, then they might change their tunes.
Opinion polls vary, between a slight majority supporting Many Worlds, to a slight majority supporting other interpretations, with MWI coming in second or third- and the overwhelming majority often abstaining from the polls, or saying they don't know/care (the numbers in support of MWI have been ever growing).
I'm saying there hasn't been much of a call to argue about it, because most people just don't care enough to do so. To those who understand it, and aren't being idiots, MWI is self-evident, and there's just no real reason to have arguments about it in the opinion of most.
Scientists also often avoid arguing over other irrelevant world views like religion- despite knowing it's false- because they just don't care.
Whether debunking Copenhagen or Christianity, it's just not a very popular pastime. If more of them would change their thoughts on that principle, it would be nice- less work on my part, at least.
The arguments for MWI aren't obscure- the most prominent advocates have written prolifically. Academic journals and actual books are obscure on the free internet. And as to the rest- you apparently don't consider any other easily accessible source credible.
Do you want me to link you to the personal websites of some prominent physicists who argue for MWI?
Seriously, what in the blazes do you want here?
You are perfectly capable of Google searching and- more than I- of going to an actual library (which I can not do). I gave you some names to look for.
Seriously? You've been missing out, then.
Emotional attachment to theories is pretty strong for some without damning empirical evidence to crush them.
Copenhagen is debunked with rational deduction with regards to the absurdity of the claim- it is currently experimentally indistinguishable from MWI.
That rational evidence is overwhelming, of course- and leaves Copenhagen in a state of complete absurdity... but alas, denial can be pretty strong.
In this case, though, I wouldn't phrase it exactly the way he did- with regards to attachment.
It's more that people are afraid or unnerved by MWI- to paraphrase many I've heard: 'It's too big' or 'It makes me uncomfortable'.
MWI also fairly soundly debunks theistic religions- that may be an element of the discomfort.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, though, and say that MWI's disproving theism probably isn't what makes you uncomfortable about it-- so what does?
Uh... Blake, what exactly do you mean by Copenhagen?
As far as I know, the Copenhagen interpretation refers to the idea that between measurements, particles do not have particular attributes. That is, a particle that is in a superposition of position states is "nowhere."
The Superposition interpretation is the idea that between measurements, particles have all component attributes. That is, a particle that is in a superposition of position states is "everywhere."
These are two distinct ideas. Superposition is separate from both Copenhagen and also separate from MW and also not reliant on hidden variables. Thus Superposition is a third option that you do not seem to have addressed.
"It is a suspicion of mine that..." Okaaaay then.
"could it, as one universe representing a series of many-worlds universes stacked end on end (which in themselves may be infinite) ever be both complete and consistent as a representation of those universes?"
Maybe I'm just having trouble with your grammar. Are you asking "can a ever be both as complete and as consistent as b?" If this is what you're asking then I don't see where the incompleteness theorem comes in at all. Demonstrating that a and b are both equally consistent (or that a is at least as complete as b) was never a problem. It's been done with Euclidean geometry and algebra, for example. Rather, demonstrating that a is complete and consistent (without regards to b) is a problem.
"In so far as the universe exists as a single entity..."
But it does not. The universe is a set of entities, not a single entity. That's my point.
Also, you're representing a false problem. Copenhagen and similar interpretations do not have particles and waves as two separate kinds of things, with waves magically constructing particles. Rather, in these interpretations particles and waves are the same thing. The traditional "particle-like" properties are just properties of extreme waves (the fact that cats appear localized is because their position uncertainty is small with regards to the volume they occupy). Thus saying "the universe is a particle, how can it be built from waves?" is just silly.
"Many worlds represents the universe itself as a wave..."
I thought MW claimed that there were infinitely many universes, each one being particle-like but together acting somewhat like a crowd wave. Just as Superposition asserts that particles are "everywhere," thus allowing these many particles to act somewhat like a crowd wave.
"Copenhagen attepts to construct a particle (the universe) from things that are definitively waves..."
No. Copenhagen equivocates waves with particles. The two are same thing, its just that in different scenarios waves with certain properties come across as particle-like.
"The source of this collapse is a human-centric..."
That's the "Consciousness-Collapse" view, which can be attributed to any interpretation, Copenhagen, Superposition, or MW even. I agree that it is absurd.
"The universe gets to peel away into a multiverse anywhere observation isn't collapsing waves..."
Uhh, no. In single-world, non local-variable interpretations, attributes are somewhat "spread out" until interactions (called measurements but not necessarily a result of human action) cause them to become less "spread out."
Each part of a cat interacts with other parts of the cat, keeping the cat as a whole from spreading out too much. This is why wavefunctions "collapse" at larger scales. See the "Objective collapse theories" section of your own link. Your concerns with "absurdity" 2 are too based in assuming that Copenhagen actually claims absurdity 1.
"Non-causality;"
And how exactly does MW subvert this? There is inherent randomness in QM that any interpretation has to account for. There is a fundamental amount of indeterminacy involved. If MW provides a cause for which indeterminable events occur and which don't, why can't we use that cause to eliminate the indeterminacy? If we can't, then in what sense is that cause meaningfully a cause?
"A slight violation of conservation of information there."
Even a "collapsed" state is still a wavefunction. The cat did not "live many lives" and then suddenly collapse into a single life, the cat was "spread out" and then got "squished together" by a measurement. Also, it's better to use small particles than cats, especially if you want to address the objective collapse theories. Also also, there's plenty of traces of the information contained in the superposition. We can determine precisely what the wavefunction was before it collapsed. The fact that it is no longer in that state does not mean that we've lost any information, it just means that it changed state.
If a pot of water boils, the process doesn't destroy information from the water's liquid state. Similarly, wavefunction collapse doesn't need to destroy information from the pre-collapse state.
"Copenhagen.. is completely f*cking arbitrarily human-centric to the point of profoundly arrogant idiocy."
You really need to stop equating Copenhagen with Consciousness Causes Collapse. Consciousness Causes Collapse is definitely absurd, but it is not necessitated by the Copenhagen position.
"Many worlds (at least one of the many variations of this- or a variation of MWI we haven't thought of yet) is the only viable basic interpretation remaining."
How about something which has yet to be conceived. Have you considered that? Of course not. You can't have, because it's not around to be considered yet.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Err... no, those aren't really distinct from each other. "Does not exist as a single state", and "Exists as a superposition of all possible states" aren't really differentiable, save by your manner of speaking.
This may be a major point of confusion for you.
The difference between Copenhagen and MWI is that in MWI the Schrödinger equation applies everywhere, consistently, whereas Copenhagen only has it applying in very selective, human-centric cases.
I have no idea what you're on about. Please provide a link to an explanation, or explain this in the context of what I have said above.
I suspect you are thinking of something else; superposition is a very general term.
No, that's not what I'm asking. MWI is complete and consistent in the sense that the concept of the number line is complete and consistent on its own- but could perhaps not be listed in a complete and consistent way (much as would be the case in reflecting MWI by way of a series of Copenhagen universes).
What I'm asking is "Can a ever contain b, wherein b is infinitely more infinite than a (which is also assumed infinite)?"
I don't expect it to make sense to you- what I'm saying is that I don't know the answer to this, and therefore I can not say whether or not Copenhagen can contain MWI. If it *can*, I have indicated the conceptual result of this.
If you can answer that question for me, I would appreciate it. Maybe it doesn't run into problems of incompleteness.
Your point is wrong.
A series of quantum particles interacting in a self-contained manner exhibit these phenomena- you don't need just *one* most fundamental particle for quantum effects (what would we be down to? Quarks now...). No more subject to them is one particle than two, no more two than a million, no more a million than a cat, no more is a cat than a man, or a galaxy, or the universe.
This fact is well demonstrated- the difference in Copenhagen is that an arbitrary cut-off point for quantum effects is given at a human-centric level.
*facepalm*
You didn't understand a single thing I said, did you? No, you didn't...
No, in MWI, the universe is fundamentally a wave, governed by Schrödinger's equation. Distinct slices out of that universe that represent coherent realities are perceptual.
In MWI, the entire universe is in superposition of all possible states, exactly as quantum mechanics predicts.
The idea of different universes and branching is just a convenient way of explaining it to the layman; technically imprecise. Every bit of that behavior is emergent from a single proven principle.
All we need assume is that no magical powers kick in at the human-centric level to "collapse" the world into one discrete objective reality. That is, since any claim of such magical powers is an extraordinary and ridiculous one, the burden of proof is on the Copenhagenists, not those advocating the simpler interpretation of Many Worlds.
It's really f*cking simple dude... this conversation is verging on absurd. You don't seem to even know what you're arguing against. I would suggest reading some literature on MWI, at least, before you put your foot in your mouth any more.
Seriously, it's almost like you're *trying* not to understand what I'm saying. I know Quantum mechanics is hard to explain, but still...
No, that's not what I said at all.
Look: We all know that light, electrons, etc. are "wavicles"- really, these are just waves with highly contained probability regions that seem like particles. We've demonstrated, physically, very well that even larger atoms (helium) are clearly waves and obey uncertainty with regards to temperature (see condensates). It's not a single entity that is at issue- it is a closed system of quantum effects.
Copenhagen recognizes this- all of this I have said immediately above- but cuts it off at the macro-level by saying that human measurement (explicit or implicit) causes the system to be opened (and nothing short of that, because we've well demonstrated that fact- quantum 'entities' can "measure" themselves with interdependencies without collapsing the system), to ultimately result in the conclusion that the entire collapsed universe is essentially a particle- that is, a thing with an objective and discrete state which hasn't propagated over time as quantum mechanics predicts.
Particles don't really exist in the classical sense- period. Copenhagen fancies that the universe is immune from quantum mechanics thanks to a magical power humans have called "collapse"- and that causes the universe to be pinned, objectively, to certain objective states making it a kind of gigantic particle (and not a wave, as MWI results in).
What the f*ck are you smoking? Are you completely daft? Are you *that* ignorant? Seriously, I want to know what's up here.
Many worlds interpretation is that (many worlds) precisely because it REJECTS collapse at all- that's why the 'universes' keep "branching" (not really branching discretely like that, it's an expression to explain the propagation of the universe's wave function).
NO, many worlds can NOT have "Consciousness-Collapse" attributed to it because it doesn't f*cking collapse at all.
Is "Many minds" confusing you? Because that has nothing whatsoever to do with MWI- it's derived from Copenhagen, wherein multiple collapsing entities are postulated instead of some abstract single entity.
And again with "superposition"... seriously.
I don't dislike you, Zaq, but you're doing your best to convince me that you're an idiot here.
Let me edit your statement to remove the ignorant nonsense for you:
Wow! I agree too!
Seriously, Deepak Chopra understands quantum mechanics better than you do man-- that's saying something.
That is what I described. Those still attempting to rationalize Copenhagen are doing their damndest to distance measurement from human observation- thus far to no real success.
In other words: Ad hoc, ad hoc, ad hoc.
These are un-evidenced rationalizations, which only add *more* assumptions to an already bloated theory.
While we're at it, why not bring back Aether theory?
See my amendment two posts later. I used the wrong word here.
MWI is objectively determinant, but perception of QM is acausal from the retrospect of a given result.
To use an analogy: Both occur, and in each "branch" we look back, and would have no way of knowing which branch we would be in (since an identical copy is in each, and an identical history precedes in each). As such, we can't use this objective determinacy to eliminate the indeterminacy we experience.
You will probably need to understand MWI better to understand this, and how is is different from Copenhagen's lack of objective determinacy.
You really don't get it... I don't know if I can help you understand this. I don't think I have *time* to.
Ad hoc bullshitting with arbitrary assumptions intended to save a dying theory. With all of the work they put in, they still haven't solved anything- and won't- because they're wrong.
Do you *want* me to address the objective collapse flavours of Copenhagen?
Maybe I can save time by copying and pasting some explanations refuting ad hoc ID apologetics from talk origins and changing a couple words...
You apparently didn't see the part about gaining information of the new state being the same as losing the information of all of the others. Conservation of information is being violated, however you phrase it.
You really need to *start*, because yes- yes it is. That people are ad hoc-ing around this and coming up with silly little rationalizations doesn't change that.
That's because the current interpretations are logically exhaustive. There aren't any other basic interpretations to make!
I have already explained this- you have conveniently ignored my explanation.
Oh, I may have given you a false impression then. Nothing about MWI makes me uncomfortable. I think it is the most likely of the current mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is why I brought it up in the first place.
I just am unconvinced that there is enough evidence to establish its veracity beyond reasonable doubt.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
Read the book Quantum Reality. It discusses different metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics. This book makes a distinction between Copenhagen and Superposition interpretations, which I presented.
The particle is everywhere and the particle is nowhere are certainly different. The former has been used in ideas about wavefunction collapse being a tendency towards a lower-energy state. The latter cannot be used in such a way.
The point you're not getting is that it's possible to have a Copenhagen interpretation in which the wavefunction applies everywhere. It's just that with many macroscopic systems the wavefunction is not very spread out, so they appear to have particle-like attributes.
"Can a ever contain b, wherein b is infinitely more infinite than a (which is also assumed infinite)?"
If by "infinitely more infinite" you mean "has a higher cardinality," then no. But I don't see what this has to do with Copenhagen containing MW or even vice-versa. It doesn't seem like the two interpretations would have different cardinalities in any meaningful way.
"in Copenhagen is that an arbitrary cut-off point for quantum effects is given at a human-centric level."
No. In Copenhagen, quantum effects are not observed at our level because the effects are too small to make a significant impact in most cases. If the position of a cat is spread over a few micrometers then we're not going to notice. If the position of an electron is spread over a few micrometers then it can make a big difference in the behavior of that electron.
"No, in MWI, the universe is fundamentally a wave, governed by Schrödinger's equation. Distinct slices out of that universe that represent coherent realities are perceptual."
How is this so much better than the idea that everything in the universe is fundamentally a wave, governed by Schrödinger's equation?
And AGAIN you assert that Copenhagen is inherently human-centric. Let me repeat: f the position of a cat is spread over a few micrometers then we're not going to notice. If the position of an electron is spread over a few micrometers then it can make a big difference in the behavior of that electron. The cat is still a wave, it's just that the waveness is so small in comparison to the size of the cat that it appears particle-like.
"...human measurement (explicit or implicit) causes the system to be opened..."
This is the claim of Consciousness Causes Collapse. These claims can be made in the Copenhagen interpretation, but do not have to be made in that interpretation. An alternative idea is that interactions can cause wavefunctions to become less spread-out. The less spread a wavefunction has, the more particle-like it looks.
"These are un-evidenced rationalizations..."
Wait, are you claiming that we don't have evidence that cat wavefunctions are not-very spread out? Have you looked at a cat recently? See how not-very spread out it looks?
On another note, how does MWI explain the fact that we only experience one of the many "paths" the universe takes (and how this branch is determined). If it treats the entire universe as a wave then how does it account for our experiencing the universe in a particle-like manner?
"You apparently didn't see the part about gaining information of the new state being the same as losing the information of all of the others. Conservation of information is being violated, however you phrase it."
How is conservation of information being violated here, but not in a boiling pot of water? I'm not arguing that information is lost/gained when boiling water, I'm just trying to get some clarification about what exactly you're claiming is happening here.
"That's because the current interpretations are logically exhaustive..."
You know, people made that claim before MWI came about too.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
I'm completely O.K. with your being unconvinced of this- I do respect your tendency towards MWI with the bit of agnosticism that you bring with it; it is a reasonable tendency.
However, you seem to be completely convinced that there absolutely *isn't* enough evidence to establish veracity beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what I have a problem with.
It's fine to be convinced of the lack of evidence for gods- because hell, there's logical proof positive against them, so obviously there couldn't be positive evidence (lest the world implode). MWI has no evidence against it, and thus far is the only most reasonable interpretation.
If you could just establish your agnosticism towards the amount of evidence- rational or empirical- to MWI (admitting there may in fact be enough), then I'd be happy.
I'll take a look into if I have time; though a link would be better. I don't have easy access to many books here.
I disagree. To the extent that they are logically coherent, their presentations are generally the same; the explanations are too ambiguous to distinguish them.
Wave function collapse is not necessarily a lower energy state- that's kind of an incoherent and arbitrary guess; it could just as easily be higher.
No no, I *get* that you think that. You are wrong. The point that you aren't getting is that what you are saying now is ridiculous. It's patently false, and assuming it under some vague "it's really complex, but I can kind of imagine how that might be the case" is only indicative of having not really broken it down into its individual assumptions or compared those assumptions to known empirical evidence. They do not hold water.
They may or may not; I don't know for sure.
Of course they are observed; see chaotic functions, which reality is one of.
This indicates a complete misunderstanding, or even willful ignorance of the thought experiment in question.
The experiment was about an obvious quantum mechanical phenomenon affecting a 'macro' system in a meaningful way, but which did not interact with anything outside (it remaining a closed).
It doesn't exempt the whole.
And again, you seem to have no idea what we're talking about.
Look into the thought experiment a bit more.
They don't have to be made if you don't mind being inconsistent with logic and reason, and contrary to empirical fact.
Which is in contrast to the facts of the matter. And STILL fails to address the thought experiment we were discussing.
Wow...
WOW... yeah... you have no idea what you're on about at all; have you really never read any explanation of MWI? I linked you to several that answer all of these questions. Hell, the wikipedia page even does it.
Now, I respect the saying that "there are no stupid questions" because, well, it's important to encourage people to learn... you know, if one is afraid to ask questions, how can one learn?
If you read anything on this, and you still don't understand this... well... I will answer these later if you really want me to... but if you could figure out the answers to these questions on your own, you might be better off for it.
It's going to take me a while to get over the... err... non-smartness of these questions. You'll have to give me some time to think of a way to explain this that uses small words, and preferably, puppets.
See physics 101.
All interactions in Newtonian mechanics are inherently reversible, and are strictly causal- that's why they are reversible. In QM, 'collapse' is non-causal, so one cannot derive the result of the collapse from the preceding facts.
Information, about the result of the collapse, is being 'created' from nothing at all, because it is not merely the product of the information that came before it- it is new information.
People make the claim all of the time for things that are not; that's why I demonstrated my logic, very clearly. If there is a problem there, then point it out. It should be obvious if there is a flaw in the logic I have presented.
I have a tendency to use cats as my standard "classical object" when talking about quantum mechanics. Just because I mention a cat doesn't mean I'm talking about Schrodinger's cat.
The idea is that assuming the Superposition interpretation (the particle is everywhere), you'd have a lot more energy. Having a photon traversing both paths of an experiment involves more energy than having it traverse only one path. When this excess energy gets to be too much, the system collapses. This kind of hypothesis does not work with the "the particle is nowhere" interpretation, so they may very well be distinguishable.
The point is that if wavefunction collapse goes from particle everywhere to particle in one place then it's a high-energy to low-energy process. If you start with the particle nowhere then wavefunction collapse is not clearly a high-energy to low-energy process. This is why the two ideas are meaningfully different.
I'm not arguing that one can't get macroscopic objects that exhibit noticeably quantum effects. I'm explaining why we don't usually see such effects in our everyday macroscopic world. For clarity, the wavefunctions of macroscopic objects aren't usually spread out enough to notice non-classical behavior. They can be, especially when we specifically set up a process to get them there.
If the wavefunction of a macroscopic object is spread-out enough, Copenhagen interpretation predicts that we will observe noticeable quantum effects in that object. However, wavefunctions of macroscopic objects usually aren't very spread-out, which explains why we don't usually see such behavior.
Yeah, I misspoke there. I should have included the word usually. We don't usually observe overtly quantum effects in well-controlled experiments because the wavefunctions involved aren't usually spread-out enough.
Also, most chaotic systems are built around sensitivity to initial conditions. These would be more like amplifying the effects of a small wavefunction spread in the initial conditions than actually creating a wavefunction with a large spread.
I should have been more clear. I often use cats as an example of a classical object without intending to refer to the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. I wasn't talking about the thought experiment there. I was talking about why we don't typically observe the bizarre aspects of quantum mechanics in everyday cats.
Sorry, but I wasn't talking about that thought experiment. I stopped talking about it a while ago, though I continued using cats as an example of a classical object so I get how that can be confusing. Sorry.
What facts of the matter disagree with the idea that more localized wavefunctions lead to particle-like behavior?
When you talk about new information, you bring up the idea of reversability. From the wiki article I didn't get the impression that the splitting involved in MWI was a reversible process. Wouldn't this involve new information then?
One of your links led me to a server error, one led to a wiki on Bell's theorem (through which I found a link to a wiki on MWI that did answer my question, but that came later), one had nothing to do with MWI specifically, and the last had so much content that I would have had to search several links, each linking to several pages of information, to maybe find an answer. I was hoping you could answer my question without being a smartass, but apparently that's too much to ask for...
Anyway, I found the answer, though my question about new information still stands. MWI doesn't seem to involve any criteria for determining which outcome I experience. Furthermore, what I read didn't really explain why I only experience one of the many mes after the splitting process. If there's a world in which I observe a dead cat and another world in which I observe a live cat (here I am talking about Schrodinger's cat), why do I only experience one of these worlds? In other words, why am I conscious of only one of the many paths?
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Do you not understand the relevance of the thought experiment? You have an avatar of it.
This doesn't follow, and I'm getting tired of going over all of this stuff.
And you seem to be completely neglecting chaos, and all of the examples I gave. Note the poor alien Zergons, who are perfectly set up in this way.
Well, at least you aren't being *blindly* ignorant here. However, I would like you to really think about the implications of that- particularly for a civilization on another planet that is currently just beyond out causal sphere.
You're coming along a little bit, which is promising- I'm hopeful that if you really think about this, you'll see why collapse is absurd.
That there's nothing objective to collapse them, and that quantum mechanical factors are exaggerated and amplified into the macro-world by chaos, still un-collapsed.
It doesn't matter how localized it is as an observable wave phenomenon; the wave function extends beyond our capacity to observe it.
No, not from an objective perspective. MWI only yields new subjective information (from a perspective within one of the 'branches'), which is canceled out by the other 'branches'. There is no genesis of objective information at any point, merely deterministic multiversal wave propagation.
That was what I'd hoped you would figure out.
Think about it.
Come on... this is like asking, "If my mother had two children, why don't I also experience consciousness from my brother's perspective?"
This is really obvious. Each "you" is experiencing the world in which it exists. They can't experience each-others'.