JGWeissman comments on [SEQ RERUN] Science Doesn't Trust Your Rationality - Less Wrong

5 Post author: MinibearRex 05 May 2012 06:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (24)
Tags: sequence_reruns

Comments (24)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JGWeissman 05 May 2012 06:17:48PM 0 points [-]

Again a straw-collapse. No one believes in faster-than-light quantum "collapse", except for maybe some philosophers of physics.

Speed of light or slower collapse, applied to spatially separated measurements of entangled particles, seems even more ridiculous.

Comment author: shminux 05 May 2012 09:19:42PM *  2 points [-]

The collapse model says that after performing a local measurement, the wavefunction locally evolves from the eigenstate that has been measured, nothing else. For a local observer spacelike separated events do no exist until they come into causal contact with it. That's the earliest time that can be called a measurement time.

Comment author: JGWeissman 05 May 2012 09:53:37PM 0 points [-]

For a local observer spacelike separated events do no exist until they come into causal contact with it.

That sounds like mind projection fallacy. That the observer does not know about the events doesn't mean they don't exist.

That's the earliest time that can be called a measurement time.

That would imply that whatever measurements we make locally, from the perspective of an observer who hasn't yet interacted with those measurements, our wave function hasn't collapsed yet, and we remain in superposition.

So, how does it make sense that the wave function has collapsed from our perspective?

Comment author: shminux 06 May 2012 02:35:19AM *  1 point [-]

That sounds like mind projection fallacy. That the observer does not know about the events doesn't mean they don't exist.

"Exist" should be a taboo word, until you can explain it in terms of other QM concepts.

Comment author: JGWeissman 06 May 2012 03:20:56AM -1 points [-]

For a thing to exist, it means that thing is part of the reality that embeds our minds and our experience, whether or not that thing has an effect on our minds and our experience. Of course when I say something exists, it is a prediction of my model of reality. And you might ask how I can defend my model in favor of an alternative that says different things about events with no effect on my experience, and my answer would be that I prefer models that use the same rules whether or not I am looking, in which my reducible mind is not treated as ontologically fundamental.

Comment author: shminux 06 May 2012 05:10:22AM -1 points [-]

For a thing to exist, it means that thing is part of the reality that embeds our minds and our experience,

"Reality" is another taboo word. We have no direct QM experience.

I prefer models that use the same rules whether or not I am looking, in which my reducible mind is not treated as ontologically fundamental.

If there is a single lesson from QM, it is that looking (=measurement) affects what happens. This has nothing to do with minds.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit