He who must not be named, and other stuff.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-07-2012, 01:49 PM
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 01:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-07-2012 01:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's a well-established fact that subatomic particles can be in more than one place at the same time. Quantum superposition is indisputable. And now we know that visible objects can also be in a state of superposition: Quantum ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator. And that state can be maintained for long (relatively) periods of time: Quantum Information Storage for over 180 s Using Donor Spins in a 28Si “Semiconductor Vacuum” .

So why you say that? Seems observable and provable enough to me. Unless what you mean is that science itself is a faith-based position, which is an entirely different can of worms.
I don't argue with the experimental results. It is the interpretation that consciousness is required to do whatever it's supposed to be doing to reality.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with consciousness - it's about the physical act of measurement.

Unentangling (pun intended) consciousness from the physical act of measurement seems difficult to me. Lanza, to my read at least, is not defining consciousness the way we typically do as some sort of higher level self-awareness. More like he is associating consciousness with life (hence biocentrism). So a single-celled paramecium would qualify as "conscious" in his view. At least that's my read.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-07-2012, 02:22 PM
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 01:49 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-07-2012 01:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't argue with the experimental results. It is the interpretation that consciousness is required to do whatever it's supposed to be doing to reality.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with consciousness - it's about the physical act of measurement.

Unentangling (pun intended) consciousness from the physical act of measurement seems difficult to me. Lanza, to my read at least, is not defining consciousness the way we typically do as some sort of higher level self-awareness. More like he is associating consciousness with life (hence biocentrism). So a single-celled paramecium would qualify as "conscious" in his view. At least that's my read.
What Heisenberg stated was that to measure the position or momentum of a particle requires interacting with it. You need to hit it with something, say a photon, to get information. The shorter the wavelength of that photon (hence higher energy), the more accurate the measurement, but the more energetic the photon, the more effect it has on the particle. So the more accurately you measure the position, the more you derange the momentum and vice versa. That is, the more accurately you measure one attribute, the more uncertain you are of the other.

The particle doesn't know squat about a wave function - that exists in physicists' minds, it 'collapses' in physicists' minds; the particle is where it is, going at the velocity it is going. The uncertainty is an artifact, in the physicist's mind, of measuring.
The particle knows perfectly well what it's doing with or without physicists. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-07-2012, 02:44 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2012 02:53 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 02:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  The particle doesn't know squat about a wave function - that exists in physicists' minds, it 'collapses' in physicists' minds; the particle is where it is, going at the velocity it is going. The uncertainty is an artifact, in the physicist's mind, of measuring.

Sounds witchy. ... Also sounds like an interpretation that would have devastating effects on the entire Quantum Computing community. Wink

(03-07-2012 02:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  The particle knows perfectly well what it's doing with or without physicists. Big Grin

Conscious particles for the win!

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2012, 02:52 PM
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 02:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-07-2012 02:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  The particle doesn't know squat about a wave function - that exists in physicists' minds, it 'collapses' in physicists' minds; the particle is where it is, going at the velocity it is going. The uncertainty is an artifact, in the physicist's mind, of measuring.

Sounds witchy. ... Also sounds like an interpretation. Wink

Yes, the simplest one.

(03-07-2012 02:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  The particle knows perfectly well what it's doing with or without physicists. Big Grin
Conscious particles for the win!

Smiley face and irony font. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2012, 02:55 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2012 03:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 02:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Sounds witchy. ... Also sounds like an interpretation. Wink

(03-07-2012 02:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, the simplest one.

Quantum Computing research community should just give up now then. If quantum superposition's all in their head how the fuck do they think they can realize it in silicon. Idiots. Big Grin

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2012, 03:16 PM
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 01:49 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So a single-celled paramecium would qualify as "conscious" in his view. At least that's my read.

Hmmn, where have I heard that before?

Mods, it's spreading. Call the CDC.

You're failing to understand adding energy to the system. Think of it as a mechanical switch. There's no "observation," there's throwing a photon in there to see the fuck is going on.

I don't know if the above simplification is absolutely correct, but I've yet to hear that it is wrong; and what it is, is simple. Ain't no "irreducible complexity" other than Planck time.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2012, 03:22 PM
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 02:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-07-2012 02:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Sounds witchy. ... Also sounds like an interpretation. Wink

(03-07-2012 02:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, the simplest one.

Quantum Computing research community should just give up now then. If quantum superposition's all in their head how the fuck do they think they can realize it in silicon. Idiots. Big Grin
That's entanglement, not the same thing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-07-2012, 03:59 PM
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 03:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-07-2012 02:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Quantum Computing research community should just give up now then. If quantum superposition's all in their head how the fuck do they think they can realize it in silicon. Idiots. Big Grin
That's entanglement, not the same thing.

Sure. I guess my point is that we're way past the point of interpreting Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Why bother? ... I just want to program a goddam quantum computer. Is that selfish?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-07-2012, 04:06 PM
RE: He who must not be named, and other stuff.
(03-07-2012 03:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-07-2012 03:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's entanglement, not the same thing.

Sure. I guess my point is that we're way past the point of interpreting Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Why bother? ... I just want to program a goddam quantum computer. Is that selfish?
Yes, but understandably. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: