Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 02:15:59 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know  (Read 8446 times)
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
February 05, 2013, 01:31:50 PM
 #1

It turns out that the most popular and widely taught interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, so called Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the waves of probabilities somehow collapse as a result of measurement is mathematically untenable. Well, it was just about time... Author leaves us with two options: multiple worlds model (read parallel realities, which is mathematically valid) and his own interpretation called zero worlds model, which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts. He didn't say where those thoughts come from though, but that would probably be outside of the scope of his presentation.

So the bottom line is - be careful with what you read and who you trust in mainstream science. Smiley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
Enjoy!
1511014559
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511014559

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511014559
Reply with quote  #2

1511014559
Report to moderator
1511014559
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511014559

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511014559
Reply with quote  #2

1511014559
Report to moderator
A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
spndr7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1020



View Profile WWW
February 06, 2013, 02:40:58 AM
 #2

Credit of the two options goes to Hugh Everett III and JS Bell.But their astounding discoveries are ignored by the mainstream popular science.

interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
February 09, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
 #3

Credit of the two options goes to Hugh Everett III and JS Bell.But their astounding discoveries are ignored by the mainstream popular science.

I agree, but it seems that scientific evidence is more than just ignored, it is being actively suppressed and ridiculed. I see only one reason for such behaviour - competition. The real science is being developed under the closed doors, while big money do as much as possible to misguide the open popular science to keep the rest of the population uncompetitive and therefore easier to control. It's as simple as that.

Here is another few examples of how statistically verifiable data is not even being looked at because conclusions it leads to are considered to be impossible by definition. That's not how real science should approach things IMO, and surprisingly one big corporation gives those shouted down scientists a platform to talk to the world about these ideas and the data they have collected. So, Google seems to be a good guy so far.

"The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence" with Rupert Sheldrake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

"Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

And if you haven't yet watched the movie "The Thirteenth Floor" (1999), I welcome you to do so, it's quite on topic and it's brilliant!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 09, 2013, 06:01:25 PM
 #4

his own interpretation called zero worlds model, which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts.
This isn't new. Drug-addled hippies have been proposing this interpretation of quantum mechanics for over half a century now.

I'll be happy to accept this as true once I see some the slightest shred of evidence. If of these "zero worlds" proponents could jump out of a window and decide not to fall, or stand in front of a moving bus and decide not to be hit by it using only the power of their mind that would be pretty compelling.
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
February 09, 2013, 06:39:44 PM
 #5

his own interpretation called zero worlds model, which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts.
This isn't new. Drug-addled hippies have been proposing this interpretation of quantum mechanics for over half a century now.

I'll be happy to accept this as true once I see some the slightest shred of evidence. If of these "zero worlds" proponents could jump out of a window and decide not to fall, or stand in front of a moving bus and decide not to be hit by it using only the power of their mind that would be pretty compelling.

Apparently, some of us do...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLj8DMqaC8
Deafboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 484



View Profile WWW
February 09, 2013, 07:20:55 PM
 #6

Quote
Apparently, some of us do...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLj8DMqaC8

There are dozens of unemployed immigrants in the city doing this. People are starting to be upset about them Cheesy
Vitalik Buterin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 331


View Profile
February 09, 2013, 11:03:36 PM
 #7

I'll be happy to accept this as true once I see some the slightest shred of evidence. If of these "zero worlds" proponents could jump out of a window and decide not to fall, or stand in front of a moving bus and decide not to be hit by it using only the power of their mind that would be pretty compelling.

Only to themselves though. From the perspective of your own mind (alternative QM translation: over all possible universes which you are likely to survive as an observer of), you're overwhelmingly likely to see them splattered on the pavement in more fragments than a Windows XP hard drive partition.

Argumentum ad lunam: the fallacy that because Bitcoin's price is rising really fast the currency must be a speculative bubble and/or Ponzi scheme.
spndr7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1020



View Profile WWW
February 10, 2013, 01:55:17 PM
 #8

And if you haven't yet watched the movie "The Thirteenth Floor" (1999), I welcome you to do so, it's quite on topic and it's brilliant!
http://watch32.com/movies-online/the-thirteenth-floor-220348/full.html


I found it very boring and the whole movie stuck at 13th floor.Time stops.How its on the topic ?

herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
February 10, 2013, 10:24:51 PM
 #9

One word: Simulation argument.

Quote
One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
---Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University

In my admittedly limited understanding, I would guess that Quantum Mechanics ties in well will the simulation argument:

Wave function collapse? Game engine rendering at work.

Schrödinger's cat? Lazy evaluation.

Quantum entanglement? Pointers to the same object in the machine's memory.

 Shocked

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 10, 2013, 10:31:04 PM
 #10

One word: Simulation argument.

Quote
One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
---Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
We know that the most efficient possible computer could not count to 2^256 even if it could use 100% of the sun's output with perfect efficiency.

Has anyone ever calculated how much energy would be needed to simulate a universe to see if it's even remotely credible?
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
February 10, 2013, 11:39:38 PM
 #11

Has anyone ever calculated how much energy would be needed to simulate a universe to see if it's even remotely credible?

the simulations we'll run will be less complex than our world, at least in the beginning.

as above, so below, so the world that simulates us is more complex than ours.  Cool

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
d'aniel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 461


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 01:57:48 PM
 #12

It turns out that the most popular and widely taught interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, so called Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the waves of probabilities somehow collapse as a result of measurement is mathematically untenable. Well, it was just about time... Author leaves us with two options: multiple worlds model (read parallel realities, which is mathematically valid) and his own interpretation called zero worlds model, which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts. He didn't say where those thoughts come from though, but that would probably be outside of the scope of his presentation.

So the bottom line is - be careful with what you read and who you trust in mainstream science. Smiley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
Enjoy!

There's no conspiracy going on here, just a lot of richness you seem to be failing to appreciate.  Here's a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

I should add: most adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation tack on decoherence to explain the appearance of wavefunction collapse.  Also, there are more interpretations than just many worlds and the author's mystical nonsense.  Check out consistent histories, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 02:42:59 PM
 #13

They lose me when physicists start talking about the mind. There needs to be more science done. There is plenty of cake. Personally, I think that the Big Bang theory is too assumptive, String Theory is too derivative, and Brane Theory is pure conjecture. More raw data is needed to analyze. We need a moon based radio telescope array and then probably one much larger. We need to look for self similar patterns on a cosmological scale. It will require a lot of computing power to analyze 3-dimensional data sets. I think we'll find some interesting things going on.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
d'aniel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 461


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 09:53:22 PM
 #14

They lose me when physicists start talking about the mind.
You mean the mystical nonsense?  Not All Physicists Are Like That...
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 10:38:21 PM
 #15

I'll be happy to accept this as true once I see some the slightest shred of evidence. If of these "zero worlds" proponents could jump out of a window and decide not to fall, or stand in front of a moving bus and decide not to be hit by it using only the power of their mind that would be pretty compelling.

Only to themselves though. From the perspective of your own mind (alternative QM translation: over all possible universes which you are likely to survive as an observer of), you're overwhelmingly likely to see them splattered on the pavement in more fragments than a Windows XP hard drive partition.

Very good point!
There is no objective proof that the person who attempted to stop the bus with the power of his mind and the person who got splattered on the pavement is the same "observer" (even though we perceive them both as the same human body). So maybe he actually succeeded and is alive somewhere, but we forked into a possible universe and observed a version of that experiment where he failed because this is what our beliefs suggest should happen.

So the real experiment turns from "can this ever happen?" to "can somebody change my beliefs so that I can observe it?" and it is more up to you than the person conducting the experiment. What we see is only there for us to see.

And if you haven't yet watched the movie "The Thirteenth Floor" (1999), I welcome you to do so, it's quite on topic and it's brilliant!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/

I found it very boring and the whole movie stuck at 13th floor.Time stops.How its on the topic ?

Well It's a matter of taste. I personally liked it.
it's on topic because the video in the OP mentions one of the interpretations to be a simulation on a quantum computer (when stretching the analogy to a breaking point) and that's what the whole movie is about.

One word: Simulation argument.

Quote
One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
---Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University

In my admittedly limited understanding, I would guess that Quantum Mechanics ties in well will the simulation argument:

Wave function collapse? Game engine rendering at work.

Schrödinger's cat? Lazy evaluation.

Quantum entanglement? Pointers to the same object in the machine's memory.

 Shocked

I like this idea a lot, but it seems that consciousness playing the game would still be a singularity and can transcend any such system. So in that sense the simulation would still be an illusion and not the thing onto itself and that's what the movie demonstrated very well.

One word: Simulation argument.

Quote
One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
---Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
We know that the most efficient possible computer could not count to 2^256 even if it could use 100% of the sun's output with perfect efficiency.

Has anyone ever calculated how much energy would be needed to simulate a universe to see if it's even remotely credible?

Well obviously the computer needed to simulate physical reality would need to be built from something other than matter and operate in something other than space Smiley

Also we shouldn't extrapolate our experience of starving for energy based on our little knowledge of where we are and how things work to the conclusion that energy is somehow not abundant.

It turns out that the most popular and widely taught interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, so called Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the waves of probabilities somehow collapse as a result of measurement is mathematically untenable. Well, it was just about time... Author leaves us with two options: multiple worlds model (read parallel realities, which is mathematically valid) and his own interpretation called zero worlds model, which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts. He didn't say where those thoughts come from though, but that would probably be outside of the scope of his presentation.

So the bottom line is - be careful with what you read and who you trust in mainstream science. Smiley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
Enjoy!

There's no conspiracy going on here, just a lot of richness you seem to be failing to appreciate.  Here's a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

I should add: most adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation tack on decoherence to explain the appearance of wavefunction collapse.  Also, there are more interpretations than just many worlds and the author's mystical nonsense.  Check out consistent histories, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories

Thanks, I will look into that.

From the presentation in the OP author suggests that "measurement" and "entanglement" are mathematically the same process. So we can only measure something by becoming entangled with the system we are measuring and that makes our state (what ever we are) part of the overall equation and therefore affects the outcome of the measurement (only for us). Also in the same sense as we measure the system the system is measuring us, since entanglement is a symmetric state. So in an attempt to find greater degree of unification one can assume that if we are conscious and our relationship with the system is symmetric then the rest of system is made of consciousness as well (it wasn't mentioned in the video but is an extrapolation on my part)

As I understand decoherence model still doesn't give a complete solution of the measurement problem and requires extra layers of interpretation as opposed to many-worlds theory, which seems to be gaining some experimental evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMoyu3K0wtY

How is "consistent histories" different from "multiple worlds" interpretation in brief?
They both seem to avoid the term "wave-function collapse" which was artificial to begin with, but the former still suggests that "classical measurements" are irreversible macroscopic phenomena while the mathematics presented in the video in OP says that everything is reversible.

They lose me when physicists start talking about the mind. There needs to be more science done. There is plenty of cake. Personally, I think that the Big Bang theory is too assumptive, String Theory is too derivative, and Brane Theory is pure conjecture. More raw data is needed to analyze. We need a moon based radio telescope array and then probably one much larger. We need to look for self similar patterns on a cosmological scale. It will require a lot of computing power to analyze 3-dimensional data sets. I think we'll find some interesting things going on.

I guess it would be interesting to find different laws of physics in different galaxies. That would put the nail on the idea of a Universe as some objective underlying reality and focus our attention back to who we are and what we do about it.
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 10:42:31 PM
 #16

They lose me when physicists start talking about the mind.
You mean the mystical nonsense?  Not All Physicists Are Like That...

Does statistically significant result (as in Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake videos i posted earlier) qualify as mystical nonsense?
I'm not sure who is talking science here Smiley
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 11, 2013, 10:53:56 PM
 #17

There is no objective proof that the person who attempted to stop the bus with the power of his mind and the person who got splattered on the pavement is the same "observer" (even though we perceive them both as the same human body). So maybe he actually succeeded and is alive somewhere, but we forked into a possible universe and observed a version of that experiment where he failed because this is what our beliefs suggest should happen.

So the real experiment turns from "can this ever happen?" to "can somebody change my beliefs so that I can observe it?" and it is more up to you than the person conducting the experiment. What we see is only there for us to see.
So nothing can be objectively determined either true or false because for every event there may or may not be an alternate universe somewhere in which something else happened.

In other words, unfalsifiable sophistry.
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 11:02:06 PM
 #18

There is no objective proof that the person who attempted to stop the bus with the power of his mind and the person who got splattered on the pavement is the same "observer" (even though we perceive them both as the same human body). So maybe he actually succeeded and is alive somewhere, but we forked into a possible universe and observed a version of that experiment where he failed because this is what our beliefs suggest should happen.

So the real experiment turns from "can this ever happen?" to "can somebody change my beliefs so that I can observe it?" and it is more up to you than the person conducting the experiment. What we see is only there for us to see.
So nothing can be objectively determined either true or false because for every event there may or may not be an alternate universe somewhere in which something else happened.

Can you objectively tell me how I see colors?

The many-worlds interpretation is a second leading among the physicists after the Copenhagen interpretation which turns out to be a hoax.


In other words, unfalsifiable sophistry.

It's the other way around.
The experimental data demonstrates that you can change the result of a measurement with your intent. Google "random number generators experiments" or watch the videos that I posted in my second post.

So you in fact are shifting between parallel realities with your intent although the immediate effect isn't as big as you might expect. That comes with training. Wink
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 12, 2013, 12:13:18 AM
 #19

So you in fact are shifting between parallel realities with your intent although the immediate effect isn't as big as you might expect. That comes with training. Wink
How do you know? Maybe this is an alternate reality in which parallel realities don't exist?

Or does it just work that only the truth statements you agree with are objectively true?
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
February 12, 2013, 01:27:20 AM
 #20

Credit of the two options goes to Hugh Everett III and JS Bell.But their astounding discoveries are ignored by the mainstream popular science.

Everett's interpretation is actually quite popular amongst physicists IIRC.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

See question 12.

Copenhagen 42%
Information   24%
Everett         18%
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!