The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion

[Atla]

. . .what is known is that the "human mind" participates in quantum observation just as much as detectors do.

In no more an interesting or remarkable way that the human mind participates in anything else we do in science.

(And for the record, when 99.99% of experiments in quantum physics are made, the "decision" of where the detector is placed gets determined by a random number generator, not scientists with human minds.)

Yes. Anyway it seems clear from your tone that you are ignoring the elephant in the room which is the measurement problem. It's unknown why there is "collapsed" behaviour centered on us humans is in the first place, and whether or not that has something to do with some human minds.

[Faustus5]

Yes. Anyway it seems clear from your tone that you are ignoring the elephant in the room which is the measurement problem. It's unknown why there is "collapsed" behaviour centered on us humans is in the first place, and whether or not that has something to do with some human minds.

The only elephant in the room is the persistent, silly myth that there is any interesting connection between humanity and anything going on anywhere in physics. No one has ever made a single good, evidence based argument showing that human minds have any connection to anything in quantum physics. Not once, not ever.

[Atla]

Yes. Anyway it seems clear from your tone that you are ignoring the elephant in the room which is the measurement problem. It's unknown why there is "collapsed" behaviour centered on us humans is in the first place, and whether or not that has something to do with some human minds.

The only elephant in the room is the persistent, silly myth that there is any interesting connection between humanity and anything going on anywhere in physics. No one has ever made a single good, evidence based argument showing that human minds have any connection to anything in quantum physics. Not once, not ever.

If what you say were true, then you could answer why "collapsed" behaviour seems to be centered on us.

[Faustus5]

If what you say were true, then you could answer why "collapsed" behaviour seems to be centered on us.

Except that "collapsed behavior" doesn't seem to be centered on us. That's the myth which frankly isn't shared by any serious, mainstream scientist, at least not anymore. Certainly this goofy notion was toyed with in the early days by scientists who should have known better, but eventually the vast majority realized that this interpretation was unnecessary and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Here is my constant challenge to people like you, which in every case has been refused (and for good reason):

Walk us through a classic double slit experiment, one done properly so that where the detector goes is determined by a computer running a random number generator, and articulate exactly which step or result is centered in any interesting or unusual way on "us".

Keeping in mind that all experiments in science are directed by and paid attention to by humans and performed with our interests in mind, you have to show that in quantum physics something peculiarly us-o-centric is going on that can't be found anywhere else and is tied directly to the nature of physics itself, linking it to human mental states and not to other more mundane and less sexy causes at play in the experiments.

You won't be able to do this. I think we both know it, too.

[Atla]

If what you say were true, then you could answer why "collapsed" behaviour seems to be centered on us.

Except that "collapsed behavior" doesn't seem to be centered on us. That's the myth which frankly isn't shared by any serious, mainstream scientist, at least not anymore. Certainly this goofy notion was toyed with in the early days by scientists who should have known better, but eventually the vast majority realized that this interpretation was unnecessary and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Here is my constant challenge to people like you, which in every case has been refused (and for good reason):

Walk us through a classic double slit experiment, one done properly so that where the detector goes is determined by a computer running a random number generator, and articulate exactly which step or result is centered in any interesting or unusual way on "us".

Keeping in mind that all experiments in science are directed by and paid attention to by humans and performed with our interests in mind, you have to show that in quantum physics something peculiarly us-o-centric is going on that can't be found anywhere else and is tied directly to the nature of physics itself, linking it to human mental states and not to other more mundane and less sexy causes at play in the experiments.

You won't be able to do this. I think we both know it, too.

You don't seem to realize the underlying problem, you seem to be focusing on the problem of choice. The problem of choice can be dismissed by saying that all human choices are ultimately deterministic too etc.

The underlying problem is, for example we take any classic double slit experiment with RNG-controlled detectors, and sometimes we get interference patterns and other times bands as results. But both the interference patterns and bands will always be composed of particles that have positions that are "collapsed". Our entire directly accessible world seems to be composed of particles that show "collapsed" behaviour. The question is why don't we just percieve the world as a bunch of superpositions / wavefunctions / however you want to conceptualize it.

[Steve3007]

There was an old TV comedy in which one of the characters was a slightly dim guy whose job as a cleaner involved the use of a broom. He once said:

"I've had this broom for 20 years. It's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles. But it's still the same old broom."

Where I work, whenever we have lunchtime conversations about the nature of entities that have continuity of identity even though their consistent parts are fluid (as you do) we refer to this phenomenon with the shorthand "Trigger's Broom". (Trigger was the name of the character.)

Sy Borg has recently, very thoughtfully, given us an illustration of the "Trigger's Broom" phenomenon in action. A while ago she changed her name from Greta to Sy Borg. She's now changed her avatar/picture (or whatever you call that thing). But we still recognize her as the same person (I assume).

[popeye1945]

"You don't seem to realize the underlying problem, you seem to be focusing on the problem of choice. The problem of choice can be dismissed by saying that all human choices are ultimately deterministic too etc.

The underlying problem is, for example we take any classic double slit experiment with RNG-controlled detectors, and sometimes we get interference patterns and other times bands as results. But both the interference patterns and bands will always be composed of particles that have positions that are "collapsed". Our entire directly accessible world seems to be composed of particles that show "collapsed" behaviour. The question is why don't we just percieve the world as a bunch of superpositions / wavefunctions / however you want to conceptualize it.
[/quote]


Alta,

Is not the whole thing even more complicated when one considers that apparent reality itself is an illusion? As you've stated, why don't we just perceive the world as a bunch of superpositions/wavefunctions, and then we do not perceive all the wavefunctions of that which is available of the totality. This maybe refers to consciousness itself, but not particular to human consciousness.

[Consul]

If what you say were true, then you could answer why "collapsed" behaviour seems to be centered on us.

Except that "collapsed behavior" doesn't seem to be centered on us. That's the myth which frankly isn't shared by any serious, mainstream scientist, at least not anymore. Certainly this goofy notion was toyed with in the early days by scientists who should have known better, but eventually the vast majority realized that this interpretation was unnecessary and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

"Was the world wave function waiting for millions of years until a single-celled creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer—with a Ph.D.?"

(Bell, J. S. "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 117)

[Atla]

Alta,

Is not the whole thing even more complicated when one considers that apparent reality itself is an illusion? As you've stated, why don't we just perceive the world as a bunch of superpositions/wavefunctions, and then we do not perceive all the wavefunctions of that which is available of the totality. This maybe refers to consciousness itself, but not particular to human consciousness.

I don't think that apparent reality is an illusion in that sense, it's just that we only may be perceiving an infinitessimally small part of reality. I consider "collapsed" behaviour to be an extreme case of quantum behaviour.

However I think we always have to factor in that apparent reality is an illusion in the sense that indirect realism is probably true, we don't experience the outside world (if there is one) directly. Instead, we experience a model of the world, the model is in the head, directly. So in a way, a part of reality is a model of reality. This may or may not have something to do with the measurement problem.

[popeye1945]

"I don't think that apparent reality is an illusion in that sense, it's just that we only may be perceiving an infinitessimally small part of reality. I consider "collapsed" behaviour to be an extreme case of quantum behaviour.

Well, it all depends I suppose upon one's definition of an illusion. The apparent reality is biological reaction, so its constitution really defines the reality in which it lives and its experience within that reality determines its identity I.



However I think we always have to factor in that apparent reality is an illusion in the sense that indirect realism is probably true, we don't experience the outside world (if there is one) directly. Instead, we experience a model of the world, the model is in the head, directly. So in a way, a part of reality is a model of reality. This may or may not have something to do with the measurement problem.
[/quote]

I agree it is a model but the model is a full-body model, even to the gases which in maintains its life by, like a key that fits a particular lock, or perhaps a lock that has produced a particular key. Our biological experience is itself is the model, perception is reaction and experience is true to its biology.

[Faustus5]

If what you say were true, then you could answer why "collapsed" behaviour seems to be centered on us.

Except that "collapsed behavior" doesn't seem to be centered on us. That's the myth which frankly isn't shared by any serious, mainstream scientist, at least not anymore. Certainly this goofy notion was toyed with in the early days by scientists who should have known better, but eventually the vast majority realized that this interpretation was unnecessary and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Here is my constant challenge to people like you, which in every case has been refused (and for good reason):

Walk us through a classic double slit experiment, one done properly so that where the detector goes is determined by a computer running a random number generator, and articulate exactly which step or result is centered in any interesting or unusual way on "us".

Keeping in mind that all experiments in science are directed by and paid attention to by humans and performed with our interests in mind, you have to show that in quantum physics something peculiarly us-o-centric is going on that can't be found anywhere else and is tied directly to the nature of physics itself, linking it to human mental states and not to other more mundane and less sexy causes at play in the experiments.

You won't be able to do this. I think we both know it, too.

You don't seem to realize the underlying problem, you seem to be focusing on the problem of choice. The problem of choice can be dismissed by saying that all human choices are ultimately deterministic too etc.

The underlying problem is, for example we take any classic double slit experiment with RNG-controlled detectors, and sometimes we get interference patterns and other times bands as results. But both the interference patterns and bands will always be composed of particles that have positions that are "collapsed". Our entire directly accessible world seems to be composed of particles that show "collapsed" behaviour. The question is why don't we just percieve the world as a bunch of superpositions / wavefunctions / however you want to conceptualize it.

So that settles it--there is no way to articulate the case that collapse is in any way "centered on us". Got it.

[Atla]

If what you say were true, then you could answer why "collapsed" behaviour seems to be centered on us.

Except that "collapsed behavior" doesn't seem to be centered on us. That's the myth which frankly isn't shared by any serious, mainstream scientist, at least not anymore. Certainly this goofy notion was toyed with in the early days by scientists who should have known better, but eventually the vast majority realized that this interpretation was unnecessary and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Here is my constant challenge to people like you, which in every case has been refused (and for good reason):

Walk us through a classic double slit experiment, one done properly so that where the detector goes is determined by a computer running a random number generator, and articulate exactly which step or result is centered in any interesting or unusual way on "us".

Keeping in mind that all experiments in science are directed by and paid attention to by humans and performed with our interests in mind, you have to show that in quantum physics something peculiarly us-o-centric is going on that can't be found anywhere else and is tied directly to the nature of physics itself, linking it to human mental states and not to other more mundane and less sexy causes at play in the experiments.

You won't be able to do this. I think we both know it, too.

You don't seem to realize the underlying problem, you seem to be focusing on the problem of choice. The problem of choice can be dismissed by saying that all human choices are ultimately deterministic too etc.

The underlying problem is, for example we take any classic double slit experiment with RNG-controlled detectors, and sometimes we get interference patterns and other times bands as results. But both the interference patterns and bands will always be composed of particles that have positions that are "collapsed". Our entire directly accessible world seems to be composed of particles that show "collapsed" behaviour. The question is why don't we just percieve the world as a bunch of superpositions / wavefunctions / however you want to conceptualize it.

So that settles it--there is no way to articulate the case that collapse is in any way "centered on us". Got it.

Looks like you don't want to understand it, which was your approach to the hard problem of consciousness as well.
Again, the question is: why do we always seem to only directly perceive "collapsed" behaviour?

[Faustus5]

Looks like you don't want to understand it, which was your approach to the hard problem of consciousness as well.

Actually, cupcake, I'm well read on the subject, which is why I know you are full of it.

People who actually understand a subject have this funny characteristic that separates them from people who don't: they can articulate that position, often in great detail, when requested. The best sign of someone who is merely pretending is that they engage in non-specific, vague hand-waving. Like the following:

Again, the question is: why do we always seem to only directly perceive "collapsed" behaviour?

No, that's not the question, because it doesn't address your baseless claim that collapse is somehow, mysteriously, "centered on us". You've been given countless opportunities to explain what this view is supposed to mean and to cite so much as one instance of experiment evidence which supports it, yet all we have from you is evasion after evasion. Says a lot, doesn't it?

(Although I do think I can answer it, despite its being the wrong question: the answer is that the mechanisms of perception are all classical, so we can't perceive things that have yet to de cohere. In a world where everything remains in superposition, nothing evolves, nothing meaningfully happens.)

[Atla]

Looks like you don't want to understand it, which was your approach to the hard problem of consciousness as well.

Actually, cupcake, I'm well read on the subject, which is why I know you are full of it.

People who actually understand a subject have this funny characteristic that separates them from people who don't: they can articulate that position, often in great detail, when requested. The best sign of someone who is merely pretending is that they engage in non-specific, vague hand-waving. Like the following:

Again, the question is: why do we always seem to only directly perceive "collapsed" behaviour?

No, that's not the question, because it doesn't address your baseless claim that collapse is somehow, mysteriously, "centered on us". You've been given countless opportunities to explain what this view is supposed to mean and to cite so much as one instance of experiment evidence which supports it, yet all we have from you is evasion after evasion. Says a lot, doesn't it?

There wasn't any evasion, as I said every experiment supports it. Either you don't get it or you're playing dumb.

(Although I do think I can answer it, despite its being the wrong question: the answer is that the mechanisms of perception are all classical, so we can't perceive things that have yet to de cohere. In a world where everything remains in superposition, nothing evolves, nothing meaningfully happens.)

See, this is what an evasion is. You forgot to tell us why the mechanisms of perception would all be classical? (Besides if this is true, then you ARE claiming that "collapsed" behaviour is centered on us, while I'm only claiming that it seems that way, it may or may not be the case.)

And your claim that "in a world where everything remains in superposition, nothing evolves, nothing meaningfully happens" seems to totally contradict all of QM, I'm somehow doubting that you're well read on the subject.

[Faustus5]

There wasn't any evasion, as I said every experiment supports it. Either you don't get it or you're playing dumb.

Every experiment, huh? I say none of them supports it. Not a single one.

So prove me wrong. Cite a specific experiment and tell us exactly at what point and in what way the peculiar quantum effects on display are "centered on us". Shouldn't be that hard, but strangely, after repeated requests you just can't do it.

(Don't worry--I always knew this would happen! It is literally the way your type always responds to the request, every time.)

You forgot to tell us why the mechanisms of perception would all be classical?

I assumed you knew something about the brain and how quantum effects are almost impossible to maintain in warm, wet environments, where everything quickly and instantly decoheres into classical states. You know, warm, wet environments like the human body? I guess I should assume from now on that you know next to nothing about either topic?

Take vision. When a photon, presumably in superposition, interacts with the crystallins of a human eye lens--not the human brain and mind, we haven't even come close to getting there yet--those crystallins effectively become detectors, the wave function collapses, and we now have a classical photon with a fixed location and momentum, which can then go on to stimulate a rod or cone further inside the eye--classical chemical processes well understood. (Anything can function as a "detector". Even a mote of dust.) And all the processes downline into the brain are also classical.

Mind you, this entire narrative assumes certain interpretations of quantum physics that not everyone agrees on (for instance, some physicists object to the quantum/classical distinction and even the idea that wave functions are "real" things which collapse). I'm just playing along with the narrative you gave, insofar as it makes sense and matches up with serious versions of the science. The only part of your narrative which absolutely does not match up with any serious science is the nonsense about all this being "centered on us".