Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
 
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 28, 2018 17:33:43 GMT
Inquiry: If you lock 5 mentally retarded philosophers in one room for 24 hours with nothing but Vodka and LSD can they devise a framework more inane then the Copenhagen Interpretation?
IMO it definitely has some potential and should receive funding ASAP.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 28, 2018 18:41:12 GMT
No. Here's a better experiment, artifically inseminate a woman with chimpanzee semen. Would it create a half man/half chimp hybrid? A "humanzee" of sorts? I think so.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 28, 2018 18:43:43 GMT
No. Here's a better experiment, artifically inseminate a woman with chimpanzee semen. Would it create a half man/half chimp hybrid? A "humanzee" of sorts? I think so. Science needs minds like ours to drive the discipline forward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 18:59:17 GMT
Inquiry: If you lock 5 mentally retarded philosophers in one room for 24 hours with nothing but Vodka and LSD can they devise a framework more inane then the Copenhagen Interpretation? What do you find inane about the Copenhagen Interpretation, troll sock? |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 28, 2018 19:02:44 GMT
Inquiry: If you lock 5 mentally retarded philosophers in one room for 24 hours with nothing but Vodka and LSD can they devise a framework more inane then the Copenhagen Interpretation? What do you find inane about the Copenhagen Interpretation, troll sock? How do you know I am a troll and a sock? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 19:05:20 GMT
What do you find inane about the Copenhagen Interpretation, troll sock? How do you know I am a troll and a sock? I just got the vision... now, what do you find inane about the Copenhagen Interpretation |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 28, 2018 19:09:01 GMT
How do you know I am a troll and a sock? I just got the vision... now, what do you find inane about the Copenhagen Interpretation |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 19:09:58 GMT
I just got the vision... now, what do you find inane about the Copenhagen Interpretation Please elaborate. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 28, 2018 19:15:55 GMT
Wave function collapse for one. Please elaborate. W EDIT: NEVERMIND, CHANGED MY VIEW. COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION IS STILL BS THOUGH |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 19:26:24 GMT
Well for one the idea that human beings are so special that the minute we cast our eyes upon the universe it changes is the stuff of theology, not science. Nothing about the C.I. suggests we are special, nor anything changes when we observe it, it does imply we are necessary for the observation. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 28, 2018 19:29:35 GMT
Well for one the idea that human beings are so special that the minute we cast our eyes upon the universe it changes is the stuff of theology, not science. Nothing about the C.I. suggests we are special, nor anything changes when we observe it, it does imply we are necessary for the observation. yeah I know, it's hyberbole. It's also non-deterministic. EDIT: NEVERMIND, CHANGED MY VIEW. COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION IS STILL BS THOUGH |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 19:40:33 GMT
Nothing about the C.I. suggests we are special, nor anything changes when we observe it, it does imply we are necessary for the observation. yeah I know, it's hyberbole. It's also non-deterministic. There's no reason to assume measurement changes the universe anymore then there's reason to think a straw is bent when in water cause it looks bent. You persist with the word 'changes'... I don't think it's suggested that an observation changes anything. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 28, 2018 19:42:26 GMT
yeah I know, it's hyberbole. It's also non-deterministic. There's no reason to assume measurement changes the universe anymore then there's reason to think a straw is bent when in water cause it looks bent. You persist with the word 'changes'... I don't think it's suggested that an observation changes anything. what does it suggest then? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 19:59:35 GMT
You persist with the word 'changes'... I don't think it's suggested that an observation changes anything. what does it suggest then?  |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 28, 2018 20:05:53 GMT
what does it suggest then? do u not know? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 20:07:25 GMT
Told you... you're a troll |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 28, 2018 20:49:22 GMT
I just got the vision... now, what do you find inane about the Copenhagen Interpretation If wave function collapse keeps you up at night, there's a lot of other theories to choose from, many that seem to side-step the wave function collapse. I understand that the many-worlds interpretation is getting increasingly popular these days. I've even heard that there's a planet where there's no quantum mechanics whatsoever; maybe you could give that a try. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 29, 2018 2:25:39 GMT
Well for one the idea that human beings are so special that the minute we cast our eyes upon the universe it changes is the stuff of theology, not science. Nothing about the C.I. suggests we are special, nor anything changes when we observe it, it does imply we are necessary for the observation. Errr, yeah it kinda does. At the very least Copenhagen implies that something in the interaction causes the wavefunction collapse: that "something" could be size, randomness, or consciousness (see, eg, von Neumann–Wigner). In all versions, though, Copenhagen treats us "special" by treating us differently than the particles we're observing/interacting with. If we're in the same state of superpositioning as the particles, then that implies entanglement and decoherence with no wavefunction collapse. CI is pretty stupid in the sense that we had a perfectly fine, local, deterministic equation describing the evolution of quantum systems (Shrodinger's Wave Equation), and we decided to alter the formalism by adding a stochastic collapse for no reason that was justified in the math or experiments. The "why" we did this is perhaps a matter for psychologists to answer, but it goes to show that even scientists aren't perfectly rational. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 29, 2018 3:20:57 GMT
unless someone has come up with something more enlightening than the works of hans christian andersen. . . i can't be bothered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 14:56:45 GMT
First, let me state I am not necessarily defending the CI. Though there are inconsistency and absurdity byproducts of the interpretation, it is quite literally impossible (at this point) to disprove. It's absurd to assume quantum processes as we 'understand' them (I say that loosely) didn't occur until we were capable of observing them. Nothing about the C.I. suggests we are special, nor anything changes when we observe it, it does imply we are necessary for the observation. Errr, yeah it kinda does. At the very least Copenhagen implies that something in the interaction causes the wavefunction collapse: that "something" could be size, randomness, or consciousness (see, eg, von Neumann–Wigner). In all versions, though, Copenhagen treats us "special" by treating us differently than the particles we're observing/interacting with. If we're in the same state of superpositioning as the particles, then that implies entanglement and decoherence with no wavefunction collapse. The observation is part of wave function collapse, not the cause. Wave function collapse is a mathematical phenomena. If we set an instrument to make an observation and we return an hour later to collect the data, is the instrument 'special'? What most don't understand is that Schrodinger loathed the CI and after reading the EPR paper was inspired to assemble his famous cat experiment to actually ridicule the CI. Incidentally, this was the germ of the many worlds interpretation, which can theoretically coexist with the CI and in doing so negate any 'special' qualities attributed to the individual making the observation. But we didn't, and don't... even Einstein said so, that wave function does not provide a complete description of physical reality. If the CI is 'stupid', it is likely for the shortcomings (incompleteness?) of wave theory itself. |
|
