I think that in the case of nuclear decay there has to be some physical trigger. The fact that it follows a half-life probability does not mean that there's no trigger. Something like a neutrino of a certain flavor striking a quark at a certain angle, etc. As for probability in electron distribution? Well, what is an electron? Is it something derived from a combination of background force configurations in extra-dimensional space? I agree with Tim Maudlin, if he's saying there needs to be a cause for the probabilistic behavior of particles, even if that explanation infers extra-dimensional realities.
qigong masters have been shown to change the decay rate of radiation - and so does the Quantum Zeno Effect. So the nonlocal pilot field can delay the collapse into a classical limit, thereby changing the decay rate.
21:20 - All he's circling around here is the fact that there are phenomena in the universe that we can't predict. We can predict their statistics, but there are many, many "micro-states" that correspond to any given statistical state (which is what the quantum state is). There is no rule that says everything MUST be predictable. He just said a few minutes ago that you'd like to think the theory "means something." Well, it DOES. It means exactly what is described by those statistical things that we CAN predict. You can think of the quantum state as a "constraint" on the world - it has to stay within the boundaries of the state. But within those boundaries it's free to move around all its wants, and it does so unpredictably. In classical physics it would be possible in theory to track every molecule of gas in a room. In practice we don't do that - we have ways of describing the state of the room that encompass many, many micro-states. And the theory works just fine and is quite precise. I think I'm with Feynman here - I'm not "sure that there's a problem."
his definition of physics is at leat, very personal. Physics, since Newton, is about prediction of experiments and the intelligibility of a theory is mathematical, but doesn't describes mechanism behind the experiment. For that reason the measurement problem is a problem of philosophical ignorance since Newton. Hume, Russell, all great philosophers understood that, as Heisenberg, Bohr and Newton in his time.
Physics is supposed to pursue not just experimental results, but an account of how and why we got those results rather than some other. Newton gave a clear description not only of experiments and their results, but of what parts his model of the world contained and how those parts behaved. It is downright nonsensical to think that, because you can predict the computer readout perfectly for each experiment, you have fulfilled your task as a scientist. Your task is to describe what is really going on such that that result happened rather than some other result.
I am not sure I agree with you, as you can do experiments that are not physics, for instance biology or psychological. If you look at the history of physics, it is about the prediction of the orbits of the moon and the earth, of fluids and energy and more recently of atoms and particles. So I would personally agree with Tim here
There is nothing wrong about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum reality. Rather the second quantum revolution enables physicists to have deeper insights .QM leads to QFT and QC, though error correction and correction due to measurement/observation and perhaps other corrections (involving gates) may take some more time. Mathematical objects and physical objects like virtual particles and real particles may be possible, borrowing 80 Gev Z or W bosons from QF during proton/neutron collision and returning them back in short time etc, implying QF and quantum/classical reality. We damage 50-70 billion cells daily that are repaired/regenerated at 99.99 % efficiency and at lightning speed almost like classical determinism as in a error correcting QC, in which entanglement plays a great part in determinism. Furthermore, the QF can self-simulate intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into fine tuned particles (matter) creating the universe like a QC (Maldacena), implying divine purpose (Anthropic Principle).
There's a reason you have to put "observer" in scare-quotes. The Copenhagen interpretation transgresses the bounds of sense by requiring that particles only take on positions when observed, but the very observers must also be made of particles which have positions and so on. It's the "bee watcher problem" that Maudlin illustrated.
If your last bit there means a Divine observer who grants actual positions to everything then why would there ever be indeterminacy or any room for finite observers to collapse any wave functions? Does God pick and choose which things to "observe", leaving some for us to play with? It's not a sustainable worldview, in my opinion.
Oh there is. Everything has stagnated since Copenhagen. The agreement paved the way for a materialist/reductionist ideology that has stripped humanity of meaning, morals and value. Its destructive force is everywhere today.
![Explaining Quantum Mechanics | John Horgan & Tim Maudlin [Mind-Body Problems]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7hJWOld5EsM/mqdefault.jpg)
This was really a quite excellent presentation. He made the topic very accessible.
Glad you enjoyed it!
This is a much needed discussion to have before attempting any TOE and/or TOS.
I think that in the case of nuclear decay there has to be some physical trigger. The fact that it follows a half-life probability does not mean that there's no trigger. Something like a neutrino of a certain flavor striking a quark at a certain angle, etc. As for probability in electron distribution? Well, what is an electron? Is it something derived from a combination of background force configurations in extra-dimensional space? I agree with Tim Maudlin, if he's saying there needs to be a cause for the probabilistic behavior of particles, even if that explanation infers extra-dimensional realities.
qigong masters have been shown to change the decay rate of radiation - and so does the Quantum Zeno Effect. So the nonlocal pilot field can delay the collapse into a classical limit, thereby changing the decay rate.
21:20 - All he's circling around here is the fact that there are phenomena in the universe that we can't predict. We can predict their statistics, but there are many, many "micro-states" that correspond to any given statistical state (which is what the quantum state is). There is no rule that says everything MUST be predictable. He just said a few minutes ago that you'd like to think the theory "means something." Well, it DOES. It means exactly what is described by those statistical things that we CAN predict. You can think of the quantum state as a "constraint" on the world - it has to stay within the boundaries of the state. But within those boundaries it's free to move around all its wants, and it does so unpredictably. In classical physics it would be possible in theory to track every molecule of gas in a room. In practice we don't do that - we have ways of describing the state of the room that encompass many, many micro-states. And the theory works just fine and is quite precise. I think I'm with Feynman here - I'm not "sure that there's a problem."
Appalling sound quality. How does anyone stand to listen to this?
Dilbert space>
his definition of physics is at leat, very personal. Physics, since Newton, is about prediction of experiments and the intelligibility of a theory is mathematical, but doesn't describes mechanism behind the experiment. For that reason the measurement problem is a problem of philosophical ignorance since Newton. Hume, Russell, all great philosophers understood that, as Heisenberg, Bohr and Newton in his time.
'' philosophical ignorance'' as you say, is most certainly not a very probable hypothesis in this case...
Physics is supposed to pursue not just experimental results, but an account of how and why we got those results rather than some other. Newton gave a clear description not only of experiments and their results, but of what parts his model of the world contained and how those parts behaved.
It is downright nonsensical to think that, because you can predict the computer readout perfectly for each experiment, you have fulfilled your task as a scientist. Your task is to describe what is really going on such that that result happened rather than some other result.
I am not sure I agree with you, as you can do experiments that are not physics, for instance biology or psychological. If you look at the history of physics, it is about the prediction of the orbits of the moon and the earth, of fluids and energy and more recently of atoms and particles. So I would personally agree with Tim here
There is nothing wrong about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum reality. Rather the second quantum revolution enables physicists to have deeper insights .QM leads to QFT and QC, though error correction and correction due to measurement/observation and perhaps other corrections (involving gates) may take some more time. Mathematical objects and physical objects like virtual particles and real particles may be possible, borrowing 80 Gev Z or W bosons from QF during proton/neutron collision and returning them back in short time etc, implying QF and quantum/classical reality.
We damage 50-70 billion cells daily that are repaired/regenerated at 99.99 % efficiency and at lightning speed almost like classical determinism as in a error correcting QC, in which entanglement plays a great part in determinism.
Furthermore, the QF can self-simulate intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into fine tuned particles (matter) creating the universe like a QC (Maldacena), implying divine purpose (Anthropic Principle).
There's a reason you have to put "observer" in scare-quotes. The Copenhagen interpretation transgresses the bounds of sense by requiring that particles only take on positions when observed, but the very observers must also be made of particles which have positions and so on. It's the "bee watcher problem" that Maudlin illustrated.
If your last bit there means a Divine observer who grants actual positions to everything then why would there ever be indeterminacy or any room for finite observers to collapse any wave functions? Does God pick and choose which things to "observe", leaving some for us to play with? It's not a sustainable worldview, in my opinion.
Oh there is. Everything has stagnated since Copenhagen. The agreement paved the way for a materialist/reductionist ideology that has stripped humanity of meaning, morals and value. Its destructive force is everywhere today.