[extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

[Terry W. Colvin]

On Mar 17, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Jonathan Hinek wrote:

> I meant to ask, is it possible that any act of measurement influences
> the outcome? Wouldn't any such claim be discounted because it is
> unfalsifiable?

Well, the whole point of this argument--for physicists, at least--is to 
find the best *interpretation* of quantum theory, not to revise it.  
The math works very well, but (some) physicists want to come up with a 
better conceptual/philosophical framework for it, with which we can 
retrain our intuition.  (Some other physicists don't seem to be 
particularly bothered by the intuitive problems, and just agree to 
accept that True Reality isn't necessarily going to be visualizable or 
intuitively graspable by us dumb monkeys.)

So unfalsifiability is kinda the point--any valid interpretation 
*should* lead to exactly the same empirical results as the mathematical 
formulism already does.  It should just provide a more intuitive way to 
understand them.

It's the same justification as for the "many worlds" hypothesis, which 
holds that all the possible outcomes of a random quantum event occur in 
different parallel realities.  It's not that we could ever go and *see* 
these other worlds, or detect their existence in any way 
whatsoever--it's just hoped that if we hold that concept in the back of 
our minds we can comprehend and qualitatively predict certain quantum 
phenomena more quickly and easily.  Whether the concept actually 
corresponds to reality or not is, I would say, not the point.  We don't 
know and we can't know...we can only decide whether or not it's 
*useful*.  Any truth we have (imperfect) access to resides in the 
equations and their description of observed phenomena.

But no, you can never argue that experiment X provides actual evidence 
for the idea that consciousness influences the outcome.  At most, you 
can argue that that idea is particularly helpful in interpreting the 
outcome of experiment X.  Which has never been the case for me, 
personally.


> Anton Mates wrote on 3/16/2004, 6:37 PM:
>
>>     However, some other articles assert that it is the act of human
>>     observation, no matter what technology we use, which affects the
>>     outcome. This interpretation is favored by mystics, who claim it is
>>     proof that reality is subjective.
>>
>>
>> This is certainly wrong. And very easily tested, after all--just feed
>> your measurement apparatus into a computer, then turn the monitor off!
>> Or print out the measurements but then burn them without looking at
>> them. If it's human observation that really matters, then in these
>> cases the outcome should be the same as if no attempt was made to
>> measure anything. Needless to say, this doesn't happen.
>>
>> What QM really says on the subject of measurement, is that we can't
>> measure an object's property without "poking" it, so to speak. Every
>> measurement requires an interaction. But it's the *interaction* which
>> affects the object, not measurement--and such interactions can occur
>> without human consciousness on the other end. Set up an apparatus
>> which *could* measure spin along one axis, and you'll randomize it
>> along the other axes--it doesn't matter whether you're actually
>> standing there reading off the measurements or not. Only the
>> interaction matters.
>>
>> As another example--there was a paper in Nature, Feb 20, on how
>> buckyballs transitioned from quantum to classical behavior as their
>> temperature increased. Why? Well, hotter molecules tend to radiate
>> photons, and that particular interaction--exchanging photons with
>> their environment--basically forces them to have well-defined,
>> classical positions. The same effect would be found if a scientist was
>> standing there constantly observing the molecules by bouncing photons
>> off them--but you don't NEED the scientist, you just need the photons.
>>
>> QM allows for a lot of interesting philosophical speculation, but it
>> doesn't give any ammo to people who want to believe that the universe
>> is alive, or that it only exists because we see it existing, or
>> anything like that.
>>
>>
>> Lemme know if I can make anything clearer. I wish I had a list of
>> layman's references to throw at you...but students in a given field
>> are never very good about reading popular science works in that field.
>> We're too busy trying to figure out the textbooks. :-)
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathan


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]