From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news Mon Jun 15 16:04:58 EDT 1992
Article 6236 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Quantum consciousness
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.210125.25674@cs.ucf.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
References: <1992Jun12.200308.25704@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 21:01:25 GMT
Lines: 77

In article <1992Jun12.200308.25704@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU  
(Drew McDermott) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jun10.173555.27484@cs.ucf.edu>, clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas 
> Clarke) writes [in connection with the many-worlds interpretation of QM]:
> |>  
> |> Don't you find the split at time T at least a little strange, 
> |> somewhat arbitrary and ad hoc?  Why does O split at time T?
> |>  (at every time or at any time for that matter)
> 
> As Everett explains, in the many-worlds interpretation observation is 
> just a special case of correlation, in which two systems formerly 
> described by separate wave functions interact in such a way that only
> one wave function will suffice to describe them.  (Or, to be more precise
> (I hope) that their joint wave function is no longer describable as the 
> Cartesian product of the wave functions for the two original systems.)
> E.g., put an electron and a proton into a box (separately).  Eventually
> you will find a hydrogen atom in the box.  The two particles have 
> "observed" each other.  The location of the hydrogen atom is itself given
> by a wave function, but the positions of the electron and proton are no  
longer
> independent.  Their wave functions have "collapsed" in a sense, although 
> each particle could still be anywhere.  

You get a photon or two to carry off the energy/momentum in creating
the hydrogen atom.  Not sure what that has to do with philosophy of
many worlds, butdoes complicate the picture somewhat.

> |> Many worlds is a consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics 
> |> in that it produces exactly the same observations and predictions 
> |> as the standard model (otherwise it would probably be wrong since it 
> |> would violate some experiment), and because of that I still maintain
> |> many worlds is isomorphic to the standard interpretation.  
> 
> I question whether there is a coherent standard model.  As I understand it,
> the standard model asks us to take the notions of "macroscopic object"
> and "measuring instrument" as given (or even take the notion of "conscious
> observer" as given, God help us), and states the laws governing the
> behavior of elementary particles in those terms.  Such a theory cannot
> in principle explain how a universe containing no macroscopic objects
> or conscious observers came to contain such things.  The many-worlds
> interpretation works just fine.  

Probably the closed thing to a standard model is the wavicle
picture most people formulate :-)
 
> If you want to put this in terms of predictions, how about this: The 
> standard interpretation predicts that if the universe had begun as a
> gigantic wave function (which presumably it did), it never would have 
> collapsed, because it never would have encountered a measuring device.  
> This prediction has been refuted by observation.

Has it been refuted?  Wheeler, that old radical, says something like that 
we live in an observer created universe.   Don't tell the fundamentalists,
but you've just proved the existence of God :-)
  
> Actually, I'm being sophistical.  The standard interpretation predicts 
> exactly what the many-worlds interpretation predicts: that this gigantic
> uncollapsed wave function will come to consist of an unimaginable number of 
> projections of alternative worlds containing different ways the primordial
> universe could have evolved.  What's striking about the many-world 
> interpretation is that it simply takes QM at face value.  It seems as
> if the hard part for opponents is to explain why it isn't obviously true.
> 
> 					-- Drew McDermott

I'm not opposed to many worlds, in fact I rather like it.  I just think
it doesn't get rid of the observer problem.  It just gives another
way of looking at what is essentially the same problem.  How do
you form a coherent consciousness out of the superposition of 
every possible quantum event?

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu


