• pcalau12i@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      According to our current model, we would probably observe un-collapsed quantum field waves, which is a concept inaccessible from within the universe, and could very well just be an artifact of the model instead of ground truth.

      It so strange to me that this is the popular way people think about quantum mechanics. Without reformulating quantum mechanics in any way or changing any of its postulates, the theory already allows you to recover the intermediate values of all the observables in any system through retrospection, and it evolves locally and deterministically.

      The “spreading out as a wave” isn’t a physical thing, but an epistemic one. The uncertainty principle makes it such that you can’t accurately predict the outcome of certain interactions, and the probability distribution depends upon the phase, which is the relative orientation between your measurement basis and the property you’re trying to measure. The wave-like statistical behavior arises from the phase, and the wave function is just a statistical tool to keep track of the phase.

      The “collapse” is not a physical process but a measurement update. Measurements aren’t fundamental to quantum mechanics. It is just that when you interact with something, you couple it to the environment, and this coupling leads to the effects of the phase spreading out to many particles in the environment. The spreading out of the influence of the phase dilutes its effects and renders it negligible to the statistics, and so the particle then briefly behaves more classically. That is why measurement causes the interference pattern to disappear in the double-slit experiment, not because of some physical “collapsing waves.”

      People just ignore the fact that you can use weak values to reconstruct the values of the observables through any quantum experiment retrospectively, which is already a feature baked into the theory and not something you need to add, and then instead choose to believe that things are somehow spreading out as waves when you’re not looking at them, which leads to a whole host of paradoxes: the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, the Wigner’s friend paradox, the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, etc.

      Literally every paradox disappears if we stop pretending that systems are literally waves and that the wave-like behavior is just the result of the relationship between the phase and the statistical distribution of the system, and that the waves are ultimately a weakly emergent phenomena. We only see particle waves made up of particles. No one has ever seen a wave made up of nothing. Waves of light are made up of photons of light, and the wave-like behavior of the light is a weakly emergent property of the wave-like statistical distributions you get due to the relationship between the statistical uncertainty and the phase. It in no way implies everything is literally made up waves that are themselves made of nothing.

  • last_philosopher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    There’s a lot of assumptions in saying it’s just meaningless chemicals

    • That chemicals are meaningless and lacking intriniic value. Seen from the outside they may appear that way, but evidently from the inside it seems quite different.
    • “We” are not some other unseen brain behavior (not a crazy idea since we’ve never seen consciousness working in the brain)
    • We are within the brain
    • The brain exists at all
    • Any knowledge exists at all (dubious as Mickey points out)
  • Kowowow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    This reminds me of that stupid thing in fallout 4 about possibly being a robot essentially and how it was supposed to be some big deal but I never understood what difference it made

  • pcalau12i@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    The decision that your brain’s decisions are due to chemical reactions, which itself would be due to chemicals reactions, is self-referential but not circular reasoning.