It sounds like a interesting theory...may read up on it soon
also I like the pic btw ^^

Ironically, this article has nothing to do with whether the moon exists when you're not looking, so I'd try not to make that the focal point of the discussion.

So we know Bell's Theorem basically shit on Einstein's criticism of quantum theory. In layman's terms, Einstein thought that the reason observations affect results is that there must be some interaction between the device we use to observe, and the object being observed. There's no other reasonable explanation, to him. Bell proved, in ostensibly the most profound discovery that's ever been made in physics, that Einstein is just plain wrong, and that there is in fact an uncertainty to some characteristics of things. In this case, it's just not possible to know the position and momentum (spin) of an electron simultaneously. It's a weird quantum property of electrons, and it isn't an issue of determinism. And that leads to what I think is the crux of this paper:

Orthodox quantum metaphysicians would, I believe, say no, nothing has changed at A as the result of the measurement at B; what has changed is our knowledge of the particle at A (Somewhat more spookily, they might object to the naive classical assumption of localizability or separability implicit in the phrases “at A” and “at B”).
 This seems very sensible and very reassuring: N-color does not characterize the particle at all, but only what we know about the particle. But does that last sentence sound as good when “particle” is changed to “photon” and “N-color” to “polarization”? And does it really help you to stop wondering why the lights always flash the same colors when the switches have the same settings?

So I think this ties in nicely with the discussion yesterday about abstract objects, such as numbers. Previously we considered electrons to be specifically characterized by their traits, like spin. But what this paper is saying is that what is changing is just the effect that those characteristics are having on our perception of them.

Quantum theory is utter fucking bullshit.

Yes, obviously the moon is there regardless of if we look at it.
Yes, if a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around to hear it, it does make a sound.

Ironically, this article has nothing to do with whether the moon exists when you're not looking, so I'd try not to make that the focal point of the discussion.

So we know Bell's Theorem basically shit on Einstein's criticism of quantum theory. In layman's terms, Einstein thought that the reason observations affect results is that there must be some interaction between the device we use to observe, and the object being observed. There's no other reasonable explanation, to him. Bell proved, in ostensibly the most profound discovery that's ever been made in physics, that Einstein is just plain wrong, and that there is in fact an uncertainty to some characteristics of things. In this case, it's just not possible to know the position and momentum (spin) of an electron simultaneously. It's a weird quantum property of electrons, and it isn't an issue of determinism. And that leads to what I think is the crux of this paper:

Quote

Orthodox quantum metaphysicians would, I believe, say no, nothing has changed at A as the result of the measurement at B; what has changed is our knowledge of the particle at A (Somewhat more spookily, they might object to the naive classical assumption of localizability or separability implicit in the phrases “at A” and “at B”).
 This seems very sensible and very reassuring: N-color does not characterize the particle at all, but only what we know about the particle. But does that last sentence sound as good when “particle” is changed to “photon” and “N-color” to “polarization”? And does it really help you to stop wondering why the lights always flash the same colors when the switches have the same settings?

So I think this ties in nicely with the discussion yesterday about abstract objects, such as numbers. Previously we considered electrons to be specifically characterized by their traits, like spin. But what this paper is saying is that what is changing is just the effect that those characteristics are having on our perception of them.

But still, it's an example of the possibilities quantum theory can come up with. It's just so crazy.

Sorry, but why would behaving to such a degree of scepticism about the external world be even remotely reasonable or helpful?

Sorry, but why would behaving to such a degree of scepticism about the external world be even remotely reasonable or helpful?

Quantum computers.

Curiosity is the main thing. We shouldn't be limited to just the observable universe. We should think outside the box and see what goes from there, even if it leads nowhere.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 06, 2015, 02:59:03 PM

Do you have anything to qualify that statement?

Logic. Hard determinism. There is no randomness in the universe--you just didn't take every variable into account.
So it appears random.

Uncertainty is not non-determinism. There's nothing stochastic about the properties.

Well, you're the first person who's made any such concession. Every other discussion I've ever had about this was with the other guy trying to tell me that it is undeterministic.

You're familiar with Schrödinger's cat, yes?

Yes, in fact Schrodinger's techniques actually support a more deterministic universe than what others in quantum mechanics had postulated. Anyone that's argued that uncertainty implied stochastic processes is just wrong, period (and I will admit to falling into that trap a few years ago). In fact, the very idea that the cat is in fact alive and dead simultaneously is a completely incorrect way of looking at superposition, and we have Einstein to blame for that interpretation. That view of superposition directly violates the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

And back to the titular issue of the moon, it was a poor example by Einstein to make quantum theory seem ridiculous. In reality, quantum mechanics is not concerned with the moon, which is covered just fine by classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics is concerned with the tiniest of particles.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 06, 2015, 03:25:59 PM

In fact, the very idea that the cat is in fact alive and dead simultaneously is a completely incorrect way of looking at superposition, and we have Einstein to blame for that interpretation.

explain pls

It's STEM related, you wouldn't know because you're an aRT MAJOR.

The cat isn't alive AND dead simultaneously, it is that we can't conclusively say that it is alive or dead until it is viewed.

Well yeah, but that sounds like basic probability. I was under the impression that superposition was when a particle held two seemingly contradictory states simultaneously.

Quote from: RC on February 06, 2015, 04:02:08 PM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 06, 2015, 04:00:14 PM

The cat isn't alive AND dead simultaneously, it is that we can't conclusively say that it is alive or dead until it is viewed.

Well yeah, but that sounds like basic probability. I was under the impression that superposition was when a particle held two seemingly contradictory states simultaneously.

That would be correct; but the statement that the cat is alive and dead (two separate but identical forms) violates the Pauli Exclusion Principle. As I understand it anyway, Turkey can probably give a better explanation.

But hasn't the cat thing always been just an analogy?

does the idea that we don't know what's happening need to be explained
are we not already aware of that

what am i missing here

and apparently that mistranslation affected my own perception of what the principle states, because what you end up hearing from a lot of avid quantum theory supporters is that it supports free will, "because anything could be behind that door", so that means we have free will. Apparently.

which is just horseshit--is that the mistranslation you're referring to?

i'm just regurgitating what i hear

right, okay

so just where do people get free will out of that? that's the part that fucks me over

Woo, discussion in my thread for the first time ever!