I've watched quite a few videos about that, but never had all the answers to various questions that occur to me...
You're not alone, Harbal, for neither do any of the people doing the experiments have all of the answers to the various questions that occur to them.
Indeed, that's what the "measurement problem" is all about.
That's why we have the "Many Worlds" nonsense, and the nonsense about cats that are both alive and dead at the same time.
_______
Why did you take down your link? I thought I'd have a look after all.
I don't know why the link is down. I emailed my web host to check into it.
accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 10:06 am
The cat isn't dead and alive at the same time. It's neither dead or alive while it's in 'superposition'. There is only a probability of 50/50 of it being dead or alive.
Here's my comic rendition of an alternate possibility....
And not meaning to nit pic the good cartoon, but technically, literally everything that the main character (Eric) is not looking at (which includes the floor and the wall of the room behind him) should be in a state of superposition right along with his friend (Chris).
_______
And not meaning to nit pic the good cartoon, but technically, literally everything that the main character (Eric) is not looking at (which includes the floor and the wall of the room behind him) should be in a state of superposition right along with his friend (Chris).
_______
And then it gets even weirder, maybe some parts of Eric are in superposition too.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 3:35 pm
If you guys take this any further you'll invent Many Worlds...
No, MWI would put all of Eric into superposition, sidestepping the measurement problem while claiming to solve it.
You guys already mentioned an entire friend being in superposition. Why should Eric's friend be in superposition but not Eric himself? Checkmate Gaytheists.
Also if you're curious about the many worlds treatment of the measurement problem, it's called Decoherence. I don't think it's a sidestep at all, I think many worlds was inspired in part by the measurement problem. Many worlds says "it's not just the thing that's being measured that's quantum, also the thing measuring is quantum." It's the opposite of a sidestep, it's facing the problem head on and thinking about the implications.
And now we're getting too serious for something I wrote as a joke.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:03 pm
You guys already mentioned an entire friend being in superposition. Why should Eric's friend be in superposition but not Eric himself? Checkmate Gaytheists.
For example because Eric's friend may not be an observer, or because observation could involve a hierarchy of infinites and Eric could be on a higher level of the hierarchy.
Also if you're curious about the many worlds treatment of the measurement problem, it's called Decoherence. I don't think it's a sidestep at all, I think many worlds was inspired in part by the measurement problem. Many worlds says "it's not just the thing that's being measured that's quantum, also the thing measuring is quantum." It's the opposite of a sidestep, it's facing the problem head on and thinking about the implications
Since you only have a few months's memory: yes we already talked about this once or twice, where I mentioned that decoherence is a treatment of the measurement problem only in the imagination of the MWI followers.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:33 pmwhere I mentioned that decoherence is a treatment of the measurement problem only in the imagination of the MWI followers.
And if some random on a philosoph forum mentions that, then so it must be! Huzzah.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:33 pmwhere I mentioned that decoherence is a treatment of the measurement problem only in the imagination of the MWI followers.
And if some random on a philosoph forum mentions that, then so it must be! Huzzah.
But in the end you're just a random who after years still hasn't looked up the debate on decoherence and why the emerging consensus is that it doesn't solve the measurement problem. Imo you can't even possibly understand the measurement problem if you think decoherence can fully solve it.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:33 pmwhere I mentioned that decoherence is a treatment of the measurement problem only in the imagination of the MWI followers.
And if some random on a philosoph forum mentions that, then so it must be! Huzzah.
But in the end you're just a random who after years still hasn't looked up the debate on decoherence and why the emerging consensus is that it doesn't solve the measurement problem. Imo you can't even possibly understand the measurement problem if you think decoherence can fully solve it.
In the end, I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution, nor am I, a non expert, telling other non experts what is and isn't the truth at the frontier of physics. I haven't said any of the popular interpretations among experts are clearly ridiculous.
So as a random on the internet, it makes total sense for me not to be over confident about what's right and wrong on the frontier of physics. I'm behaving like a random on the internet who knows he is one. It would be cool if other randoms had the self awareness to do the same.
And if some random on a philosoph forum mentions that, then so it must be! Huzzah.
But in the end you're just a random who after years still hasn't looked up the debate on decoherence and why the emerging consensus is that it doesn't solve the measurement problem. Imo you can't even possibly understand the measurement problem if you think decoherence can fully solve it.
In the end, I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution, nor am I, a non expert, telling other non experts what is and isn't the truth at the frontier of physics. I haven't said any of the popular interpretations among experts are clearly ridiculous.
So as a random on the internet, it makes total sense for me not to be over confident about what's right and wrong on the frontier of physics. I'm behaving like a random on the internet who knows he is one. It would be cool if other randoms had the self awareness to do the same.
Right, because if you didn't give a lot of consideration to the decoherence issue, then it must clearly follow that I didn't either.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:41 pm
Right, because if you didn't give a lot of consideration to the decoherence issue, then it must clearly follow that I didn't either.
I don't care how much you've considered it. I'm not in this thread trying to convince anybody any interpretation is correct or any other interpretation is incorrect, and it's quite frankly weird to see non experts doing that when not even the experts have anything close to a consensus about what the correct interpretation is. It's weird. It's some real dunning Krueger shit
I like it.