This Universe is too fucked up to just pop into existence

>I actually never thought about that we actually interfere with stuff just by observing it with our tools (is it important that our tools are by chance electronic?)
It doesn't matter, transfer of information requires interaction. Observation is just interaction for a specific purpose.

>Does this mean that police radar really affects its target but of course by a very small "force"?
Yes.

Truly,blessed are those with knowledge. They are,in some(or every?) way, more alive than others.

>It doesn't matter, transfer of information requires interaction. Observation is just interaction for a specific purpose.
Some people would be confused by this. Since intuitively, "observing" something (looking at something) should in no way affect the observed target. There is just information coming in one way, from target to the observer, no interaction whatsoever.

What represents information has a physical representation, even light hitting your eyes.

Close your eyes and you've let the light hit your eyelids, changing the outcome.

in a case of say you 'observing' an apple fall from a tree, what is really happening is many photons (particles of light) interacting (bouncing off of) the tree, the apple, and all of your surroundings and entering your retina to be further processed by your brain through chemical reactions. What you end up processing is actually a delay from the actual event that took place but our brains have developed in such a way after many years of evolution that we can make sense of something as simple as an apple falling to the earth.

>hidden variables
you're only 50 years late lad

This is overly simplistic. It's got nothing to do with the energy needed to make observations. Good luck applying your logic to the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

>That was a very nice explanation
It was also wrong. They are trying to mystify you with the fake demystifying explanations we give so people will stop believing in woo.

perhaps you can take the more difficult (and useful in discussion) task of explaining your stance instead of ironically posting overly simplified dismissive comments

My position is that quantum physics is complicated and won't be explained in a single Veeky Forums post.

If you truly believe it's a matter of "oh you're just sending something that disturbs the system under measure", then surely you can explain how that applies to the Stern-Gerlach experiment. This explanation can fool the audience when it comes to the position-momentum incertainty, but it really doesn't work when you try to explain the spin-orthogonal spin uncertainty.

As for the guy saying "dude it's just hidden variable lmao", he's the one who's got a lot of explaining to do, since naive hidden variable interpretations can be dismissed by the Aspect experiment.

>Do particles really know when they are observed by us?
We really need to make a sticky for this or something, as Hollywood fuckery is just making people believe science is magic now.

A wave potential collapses whenever it interacts with anything. You can't "observe" it without interacting with it.

But it doesn't matter if the observer is man or machine (and there's always a machine involved in these experiments). You're trying to measure a particle within the wave, and there's no more fundamental object to work with than another particle that will collapse the wave. The wave will collapse whether or not anyone is around to see it at the time - that's how particles happen. It's kind of akin to attempting to measure a balloon with a needle - it's gonna pop.

(Well, not without trickery at least: phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html )

So, no, particles are not "aware" that they are being "observed". Quantum physics does not prove dogs have souls. Hollywood has simply, once again, used a term or statement out of context to make it seem more magical than it is.

Don't pay attention to that. They think theory is proof and law. Somehow science screws up actual meanings like flat being round and evolution means good.

>a wave potential
a what?

>A wave potential collapses whenever it interacts with anything.
That sentence can't even be true. You can't be collapsed in every basis.

The term "wave collapse" can be misleading to people who don't understand QM. All it means is that when a particle interacts with something, the probabilities become certainties. There is no longer any probability.

ITT: Veeky Forums tries to explain quantum physics, fails, and gets into an existential crisis as a result

>All it means is that when a particle interacts with something, the probabilities become certainties. There is no longer any probability.
Again that's a simply impossible statement. A particle can't be collapsed in every observable basis.

What are you trying to say by the phrase "every observable basis."

Energy and matter are interchanged all the time. For example, a photon can be absorbed by an electron, and that electron will gain that amount of energy.

To observe a particle it must be interacted with. It must be defined at some state if it interacted with.

Mind you, uncertainty still dictates that it's not completely defined.

>this entire thread

Radar does affect the speed of a car, but on a resolution so fine that most assume it doesnt.

If there are infinite possibilities (universes with laws of physics that are different from our own) then it's quite possible

Observable are operators in the Hilbert space, their eigenvalues are a basis of the Hilbert space. The particle wavefunction can't be diagonal in all those bases at once.
For example if you mesure the horizontal spin of a particle, its vertical spin will be fully indeterminate. It makes no sense to say that a system is "totally collapsed".

>. The particle wavefunction can't be diagonal in all those bases at once.
Noob QM question... is this not the definition of circularly polarized light?

Meh, the main point is "observation"/"observer" has no bearing on consciousness in this context. It's an interaction between two objects, neither needing to be "self-aware" let alone "aware" of each other, anymore than a particle of sand in an ocean wave needs to be aware of the shoreline when it comes to rest upon it.

Similar to how, when we say, a photon does not experience the passage of time from its perspective - we don't mean to indicate that said photon has the capacity to have a "perspective".

Just comes down to misleading terminology. English is extremely anthropomorphic, and sometimes a simple misinterpretation can lead to fun, if entirely incorrect, concepts.

>That angel is going to get you, whether or not you blink.

>The universe is too complicated to just pop into existence
>Therefore we should introduce an even *more* complicated thing to explain it

No.

>Meh, the main point is "observation"/"observer" has no bearing on consciousness in this context. It's an interaction between two objects, neither needing to be "self-aware" let alone "aware" of each other, anymore than a particle of sand in an ocean wave needs to be aware of the shoreline when it comes to rest upon it.

this is basically the opposite of what Deepak Chopra argues which makes him one of the biggest heels in pop sci at the moment

Bleh, there are whole religions being built up around this simple misunderstanding. I suppose the idea that our very thoughts form the universe is rather seductive.

There's some truth in the basic precept, that positive thinking is productive, I suppose, but it ain't magic. No amount of concentration and willpower is going to make your catgirl waifu real... Unless you pour it all into making breakthroughs in genetic engineering, I suppose.

Usually and overall, an author is inherently more complex than the text they produce.

Eh, go play a video game, then try to explain how it works. Most often, the explanation of the mechanics of things is more complicated than the simple act of interacting with said.

But claiming the AWP only exists when you're observing it, will only get you pwned.

Which is why it's a shit idea for explaining the universe. It claims the universe somehow can't be as complicated as it is naturally and then passes the buck on to something even more complicated and therefore even less plausible as a natural thing by the original standards used to doubt our own universe's natural existence.

Particles are affected by our observations because we must bounce light particles off of them to observe them, which at the quantum level makes a difference. The Copehagen interpretation of quantum physics beyond that is a mystery to me owing to the emphasis it seems to place on an observer collapsing a wave packet for an event to occur. I personally find multiple worlds in the Everett interpretation less fantastical than the idea reality depends upon an observer to manifest in the way we experience it. It's a tough question honestly.

I don't believe the analogy annihilates the 'possibility' of complexity ex nihilo, but that it critically diminishes its probability without authorship.

Complexity is no indication of authorship.

More often, simplicity is.

>ex nihilio

It doesn't have to be limited to either reality coming from nothing vs. reality being created intelligently. You could for example have a deeper context of timeless reality with the big bang only being the beginning of our observable universe. There isn't a good reason to suppose that most fundamental state of reality our observable universe emerged from is intelligent since human tier intelligence was one of the last / least fundamental things to emerge on our planet. Having it be intelligent just raises more questions about what caused its intelligence since every example of intelligence we have available to examine is only able to exist thanks to the elaborate scaffolding of physical brains. If intelligence were the most fundamental thing in reality then you wouldn't need the least fundamental / most recent natural structure known to us that is the brain in order for it to exist.

The Copenhagen Interpretation shouldn't be taught in fact it was originally conceived of to point out the absurdity of quantum theory

Fucking physics majors don't even know what quantum mechanics is because they're being taught this crap

so then observing anything on any scale would not be "intrusive" unless it registered or affected said object in any way?

>Complexity is no indication of authorship.
Not strictly, I agree. Though, is that to say that I should not take your existence as indicative of being created? Were you not made complex and born of a womb?

>More often, simplicity is.
According to what? This seems to be parallax regarding the conditions of authorship.

>You could for example have a deeper context of timeless reality with the big bang only being the beginning of our observable universe.

This alternative is easily surmounted by Clausius' paradox and the Kalam cosmological argument.

>There isn't a good reason to suppose that most fundamental state of reality our observable universe emerged from is intelligent since human tier intelligence was one of the last / least fundamental things to emerge on our planet.

This is a non sequitur.

> Having it be intelligent just raises more questions about what caused its intelligence

If you're referring to a created creator, then that is how you're imputing the creator to be.

>since every example of intelligence we have available to examine is only able to exist thanks to the elaborate scaffolding of physical brains

Extrapolating natural laws and/or observations to necessarily conform with a potential, metaphysical force is fallacious.

>If intelligence were the most fundamental thing in reality

This is a strawman.

frickin lol, feels good though

maybe it doesnt need to "collapse"? just interact

>Extrapolating natural laws and/or observations to necessarily conform with a potential, metaphysical force is fallacious.

You can either use the evidence we have or stop speculating because you think none of the evidence we have is relevant.

The evidence we have very clearly shows intelligence is one of the least fundamental / latest to emerge natural phenomena we know of. Chemicals and physical damage to the brain both alter it in consistent ways, giving us a large body of evidence to support the notion intelligence is dependent on the brain as a product of its functioning. Intelligence is the least plausible candidate for a causeless cause since every single example of intelligence we've ever examined has been less fundamental to reality than the physical brain supporting it.

>Clausius' paradox

That only applies to the claim our observable universe itself is infinitely old. It says nothing about the possibility of a timeless reality from which our observable universe emerged.

>Kalam cosmological argument

Makes no good argument against a deeper, non-intelligent context of timeless reality than our own observable universe emerged from.

>Though, is that to say that I should not take your existence as indicative of being created? Were you not made complex and born of a womb?
Everything that exists was created through derivision, regardless of complexity, that doesn't necessarily indicate it was intelligently designed.

>According to what? This seems to be parallax regarding the conditions of authorship.
Simplicity, in that it is designed to a specific purpose, without waste or evidence of being built up upon from preexisting systems. Though I suppose even that airy assumption goes out the window when you get too simple. At the same time, a universe designed to produce intelligent life would do just that and nothing else, and further, contain only ideal conditions for that, rather than the vast majority of it being so hostile to any form of life.

>You can either use the evidence we have or stop speculating

I will not entertain your illogic; this is a false dichotomy. In fact, it is due to 'evidence' that we have that I speculate.

Though if you wish to engage in sophistry and adorn your replies with fallacies, I can do that too: you happen to be living proof of the analogy as your parents are incredibly fucking stupid.

>because you think none of the evidence we have is relevant.

A baseless assertion, I don't think you could be more inexact.

>The evidence we have very clearly shows intelligence is one of the least fundamental / latest to emerge natural phenomena we know of.

This was never a position that I attacked, nor is it an emergent consequence of my prior statements. What about "this is a strawman" do you not understand?

>That only applies to the claim our observable universe itself is infinitely old. It says nothing about the possibility of a timeless reality from which our observable universe emerged.

Perhaps I misconstrued what you/above poster had meant by 'timeless reality'.

What exactly is a 'timeless reality' and do you consider it a better alternative than a time-bound reality? If so, why?

How could've a 'timeless reality' come to be?

>Makes no good argument against a deeper, non-intelligent context of timeless reality than our own observable universe emerged from.

Before I can respond to this I will need to know what you mean by 'timeless reality'.

Everything that exists was created through derivision, regardless of complexity, that doesn't necessarily indicate it was intelligently designed.

Again, agreed. However the analogy alluded to probability, not necessity.

>Simplicity, in that it is designed to a specific purpose, without waste or evidence of being built up upon from preexisting systems.

This reasoning appears to be circular and tautological. I asked "According to what?" in response to "More often, simplicity is" and in response you expanded upon this idea of 'simplicity'. Furthermore echoing what you have said, purpose does not necessarily demand a place upon a complexity continuum.

>At the same time, a universe designed to produce intelligent life would do just that and nothing else, and further, contain only ideal conditions for that, rather than the vast majority of it being so hostile to any form of life.

I have not cited a specific purpose that I believe this universe may have been created for nor stated that I champion the belief that this universe was "designed to produce intelligent life", so I'm not sure why you responded with that. I would not claim to know the mind of a potential creator thus you're presupposing my position.

>Intelligence is the least plausible candidate for a causeless cause

Yes it is, because if intelligence were to govern or be a candidate for the cause it wouldn't be 'causeless', would it?

>since every single example of intelligence we've ever examined has been less fundamental to reality than the physical brain supporting it.

Even though this is a response to a position I never claimed to hold, I will point out that you're guilty of two errors of logic. The first is reification for you're attempting to render the idea of an intelligent, -metaphysical- force as equivalent to a biological construct. And by extension, this creates an ambiguity fallacy.

Complexity doesn't increase the probability. Independently derived specialized function does (even if it still doesn't grant certainty).

>you're presupposing my position
If you're position isn't intelligent design, then I've no idea what your position is.

Hello user, I'm God. I created the universe so I could make you a lonely virgin NEET and laugh at your misfortune.

You seem to be making incredibly vague claims and implying shit, and then repeating STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN! whenever anyone trys to actually pin down whatever you're arguing for.
That's not clever, that's just piss-poor communication.

How do you explain diffraction with this bullshit explanation of yours? Observation will only show single particle positions at a time, but you still get the interference effect where the wave FUNCTION interacted with itself on the way there; you're still observing this indirectly by repeating the experiment multiple times.

>Complexity doesn't increase the probability.

Yet again, I agree - however stating that fundament of this universe is not a direct rebuttal what you're addressing.

Sir Roger Penrose calculated that the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance amounted to the odds of 10^10^123

To me, that is one example of the improbability of creation ex nihilo, hence the analogy. Any alternatives to creation that align itself to a 'timeless reality' or the like may be easily reduced to absurdity, provided it's well-defined.

>If you're position isn't intelligent design, then I've no idea what your position is.

Cosmogenesis by design. Produced solely for mankind or to foster life? The intent behind the design? That is something I've yet to resolve.

>You seem to be making incredibly vague claims and implying shit,

Nothing that I've said has been vague.

>and then repeating STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN! whenever anyone trys to actually pin down whatever you're arguing for.

I have only accused someone of erecting a strawman once. Repetition requires more than a single instance of an action you stupid cunt.

>trys
I get the impression that you're not very well educated because you don't know how to spell.

>clever
How is this relevant?

I knew it. Fuck you, god. Seriously, fuck you.

>My incapability to understand nature is somehow nature's fault: The post

50 years from now, physicists will finally realize that the biggest mistake of 20th century science was using the word "observe" when they created QM.

to what*

>discussing a god or some shit
>666

>Sir Roger Penrose calculated that the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance amounted to the odds of 10^10^123
And equally likely to be in any other possible configuration... More importantly, assuming it's a closed system, the odds are actually 100% - without changing something in the past, there simply is no other configuration this universe could have taken.

>Cosmogenesis by design. Produced solely for mankind or to foster life? The intent behind the design? That is something I've yet to resolve.
I thought we already agreed the universe at large is far too hostile to life to be designed for that purpose. If it has some other purpose, and thus is designed, we've no reference point for which to begin to guess at it, thus far.

>And equally likely to be in any other possible configuration

You ought to be cautious when using the word 'possible', because it is 'possible' that there would arise configurations in an open system that would guarantee such an occurrence, or eliminate it completely.

>assuming it's a closed system

Indeed.

>without changing something in the past, there simply is no other configuration this universe could have taken.

The fact that it did, accounting Penrose's calculation, may be considered to be supportive of my position.

>I thought we already agreed the universe at large is far too hostile to life to be designed for that purpose.

Can you quote my concession to this?