Meaning that there is no 'Observer' outside of laws of ordinary quantum mechanics which has extraordinary "wave-function popping" capabilities?
Amen to that!
Well I would certainly agree with that; but I think the crux of their statement was that if quarks are the most fundamental essence of reality, the
final turtle if you will,(for example lets say that everything is made of quarks, and electrons, but yes there is a smallest most fundamental quanta
that all things macro contain and are composed of) they are saying that everything you are looking at, everything you are, the planets and stars, is
truly just quark interaction, and it is only because of our make up and natural modes of sensing reality, that we dont see reality as it actually is.
My argument was that we do see reality exactly as it is, if even skewed to extents, we see it as it is in that the earth is a semi spherical object
and water is different then rocks. His argument is that if there were no human observers, the universe would just be interacting quarks, and even
that there are human observers, the universe is only interacting quarks. I am of the notion that every actual layer of reality is equally real, and
that the qualitative differences in quark interaction, fundamental interaction, leads to real macro and classical phenomenon and objects, that cannot
be ignored as entities unto themselves, because perhaps they can not be fully described by quarks and quark interactions. An example maybe would be,
these letters and colors and forms on your computer screen are not really letters and forms on your computer screen, they are really 0s and 1s in the
computer. Likewise an apple and a tree and a person is not really these objects, the truest perspective of the universal territory would be perceived
on the level of the fundamental, the quarks and electrons.
Are you saying that the dynamics and effective properties of large collections of particles & forces can result in something which appears to have
significantly distinct dynamics and properties of the microscopic phenomena?
Yes, this is certainly true and not surprising now.
So do you mean to believe that the appearance of peculiar quantum mechanical 'collapse' and 'observer' actually comes about because of the
phenomenology of macroscpically large systems of particles like experimental scientists and their tools? I'm with that 100%. I think Schroedinger
also thought so as well. His point about the cat was not to suppose that a half-alive and half-dead cat was a physically useful or "true"
description, but to mock believing in Bohr's postulates too seriously.
Yes I always approached Schrodinger cat in that way, and felt the people who didnt were like the people who took the double slit in a fictitious and
sensationalized and misinterpreted fashion.
For your first statement, Yes I think, a hydrogen atom is more, or at least objectively different from an electron and a proton. This I felt was
related to the OPs arguement, for example he mentioned that if you took a string, and tied it into a geometry, though it appears different, in essence
it is still the same string. I took this to speak at the idea that a quantity of energy existed, some of that energy materialized, which can be
likend to a string taking on a geometry, and now the materialized energy has different properties and potentials, but in essence it is still that
foundational and fundamental energy. The op then loses me from there, when speaking about different times and universes.
I think the appearance of peculiar things in quantum mechanics can because fundamental nature is peculiar and 'distant' in terms of what we are used
to. What do you mean by the weird 'collapse' and 'observer'? I think wave functions are collapsed regardless of observer, I think quarks and
electrons actually form stable units of atoms, and atoms molecules, and molecules objects, and according to the natural rules of energy and molecules,
these objects can exist stabley and have different and unique traits, and react in unique ways a la chemistry and biology and physics. So I think the
fact that an apple can fall from a tree, travel through the air, and hit the ground, I think these objects exist as stable entities regardless of
observers. The double slit experiment though I have looked into it many multiple times and in multiple ways, I am still unsure about what the
collective of physics thinks about it, im not sure what is thought about non locality, im not sure what is thought about wave interference patterns of
light, and particle/wave duality. But yes as far as I know, I think those affects are because of the means in which scientists do the observing,
with equipment that directly influences the 'it' that is attempted at being detected. It seems like a sort of impossibility, or if these problems are
to be solved it has to be by inference and intelligence, like doing the side pieces of a puzzle first, and cornering your conclusion. Taking a
picture of the camera you are taking a picture with seems like an impossible task until you remember mirrors exist, but then even still the
information you receive may not be entirely accurate.
If physicists could describe every single aspect of reality only by using the fundamental, the tiniest parts that make up all reality, would that be a
complete and accurate description of reality, could the appearance, shape, rotation, of a galaxy be explained in quantum/fundamental means, by only
using quarks, electrons and the forces?
edit on 23-12-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)