PSI Blog 20200203 Are
facts subjective?
From George Coyne:
Glenn,
here is another absurdity in quantum mechanics theory. Caslav Brukner
supposedly showed that, under certain assumptions, Eugene Wigner’s[1]
thought experiment of what results from applying
quantum mechanics to an observer that is observed can be used to prove
that quantum mechanics measurements are subjective to observers.
This September 20, 2019 paper titled Experimental test of local observer independence, contends that in the quantum world governed by the bizarre rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers can have differing facts because “facts” can supposedly be subjective. The authors write in the paper's introduction: “The observer’s role as final arbiter of universal facts was imperiled by the advent of 20th century science. In relativity, previously absolute observations are now relative to moving reference frames; in quantum theory, all physical processes are continuous and deterministic, except for observations, which are proclaimed to be instantaneous and probabilistic. This fundamental conflict in quantum theory is known as the measurement problem, and it originates because the theory does not provide a precise cut between a process being a measurement or just another unitary physical interaction.”
This September 20, 2019 paper titled Experimental test of local observer independence, contends that in the quantum world governed by the bizarre rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers can have differing facts because “facts” can supposedly be subjective. The authors write in the paper's introduction: “The observer’s role as final arbiter of universal facts was imperiled by the advent of 20th century science. In relativity, previously absolute observations are now relative to moving reference frames; in quantum theory, all physical processes are continuous and deterministic, except for observations, which are proclaimed to be instantaneous and probabilistic. This fundamental conflict in quantum theory is known as the measurement problem, and it originates because the theory does not provide a precise cut between a process being a measurement or just another unitary physical interaction.”
What
do you think of this QMT contention that facts are subjective?
[GB:
George, that sort of nonsense has been around since the beginning. When the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was discovered, physicists had a choice: 1) infinity
and aether or 2) finity and empty space. Regressives chose the second
alternative. Wigner’s (1961) imperiment (i.e., “thought “ex”periment”) was
predicated on the idea that consciousness could affect physical processes. Of
course, that is a no brainer because the “mind” is the motion occurring in the
brain. The mind, like all motions, is constantly transferred to the physical
substance of the brain. In other words: brain = matter; mind = motion.
I
don’t know or care to know about the math or the details of the experiments
done here. Anyone who thinks they are measuring the impacts of massless photons
(e.g., if m=0, then F=0) is fooling themselves. It is true many of the results
of such experiments actually involve aetherial impacts, which often are
mistaken for photon impacts. The idea single photons could be detected in any
experiment seems farfetched.
It is
no great revelation there is subjectivity in all causal observations. Remember
there are an infinite number of causes for every effect, per our definition of causality.
No two subjects can get exactly the same results for the same
experiment. That is what the plus or minus in all experiments is all about.
Also,
remember what the article said about QMT: the “theory does not provide a
precise cut between a process being a measurement or just another unitary
physical interaction.” Sorry, QMT, but all measurements are physical
interactions. Because the number of such interactions in any physical cause is
infinite, there can be no “precise cut.” That is the way the Infinite Universe
works.
Physical
interactions involve collisions occurring according to Newton’s Second Law of
Motion. That is, causality simply involves the collision of microcosm
A with microcosm B. Indeterminists, who assume just the opposite (acausality)
are not so sure. For them, the acceleration of B might just as easily occur
before A collides with it. Here is an example in which quantum mechanists openly
admit to their confusion:
Egads! Now do you understand why regressive physics is such a mess?]
[1] Wigner, E., 1961,
Remarks on the mind-body problem, in Good, I. G., ed., The Scientist
Speculates: London, Heinemann, p. 171-184. [Not much on the mind-body, but a
lot on QMT.]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment