help with creationst friend!

[ungoliant]

first, i am new to these boards and i wanted to say hello.

second, i have a creationist friend who, in our debates about the evolution of eyes, brings up the following topics:

'wave function collapse' and 'consciousness causes collapse'

to prove ID.

how can i refute them? i have read a little about them, but don't understand them well enough to refute or accept them.

 

[toddjh]

first, i am new to these boards and i wanted to say hello.

second, i have a creationist friend who, in our debates about the evolution of eyes, brings up the following topics:

'wave function collapse' and 'consciousness causes collapse'

to prove ID.

how can i refute them? i have read a little about them, but don't understand them well enough to refute or accept them.

Does he understand them? I tend to doubt it. Those are aspects of quantum mechanics (the latter being somewhat iffy, too), and they really have no bearing on evolution or cosmology. There's really nothing to refute -- he's just throwing important-sounding phrases at you to sound like he knows what he's talking about. In his defense, he's probably just repeating what he's been told.

ETA: Welcome to the forum!

Jeremy

 

[ungoliant]

so how do i refute them? i understand only a little about them.

but what i need are reasons as to why they are not accepted by the majority of scientists. he quotes amit goswami alot.

for instance, what is the difference between the two versions of the copenhagen interpretation?

where can i go to find information to help me debate these points?

 

[toddjh]

so hoe do i refute them? i understand a little about them.

but what i need are reasons as to why they are not accepted by the majority of scientists. he quotes amit goswami alot.

for instance, what is the difference between the two versions of the copenhagen interpretation?

The Copenhagen interpretation holds that there is no "deep reality" -- for example, the polarization of a photon is not simply unknown, but actually has no specific value until it is "fixed" by an act of measurement (i.e. the waveform is collapsed from a probability distribution to an immutable value).

The standard version of the Copenhagen interpretation states, I believe, that a measuring device is any system which would behave differently based on the polarization of that photon.

The "consciousness creates reality" version of the Copenhagen interpretation, if I recall correctly, goes one step further and says that "ordinary" (non-conscious) measuring devices aren't capable of collapsing the waveform because they are not independent of it. Only an "outside" (i.e. conscious) system can do that. Regular measuring devices only appear to work because a conscious being is observing the results -- in other words, the waveform collapse doesn't occur when the measuring device makes it measurement, but only when a conscious mind observes the device's output. I don't really understand why they believe consciousness is independent of the system as a whole, but they seem to.

Somebody please correct me if I've got it wrong -- it's been a few years.

To refute this, the most important thing you can do is to point out that all interpretations of quantum mechanics are just attempts to slap an intuitive explanation onto the math part of the theory. They're all equally compatible with the experimental evidence, and so there's absolutely no reason, other than personal aesthetics, to believe one is more "true" than the others. It may be that none of them are true. It may also be that the term "true" doesn't even really apply in this case.

For that reason, his "consciousness creates reality" interpretation is no more valid than the "Many Worlds" interpretation, for example. Any ideas he has that rely on his interpretation being correct are completely unsupported.

I'm still confused by his position, though. Why does he think quantum mechanics has anything to do with the evolution of the eye?

Jeremy

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Your friend has to have a point before you can refute it. Simply mentioning two concepts means nothing. How does he/she think that these ideas support his/her view?

 

[Psiload]

first, i am new to these boards and i wanted to say hello.

second, i have a creationist friend who, in our debates about the evolution of eyes, brings up the following topics:

'wave function collapse' and 'consciousness causes collapse'

to prove ID.

how can i refute them? i have read a little about them, but don't understand them well enough to refute or accept them.

You look your friend dead in the eye, and with great confidence you proclaim:

'Flux capacitance!' and '1.21 Gigawatts is required!'

Two can play at that game.

 

[Ziggurat]

first, i am new to these boards and i wanted to say hello.

second, i have a creationist friend who, in our debates about the evolution of eyes, brings up the following topics:

'wave function collapse' and 'consciousness causes collapse'

to prove ID.

how can i refute them? i have read a little about them, but don't understand them well enough to refute or accept them.

SpaceFluffer has a very good point that your friend seems to have no actual argument that needs or deserves refuting.

But "wave function collapse" is, in some respect, really just shorthand for how to deal with the interactions of small quantum systems with large quantum systems. We cannot model these interactions, because there's simply too many particles involved, and we cannot establish the initial quantum state of our entire measurement apparatus. There's no reason to believe that this "collapse" consists of anything more than the outcome of the interaction between our measurement apparatus, with its random initial quantum state, and the system being measured, with some quantum state we can establish.

The results of this interaction look random, and are described as a collapse, but there's actually no evidence that anything truly special happens at this stage. Wave function collapse is, really, just shorthand for a process which we cannot model directly but whose expected outcome we can statistically determine based on the quantum state of the measured system only (that is, we get to brush the measurement device's quantum state under the rug). It is LESS profound than we are often led to believe.

Another tactic you could use is look up some non-christian creation myths, and when your friend brings up something to argue for creationism, take it in stride and just start talking about these alternate myths, as if everything he's saying proves them. Might not get him to see the truth, but at least it should be fun

 

[Dr Adequate]

'wave function collapse' and 'consciousness causes collapse'

I don't see what this has to do with ID, but it is not consciousness that collapses the wave.

Consider the following three experiments:

(1) The classic experiment: take an electron gun, a screen with two parallel slits in it, and an electrosensitive screen behind that. Fire the electrons at the screen, one at a time, and you still get an interference pattern, because each electron acts as a wave.

(2) Now do it again, but put an electron detector over each slit, with little lights on that light up when an electron goes through, and watch which way each electron goes. Now the wave is collapsed when the electron is detected, so you no longer get the interference pattern. This is why people think that consciousness comes into it: they think that this happened because you watched. But:

(3) Now do it again, but turn your back. Leave the electron detectors turned on, but don't watch. You still don't get an interference pattern, because its not your consciousness that collapses the wave. It's the electron detectors.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr. A. said:
(3) Now do it again, but turn your back. Leave the electron detectors turned on, but don't watch. You still don't get an interference pattern, because its not your consciousness that collapses the wave. It's the electron detectors.

How do you know you don't get an interference pattern in this case?

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

How do you know you don't get an interference pattern in this case?

You look at the electrosensitive screen after the experiment's finished.

The point is that the electron dectectors affect the oucome of the experiment whether or not anyone is conscious of what they detect.

 

[toddjh]

You look at the electrosensitive screen after the experiment's finished.

The point is that the electron dectectors affect the oucome of the experiment whether or not anyone is conscious of what they detect.

...except that there's no way to know that until a conscious being observes the results. Maybe the outcome was decided only when you looked at the screen?

Now, I think this interpretation has "entities multiplied beyond necessity," but this is a good example of why I try to stay away from interpretations in general -- you really have no basis for saying any one of them is more wrong than the others.

Jeremy

 

[Dr Adequate]

...except that there's no way to know that until a conscious being observes the results. Maybe the outcome was decided only when you looked at the screen?

OK, now try experiment number...

(4) Do experiment (1) again, but turn your back 'til it's done.

The result is the same as in experiment (1).

The result of the experiment --- the pattern on the electrosensitive screen --- does not depend on whether or not you have a conscious observer, but on whether you have unconscious, automatic electron detectors. That is what determines whether the wave collapses when the electron passes through the slits.

 

[toddjh]

OK, now try experiment number...

(4) Do experiment (1) again, but turn your back 'til it's done.

The result is the same as in experiment (1).

The result of the experiment --- the pattern on the electrosensitive screen --- does not depend on whether or not you have a conscious observer, but on whether you have unconscious, automatic electron detectors. That is what determines whether the wave collapses when the electron passes through the slits.

You still don't know that. You can't ever know what the result would be if there weren't a conscious observer, because there is always a conscious observer.

If you always see the interference pattern, maybe you simply aren't observing the system in a way which forces the wave to collapse -- just as if the electron detector wouldn't force the wave to collapse if it were a foot to the left. Saying that a conscious observer is necessary doesn't mean that a conscious observer is sufficient.

Please don't think I'm promoting this view. It's silly, and I don't believe it for a second. But it's not demonstrably false. No interpretation of quantum mechanics is demonstrably false...or true, for that matter. None of them make any testable predictions at all.

Jeremy

 

[Dr Adequate]

You still don't know that. You can't ever know what the result would be if there weren't a conscious observer, because there is always a conscious observer.

Not when your back is turned.

The experiment works out the same way whether or not there is a conscious observer to influence the outcome.

If you always see the interference pattern..."

You don't. You don't. You don't. If the electron detectors are in place, there is no interference pattern.

Saying that a conscious observer is necessary doesn't mean that a conscious observer is sufficient.

I don't think anyone said either.

But it's not demonstrably false.

See my previous posts. The idea that consciousness collapses the wave is indeed demonstrably false.

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmm.

First of all, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with evolution, per se.

Secondly, show the patterns created to someone who has no knowledge of what they are looking at. Have that person, perferably an artist, draw out what he sees, as it looks to him objectively.

Then 'consciousness' doesn't play a role. We cannot 'create' the results we desire because there is no desire for any result in the interpreter. (There is a strong implication the resaerchers see what is expected, after all.)

It's kind of like double-blinding a study. After all, if we weren't even there for the interpretation, then we could not have affected the interference pattern any, could we?

 

[toddjh]

Not when your back is turned.

The experiment works out the same way whether or not there is a conscious observer to influence the outcome.

You can't know what the outcome is when there is no conscious observer. By definition, if "you" know, then there is a conscious observer.

You don't. You don't. You don't. If the electron detectors are in place, there is no interference pattern.

I wasn't being clear. Let me try again. You said that there is always an interference pattern when there is no electron detector, ergo consciousness does not play a role. I was responding to that, saying that maybe the interference pattern just shows that you're not really "observing" in the right way to force a measurement. Just as the electron detector wouldn't force a measurement if it were positioned incorrectly, maybe a conscious observation won't force a measurement unless the circumstances are right.

I don't think anyone said either. See my previous posts. The idea that consciousness collapses the wave is indeed demonstrably false.

Tell me how you could make any measurement without a conscious observer being involved at some point. If there's no conscious observer, then who is looking at the results of the measurement? The consciousness camp simply says the collapse occurs at the point the conscious observation takes place, not at the earlier measurement by the non-conscious device.

Anyway, I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, which is that they can always come up with some crazy rationalization for their point of view. I'm trying to demonstrate the uselessness of all interpretations of QM, and that bickering about which one is "correct" is a total waste of time.

Jeremy

 

[Number Six]

Yeah, maybe the wave function doesn't collapse until a conscious person observes it. And maybe before a conscious person observes it the wave function isn't just a choice between two possible slits but rather there are also a million different other ridiculous possibilities associated with it. How can we know? Just because we set up an experiment so that we think the result will be a photon going through one of two slits doesn't mean that one of those things is what actually happens.

It seems like we're saying "A conscious person can't know what happens until a conscious person knows what happens." That doesn't seem magical or mystical, rather it just seems like a tautology. The question "What happens before a conscious person knows what happens?" is undefined because the way we talk about "what happens" in inextricably linked with someone being aware that something happened.

How about this. You set up the experiment to run and you leave the room and then you come back later and observe it. Do you say that the wave function collapsed when you observed what happened? If so, how would you know? Maybe before you returned to the room someone else observed the experiment and so there couldn't possibly be any wave function collapsing simply due to your observation. Or maybe you're the first to observe it. The pont is, you don't know.

Before you observe the experiment you don't know if the photon went through Slit A or Slit B nor do you know if anyone else knows. Since no experimenter could know _for certain_ whether someone else has already observed the outcome before the experimenter himself/herself, it seems that the notion of whether the wave function has collapsed is inherently unknowable and therefore moot.

 

[toddjh]

Before you observe the experiment you don't know if the photon went through Slit A or Slit B nor do you know if anyone else knows. Since no experimenter could know _for certain_ whether someone else has already observed the outcome before the experimenter himself/herself, it seems that the notion of whether the wave function has collapsed is inherently unknowable and therefore moot.

Plus the wave function doesn't necessarily have any "real" meaning. It's useful as an aid to calculation, but its existence in the real world is interpretation-dependent and therefore unknowable.

This is all in line with the point I'm trying to make, which is that crazy theories which depend on a particular interpretation of QM, like the one in the OP (which I'd still like to hear!) are completely unsupported. A clear instance of QM interpretations doing more harm than good.

Jeremy

 

[clarsct]

More to the point, maybe, that the microscale assumptions of QM don't always translate well to macroscopic analogies.

Was that what you were trying to say?

Because trying to describe QM effects on a macro level is a sure way to gibberish and insanity.

 

[Daylight]

First, stop defending evolution. You are wasting your time, unless your friend is willing to take several years at a University to learn about it.

Second, always play in his yard. Point out the fact there are no ID scientists and no accredited schools offer a PhD in ID. Also point out that ID has made no contributions to science except to criticize Evolution, which does not make it a science.

Third, ask why do ID proponents always play loose and fast with the facts? Why at times do they blatantly lie when this violates one of the 10 commandments? Also, ask why did they changed the name from creationism to ID?

Good Luck