Closer To Truth
Make a donation to Closer To Truth to help us continue exploring the world’s deepest questions without the need for paywalls: https://shorturl.at/OnyRq
Does the concept of observation have deep relevance in fundamental physics? What about in quantum physics where some kind of observation seems to be needed to transform “wave function” probabilities into actual events? What’s an “observation” anyway? What does it take to be an “observer”? Must it have some kind of sentience?
Free access to Closer to Truth’s library of 5,000 videos: http://bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on observer physics: https://bit.ly/2SzjNbd
Jeff Tollaksen is a Professor of Physics and Director of the Center for Excellence in Quantum Studies at Chapman University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: http://bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Source
Separate particles from their properties? I'm not even sure that's a logically coherent idea. It's like saying that you can separate my weight from my body. Or my height. Or my eye color. Or my IQ. Or the direction I'm moving in.
Hold on a particle separated from its properties? I need an explanation
Raymond said, " why are we continuing to talk about the observer as it effects our understanding of quantum physics"? Well, if there were no observer we wouldn't have any understanding of quantum physics.
I am amazed that Prof Tollaksen is as smart as he is given that he teaches at Chapman university, where John Eastman is dean of the law school.
Duh.
Wait, is he explaining the affects of the theory work out using math? Or, is he saying he has experimental proof of theory?
… Is his vagueness because he cant tell the processes – because there are no processes in place yet?
I wish he would have used physic terms, not hammers and feathers.
You can define many kinds of observation, still there remains unified undivided observer which is us.
Could a gentle measurement have information of the future?
Is the information from gentle measurement a different property or substance than physical nature / matter?
What happens to quantum field / wave function when make a gentle measurement?
What kind of information results from gentle measurement of quantum field / wave function?
How is a gentle measurement of quantum field done?
When observe quantum field / wave function, helps to make a measurement?
It’s only the photons that we measure or otherwise detect that collapse the wave function. 😄🤔 Quantum mechanics happens at the speed of light. It’s when we go to observe or measure our perception of the speed of light is that it has a finite speed since we don’t exist at the speed of light. We exist in dilated limited measurable time and distance which appears to slow down light from our perspective.
I wish he would answer the question! It sounds like he has no examples
Nice tutorial on how to speak, without saying anything. Thanks.
This looks like Eric, from Tim and Eric, in the science documentary skit
Kuhn had a good choice of topic but good for nothing philosopher talking about the hardest part of QM, so he couldn't go far. In QM observer leads to more than a human observer, in fact it leads to cosmic intelligent conscious observer.
I wonder what the interviewee means by "reality", behind which word there seem to be a great many tacit assumptions or hidden premises that need to be investigated a little carefully. In fact it is very interesting to study or seek to investigate what sort of tacit assumptions or hidden premises are involved with all going on behind the veil of that word "reality" – what exactly are those that speak of "reality" assuming? How exactly does one go about discovering what those assumptions are?
If one defines religion as any set of related unquestioned beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms, this reference to "reality" seem to be one of those assumptions which leads one to suppose that there is some evidence of that manifestation of psychology of men (human beings) that can be described as or called, religion since a key aspect of religion is beliefs and assumptions. What exactly are men (human beings) doing when they either believe or assume?
STATEMENT FROM WITHIN
"Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon..
Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The centre of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science."
The importance of the 'mystical' aspect Humanity carries within it, and so has access to, is not 'god' in its many guises, but the intrinsic aspect of infinitude.. 'God' has been our excuse for irresponsibility, leading to false 'authoritarianism', but the real 'enlightenment' occurs when we see how necessary infinitude is.. So 'god' has just been a vehicle, a carrier of genuine understanding, not the truth itself..
So people believe weird things because we have not evolved in full understanding of truth, but are encouraged to simply make things up and pretend they are 'true' by convincing as many others as we can to 'agree' with our 'visions'.. Hence the need to further evolve 'science' and 'psychology'..
So here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People generally have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. Measuring things does not make them a main-feature of the nature of reality, only a desire of 'measurement' from a purely Human perspective.
Within infinitude everything appears to be at the 'centre' of that which it finds detectable ('observable').. So, the moment you create the perspective of a 'centre', you become that centre..Here we can find the real problem with using 'mathematics' as a tool for understanding infinite nature. We have to firstly posit the 'points' to be 'measured' in order for the measurement to take place.. And this is why we end up inventing 'things' that do not exist in reality from mathematical constructs that do not describe the truth about nature..
And belief does not make anything so..
First of all, it is easily debatable whether 'intelligence' is actually an existent thing at all.. Certainly, Human beings provide very little evidence of it with their actions! 'Logic' and 'reason' are dependent upon the nature of how such things can come to exist, so much hinges on the 'discovery of the obvious'.
And 'consciousness' does not create anything. It is only possible to be 'conscious' OF something, and it must be of that which actually exists.. You can create any kind of delusion you like in your mind, but you cannot be 'conscious' of things that do not actually exist. So, we can be aware or 'conscious' of the delusional state, but not of the SUBJECT of the delusion itself.
Beyond 'observation' there is then the process of 'interpretation', and this is where most people fail themselves..and unconsciously produce the very evidence that 'consciousness' is not 'everywhere'..
We cannot deduce necessary truth without first becoming truthful.. When the understanding is in alignment with the reality, the necessary 'language' is formed..
Thank you. These are not opinions, but deductions form necessity. Please take a look at the – wave structure of matter – to learn more about how things exist, how we can deduce that which is necessarily so, and its importance to Humanity..
"History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992)
spaceandmotion
I just read some papers on consciousness funded by FQXi
Is there a best type of observer for "scientific" measurement, or have we gone down the road of permanent scientific interference?
Are our quantum measurements interfering with Nature such that there will be consequences? Will Nature start interfering with us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPNpQsmQpZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkjB7ZEaAto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BRV7x_53o
Did he actually say anything? I feel that Robert only lightly tickled him for some vague metaphors but didn't really get into the guts of it. Another 10 minutes might have been helpful.
When you talk about what you don't understand at all, any imaginary stupidity is possible!🥴😏
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nUPVCtzTqw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2bPTs8fspk