Quantum Reality FAQ
This page contains edited versions of e-mails that I have received. I'm not sure it's a good idea. Anyway, my responses are shown below.
Isn't the Copenhagen Interpretation and The Consciousness causes the collapse interperetation the same? Copenhangen is saying there is no deep reality...so basically everything we are made up of doesn't really exist... so wouldn't it be like the consciousness is making it up? - Gregg J (guitarzanaz@aol.com)
No, I don't think that Copenhagen says that there is no deep reality, that the mind makes it up. I suppose that's always possible, but it a sterile way to proceed. Physicists believe that the world follows rules external to and independent of any observer.
Copenhagen accepts the world follows rules external to and independent of any observer. It is therefore a theory based on reality.
Although diagrams such as the one below are invariably misleading, it attempts to show the realtionship between an obsever and the "universe". Observers interact with the universe through measuring devices (senses); the information supplied by those devices is "consumed" by an intellegence.
This view is not all that radical (c.f. Kant). Quantum Mechanics however emphasises that measuring devices cannot "objectively" measure the universe. Measuring devices are part of the universe; making a measurement affects the existing state of the universe. In particular, measuring devices can be coupled (E.g. conjugate devices) so that N measuring devices only supply M bits of information where M < N (Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle).
Copenhagen claims there is a quantum-classical boundary determined by the selection of measuring devices. (The divide is shown as the curved line in the diagram) In Copenhagen, the intellegence on the RHS can be a conscious being or purely mechanical (e.g. a recording device). Consciousness Causes Collapse claims that measuring devices and intellegence are quantum systems too and should obey quantum mechanical rules. The quantum-classical boundary (if that is still a valid description) is pushed back to the interaction with conscious beings, which introduces problems of it own.
The quantum-classical boundary is a logical, not a physical boundary.
Many of the arguments about "reality" are actually about the semantics, but none of the interpretations denies the existance of a "real" universe.
What does this say about God? - Fernando Sudhakar (sudhakarcs@sify.com)
It is somewhat unfashionable to mix religion, even personal notions of religion, with Science. Positivists argue that religion is not verifiable so has no place in Philosophy, never mind Science. Some consider religion to a corrupting influence, promoting ideas that otherwise would not be given serious consideration, especially in Evolution and other life science. Some of the dislike is simply historical: the Catholic Church got it very wrong in the past, and was very unforgiving of dissenting opinion. Sadly some of it is simply ego: there are those who regard anyone who speaks of God as ignorant of the new (non-)religion of Science.
To some extent Kuhn made it OK to talk about God again. Science and religion are both social constructs. At any point of time what is accepted fact is determined by the opinions of the majority of the scientific community. ... and secretly many scientists are motiviated by a desire to "know the mind of God".
So at great risk to my credibility...
- QM and Relativity may be able to construct the sequence of events after the creation of the Universe, but it can't explain the initial creation. (I am ignoring theories that suggest that the universe is some sort of recurring phenomena)
- QM provides a mechanism for "free will", Classical mechanics does not.
- QM demonstates that the mind of God must be fundamentally different from ours. No surprise there.
- Evolution, Godel's Theorem and other branches of Science probably have more to say about God.
Copyright (c) Shaun O'Kane, 2004. You are free to redistribute this work provided you give due credit to it's author.