- #1
EclogiteFacies
- 77
- 17
- TL;DR Summary
- This post links back to a thread I saw on a different forum
Hi everyone
I saw a post on another forum about the physicist Thomas Breuer...
I came across this author scrolling through some of the threads on here
This poster seemed convinced that quantum mechanics had proved the existence of a "distinguished observer"
The most interesting parts of the post I've quoted below (from a different forum)
This honestly to me seems as if this person has pulled Breuer's papers to their most ludicrous extremes.
I'm sure this isn't what he meant.
I saw a previous post from today on MWI that said we are all equally conscious in different branches. This idea heavily contrasts with that...
Furthermore all physicists I know of are not solipsistic...
This poster also made mention of other humans being probabilistic Turing machines... Referring to free will only existing for the distinguished observer?
Honestly seems like woo but I'm not sure if I know enough to conclude that.
Can anyone make sense of this or something?
Are these just illogical ramblings?
I am not a physicist but I don't understand how people reach such crazy conclusions...
Is this what QM suggests?
I saw a post on another forum about the physicist Thomas Breuer...
I came across this author scrolling through some of the threads on here
This poster seemed convinced that quantum mechanics had proved the existence of a "distinguished observer"
The most interesting parts of the post I've quoted below (from a different forum)
Thomas Breuer has shown that each observer will not see himself obeying the usual physical laws however a theory is. He also proved that the behavior of a system that contains observer himself is unpredictable for the observer because the initial states cannot be distinguished from each other by any measurement. The theorems concerning self-reference by Breuer are quite similar to Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
This leads to some far reaching implications.
1. The observer will see his own behavior not obeying the usual statistical patterns derived from studying the behavior of other people.
2. Even if there possible to construct a computer that would predict the behavior of other people (at least statistically), a computer that predicts the behavior of the observer himself is impossible however powerful the computer is.
The first thesis leads to a conclusion that even if we assume existence of several intelligent observers (as in Many-Worlds interpretation), and even assume they somehow occur in the same world, their worldlines will diverge just the next moment because their observations about themselves will be different.
This means that the apparent behavior of another person which an observer observes is not actually an intelligent behavior of conscious observer, but envelope of worldlines of a series of intelligent observers which is tangent to the worldlines of some slightly different intelligent observers each moment, but always to a different one.
This leads to a conclusion that the apparent behavior of other people **is not** the normal behavior of a conscious observer as if it behaved the same way as you do, the apparent behavior does not correspond to any intelligent(in the meaning described below) person whatsoever.
This honestly to me seems as if this person has pulled Breuer's papers to their most ludicrous extremes.
I'm sure this isn't what he meant.
I saw a previous post from today on MWI that said we are all equally conscious in different branches. This idea heavily contrasts with that...
Furthermore all physicists I know of are not solipsistic...
This poster also made mention of other humans being probabilistic Turing machines... Referring to free will only existing for the distinguished observer?
Honestly seems like woo but I'm not sure if I know enough to conclude that.
Can anyone make sense of this or something?
Are these just illogical ramblings?
I am not a physicist but I don't understand how people reach such crazy conclusions...
Is this what QM suggests?