Rational T said:Vilenkin's of cosmic says could have began acausally as a . If what you are saying is true, that only determinism can explain this, then this is contradictory. How can something deterministic explain an acausal ? Also, appealing to multiple universes is a violation of Parsimony...I think you see the problem here.
audioloop said:why you say determinism ?
audioloop said:why you say determinism ?
Rational T said:"...assumes that the vector of the whole of any isolated system does not , but evolves deterministically according to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation..."
You said it. All I'm saying, is that it's simpler to assume an observer from the collapsed the -function of , than to introduce many worlds to explain it. Many worlds seems like a violation of Parsimony and Occam's Razor, to try to avoid the conclusion that an observer caused the wave-function . One observer is simply than many worlds.
Rational T said:If you appeal to many worlds to solve the problem, then you violate Occam'z Razor.
audioloop said:not me.
audioloop said:i dislike many worlds, i am no aduce from it.
Rational T said:So you agree that an observer must have collapsed the -function. Since you dislike the many worlds idea..
audioloop said:no observers, in objective collapse models there is no need of observers.
It doesn't have to be external. It just needs enough disparate parts that are tightly-interacting to cause collapse. One way of thinking of this is to divide the wavefunction into two regions that are tightly-interacting. As long as each region has enough complexity, the other will be forced to effectively collapse.Rational T said:What external complex system could have interacted with the wave-function to cause it to collapse though?
Chalnoth said:It doesn't have to be external. It just needs enough disparate parts that are tightly-interacting to cause collapse. One way of thinking of this is to divide the wavefunction into two regions that are tightly-interacting. As long as each region has enough complexity, the other will be forced to effectively collapse.
Chalnoth said:It doesn't have to be external. It just needs enough disparate parts that are tightly-interacting to cause collapse. One way of thinking of this is to divide the wavefunction into two regions that are tightly-interacting. As long as each region has enough complexity, the other will be forced to effectively collapse.
I think this is just an artifact of not knowing the correct theory of quantum gravity.Rational T said:Also, aren't quantum events contingent to space-time? Or, is it just as plausible for a quantum tunneling event to emerge from a state void of space-time? Thank you.
Rational T said:Also, Alexander's model only works if the universe is closed:
"The only verifiable (in principle) prediction of the model is that the universe must be closed." - http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf
However, the theory of inflation predicts the universe is flat:
"The current theoretical belief (because it is predicted by the theory of cosmic inflation) is that the universe is flat..." - http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question35.html
Inflation doesn't predict absolute flatness. It merely predicts that the universe is driven from whatever curvature it started with towards extreme flatness.Rational T said:However, the theory of inflation predicts the universe is flat:
"The current theoretical belief (because it is predicted by the theory of cosmic inflation) is that the universe is flat..." - http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question35.html
Rational T said:the wave-function of self-collapsed? If so, how often does this really occur in the real world [STRIKE]without external measurement being a necessary condition?[/STRIKE]
audioloop said:right.
called the collapse of the state vector
...an inherently probabilistic physical collapse, not limited as in the Copenhagen interpretation to measurement by a macroscopic apparatus, but occurring at all scales...
audioloop said:right.
called the collapse of the state vector
...an inherently probabilistic physical collapse, not limited as in the Copenhagen interpretation to measurement by a macroscopic apparatus, but occurring at all scales...
re-read the post.Rational T said:Also, 's only works if is closed:
"The only verifiable (in principle) of the is that must be closed." - http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf
audioloop said:for tunneling universe
Cosmology and Open Universes
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9905056.pdf
...Restricting ourselves to the Tunneling boundary condition, and applying it in turn to each of these curvatures, it is shown that quantum cosmology actually suggests that be open, k = −1...Quantum Creation of an Open Inflationary Universe
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9802038
If one uses the tunneling wave function for the description of creation of , then in most inflationary the universe should have Ω = 1, which agrees with the standard expectation that inflation makes the universe flat.Nonsingular instantons for the creation of open universes
Phys. Rev. D 59, 043509
We show that the instability of the singular Vilenkin instanton describing the creation of an open universe can be avoided using, instead of a minimally coupled scalar field, an axionic massless scalar field which gives rise to the Giddings-Strominger instanton.
audioloop said:re-read the post.
already posted:
No, it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. No consciousness is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.Rational T said:So it is self-collapsing, if not being caused to collapse by anything external. This means the universe is conscious.
Chalnoth said:No, it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. No consciousness is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.
Chalnoth said:No, it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. No consciousness is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.
Rational T said:None of that has to do with the that a -collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience. You admitted that the universal wave-function is -collapsing, then this proves an ultimate . So, it seems science has proved what humans have known for thousands of years already. Thanks for your help!
Rational T said:AAlso, Alexander's model only works if the universe is closed: 's only works if the universe is closed:
"The only verifiable (in principle) prediction of the model is that the universe must be closed." - http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf
Oh, well, that would be because that's pseudoscientific nonsense that has no place in any sort of serious discussion. It's really sad that Penrose has more or less gone off the deep end. But it does happen.Rational T said:I suggest looking into Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's work. A self-collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience.
Chalnoth said:No, it doesn't. Not by any of the imagination. No is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.
Chalnoth said:Oh, well, that would be because that's pseudoscientific nonsense that has no place in any sort of serious discussion. It's really sad that Penrose has more or less gone off the deep end. But it does happen.
Rational T said:Appeal to ridicule fallacy.
Rational T said:I finally got an answer to my question by a poster on this site, and my thread gets removed. I broke no rules, so it seems some mod out there drunk with power. It is utterly pitiful, as I thought this was supposed to be a legitimate physics website, not one with corrupt mods.
audioloop said:be careful with your claims.
I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The Wikipedia article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:Rational T said:I am careful. Claiming something is "nonsense" without reasoning is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Anybody can hand wave something away and mock it. That says nothing with regards to it's validity.
Chalnoth said:I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR#Criticism
Chalnoth said:I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The Wikipedia article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR#Criticism
If only they were answered in a coherent manner that made any sense.Rational T said:You are right there are rebuttals. Too bad you neglect the fact that Hameroff answers all of them.
Rational T said:None of that has to do with the fact that a -collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience. You admitted that the universal wave-function is self-collapsing, then this proves an ultimate consciousness. So, it seems science has proved what humans have known for thousands of years already. Thanks for your help!