• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The wavefunction is a property of the mind

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
To continue where we left off earlier this year, after wavefunction collapse everything becomes random. Life and the universe unfolds in a random fashion. It is only while the wavefunction in suspended by the mind that non-randomness becomes possible.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I would think if there is randomness it is before wave function collapse; but the wave function is not real anyway. It is an instrumentalist tool.
 

Magical Wand

Active Member
I would think if there is randomness it is before wave function collapse

That's what I thought, too! The particle only takes the same determined route if the wave-function collapses. Otherwise it will follow random routes, thus creating the interference pattern. :v
 
Last edited:

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I would think if there is randomness it is before wave function collapse; but the wave function is not real anyway. It is an instrumentalist tool.
To think of the possibly billions of words that have been written based on fundamental misunderstandings of the Copenhagen interpretation...
 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
I would think if there is randomness it is before wave function collapse; but the wave function is not real anyway. It is an instrumentalist tool.

I came across this in search of confirmation:

Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?
Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner
Although quantum mechanics is one of our most successful physical theories, there has been a long-standing debate about the interpretation of the wave function---the central object of the theory. Two prominent views are that (i) it corresponds to an element of reality, i.e. an objective attribute that exists before measurement, and (ii) it is a subjective state of knowledge about some underlying reality. A recent result [Pusey et al. arXiv:1111.3328] has placed the subjective interpretation into doubt, showing that it would contradict certain physically plausible assumptions, in particular that multiple systems can be prepared such that their elements of reality are uncorrelated. Here we show, based only on the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, that a system's wave function is in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality. This also eliminates the possibility that it can be interpreted subjectively.

Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?

The reason that non-randomness occurs before wavefunction collapse is that the wavefunction is in a constant cycle of suspension and collapse so the world is influenced by the observer's (the source's) thoughts. Including people.
 
Last edited:

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I came across this in search of confirmation:

Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?
Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner
Although quantum mechanics is one of our most successful physical theories, there has been a long-standing debate about the interpretation of the wave function---the central object of the theory. Two prominent views are that (i) it corresponds to an element of reality, i.e. an objective attribute that exists before measurement, and (ii) it is a subjective state of knowledge about some underlying reality. A recent result [Pusey et al. arXiv:1111.3328] has placed the subjective interpretation into doubt, showing that it would contradict certain physically plausible assumptions, in particular that multiple systems can be prepared such that their elements of reality are uncorrelated. Here we show, based only on the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, that a system's wave function is in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality. This also eliminates the possibility that it can be interpreted subjectively.

Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?

The reason that non-randomness occurs before wavefunction collapse is that the wavefunction is in a constant cycle of suspension and collapse so the world is influenced by the observer's (the source's) thoughts. Including people.

These dudes are from Perimeter, so a) that means this paper isn't BS and b) this paper's news to me. Thanks for the link.

So that's pretty profound. I skimmed through the paper. The assumptions are minimal (that QM is correct and with axiom of choice, such that any description of a quantum system is phi-complete). Some of this is based on the authors' previous work, which I've also gone back and read.

Free choice, if ontic, is equivalent to non-locality statistically (e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.09037.pdf), and this would not be surprising given Bell inequality experiments.

It should be noted that the authors propose free choice is experimentally falsifiable and I am not able to find attempts past 2012 where this has been attempted.

I am willing to accept that the wave function might be ontic, which would have the opposite consequences of your OP though: randomness would exist before collapse, not after.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I came across this in search of confirmation:

Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?
Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner
I know Renner (at least since 2014, when he gave a talk at the Bell conference that made an impression on me). I can confidently say that he wouldn’t agree with anything you’ve written in this thread or on these forums (of the posts I’ve read, anyway) on quantum physics or the nature of the wavefunction. More importantly and more relevantly, you seem to have rather seriously misunderstood the paper he and Colbeck wrote (also, the paper is somewhat dated in the sense that Renner's more recent work on an extended Wigner's Friend argument has been much more the subject of discussion in the literature and conferences/symposia/etc. since before it appeared in print in this paper: "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself")

This is understandable, as the paper is actual physics literature (as opposed to e.g., the kind of sensationalist nonsense that one reads of in popular accounts of quantum theory, particularly those inclined to some kind of “mystical”, “spiritual,” or similar sorts of interpretations of its implications). Moreover, it is written in the manner, style, and with the terms appropriate to a particular context and audience- those interested or active in research on quantum foundations. Hence, for example, the reader is directed in this paper to another written by the same authors and published in Nature Communications. In that paper (“No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power”), the same authors write “Randomness is central to quantum theory, and with it comes a range of philosophical implications. In this article, we have shown that the randomness is inherent: any attempt to better explain the outcomes of quantum measurements is destined to fail.” Then there is the fact that the entire paper whence comes the abstract you quoted in formulated in terms of probability theory. That is, not only does it depend upon the results of the paper I linked to above, but in that very paper you quoted from, the authors are quite explicit about the nature of quantum theory in relation to its intrinsic randomness: “Mathematically, we model Ψ as a random variable over the set of wave functions, A as a random variable over the set of observables, and X as a random variable over the set of possible measurement outcomes.”

The notion of whether or not the wavefunction is in a one-to-one correspondence with elements of reality is phrased deliberately so as to place the question in the context of that asked by Einstein and coauthors in their 1935 EPR paper. This too is where the ideas related to completeness originated. Colbeck and Renner “prove” in these papers that given particular assumptions, the quantum mechanical wavefunction is complete in the sense that “no extension of quantum theory can give more information about the outcomes of future measurements than quantum theory itself.” They then show that this implies or can be used to derive the fact that (again, given certain assumptions) the quantum mechanical wavefunction for a specific system is uniquely specified by quantum theory. This is not in opposition to the idea that the wavefunction encodes probabilistic information about the outcomes of possible measurements. Quite the contrary: it is designed to show explicitly that quantum mechanics is irreducibly statistical and the elements of reality modeled by the wavefunction are correspondingly maximally described by these same wavefunctions and probabilistically so.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
The OP might make some sense if it was referring to Mu Waves, but alas, it does not appear to be the case!
Mu wave - Wikipedia
**goes back to staring at a blank wall like a good little Zen practitioner**
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If you ask a human egotist what exists without you?

Everything created in natural states.

Theorising is imposing beliefs of knowing everything. Then the egotists says but I don't know everything hence now I am not egotistical.

No you are just lying coercing self.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
These dudes are from Perimeter, so a) that means this paper isn't BS
Not that it matters much, but the paper was published in Physical Review Letters (I can provide you with the PRL version if you want it; I haven't checked to see if it differs at all from the arXiv version).

It should be noted that the authors propose free choice is experimentally falsifiable and I am not able to find attempts past 2012 where this has been attempted.
There are several of various sorts. A few you might find interesting include:
Handsteiner, J., Friedman, A. S., Rauch, D., Gallicchio, J., Liu, B., Hosp, H., ... & Zeilinger, A. (2017). Cosmic bell test: measurement settings from milky way stars. Physical review letters, 118(6), 060401.
Wu, C., Bai, B., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Yang, M., Cao, Y., ... & Pan, J. W. (2017). Random number generation with cosmic photons. Physical review letters, 118(14), 140402.
The BIG Bell Test Collaboration. Challenging local realism with human choices. Nature 557, 212–216 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0085-3
I've attached the first two but ran into size limits with the third.
However, it should be noted that
1) You can't actually ultimately close this loophole in its strongest form of superdeterminism and
2) As I stated in an earlier post, Renner and co-author are suggesting an ontic interpretation (of sorts; as you are no doubt aware this gets murky quickly) but one in which the wave function is irreducibly statistical.
 

Attachments

  • Random Number Generation with Cosmic Photons.pdf
    591.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Cosmic Bell Test. Measurement Settings from Milky Way Stars.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
In theory only science human men expressed gave itself Multi answers to multi thoughts.

Subject visionary. Intent spirit hence intent is not reality. Theists and theism itself.

Who stated impractical God theories their own persons.

Hence natural humans non scientists human first had to learn ways to argue against you.

Seeing everyone is an equal natural same one first a human.

Theism said spatial opening by consuming suns own larger bodies consuming than existing mass.

As space opens it increases space by consumption yet stretches due to heating causes then contracts as mass is removed so cold space takes the place of pre existing mass consumed.

The womb.

One day space the open looping function removal of form should shut as the end of creation itself.

By cause effect space pressure versus remaining mass.

Then he said in theory I should find my own self back in the eternal form only with the creation experience finished with. Seeing creation is only inside a womb space.

I expect it occurring anytime I convert mass as surely that moment the end in creation itself would occur.

One of many men in science thesis answers.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Not that it matters much, but the paper was published in Physical Review Letters (I can provide you with the PRL version if you want it; I haven't checked to see if it differs at all from the arXiv version).


There are several of various sorts. A few you might find interesting include:
Handsteiner, J., Friedman, A. S., Rauch, D., Gallicchio, J., Liu, B., Hosp, H., ... & Zeilinger, A. (2017). Cosmic bell test: measurement settings from milky way stars. Physical review letters, 118(6), 060401.
Wu, C., Bai, B., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Yang, M., Cao, Y., ... & Pan, J. W. (2017). Random number generation with cosmic photons. Physical review letters, 118(14), 140402.
The BIG Bell Test Collaboration. Challenging local realism with human choices. Nature 557, 212–216 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0085-3
I've attached the first two but ran into size limits with the third.
However, it should be noted that
1) You can't actually ultimately close this loophole in its strongest form of superdeterminism and
2) As I stated in an earlier post, Renner and co-author are suggesting an ontic interpretation (of sorts; as you are no doubt aware this gets murky quickly) but one in which the wave function is irreducibly statistical.

Thank you for this, I should be able to get the third through uni. These are going into my "fun" folder in Zotero. You know. All the stuff you wish you were doing something with, but, alas, are just relegated to reading :(
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Status one a fixed state.

Rare state.

Most states are ever changing.

So a hole is a fixed state when mass is removed by one state that changes every type of body....the hole not consuming it was caused.

Mind says the hole is the higher state after.
Hot consuming state activated for change.

That state science already knew was the one and only state that could change all forms of HELD variations in one condition.

Sink holes prove a hole becomes a fixed state.

Science said any looping condition remains open as mass passing through it moves into deeper emptier space the voided vacuum. Cooling.

As space is itself empty mass hence can never fill it up and shut it out as energy consumed itself in forces of changes.

Space a hole as a space however can be removed when it becomes a bigger space in space by cooling as mass disappears in consuming.

As change is change as change is a law.

Chaos ever changing said science.

Change is a known law instant.

Holding was still changing.

So science said earth was sealed as it's body form was still ever changing.

Reasons science said it preached laws first so that wrong scientist science could not argue.. as only natural was accepted science.

Theme the eternal spirit when no creation existed was innocent of being notified what research and change meant. Natural first.

Learnt.

So we all were taught via inheriting spirit change and own no excuse to destroy. Basic self advice.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Not that it matters much, but the paper was published in Physical Review Letters (I can provide you with the PRL version if you want it; I haven't checked to see if it differs at all from the arXiv version).


There are several of various sorts. A few you might find interesting include:
Handsteiner, J., Friedman, A. S., Rauch, D., Gallicchio, J., Liu, B., Hosp, H., ... & Zeilinger, A. (2017). Cosmic bell test: measurement settings from milky way stars. Physical review letters, 118(6), 060401.
Wu, C., Bai, B., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Yang, M., Cao, Y., ... & Pan, J. W. (2017). Random number generation with cosmic photons. Physical review letters, 118(14), 140402.
The BIG Bell Test Collaboration. Challenging local realism with human choices. Nature 557, 212–216 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0085-3
I've attached the first two but ran into size limits with the third.
However, it should be noted that
1) You can't actually ultimately close this loophole in its strongest form of superdeterminism and
2) As I stated in an earlier post, Renner and co-author are suggesting an ontic interpretation (of sorts; as you are no doubt aware this gets murky quickly) but one in which the wave function is irreducibly statistical.

By the way, I’m glad to see you again. A long time ago we talked about grad school… like 2013. It has taken me a long road to finally get there. I see you have been growing this whole time. I don’t regret the years I did other things, but I do regret still working on this so late.
 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
There is consensus by a number of today's working Physicists that the wavefunction is far more fundamental than the appearing world. For example, Brian Greene recognizes this fact. If it were not the case then photons would not form a pattern of constructive and destructive interference when they hit the detection screen in the double slit experiment. The only thing that prevents us from acknowledging this fact is our faith in materialism.

No doubt Q.E.D has something to say about the probabilistic interpretation of QM as well.

Personally, I would call "God" the conscious wavefunction that reflexively responds to thought as evidenced by my supernatural experiences. Although it is more difficult to prove, logic takes priority over observation just as mind takes priority over matter.
 
Last edited:
Top