Posted: Oct 06, 2017 6:58 pm
GrahamH wrote:jamest wrote:Rumraket wrote:GrahamH wrote:I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.
Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.
But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation.
But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions DON'T happen beyond the observation.
This is incorrect, as nowhere here within this thread have I stated such nor even claimed that a 'real world' does not exist. Note that my involvement here was initiated precisely to undermine Rumraket's dismissal of the OP, which he evidently bases on some knowledge of events beyond that of those which can be observed. No such knowledge is possible. Also, in my previous post I explained why his appeal to expectation/prediction had no consequences [for 'reality'] other than for order, which is not in dispute, but which itself does not suffice to prove the existence of material [events].
The bottom-line is that we can dismiss his dismissal of the OP for the reasons he has provided, regardless of whether I prove diddly squat. I'm playing the part of Socrates here, not Plato.
Clearly you are in error Such experiments offer NO support for non-occurrence of phenomena.
I haven't actually stated that they have; although [I will now say] I do think that there is sufficient physical evidence to show that observation effects physical definiteness for [what we have been informed are] essentially indefinite quanta, which imo suffices to prove that 'definite material existence' only occurs within observation.
If you/anyone else doesn't think that then you certainly haven't provided any credible reasons for doing so.