Posted: Oct 06, 2017 7:16 pm
jamest wrote:GrahamH wrote:jamest wrote:Rumraket wrote:
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.
You just contradicted yourself by making a categorical statement about something you just acknowledged cannot be known.
You also posted this rash assertion
jamest wrote:
If I play Call of Duty, I know that around the next corner there'll be German soldiers waiting to shoot my character, but I also happen to know that there'll be no Germans there until I arrive. It's the ordering of the software which yields expected events, not the fact that 'real Germans' are running around waiting for me.
... The same principle applies here in our world, such that what you say about Venus and rocks etc. does not suffice to prove that the world actually exists beyond the observation of it/them. Not one bit. What you say has no consequence beyond order... and the ordering of this world is not in dispute.