The mystical Copenhagen Interpretation

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Copenhagen Interpretation gives back to humanity what the 'Age of Enlightenment' has taken away from them.
Even though the Copenhagen Interpretation does not say anything about consciousness it opened a door for mystical interpretations.
'The observer' being a central issue of the theory, the universe can be interpreted as something that only exists if there is a conscious mind observing it.
The western society has been thirsting for an idea like that.
I see two major insults coming from the age of enlightenment that had to be compensated:
First the copernican principle literally kicked humans out of the center of the universe.
Historians sometimes talk about a copernican shock.
Second the Darwinian evolutionory theory which showed humans how close to apes (and other animals) they actually are.
These two factors plus being left behind in a universe without god created a vacuum that has been waiting to be filled somehow.
The Copenhagen Interpretation turned out to be perfect for that.
If the world only exists when there is an observer, it puts us back into the center of the universe.
We are not only part of the universe, we are even creating it by our observation. The existence of the universe even depends on us.
This idea is filling the gap of meaninglessness.
No matter how much truth lies in this concept: It is clear why it has been welcomed with a warm embrace.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 10,814 • Replies: 151

No top replies

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;65904 wrote:

Even though the Copenhagen Interpretation does not say anything about consciousness it opened a door for mystical interpretations.

"Consciousness is the Ground of All Being!" -Copenhagen interpretation of QM

And coincides with millennia of mysticism.

Prepare for the defenders of their 'beliefs' to come in howling about false interpretations (as if they even had the ability to have a clue, amongst all those 'beliefs', of QM) and all the other pathological argument/noise with no real content that 'believers' feel the need to 'offer' (beliefs must survive and propagate).
They will probably 'sink' the thread.
Perhaps not...
Like the pigeon that played chess; it knocks over the pieces, poops on the board, and flies back to the flock claiming victory! *__-

1 Reply

@nameless,

nameless;65937 wrote:

Like the pigeon that played chess; it knocks over the pieces, poops on the board, and flies back to the flock claiming victory! *__-

Funny picture :bigsmile:
I have seen threads like that in other forums, yes i had a few of my own being abused this way. So i am kind of prepared.
Although up until now i was very happy to see the members of this corner being extremely well educated, behaving super tolerant and giving answers on really (really!) highly sophisticated levels. (For example look at Bones-O who is a quantum physicist earning his living as such, as oppose to all those quantum popes in other forums that i got to know.)
It almost looks as if there had been a selection taking place.
That was the part of it that i got to know so far.
What you describe however also sounds familiar from other corners on the internet.
My guess would be that the audience here turns out to be actually more sophisticated than elsewhere.
Anyway this is not a game that is going to be won by anyone.
I have stopped seeing any objection as a challenge.
I do not have to convience anybody anymore.
I do not claim ultimate truth.
Which reminds me it took me a while to realize that you also do not claim ultimate truth.
I am still thinking about your philosophy of truth to be found everywhere.
How do you deal with different theories contradicting each other?
Do you consider all of them to be true?

Not long ago, in a german forum i started a thread which was a dismantling of our concepts of objective and subjective truth.
This was in fact a disaster, because what happened to it was precisely what you described above.
Too bad.
Maybe i should translate the intro and post it here, see what happens.

2 Replies

@Exebeche,

Stumbling around in the dark.... help me get this through my skull.

By measuring a wavelength, the probability of that wavelength being found in a certain condition is altered to fit the measurement.

To measure is to alter.

How do we go from recognizing that our interaction with the universe alters the universe to the claim that the universe only exists if a conscious mind exists to observe the universe?

I'm familiar with a Copernican shock, but there was also a response: Descartes, for example, did not merely place man at the center of the universe, he made mind's existence (mind being man's essential nature) independent of the universe. This drive to place man in the center of the universe or as the most important constituent of the universe (so important that without us the universe does not exist) is worrisome.

Any thoughts on whether or not this QM outlook is epiphenomenal?

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

Cheers for the big-up Exebeche. Glad to know I've been of help.

Copenhagen, in a way, is a very minimalist interpretation of QM that nonetheless places importance on the observer. One of the criticisms of the interpretation is that, because measurements must yield classical results, the observer is treated classically in Copenhagen, which is a bit of a problem when it comes to the observer's relation to the probabilistic wavefunction collapse - a very quantum phenomenon.

A successor to Copenhagen is Many Worlds Interpretation, often nick-named 'Copenhagen done right'. I'm sure you'll have heard of this idea - it's been a very popular science fiction conceit for decades. I'm sure, too, you'll probably share my skepticism. MWI kind of removes some of the importance of the observer established in Copenhagen too.

An interesting and relatively new variant is relational quantum mechanics (RQM). Here's a Wiki link:

Relational quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got heavily involved in much heated debate in this when it was published in the mid-90's by a man named Rovelli. The MWI folk hate it, it seems, because it is basically equivilent to MWI. However it does not depend on fanciful infinite universes and the relationship between observer and measured system is much more along Copenhagen lines, so I often think of this as 'Copenhagen done right' done right. I'm sure you'll be interested in the subject.

I'm not a proponent of RQM, though. My feeling on observer-system relationships is that it is much less mystical than some readings of Copenhagen describe, and much less subjective than RQM. But it is a fascinating philosophical idea, and quite rigorous imo. It hasn't caught on much, but that is probably a problem of chronology - since it says little MWI doesn't, people tend to stick with MWI, and if they don't like MWI they won't like RQM. Take a look, though.

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;66081 wrote:

How do you deal with different theories contradicting each other?
Do you consider all of them to be true?

'Perspectives (us) are all unique, all having (mirror-like) equal and opposite Perspectives.'
We are all seeing the same 'elephant', but seeing it from different angles, Perspectives. Looking at it in a certain way, egoPerspective, for instance, finds us in a 'right'/'wrong' attitude. If your vision differs from mine re: the elephant, you must be 'incorrect/wrong'.

The new world is 'win/win/win rather then the old 'win/lose'.
I see every Perspective as an existent feature of the complete Universe/existence. So, generally, when the ego isn't 'running for office', I find all Perspectives to be true, at least from that Perspective, and also as a feature of the complete 'Reality'!

I have found that a discussion can be more 'fruitful' if I actually attempt to understand and see things as/from the Perspective offering his 'conflicting' view of the 'other side of the elephant'. I find compassion and empathy to be part of such a Perspective. 'Empathy' is actually sharing the same Perspective as another. Not complete, but definitely an 'overlapping'.

'Theories' being Perspective specific. 'Theories' seem to be like religions. They have their following of devotees/believers, for whom no amount of critical thought will sway from their 'theory-identity', nor should it.
So, depending on the moment/perspect, i find all is 'true' in context. No one is 'right' or 'wrong' but to/as Perspectives that perceive their corner of the elephant in such terms (ego).

So, not believing any (-thing) 'theories', and realizing the nature of existence/Universe as/is the sum-total of all Perspectives (best tentative theory yet), I guess that I'd be the quintessential 'liberal'. hahaha *__-
So, thats how i 'deal' with such apparent contradictions. I can see too many Perspectives for me to imagine the fallacy of championing any particular one. This one is different from moment to moment sometimes.

Actually, it seems the more Perspectives one 'understands' the more one tends to remain 'silent', hence; "The Tao that can be spoken, is not the Tao!" - Lao Tsu - "Those who 'know' do not speak, those who speak do not know!".

Quote:

Not long ago, in a german forum i started a thread which was a dismantling of our concepts of objective and subjective truth.

Haha.. sounds like it might have been fun (at first). *__-
Also not hard to support the (true/false) 'distinctions' as you, no doubt, have found. Though it rarely seems to be 'critical thought'/philosophy or science that supports such notions. More emotions and beliefs in support. People calls em as they sees em. 'Notions' that are, by the way, both true and false and both true and false and neither! Depends on Perspective/context.

Quote:

This was in fact a disaster, because what happened to it was precisely what you described above.
Too bad.

As 'critical thought' and 'belief' are diametrically opposed, one cannot have a logico-rational examination (discussion) of someone's 'beliefs'. The greater the belief, the less the possibility.
It gets frustrating (as egos are involved).
It gets ugly. (ditto)
I have found that discussions between non-believers (or believers) tend to be much more peaceful...

****************************

And, despite 'believers' (yes, even 'physists'/scientists can have their cognitive abilities obscured by their egoic and emotionally supported 'beliefs'..) and unsupportable hypotheses, there would be no existence, no Universe, without Conscious Perspective (us); perceiver and perceived are one. It can certainly be said that metaphorically, all Perspectives can be considered a 'unique world', as all Perspectives are unique, and, all together = the Universe.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;66088 wrote:

Stumbling around in the dark.... help me get this through my skull.

By measuring a wavelength, the probability of that wavelength being found in a certain condition is altered to fit the measurement.

To measure is to alter.

Hello Didymos Thomas,

what you describe may be correct, but not the reason for the Kopenhagen Interpretation being used as a mystical concept.
When you throw a coin and afterwards measure the output, there might be an altering of the calculation taking place formally.
However the point about QM is that the double slit experiment reveals what seems to be a paradox:
If unmeasured the particles have an undisturbed life as waves.
If measured however they turn out to be particles, which is understood as a contradiction to the first sentence.
The experiment seems to show that the observation induces an irreversible change of the object's nature.
That's like you try to measure the coin while still rotating in the air , and after measuring it it's physically gone, but apppears on your bankaccount.
People read this as the bare observation already having an impact on reality. Or actually reality being caused (changed) by any observation made by a consciousness.
And thus reality being a product of our mind. Reality being stuck if there is no consciousness to observe it.
Compared to what Descartes offered this is a magic world as oppose to a magic wand.

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

http://www.global-mindshift.com/discover/Memebase/The%20American%20Scholar%20-%20A%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Universe%20-%20By%20Robert%20Lanza.pdf

2 Replies

@memester,

memester;69425 wrote:

http://www.global-mindshift.com/discover/Memebase/The%20American%20Scholar%20-%20A%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Universe%20-%20By%20Robert%20Lanza.pdf

Thanx for the link.
All roads do lead to Rome eventually.
Truth is One.

1 Reply

@nameless,

Welcome.
here's another, in response to the inferences got from the Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V16NO2PDF/V16N2CRO.pdf

Athens, rather than Rome; it's all Greek to me

Quote:

"Those who 'know' do not speak, those who speak do not know!"

Does this mean that when he spoke of this he didn't know ?

2 Replies

@memester,

This is the strangest experiment that I have come across:

"The results, reported this week in Science, prove that the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter, Roch says. Rather, the experimenter decides only later, when he decides whether to put in the second beam splitter. In a sense, at that moment, he chooses his reality."

After a Short Delay, Quantum Mechanics Becomes Even Weirder -- Cho 2007 (216): 4 -- ScienceNOW

Rich

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;69472 wrote:

Welcome.
here's another, in response to the inferences got from the Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V16NO2PDF/V16N2CRO.pdf

Thanx. I'll check it out.

Quote:

Quote:
"Those who 'know' do not speak, those who speak do not know!"

Does this mean that when he spoke of this he didn't know ?

No, it seems more like a disclaimer.
Besides, it ~is~ true! (only 'experience' can perceive that Truth) and false! and both! and neither!... it all depends on the Perspective;

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;69486 wrote:

This is the strangest experiment that I have come across:

"The results, reported this week in Science, prove that the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter, Roch says. Rather, the experimenter decides only later, when he decides whether to put in the second beam splitter. In a sense, at that moment, he chooses his reality."

After a Short Delay, Quantum Mechanics Becomes Even Weirder -- Cho 2007 (216): 4 -- ScienceNOW

Rich

that's what Lanza is "on about"; reverse causality you might say.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;69425 wrote:

http://www.global-mindshift.com/discover/Memebase/The%20American%20Scholar%20-%20A%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Universe%20-%20By%20Robert%20Lanza.pdf

Thank you for the link memester.
I enjoyed reading it first of all, but some minutes ago i was shocked to wake up after at least one hour of really deep sleep in front of my computer (unfortunately my armchair allows such incidents).
It's certainly not the fault of the author because i DID find the article exciting, however.. what can i say.
Looking at the screen i recall having read the words on page 4 of 12 "We are like Loren Eisely's moth, blundering from light to light..." This must have been precisely the point that took me to other dimensions blundering from light to light..
Now if i continue reading it, i'm afraid, who knows when i will wake up, i might not even hear my alarm in the morning.
Would you mind giving a short summary of what makes this (actually nice to read) text different from other descriptions of the Kopenhagen interpretation? I will certainly continue reading it in the morning hours, but it's so much more delight for readers who do not have the time and patience to read all of it, to be informed early enough about wether or not this article (even though a pleasure to read) contains any news for them.
Posting a link that contains all you wanted to say sure makes everything much easier but the real dialogue takes place in the forum itself and can not be replaced by links to well written documents.
I'm sure you won't see this as an offense and looking forward to your answer.
Smile

2 Replies

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;69951 wrote:

Posting a link that contains all you wanted to say sure makes everything much easier but the real dialogue takes place in the forum itself and can not be replaced by links to well written documents.

There is a considerable difference between an 'ignorant/uninformed' (opinion) dialog on the forum, and an educated, well researched (by all concerned parties) discussion. Then, we can, perhaps, 'push the envelope' a bit.
We rather not waste time arguing whether the earth is flat or not, eh?
Some of these links have taken me days to read and digest (bad eyes, old brain). Now that one returns with this 'new' understanding, would it not be reasonable for others involved in the discussion to so educate themselves, also, so all can discuss from the 'same page'?

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;69951 wrote:

Thank you for the link memester.
I enjoyed reading it first of all, but some minutes ago i was shocked to wake up after at least one hour of really deep sleep in front of my computer (unfortunately my armchair allows such incidents).
It's certainly not the fault of the author because i DID find the article exciting, however.. what can i say.
Looking at the screen i recall having read the words on page 4 of 12 "We are like Loren Eisely's moth, blundering from light to light..." This must have been precisely the point that took me to other dimensions blundering from light to light..
Now if i continue reading it, i'm afraid, who knows when i will wake up, i might not even hear my alarm in the morning.
Would you mind giving a short summary of what makes this (actually nice to read) text different from other descriptions of the Kopenhagen interpretation? I will certainly continue reading it in the morning hours, but it's so much more delight for readers who do not have the time and patience to read all of it, to be informed early enough about wether or not this article (even though a pleasure to read) contains any news for them.
Posting a link that contains all you wanted to say sure makes everything much easier but the real dialogue takes place in the forum itself and can not be replaced by links to well written documents.
I'm sure you won't see this as an offense and looking forward to your answer.

I'm not sure that it was explicit within the article, but an above post contained it. You see what Lanza is on about. The experiment showed what might be called "reverse cauality" the action was determined after the event by the subsequent action of the viewer.

I already tried to post but my messages are being screened for some reason. Hope this one makes it through.

edit: it did make it through, probably because I used my reverse causality button this time.

Quote:

richrf said: This is the strangest experiment that I have come across:

"The results, reported this week in Science, prove that the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter, Roch says. Rather, the experimenter decides only later, when he decides whether to put in the second beam splitter. In a sense, at that moment, he chooses his reality."

After a Short Delay, Quantum Mechanics Becomes Even Weirder -- Cho 2007 (216): 4 -- ScienceNOW

plus I just post a link if I know it's good but I don't have a clue what it means :a-ok: I'm afraid my circumlocutory skills are below par.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless;69954 wrote:

There is a considerable difference between an 'ignorant/uninformed' (opinion) dialog on the forum, and an educated, well researched (by all concerned parties) discussion. Then, we can, perhaps, 'push the envelope' a bit.
We rather not waste time arguing whether the earth is flat or not, eh?
Some of these links have taken me days to read and digest (bad eyes, old brain). Now that one returns with this 'new' understanding, would it not be reasonable for others involved in the discussion to so educate themselves, also, so all can discuss from the 'same page'?

It is not a valid argument in a discussion to say "i know it because i read a book about it", and neither is it appropriate in a discussion to put a book on the table and expect the others to read it.
From an educated person we can expect to be able to say in a few sentences which message of the book makes it relevant for the conversation.
When a scientific discussion in form of writing takes place there is a long cultivated tradition of using quotes to give a reader quick access to the original source that one refers to.
Furthermore in modern times of internet discussions an additional link to a website that adds to the topic can certainly be an enrichment when it is served as a side dish.
But it is definitely a loss of culture when people think instead of using your own words you can post a link to anywhere and expect everyone else to read the whole sermon to get on the same level before continuing the conversation. A level that is considered a level of education but often turns out to be nothing more than an arrogant attitude.
It's just as arrogant as the growing trend of using acronyms and considering anyone who doesn't understand them on a lower level of sophistication.
If you want to read everything that is being posted, why not?
But apart from that posting links with no comment is uncultured.
(Which is a general statement and not to be understood as a personal offense.)

2 Replies

@Exebeche,

I see your point , but on the other hand, I think it's great if someone comes in and tosses a box of Tim Horton's ( Canadians eat these donuts daily) on the table without a word.
Who needs the anal verbosity when it's good stuff coming down the tube ?
Of course, in cases like this you don't know what's in the box...but if you opened a box of what is presumed to be donuts and it's poop, you don't let the person back in. If they say it's donuts and it's poop, that doesn't change the joke in any significant way.

With donuts you might want to let those with more refined manners know they can have some, so that they don't miss out.
In this case, the box never gets empty, and you'll catch on.:bigsmile:

Culture is relative.
In some cases, silence is golden.
I have offered the story in the link ( although it was a slightly different write-up) at other forums along with an introduction, and nobody ever liked it.
I actually thought about it and decided to try without, maybe it would be better received without my words along with it.
I had a touch of the narcolepsy myself, : I drove about ten miles of highway whilst asleep. the only problem was that I had exited on a cloverleaf and got back on in the opposite direction I was traveling in.

so anyhow...:shifty: do I owe you a box of tissues for the drool cleanup ?
p.s. that's always a problem for me when I drowse out in a chair.

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;70042 wrote:

It is not a valid argument in a discussion to say "i know it because i read a book about it",

Your 'strawman' fallacy fails, as I never said, as you erroneously quote; "i know it because i read a book about it"
Are you arguing for an argument from ignorance?

Quote:

and neither is it appropriate in a discussion to put a book on the table and expect the others to read it.

It is reasonable, for an intelligent discussion to take place, a 'back and forth' of good information and understanding, that both parties be educated on the subject. Otherwise we have a 'teacher/student' relationship.
If I am discussing ideas foreign or difficult to you, and reading a short offered paper would educate you sufficiently to have an informed discussion (both being on the 'same page', so to speak), resistence to reading that paper could mean that;
a) you really aren't interested enough in the discussion to bother. Well and fine, just state such.
b) the offered paper was too difficult to understand and required assistence which was unavailable (or other problems along those lines). One can just discuss the parts that one understands.
c) One is attached to one's 'beliefs' and refuses to acknowledge that which might 'threaten' those 'beliefs'.

Quote:

From an educated person we can expect to be able to say in a few sentences which message of the book makes it relevant for the conversation.

I never suggested reading a book. Stop misrepresenting my words.
One means of being an "educated person" is reading.
Reading a preferred paper (or book) is gaining access to the 'evidence' that we can then, here, discuss. If you have not seen nor contemplated the evidence that is being examined, you cannot meaningfully contribute to the examination conversation.

Quote:

But it is definitely a loss of culture when people think instead of using your own words you can post a link to anywhere and expect everyone else to read the whole sermon to get on the same level before continuing the conversation.

"Loss of culture"... quaint.
When someone elegantly and clearly writes a paper or a book on a subject that clearly defines what oneself wishes to say, yet one can only barely approach such elegant and concise work with an endless eruption of words, offering that paper for perusal is reasonable, for all that care, in furtherance of an educated and fruitful discussion. Otherwise, if you cannot or refuse to read what other interested parties have read, it seems logical that you would be relegated to either 'lurking' and listening and examining what is being said by those who understand the material, or tossing tangential comments for whatever reasons.

Quote:

But apart from that posting links with no comment is uncultured.

What a trivial and irrelevent complaint.

Quote:

(Which is a general statement and not to be understood as a personal offense.)

Other than that I find it trivial and meaningless, I think that it is rare that folks here intend to offend.
Sometimes, simply posting the link is adequate. If interested, and able, read it. If not and/or not, just ignore it.
Just to allay your implications, I never claimed 'culture' (whatever that is..), I do claim 'honesty', though, something undervalued to obsolescence in the amerikkkan "culture"!

2 Replies

@nameless,

Reverse causality:
If a photon can be made to behave differently as an effect caused by behaviour of the observer, after the event, is it not therefore possible that belief may cause ?
The observer, believing something, sees an event a certain way, and thus it is so ? For the first time demonstrably so ?

0 Replies

The mystical Copenhagen Interpretation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know