Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

tama

(9,137 posts)
7. Anybody
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 03:38 PM
Mar 2012

who follows the research can understand that causal link, and that the causal link is not just linear but also codependent:


The resolution of this paradox suggested by Bryce DeWitt is rather instructive (DeWitt, 1967). The notion of evolution is not applicable to the universe as a whole since there is no external observer with respect to the universe, and there is no external clock that does not belong to the universe. However, we do not actually ask why the universe as a whole is evolving. We are just trying to understand our own experimental data. Thus, a more precisely formulated question is why do we see the universe evolving in time in a given way. In order to answer this question one should first divide the universe into two main pieces: i) an observer with his clock and other measuring devices and ii) the rest of the universe. Then it can be shown that the wave function of the rest of the universe does depend on the state of the clock of the observer, i.e. on his ‘time’. This time dependence in some sense is ‘objective’: the results obtained by different (macroscopic) observers living in the same quantum state of the universe and using sufficiently good (macroscopic) measuring apparatus agree with each other.

Thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time. This example demonstrates an unusually important role played by the concept of an observer in quantum cosmology. John Wheeler underscored the complexity of the situation, replacing the word observer by the word participant, and introducing such terms as a ‘self-observing universe’.

Most of the time, when discussing quantum cosmology, one can remain entirely within the bounds set by purely physical categories, regarding an observer simply as an automaton, and not dealing with questions of whether he/she/it has consciousness or feels anything during the process of observation. This limitation is harmless for many practical purposes. But we cannot rule out the possibility that carefully avoiding the concept of consciousness in quantum cosmology may lead to an artificial narrowing of our outlook.


Inflation, Quantum Cosmology
and the Anthropic Principle
Andrei Linde
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0211048v2

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

However, it would be a big mistake... longship Mar 2012 #1
Straight to the point tama Mar 2012 #3
Is coherence selected or a structural by-product? Jim__ Mar 2012 #4
Wider context tama Mar 2012 #8
I'm not sure why you would begin by looking at a wider context. Jim__ Mar 2012 #15
To begin with tama Mar 2012 #16
A couple of thoughts. Jim__ Mar 2012 #33
A clarification tama Mar 2012 #36
Lack of any supporting data longship Mar 2012 #5
The word "decoherence" tama Mar 2012 #6
This is complete and utter rubbish longship Mar 2012 #9
But, but... someone was wrong about something before... Silent3 Mar 2012 #11
I disagree tama Mar 2012 #13
Your endless devotion to vagueness is certainly amusing, however. Silent3 Mar 2012 #17
Why don't you even try? tama Mar 2012 #19
You seem to be getting different posters confused Silent3 Mar 2012 #20
Flattering ad hominem, thanks for that tama Mar 2012 #28
I have no problem with people trying to understand "quantum" Silent3 Mar 2012 #29
You are making up tama Mar 2012 #31
New Age? longship Mar 2012 #32
Pseudoskepticism tama Mar 2012 #45
Thank you. Thank you. And THANK YOU!!! nt Joseph8th Mar 2012 #40
Nice tama Mar 2012 #12
Sorry! Your post makes no physical sense longship Mar 2012 #18
First tama Mar 2012 #24
Tama, I'm with you longship Mar 2012 #30
Well that's clearly wrong bananas Mar 2012 #34
Wonderful take down longship Mar 2012 #35
Quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, superconductors are some other examples bananas Mar 2012 #48
Please! It's bad enough to tarnish QM... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #41
Gödel tama Mar 2012 #43
Looking for a ToE ... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #46
Abstract tama Mar 2012 #47
Not sure why I'm bothering, but... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #49
Some good points tama Mar 2012 #50
Heheh... Cantor's Paradise... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #53
LOL - "mathematical theorems ... bear no relation to physics" bananas Mar 2012 #51
Math is not physics... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #52
Physics is NOT illogical or irrational... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #54
I didn't know there were Militant Holists, now... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #38
LOL tama Mar 2012 #39
OMG... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #42
Condencending tone tama Mar 2012 #44
Anybody tama Mar 2012 #7
Hmm. DeWitt. Interesting longship Mar 2012 #10
First tama Mar 2012 #14
Okay, I'm with you on all except the "observer" longship Mar 2012 #21
Well, I think there's more to the "observer" unless you're effectively redefining the term caraher Mar 2012 #22
Touché, Zurek is above my pay grade longship Mar 2012 #23
I do think we're broadly in agreement caraher Mar 2012 #26
Thanks tama Mar 2012 #27
See post 24 for answer to also this n/t tama Mar 2012 #25
Delayed choice experiment tama Mar 2012 #37
So Stuart Kaufmann is still working.. arendt Mar 2012 #2
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Quantum Biology and the P...»Reply #7