Why does Quantum Mechanics support Mind-Body Dualism?

>That post is true
moron. I'm not even reading the rest of your post

[...]
If interaction alone collapsed the state, then when the particle-wave moves forward and passes through the material that the two slits are cut into, the wavefuction would touch and interact with THAT materiel/wall, and collapse, and not continue to propagate beyond it, would never pass through the two slits and interfere with itself as it continues propagating and then slap into the back wall where we see the interference pattern. It would collapse the moment it hit the original wall that the two slits are cut into.

It is not the case that "interaction" causes collapse, as "interacting" with that wall that the two slits are cut into does not collapse the wave-function. The only thing that causes collapse is a form of interaction where information can be collected/gained by an intelligent or conscious observer that can eventually gain information about the state. It is inherently tied to the gain in information from the experimenter and not tied to that gain in information of any non-specific material or measuring device.

Moronic post based on a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

It is, because you think "wave function collapse" is a real thing. Not to mention that you've never studied quantum mechanics and simply write moronic paragraphs based on your moronic popsci knowledge

I'm not arguing for "Everett" you moron. What I'm arguing for is the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Yet another demonstration of your moronation.

This is why we shouldn't let morons use the internet

How do you explain the double slit experiment without wave function collapse

What a nonsense interpretation, detectors do not cause entanglement

Basic quantum mechanics is Copenhagen, you are talking off your ass from an alternative view, not mainstream view.

Rephrase your question more coherently please

It's the detector near the slits. I don't know how you could possibly not understand this.

>but not any other system of particles that interact with it?
Who said other things don't? The screen at the other end entangles with the particles too for example.

Which other systems are you talking about here?

They too can cause loss of interference on how strong those interactions are. If you throw a baseball through a double slit, it doesn't interfere with itself because of the interactions between the 10^23 particles of the baseball.

So then why do you need the detector to kill interference? Why do you never see a loss of interference caused by the various atoms composing the air or the photons and other particles being showered and interacting with the particle as it moves across the space of the experiment.
Why do you only see loss of interference with this detector? The detector does not uniquely touch or interact with the particles compared to any other system of particles during the experiment.

For the purposes of the experiment, the wall can be treated as an infinite potential barrier with two wells corresponding to the two slits. That's how the walls influence the particles

Meds

So then why do you need the detector to kill interference? Why do you never see a loss of interference caused by the various atoms composing the air or the photons and other particles being showered and interacting with the particle as it moves across the space of the experiment.
Why do you only see loss of interference with this detector? The detector does not uniquely touch or interact with the particles compared to any other system of particles during the experiment.

>Why do you never see a loss of interference caused by the various atoms composing the air
They do, if these interactions are strong enough. Your premises are all wrong

There is no "threshold". As the interactions go from weak to strong, the pattern on the screen changes continuously from a wavelike pattern to a particle like pattern

Not necessarily, what needs to happen is that the relative phases between different positions of the particle needs to be suppressed for the interference pattern to disappear.

Yes, because that's what it would be designed to do.

See https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.3529947
for example

More like misinterpretation of basic quantum mechanics

Your trump references stopped being funny 5 years ago. Grow up

It has a very easy to understand meaning

There is no flaw in that sentence.

This is why we shouldn't let morons use the internet

You're not arguing anything that's correct

No argument. There is nothing I'm saying that is against QFT or the results of any experiement

An object that exists on its own and moves mechanistically, pretty sure that's matter.

Looks like matter. What else can it be? Also it's observed as macroscopic objects and those were historically believed to be material.
>Also, the field doesn't move at all
It moves according to the Schrodinger equation that describes change of the field's state over time.

Electrons have finite size in string theory. Zero size was just an assumption within measurement precision.

Because our measurement equipment can't differentiate small electrons and zero size electrons. In any case electrons are waves in the field, so it doesn't make much sense to talk about their size.

Expecting arbitrary physical properties just because you slapped an arbitrary word "particle" on it is semantics. But semantic tricks can give you anything too, they are meaningless.

"They are because my ideology says so" is not a valid answer. If your theory was any good it would explain the why.

Tests currently don't differentiate between small particles and zero size particles. And I bet QED tests are consistent with QFT, where electrons are waves in the field.

Matter has inherent volume and size, fields have no such thing, they aren't matter, other things that are also not matter are for example: dark energy, photons, gluons, gravitational waves and dark matter(dark matter is only hypothetical matter), materialism has no basis in reality because matter is not fundamental.

>materialism has nothing to do with matter
What?

Materialism has only to do with matter.
Materialism is not a philosophy about just any mechanistic entity or object

I think you should take your meds

Pretty sure field confined by volume V has volume V.
>materialism has no basis in reality because matter is not fundamental
You just have crazy definition of matter.

An object that exists on its own and moves mechanistically.

Independently from human mind, souls, schizos, observers and other astrological things like that.

>all energy is subject to the CMB
That's not how energy works

I wasn't the one who said that, I was just pointing out that you don't understand physics

You asked "what do you mean by X" when I hadn't even stated X. By clarifying that, I did answer your question.

Energy came from the big bang, the cmb confirmed that, it is how energy works.

Classical analogy for entanglement is synchronized clocks showing the same time at any time.

Physics isn't about words, it's about things. If you want to argue about words go to

[...]

>What is a thing?
It's a composite of the elementary entities in physics.

>standard particles are things?
You mean the particles in the standard model? Of course

Uhhhh wtf, every physicist agrees that they're things

Energy came from the big bang, the cmb confirmed that, it is how energy works.

That's not how the big bang works, that's not how energy works, that's not how the CMB works, that's not how science works

Looks like you have to (re)learn physics

>That's not how the big bang works, that's not how energy works, that's not how the CMB works, that's not how science works
Saying "nuh uh" is not an argument

Not an argument, leave IQfy and never comeback you obviously don't belong here

You are clown for the simple fact of bringing up a concept like "materialism" which is purely philosophical concept and has nothing to do with science or math

Show me a peer reviewed scientific paper that says materialism is science or true, you won't find any, materialism is not science and math, moron.

If materialism is science or math why you can't provide peer reviewed scientific papers about it, ah right you can't because materialism is only philosophical.

Materialism doesn't have evidence to support it vs. dualism

>No it's not matter it's ideas that have a smallest unit!
Worse than I though. Materialism applied to what is known not to be material.

>ideas which can be expressed umambiguously only in mathmatical language
Yeah, except the simplest triangle that exists or any other expression which is abused.

Oh.

So sup(data) is the small thing, unfit for analytical topology- that carry of the analytical function with measurable universe/'a small part of infinity.' It is the smallest part of the universe, 0. The smallest part has multiple emergences and does nothing and that's why it's not used typically to describe matter (the upper bound, which is the silhouette of that determination-probably).

>The smallest part
So materialism

>>no mention of hilbert spaces
>>no mention of tensor products
>>reference to irrelevant (to the definition of entanglement) things like interactions
>>schizophrenic accusation towards others
Because all of that applies to all particles in the system.
You have yet to explain why the detector is privileged vs all other particles in this formalism.

That's not schizo ramblings. You have yet to explain why the detector entangles with a particle to the point where it loses interference but all the other particles do not.

Where in the Schrodinger equation does the detector become privileged over all the other particles in the system?

>I have already given up replying to you.
Because you can't answer the question.
There is nothing in the formalism of qm that causes the detector to entangle with the particle over all the other particles in the system.

When it interacts with the particle.

They interact in different ways, and different interactions have different results.

The beam has shorter distance to the particle. Also it's not just beam, the detector amplifies this interaction to macroscopic scale.

They don't work in the same way, the detector works in a different way from other objects in the system, it has different structure.

Probably one connected with amplification of interaction.

see

Factors I can think of:
1. Many microstates corresponding to one macrostate. Coherent state has finite precision, so perturbation below that precision will drown in noise.
2. Signal to noise ratio. Signal can drown in ambient noise.
3. Interaction happening in discrete quanta means weak force may not make it in time to deliver one quant.

for possible reasons. Nothing is privileged, the result of the Schrodinger equation is a stupid mathematical quantitative function of what happens in the system.

>This is just trying to draw a line between quantum and classical objects
It's a quantitative description why perturbation drowns in noise. It's observer's macroscopic state which is entangled with the particle, so distinction is relevant.
>>2. Signal to noise ratio. Signal can drown in ambient noise.
>What is the difference between a "signal" and "noise" from the perspective of nature? All things are signals, there is no noise.
The difference is that a system can't react with a directed macroscopic tendency as a reaction to noise. Not sure what can be done with low s2n ratio, it's often assumed to be fatal, LIGO manages to cancel some forms of noise, but has to eat others.
>more particles you increase the chance that the weak force can make it in time to deliver a quant
Or reducing distance. The detector additionally amplifies interaction, so maybe reducing distance alone is not quite enough or we could have nonamplifying detectors.

>So you think there is a difference between classical systems and quantum ones. Why?
Because they behave quantitatively different. Learn coherent state.
>Noise doesn't actually exist in this universe.
Then learn signal processing science.

The Hilbert space bullshit is trivial when talking about QM. Just saying that entangled states are represented with tensor products is a non-answer. It's the formalism but it doesn't tell you shit about what an entangled state actually IS or how you get particles entangled.

> Any more wrong statements about basic physics you have to offer?
"The speed of light is constant"

I do not know who you are but I can guarantee that 100% of the posts you've made on IQfy ever are wrong.

>It's not anything special
What's relevant is absence of definition.
>>It also can't model all meaningful situations.
>Name one
EPR experiment, delayed choice experiment, Wheeler's friend experiment for starters. Specific things vary depending on what ad hoc hypotheses you come up with for other things.

>It's not anything special
What's relevant is absence of definition.
>>It also can't model all meaningful situations.
>Name one
EPR experiment, delayed choice experiment, Wheeler's friend experiment for starters. Specific things vary depending on what ad hoc hypotheses you come up with for other things.

Anyway, my last word on the topic is "there is no "collapse" in the copenhagen interpretation". People who think that there is, whether they are using it to attack it or attack other interpretations, are all uneducated morons. You can now continue to flood this thread with your schizophrenia.

A house can be reduced to its parts and newtonian mechanics will still model it objectively, exhaustively and consistently. Observation has primary relevance to modelling, because it causes collapse - objective phenomenon, not having a model for this phenomenon means copenhagen doesn't model reality and you have to resort to an ad hoc hypothesis about reality, because copenhagen doesn't tell anything about it. But if you have to guess reality from pure abstract thought, then your theory is trash.
>All these are trivially modeled.
What? The first two give trashy results and the third is undecidable.

It does: reductionism.

The result is quantitatively the same with and without reductionism. I guess it means reductionism is true.

I said

[...]
Anyway, my last word on the topic is "there is no "collapse" in the copenhagen interpretation". People who think that there is, whether they are using it to attack it or attack other interpretations, are all uneducated morons. You can now continue to flood this thread with your schizophrenia.

was my last word, but...
>A house can be reduced to its parts and newtonian mechanics will still model it objectively, exhaustively and consistently
Yes, and quantum mechanics can do that too and it's still not obligated to give any definition of "house", which is nothing other than some silly human convention. The same holds for "observation".
>collapse - objective phenomenon
Not really, this is just a popular misunderstanding

Some aspects of their definitions are just conventions but that does not mean the particles and the associated fields themselves are conventions

>Why not?
What do you mean why not? Why would they be?
>an experiment that we can't model with perfect accuracy
That's not the case. The quantum mechanical model is assumed to be perfectly accurate

QFT is just a particular class of quantum theories which are known to not be the full story anyway. The framework of quantum mechanics itself is more general. I don't know why you're so hung up on QFT in particular.
>what?
Yes, unless you believe in hidden variables (which are not taken seriously by most people), what I stated is true. There is no evidence of there being a "more accurate" description than the quantum mechanical one.

Disproven assertion

>I'm hung up on QFT because it has the best prediction power.
This is just meaningless reply to what I asked
>You also inherently do not have access to a complete description of the system in QM
The wavefunction is the complete description.

Yes, it is complete in the sense that it is mathematically complete. This need not be the same as "deterministic for human purposes".

The state is predicted by the evolution operator, not by observer.

S_n isn't the time function

I use definion of copenhagen with collapse. I don't know what copenhagen without collapse means.

It wasn't a debate moron