"Different kinds of probability" ?? Look at this:

Originally posted by humy
Correct -and the much-quoted idea that quantum physics says that something only exists when observed is not only a myth but is a piece of pure metaphysical unscientific claptrap.

Who ever said that something only exists when observed?
The point is that whatever (observer) is not observed, is not defined (0/1) and therefore it is absurd to state whether the undefined observer exists or not😵

Originally posted by OdBod
I think you're very brave, didn't many top scientists level a similar criticism of quantum theory when it was first suggested?

Oh, but when you say “quantum theory” here, what you are talking about isn't the actual quantum mechanics equations and what they mean in purely practical terms (which I think is just fine by the way) but rather a metaphysical interpretation of it which I believe, just like Einstein believed, is totally baseless.
Basically, I would say, Einstein was right!

Actually, despite the overwhelming impression given by the television medium to the contrary, I have read somewhere (don't remember where) that many (but not quite the majority) top scientist, including the actual physicists, still level a similar criticism of this metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics saying either that they think it is "too early to tell" or even that it is simply "wrong"!

Originally posted by black beetle
Who ever said that something only exists when observed?
The point is that whatever (observer) is not observed, is not defined (0/1) and therefore it is absurd to state whether the undefined observer exists or not😵

Who ever said that something only exists when observed?

John Wheeler for starters:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm
“...
...
John Wheeler puts forward an argument that it is only the presence of conscious observers, in the form of ourselves, that has collapsed the wave function and made the universe exist. If we take this to be true, then the universe only exists because we are looking at it.
…
...
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the probability wave of an electron requires the act of observation by a conscious observer to collapse it into a definite particle, and thus have a definite location.
…
...”
I disagree with both the above suggestions because they both claim that a conscious observer is required (why does the 'observer' have to be 'conscious'?) but also with the first statement because it suggests that our observations are required for the existence of the entire universe! -the first question that comes to my mind whenever I hear such a claim is "who observed the first observer?".

Originally posted by humy

Who ever said that something only exists when observed?

John Wheeler for starters:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm
“...
...
John Wheeler puts forward an argument that it is only the presence of conscious observers, in the form of ourselves, that has collapsed the wave function and made the universe exist. If we t ...[text shortened]... that comes to my mind whenever I hear such a claim is "who observed the first observer?".

I am no scientist , but I have a thought. I understand that conciousness may arise in part due to quantum effects,given "quantum entanglement" is it possible that conciousness and the universe may at some level require each other, or have I misunderstood?

Originally posted by humy

Who ever said that something only exists when observed?

John Wheeler for starters:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm
“...
...
John Wheeler puts forward an argument that it is only the presence of conscious observers, in the form of ourselves, that has collapsed the wave function and made the universe exist. If we t ...[text shortened]... that comes to my mind whenever I hear such a claim is "who observed the first observer?".

Nope; Wheeler points out that consiousnessis the agent that "makes" the observer universe to exist the way it appears to exist to the sentient beings that observe it, according to the cognizant apparatus/ consiousness/ awareness of the sentient beings that observe the observer universe. He also points out, in order to make his thesis clearer, that consiousness is the medium that the observer ubiverse is "using" in order to "perceive itself". It follows that the universe exists even if no observer observes it.

The same applies as regards CI: all in all, we have merely the superposition whenever the wf is not collapsed (0/1 instead of 1 or 0, that is)
😵

Originally posted by OdBod
I think you're very brave, didn't many top scientists level a similar criticism of quantum theory when it was first suggested?

Not really. Some objected, and still do, to the probabilistic nature and apparent nonrelativity of quantum theory. The latter has been effectively resolved; quantum entanglement is now much better understood than when the EPR paradox was formulated, and there is in fact no "spooky action at a distance". As for the former, the jury is still out since the process of wavefunction collapse is not well-described from first principles, that is, we don't know if the probabilistic nature of wavefunction collapse is fundamental to nature or emergent from some deterministic process.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Not really. Some objected, and still do, to the probabilistic nature and apparent nonrelativity of quantum theory. The latter has been effectively resolved; quantum entanglement is now much better understood than when the EPR paradox was formulated, and there is in fact no "spooky action at a distance". As for the former, the jury is still out since the ...[text shortened]... f wavefunction collapse is fundamental to nature or emergent from some deterministic process.

I thought the spooky action at a distance was experimentally proven.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I thought the spooky action at a distance was experimentally proven.

There was an experiment by Alain Aspect about 30 years ago which tried to test this, his result confirmed quantum mechanics and ruled out most hidden variable theories. People argue about this because there are potential loop holes. I think the consensus position is that quantum mechanics is correct and that since no information or energy is being transferred the action at a distance isn't a problem for relativity.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I thought the spooky action at a distance was experimentally proven.

It's a bit more subtle than that. Even though entanglement works instantaneously (as far as we can tell), there is never any "information" transferred faster than the speed of light (as far as we have measured). That is, you can't make the result of the entanglement "do something" faster than the speed of light.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's a bit more subtle than that. Even though entanglement works instantaneously (as far as we can tell), there is never any "information" transferred faster than the speed of light (as far as we have measured). That is, you can't make the result of the entanglement "do something" faster than the speed of light.

But the point is not whether or not a bit of information can be transferred faster than the speed of light. The spooky action (non-locality) is confirmed experimentally long ago. EPR does not hold and therefore Einstein was not right: There are no elements of reality (the way Einstein defined them) that exist out there on their own in total separation of any other element of reality.

Einstein’s elements of reality have non-local instantaneous connections and interdependencies across huge areas of space; however, Bell’s inequality in 1964 and Aspect et al during the 70s and 80s showed clearly that there is an intimate connection between entangled quantum entities that operates instantaneously regardless of the distance between them. This outcome forced Penrose to assume that the observer universe seems to be a complicated quantum entangled mess completely different than the classical world we observe. In fact, methinks Penrose simply implied that consciousness alone is the agent that unentangles the “quantum entangled mess” the universal predisposition for entanglement
😵

Originally posted by OdBod
I am no scientist , but I have a thought. I understand that conciousness may arise in part due to quantum effects,given "quantum entanglement" is it possible that conciousness and the universe may at some level require each other, or have I misunderstood?

At first, in the quantum realm there are two basic aspects of reality: the reality before an observation conducted by a sentient being, and the reality after this observation. The second reality is purely subjective and at the same time based on the collective subjectivity (known as objectivity) of the species of the sentient being that makes the observation (hence there are as many realities as many are the sentient beings), and from this mind-only ground of awareness/ consciousness is emerging the reality that we are experiencing herenow.

The reality before the observation, in math is described as a pool of potentiality for experience: There is no fully manifested locatable object, so we say that the quantum entities are smeared out in a wf of quantum probability. It follows that, before the observation, the quantum entities are hovering between existence and non-existence at every point they could possibly manifest. Therefore it is not absurd to state that a human being collapses the wf of a specific observer (when the observer has already collapsed its own wf) according to its cognitive apparatus/ cognition/ awareness/ consciousness, solely when the observation by us is made. Of course there is no way for us to observe an observer, thus to experience the classical-like reality we are able to experience, without using our consciousness
😵

Originally posted by OdBod
I am no scientist , but I have a thought. I understand that conciousness may arise in part due to quantum effects,given "quantum entanglement" is it possible that conciousness and the universe may at some level require each other, or have I misunderstood?

The thing about that is the universe came first and THEN minds and that only billions of years later so the universe doesn't seem to care one way or the other if minds exist in it or not.

Originally posted by black beetle
At first, in the quantum realm there are two basic aspects of reality: the reality before an observation conducted by a sentient being, and the reality after this observation. The second reality is purely subjective and at the same time based on the collective subjectivity (known as objectivity) of the species of the sentient being that makes the observ ...[text shortened]... rience the classical-like reality we are able to experience, without using our consciousness
😵

Like I said, quantum physics makes no reference to sentient beings. You should study the density matrix formalism a bit if you want to understand how wavefunction collapse enters the theory.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The thing about that is the universe came first and THEN minds and that only billions of years later so the universe doesn't seem to care one way or the other if minds exist in it or not.

I hear you,and again remember I'm no scientist,but I understood time to be variable,that and that the "Inflationary " period of the universe proceeded at a rate greater than the speed of light would indicate we have so much more to understand.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Like I said, quantum physics makes no reference to sentient beings. You should study the density matrix formalism a bit if you want to understand how wavefunction collapse enters the theory.

I had the feeling that the wf itself is just an idea of ours, an ideal mathematical model brought up into existence solely out of our consciousness. I was sure it exists thanks to our consciousness alone, as it is not a physical entity. Also, methinks we can use this specific product of ours solely if we use our cognitive apparatus. So, kindly please educate me;

Kindly please explain how and which way can we for starters even suppose that "a quantum system may be found in state with a specific probability p1, or that it may be found in state with probability p2, or that it may be found in state with probability p3" and so on
without using our consciousness😵