Quantum Darwinism
December 27, 2004 4:42 PM Subscribe
Natural selection acts on the quantum world. "Objective reality may owe its existence to a 'darwinian' process that advertises certain quantum states."
If enough people believe this will it be true?
I hate temporal mechanics
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:33 PM on December 27, 2004
I hate temporal mechanics
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:33 PM on December 27, 2004
So if creationists deny the existence of natural selection can we accuse them of denying reality?
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
posted by bshort at 5:38 PM on December 27, 2004
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
posted by bshort at 5:38 PM on December 27, 2004
Reminds me a bit of the anthropic cosmological principle, but since the article's written for the layman it's hard to figure out exactly what these physicists are getting at.
Of course if it weren't, I probably wouldn't understand it.
posted by squidlarkin at 5:46 PM on December 27, 2004
Of course if it weren't, I probably wouldn't understand it.
posted by squidlarkin at 5:46 PM on December 27, 2004
> So if creationists deny the existence of natural selection can we accuse them
> of denying reality?
Yer all just a bunch of collapsing functions. If the thing we'll agree not to call God wasn't there to observe you, you'd all just go *poof*.
posted by jfuller at 5:49 PM on December 27, 2004
> of denying reality?
Yer all just a bunch of collapsing functions. If the thing we'll agree not to call God wasn't there to observe you, you'd all just go *poof*.
posted by jfuller at 5:49 PM on December 27, 2004
Hey! There is nothing wrong with my function, thankyouverymuch.
posted by c13 at 5:53 PM on December 27, 2004
posted by c13 at 5:53 PM on December 27, 2004
From the article:
If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it, how is it that we can agree on anything at all?
If, as quantum mechanics says, measuring infinitisimally small things tends to limit to probabilities certain properties of those things, how is it that we can agree that this electron-provided article on the internet says anything meaningful at all, and is not, in fact, merely the absense of some other electrons currently holidaying on the other side of the universe?
posted by Sparx at 5:55 PM on December 27, 2004
If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it, how is it that we can agree on anything at all?
If, as quantum mechanics says, measuring infinitisimally small things tends to limit to probabilities certain properties of those things, how is it that we can agree that this electron-provided article on the internet says anything meaningful at all, and is not, in fact, merely the absense of some other electrons currently holidaying on the other side of the universe?
posted by Sparx at 5:55 PM on December 27, 2004
short synopsis:
"I don't understand anything about quantum mechanics, but I'm going to write an article about it anyway."
posted by delmoi at 6:23 PM on December 27, 2004
"I don't understand anything about quantum mechanics, but I'm going to write an article about it anyway."
posted by delmoi at 6:23 PM on December 27, 2004
Complex Systems Theory, meet Quantum Mechanics.
Oh, you've already met? ... Never mind then.
posted by snarfodox at 6:33 PM on December 27, 2004
Oh, you've already met? ... Never mind then.
posted by snarfodox at 6:33 PM on December 27, 2004
I don't understand anything about quantum mechanics, but I'm going to write an article about it anyway.
Well, he does have a PhD in physics.
posted by c13 at 6:34 PM on December 27, 2004
Well, he does have a PhD in physics.
posted by c13 at 6:34 PM on December 27, 2004
The Los Alamos team define a property of a system as 'objective', if that property is simultaneously evident to many observers who can find out about it without knowing exactly what they are looking for and without agreeing in advance how they'll look for it.
Sorta like WMDs?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:01 PM on December 27, 2004
Sorta like WMDs?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:01 PM on December 27, 2004
Yer all just a bunch of collapsing functions. If the thing we'll agree not to call God wasn't there to observe you, you'd all just go *poof*.
Don't you mean we're, us, we'd?
Or are you planning on watching from higher ground?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:11 PM on December 27, 2004
Don't you mean we're, us, we'd?
Or are you planning on watching from higher ground?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:11 PM on December 27, 2004
Oh this is fun! This also further confirms a suspicion I've had since reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Does this suggest to anyone else that they might not be able to unite general relativity with quantum theory because, at the bottom of things, general relativity isn't any more true than anything else?
posted by wobh at 7:15 PM on December 27, 2004
posted by wobh at 7:15 PM on December 27, 2004
wobh: for certain values of true, up to and including 'false'
posted by Sparx at 7:20 PM on December 27, 2004
posted by Sparx at 7:20 PM on December 27, 2004
Well, yes and no.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:23 PM on December 27, 2004
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:23 PM on December 27, 2004
so what he is saying is if i have the mental fortitude to alter my perception of reality enough to leave an imprint which others can observe i can in fact change physical reality with the powers of the mind.
posted by godseyeview at 7:24 PM on December 27, 2004
posted by godseyeview at 7:24 PM on December 27, 2004
Maybe all you need to do is change your reality, which we do all the time anyway. Then what you observe others doing fits right in, and we're back to square one.
The relativity of time is fascinating. There may be multiple static universes, and our sense of time is created by following chains of what we perceive as cause and effect through these worlds. Without cause and effect there is no consciousness, no time.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:45 PM on December 27, 2004
The relativity of time is fascinating. There may be multiple static universes, and our sense of time is created by following chains of what we perceive as cause and effect through these worlds. Without cause and effect there is no consciousness, no time.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:45 PM on December 27, 2004
Yer all just a bunch of collapsing functions. If the thing we'll agree not to call God wasn't there to observe you, you'd all just go *poof*.
Heh. That's just one interpretation of quantum mechanics - notably, the Copenhagen interpretation. Other theories like Bohm's non-local hidden variable theory or many-worlds do not require any wave function to collapse, nor is any observer needed. In many-worlds, all separate states exist as their own world - our mind simply becomes entangled with the system, causing the perception of the "collapse". Bohm's theory is deterministic and the the wave function is determined by an unknown "quantum potential".
I think that's about right. I'm an undergrad physics major, but not a particularly good one ;)
posted by aerify at 8:00 PM on December 27, 2004
Heh. That's just one interpretation of quantum mechanics - notably, the Copenhagen interpretation. Other theories like Bohm's non-local hidden variable theory or many-worlds do not require any wave function to collapse, nor is any observer needed. In many-worlds, all separate states exist as their own world - our mind simply becomes entangled with the system, causing the perception of the "collapse". Bohm's theory is deterministic and the the wave function is determined by an unknown "quantum potential".
I think that's about right. I'm an undergrad physics major, but not a particularly good one ;)
posted by aerify at 8:00 PM on December 27, 2004
This article has so many things going against it (including being published in Nature mag). Not the least of which is the abhorrant usage of the term "quantum darwinism".
The last time I was subjected to a quantum mechanics was about 15 years ago...needless to say, I'm out of the loop. But my fuzzy recollection about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was about measurement of momentum and position of particles, not macroscopic states of the "world in general". Obviously, this has macrosopic ramifications but doesn't necessarily mean that macroscopic observation affects the quantum state. At least in any way that we'd expect...
Of course, I'm probably wrong or short on facts, anyway.
posted by RockCorpse at 8:50 PM on December 27, 2004
The last time I was subjected to a quantum mechanics was about 15 years ago...needless to say, I'm out of the loop. But my fuzzy recollection about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was about measurement of momentum and position of particles, not macroscopic states of the "world in general". Obviously, this has macrosopic ramifications but doesn't necessarily mean that macroscopic observation affects the quantum state. At least in any way that we'd expect...
Of course, I'm probably wrong or short on facts, anyway.
posted by RockCorpse at 8:50 PM on December 27, 2004
nice.
someone on an earlier thread called me out for 'anthropomorphizing nature'.
Anyone read the title of this paper?
"Subjective Properties from Subjective Quantum States: Environment as a Witness"
Guess I should have gone and got a doctorate instead of sitting on top of a hill and thinking. Ah well...
Nice link, thanks.
BTW, decoherence is something that can also be understood by the idea that even though you put your mp3 player on 'random' play, if it's a good random player, you will eventually notice that an order comes to exist in the relative number of times that each song is played. It doesn't much tell what song is going to come up next, but if each song is, say, a billionth of a second long and the fastest you can hear is in microseconds, well, one can hear the hum of the music collection quite clearly.
Going to the evolutionary side of humans...well, let's just say our ancestors wouldn't have gotten very far if they weren't able to perceive reality in such a way that didn't allow them to all see the same tiger with the same big teeth.
Or even further back, if that early amoeba wasn't able to properly digest that other [food particle] and avoid [predator]. [i.e. anthropic perception]
Oh, and this stuff applies to the concept (reality) of God in much the same way. But physicists don't use that word too often. At least not in peer-reviewed papers.
Finally, I'm not as interested in explaining this stuff to phsysicists as I am nine-year-olds, so please pardon the lack of jargon.
now attack...
posted by wah at 8:52 PM on December 27, 2004
someone on an earlier thread called me out for 'anthropomorphizing nature'.
Anyone read the title of this paper?
"Subjective Properties from Subjective Quantum States: Environment as a Witness"
Guess I should have gone and got a doctorate instead of sitting on top of a hill and thinking. Ah well...
Nice link, thanks.
BTW, decoherence is something that can also be understood by the idea that even though you put your mp3 player on 'random' play, if it's a good random player, you will eventually notice that an order comes to exist in the relative number of times that each song is played. It doesn't much tell what song is going to come up next, but if each song is, say, a billionth of a second long and the fastest you can hear is in microseconds, well, one can hear the hum of the music collection quite clearly.
Going to the evolutionary side of humans...well, let's just say our ancestors wouldn't have gotten very far if they weren't able to perceive reality in such a way that didn't allow them to all see the same tiger with the same big teeth.
Or even further back, if that early amoeba wasn't able to properly digest that other [food particle] and avoid [predator]. [i.e. anthropic perception]
Oh, and this stuff applies to the concept (reality) of God in much the same way. But physicists don't use that word too often. At least not in peer-reviewed papers.
Finally, I'm not as interested in explaining this stuff to phsysicists as I am nine-year-olds, so please pardon the lack of jargon.
now attack...
posted by wah at 8:52 PM on December 27, 2004
d'oh.
okay, so I left the 'insert' key on and accidentially mussed a couple letters while editing... they are kinda important.
That should have been...
"Objective Properties from Subjective Quantum States: Environment as a Witness"
posted by wah at 9:02 PM on December 27, 2004
okay, so I left the 'insert' key on and accidentially mussed a couple letters while editing... they are kinda important.
That should have been...
"Objective Properties from Subjective Quantum States: Environment as a Witness"
posted by wah at 9:02 PM on December 27, 2004
Going to the evolutionary side of humans...well, let's just say our ancestors wouldn't have gotten very far if they weren't able to perceive reality in such a way that didn't allow them to all see the same tiger with the same big teeth.
Nor would the tiger have developed big teeth and stripes, or existed at all if its ancestors' prey were so easy as to be eaten to extinction. Behold the possibilities for amazing creatures that never existed due to lack of balance.
Of course, this is the argument for competition, economic growth, and free enterprise. But population, energy, weapons, transportation, etc., are pushing the limits of this logic on this earth.
And as David Suzuki and Wal-Mart both know, people are primarily motivated by short-term thinking.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:30 PM on December 27, 2004
Nor would the tiger have developed big teeth and stripes, or existed at all if its ancestors' prey were so easy as to be eaten to extinction. Behold the possibilities for amazing creatures that never existed due to lack of balance.
Of course, this is the argument for competition, economic growth, and free enterprise. But population, energy, weapons, transportation, etc., are pushing the limits of this logic on this earth.
And as David Suzuki and Wal-Mart both know, people are primarily motivated by short-term thinking.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:30 PM on December 27, 2004
Dear Wah,
I'm feeling a bit 9 years old at the moment for various reasons related to christmas, and your link made me think I could kind of understand it, but I'm not versed in it's language. Any chance you could elucidate? If the difference beween what can be affected by quantum level interaction and human level perception is so great (and it's many levels of magnitude) - why is it that we don't 'just see things differently but not enough to perceive the differences in our perception'? Can our retinas tell that a single proton has been dislocated? Or many protons? Or what?
posted by Sparx at 9:30 PM on December 27, 2004
I'm feeling a bit 9 years old at the moment for various reasons related to christmas, and your link made me think I could kind of understand it, but I'm not versed in it's language. Any chance you could elucidate? If the difference beween what can be affected by quantum level interaction and human level perception is so great (and it's many levels of magnitude) - why is it that we don't 'just see things differently but not enough to perceive the differences in our perception'? Can our retinas tell that a single proton has been dislocated? Or many protons? Or what?
posted by Sparx at 9:30 PM on December 27, 2004
Also I'm pretty sure I meant to type some other sub atomic thing there, so just close your eyes and imagine what I was trying to say. Hint: it may involve photons, but not directly, but it might involve electrons and pamela anderson.
posted by Sparx at 9:46 PM on December 27, 2004
posted by Sparx at 9:46 PM on December 27, 2004
this whole notion of agreeing on anything seems entirely too complicated to me...
how do the electrons know/agree that a seat is taken in the energy well (re: Pauli exclusion)? such a microscopic attribute seems to become evident (consensualized) to even the most disinterested (incapable? err..uninterestable?) observers.
and what of the sollipsistic notion of consensus emerging from a situation where a unified perception is casting itself onto apparently disparate entities rather than due to some postulated agreement between disjoint entities?
rather like dispensing with the notion that the greens and reds and blues are agreeing to produce an image on a television screen and instead retreating to the (seemingly simpler) idea of a singly-sourced concept being imposed upon those erstwhile independent pixels.
not that i'm down on free will or up on god-controlled masses, but do we absolutely need to use structures that tremble under their own inherent logical difficulties?
perhaps the agreement is simply due to an incessant, cajoling reverberation coming from the mayor's place upstream?
or perhaps the entire notion of agreement between (apparently) independent wholes is one of those tired, dated human conventions that could use a punchy burial and a right nice wake.
posted by jungturk at 10:51 PM on December 27, 2004
how do the electrons know/agree that a seat is taken in the energy well (re: Pauli exclusion)? such a microscopic attribute seems to become evident (consensualized) to even the most disinterested (incapable? err..uninterestable?) observers.
and what of the sollipsistic notion of consensus emerging from a situation where a unified perception is casting itself onto apparently disparate entities rather than due to some postulated agreement between disjoint entities?
rather like dispensing with the notion that the greens and reds and blues are agreeing to produce an image on a television screen and instead retreating to the (seemingly simpler) idea of a singly-sourced concept being imposed upon those erstwhile independent pixels.
not that i'm down on free will or up on god-controlled masses, but do we absolutely need to use structures that tremble under their own inherent logical difficulties?
perhaps the agreement is simply due to an incessant, cajoling reverberation coming from the mayor's place upstream?
or perhaps the entire notion of agreement between (apparently) independent wholes is one of those tired, dated human conventions that could use a punchy burial and a right nice wake.
posted by jungturk at 10:51 PM on December 27, 2004
this whole notion of agreeing on anything seems entirely too complicated to me
So may I simplify by disagreeing?
What if our desire for simplicity is misplaced.
What if the universe is infinitely complicated, and we seek simplicity for vestigial reasons, e.g. hunting. And maybe it's only simplicity to us; not in the big picture.
If the lottery balls come out 1,2,3,4,5,and 6, we see order, simplicity, co-incidence--even intervention--but outside our frame of reference, this is chaos.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:45 PM on December 27, 2004
So may I simplify by disagreeing?
What if our desire for simplicity is misplaced.
What if the universe is infinitely complicated, and we seek simplicity for vestigial reasons, e.g. hunting. And maybe it's only simplicity to us; not in the big picture.
If the lottery balls come out 1,2,3,4,5,and 6, we see order, simplicity, co-incidence--even intervention--but outside our frame of reference, this is chaos.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:45 PM on December 27, 2004
why is it that we don't 'just see things differently but not enough to perceive the differences in our perception'?
Because by the the time we both see and explain the differences, they have become moot (to all but theoretical physicists).
Can our retinas tell that a single proton has been dislocated? Or many protons? Or what?
From what I understand, we are capable of perceiving a single photon, but if we spent too much time trying to decide who was right about what photon it was that everyone saw, we would starve.
A more political (larger scale) version of the explanation is here (ssp).
posted by wah at 10:46 PM on December 28, 2004
Because by the the time we both see and explain the differences, they have become moot (to all but theoretical physicists).
Can our retinas tell that a single proton has been dislocated? Or many protons? Or what?
From what I understand, we are capable of perceiving a single photon, but if we spent too much time trying to decide who was right about what photon it was that everyone saw, we would starve.
A more political (larger scale) version of the explanation is here (ssp).
posted by wah at 10:46 PM on December 28, 2004
« Older Democracy | How could they DO this to us? We trusted them!! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by homunculus at 4:43 PM on December 27, 2004