Help against yet ANOTHER Quantum Physics - observer effect argument!

[-Fran-]

I am discussing things with a friend of mine via mail who have just given me this stuff about there being no objective reality... He said the following (my translation):

No no no! There is no objective reality. That's an illusion and a model that can no longer explain the universe. These ideas are called Quantum Physics and are soon a 100 years old. Niels Bohr explain with the Copenhagen Interpretation (yeah, you can google that) that we have an effect on what we study. The thing is that the quantum level is so tiny that it obeys completely different laws than our "reality" but they are still what builds our universe (as particles or waves, not both at the same time). Why not both at the same time? Because we have something that is called The Observer Effect (yeah you can google that). You see what you expect to see. That is science that has been proven empirically. The old philosophical question about if the tree that falls in the wood can be heard if noone is there to listen gets a totally new meaning in Quantum Physics. According to Quantum Phsyics there isn't even a tree then...

I know this isn't right. Right? But I need some info to read up on to be able to refute this in a good way. I'm sure this has been discussed on the forum before? There must be a good article that explains this in a good and simple way?

I surely don't claim to understand Quantum Physics very well, but something tells me he doesn't either? Am I right that he is misunderstanding this? I thought that the fact that Quantum Physics is so "tiny" as he puts it. is the reason why you can't draw such conclusions as that there is no objective reality, as he is doing. (The whole discussion came about because he thinks I am too negative about myself - you know self-esteem issues, and that I can "fix" that by affirmations and positive thinking, I can "change" my reality by focusing on other things. I thought he was talking major BS and said so, but not in those words of course, but in a nice way explaining my view of the world, and why I don't think that is something for me, and that's when he gave me this... thing above.

I'm starting to wonder if he was watched 'The Secret' and 'What the*bleep* do we know' (or whatever those films are called again...) because the ideas sounds a bit like what they seem to claim in those movies. But maybe he has just read Bohr and came to these conclusions anyway, I don't know.

Please help me suggest something good to read up on so that I can write a decent reply.

ETA:
I am searching the forum here myself too, though the forum seems extremely slow and uncooperative tonight, but I would be happy for all suggestions what to read and how to handle it.

 

[PingOfPong]

You see what you expect to see. That is science that has been proven empirically.

This is the wrongest part of all your friend's message. I heard rumors about some dude who offers one million dollars for proof of claims like this. Your friend is likely talking about the unverified claims of PEAR or perhaps he is misinterpreting some experiment.

On the other points:

QM tells us that reality is indeed not objective. However, it does not tell us that reality is subjective but rather that it is probablistic.

The old philosophical question about if the tree that falls in the wood can be heard if noone is there to listen gets a totally new meaning in Quantum Physics. According to Quantum Phsyics there isn't even a tree then...

This is a meaningless interpretation. Let's say you are walking through the woods and find a fallen tree. The surrounding forest has been changed by the tree's fall. The grass under the tree has died from lack of sun and the wood has somewhat dried. You happen to be an expert botanist. By taking samples of sap you deduce that the tree must have fallen one week ago. If the tree didn't exist when it fell then that doesn't matter because it changes nothing. You still see evidence of an event that happened while you weren't there and so will the next visitor.

Every tree that falls may be affecting all of us in ways that we don't notice. It could change weather patterns via the butterfly effect. It would subtley change the force of gravity acting on us too. This is the same problem I have with Schroedinger's half dead half alive cat. You can't really isolate anything with a box. For example, the cat is emmiting heat from its body and EM radiation from it's nervous system. Even before you open the lid to see its state the result had to be known because it was affecting you in ways you weren't aware of.

QM shines when it's used to explain the behavior of particles on a small scale. A tree is not a particle. If the tree did behave like a particle and the only way to collapse its wave function was the use of human eye balls then after you leave the tree the next visitor could very well find it standing upright.

 

[69dodge]

I surely don't claim to understand Quantum Physics very well, but something tells me he doesn't either? Am I right that he is misunderstanding this?

Yes, it sure looks that way.

The whole discussion came about because he thinks I am too negative about myself - you know self-esteem issues, and that I can "fix" that by affirmations and positive thinking, I can "change" my reality by focusing on other things.

It's possible that something like that could be helpful psychologically, even though it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

I'm starting to wonder if he was watched 'The Secret'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usbNJMUZSwo

 

[Jimbo07]

(The whole discussion came about because he thinks I am too negative about myself - you know self-esteem issues, and that I can "fix" that by affirmations and positive thinking, I can "change" my reality by focusing on other things.

Macroscopic objects (save superconductors and so forth) tend to behave classically.

You can, of course, change your reality (in a metaphorical sense) but affirmations and positive thinking have to be followed up by hard work*. Nothing quantum about it...


* I should note that I am not insinuating that anyone lacks the motivation to work hard. Rather, 'hard work' can also involve hard emotional work. It is something that in particular cases I have succeeded at, and in others, certainly failed.

 

[idealist]

The whole discussion came about because he thinks I am too negative about myself - you know self-esteem issues, and that I can "fix" that by affirmations and positive thinking, I can "change" my reality by focusing on other things. I thought he was talking major BS and said so, but not in those words of course, but in a nice way explaining my view of the world, and why I don't think that is something for me, and that's when he gave me this... thing above.

Is your friend's evaluation of your self-statements accurate, or inaccurate?

It seems to me that the crux of your issue is not in quantum physics, but rather if you, personally, consider that you are too negative about yourself.

If you do not feel this way, then his entire argument is irrelevant, because as you stated, the foundation of the discussion arose from his personal observation of your behavior. He may have simply been inaccurate in his evaluation of your behavior.

 

[-Fran-]

Is your friend's evaluation of your self-statements accurate, or inaccurate?

It seems to me that the crux of your issue is not in quantum physics, but rather if you, personally, consider that you are too negative about yourself.

If you do not feel this way, then his entire argument is irrelevant, because as you stated, the foundation of the discussion arose from his personal observation of your behavior. He may have simply been inaccurate in his evaluation of your behavior.

You're right, I would say, the discussion did float away into territories that I do feel have nothing to do really with what started it.

I would say that, yeah, I do tend to be a bit pessimistic, and yeah, sure I have some self-esteem issues, I am a bit shy in real life and like many people wonder if I am good enough in what I do sometimes, and look critically at myself in the mirror and things like that, and in conversations with him I did complain about some things about myself, you know, like you do sometimes, 'I wish I could loose a few pounds, I really don't like these photos of myself' and such. But I do feel he was blowing this "having a bad day whining " a little bit out of proportion, yes I feel he is now making it his "mission" to make me a positive shiny happy people type of woman still And not that I don't appreciate that he cares, but it soon turned into a mail exchange with several woo claims on his side and me refuting them as well as I could - which he took as yet another proof that I really am a much too negative person who needs to be more open-minded, and things kind of escalated from there

 

[Niobe]

You see what you expect to see. That is science that has been proven empirically

How in the hell would we know then? If the results of our science are what we want out of that science, how can we trust the scientific result?

As for reality manifesting itself by your thoughts, why are super positive demolition crews not just WILLING the building to topple, instead of using expensive caterpillar machinery?

 

[-Fran-]

Macroscopic objects (save superconductors and so forth) tend to behave classically.

That's what I thought, but I feel too insecure about what science actually agrees on, and where they differ with these things to write a good reply.

You can, of course, change your reality (in a metaphorical sense) but affirmations and positive thinking have to be followed up by hard work*. Nothing quantum about it...


* I should note that I am not insinuating that anyone lacks the motivation to work hard. Rather, 'hard work' can also involve hard emotional work. It is something that in particular cases I have succeeded at, and in others, certainly failed.

His first claim was something like this: that we create our own problems with our negative thinking. If I think I am too fat, my brain will seek out only the things that confirms this, and so I will see 'fat' no matter if I am or not, alternatively I will only seek things that make me fat and my negativity alone will create my own fatness. But since the brain can't differenciate between reality and what it thinks, I can fool my brain by repeating in every way that I am thin, and then I will eventually start seeking out only things that will make me thinner, alternatively, not see myself as fat anymore. This is "the give yourself positive affirmations method" right? I seem to recall reading something about this many years ago.

I replied with something rather similiar to what you said here and that I am skeptical that this method is anything for me. I also added that I don't think we can change reality in that way just by wishful thinking or by just repeating words to yourself, and that some things are an objective truth no matter how I subjectively percieve it. I took the weight-thing again as an example. If I weigh 250 pounds (I don't ) I am fat no matter how many times I tell myself that I am thin, and just fooling my brain won't make me thinner. Hard work will, as you said, but do I need to "fool my own brain" to do this work? It seems like an unnecessary roundabout way, to me, to just see things as they are, get a grip on myself and find motivation for the work needed. I argued also that even if it is surely no good to be too pessimistic, I don't think it helps to be too optimistic either and so maybe not see some things as they actually are.

That's when he protested wildly to that there is an objective reality to "see as it is", so my quoting him in the OP was basically his explanation of why positive affirmation works, if I understood him right, and that connection seems like woo to me.

 

[-Fran-]

How in the hell would we know then? If the results of our science are what we want out of that science, how can we trust the scientific result?

As for reality manifesting itself by your thoughts, why are super positive demolition crews not just WILLING the building to topple, instead of using expensive caterpillar machinery?

That's what I would like to know too, I'll ask him! It does seem as if he is contradicting himself here, doesn't it? Saying that it is scientifically proven that we (if what he says would be true) can not then, as a consequence, trust any scientific results. That's like saying that it's scientifically proven that you can't prove things scientifically

 

[-Fran-]

Yes, it sure looks that way.



It's possible that something like that could be helpful psychologically, even though it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

Yes, I can't see there would be any connection with QM whatsoever either. But I lack the proper words and knowledge to express this in a convincing way, I fear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usbNJMUZSwo

 

[Niobe]

If I think I am too fat, my brain will seek out only the things that confirms this, and so I will see 'fat' no matter if I am or not, alternatively I will only seek things that make me fat and my negativity alone will create my own fatness.

Talk to an anorexia patient. They internalized fatness and are as mentally invested you can get, even though they weigh 45 kilos.

An anorexia patient, thinking she is fat for every lettuce leaf that passes her mouth, she doesn't actually quantumgain herself into fatness.

 

[Mashuna]

There are some clever folk in the Science and Medicine section who would be able to put you right on all of this.

As to the 'particles or waves' quote, someone recently (I think it was Matteus Maximus) posted a good explanation - I'll try to paraphrase and hope I don't get it wrong.

Imagine you've gone to a planet where they have H2O, but only as ice or steam. You're trying to explain to them what water is. So you tell them that you can move your hand through it, like steam. But you can put it in an open container and it will stay in one place, like ice. It has qualities of both, but isn't either. The only way we explain it is through similies, because it's easier to picture, but to understand it fully you need to know the maths.

 

[Niobe]

As for the observer effect and the metaphysical tree, plenty of people in accidents never observed the oncoming truck running a red light, but not observing it has no bearing on the inevitable collision.

 

[-Fran-]

Talk to an anorexia patient. They internalized fatness and are as mentally invested you can get, even though they weigh 45 kilos.

An anorexia patient, thinking she is fat for every lettuce leaf that passes her mouth, she doesn't actually quantumgain herself into fatness.

Good point! If his theory would be true, we would see some rather weird things happen to people who genuinely believe very strange things because of different illnesses.

 

[-Fran-]

There are some clever folk in the Science and Medicine section who would be able to put you right on all of this.

Yes of course... stupid me I should have posted it there! I was just thinking he was being woo all over so it fitted here but I would still need real science to retort with so I should have asked there.

As to the 'particles or waves' quote, someone recently (I think it was Matteus Maximus) posted a good explanation - I'll try to paraphrase and hope I don't get it wrong.

Imagine you've gone to a planet where they have H2O, but only as ice or steam. You're trying to explain to them what water is. So you tell them that you can move your hand through it, like steam. But you can put it in an open container and it will stay in one place, like ice. It has qualities of both, but isn't either. The only way we explain it is through similies, because it's easier to picture, but to understand it fully you need to know the maths.

Thanks! Someone like me would need every simile there is, I think And I will make sure to ask him if he can give me the actual math behind his claim, and tell him that even if I can't verify its validity myself there's people I can ask to.

 

[-Fran-]

This is the wrongest part of all your friend's message. I heard rumors about some dude who offers one million dollars for proof of claims like this. Your friend is likely talking about the unverified claims of PEAR or perhaps he is misinterpreting some experiment.

I will ask him exactly where he has got his ideas, that might shed some light on things, as for now I only know he has read Bohr, or about Bohr.

On the other points:

QM tells us that reality is indeed not objective. However, it does not tell us that reality is subjective but rather that it is probablistic.

This sounds interesting but I must admit I don't quite get it. Could you explain it a bit further?

[...snip...]

QM shines when it's used to explain the behavior of particles on a small scale. A tree is not a particle. If the tree did behave like a particle and the only way to collapse its wave function was the use of human eye balls then after you leave the tree the next visitor could very well find it standing upright.

Thanks. Yes that was what I wanted to say to him, that even if a "big" thing like a tree is made out of "small" things like particles it does not follow that the rules that apply to how particles behave on a small scale will in any way effect tings on a larger scale. But I wanted to be sure that I got that right, that science today have in fact not empirically proven that it should have such effects?

I read this article
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?searchterm=quantum physics&b_start:int=0

And it seems to be about why you can not draw similiar conclusions as my friend did (why an electron can be in two places at the same time but a human can't) and a suggestion on why this is, IF I understood it right!!

 

[RichardR]

The Copenhagen Interpretation is just an interpretation of QM - something to help you understand the theory, but not actually part of the theory. It can't be falsified (tested to see if it false), which is why it's not a scientific theory, and why it certainly is not science that has been proven empirically. (You can tell it's not part of the theory because it's called The Copenhagen Interpretation, not The Copenhagen Theory.)

Once you understand that, you can pretty much dismiss everything else your friend is claiming. QM is not telling us this is the way the world is.

 

[-Fran-]

The Copenhagen Interpretation is just an interpretation of QM - something to help you understand the theory, but not actually part of the theory. It can't be falsified (tested to see if it false), which is why it's not a scientific theory, and why it certainly is not science that has been proven empirically. (You can tell it's not part of the theory because it's called The Copenhagen Interpretation, not The Copenhagen Theory.)

Thanks!! I'll be sure to bring that up!

Once you understand that, you can pretty much dismiss everything else your friend is claiming. QM is not telling us this is the way the world is.

I was on my way to do that at once I read it But then I realized in the next second that I should actually read up, and ask around about it a bit myself first But yes, all that he has written to me so far seems to be based in the claim I quoted in the OP. He wrote a couple of long mails with a lot of stuff in them, but I really wanted to address this.

 

[ExMinister]

I also really think positive thinking can make a big difference in the way a person views the world and feels about themselves, and this in turn can affect the way other people perceive them, too. But that's something separate than the quantum physics claims he's making, and there isn't anything magical about it. It's more like common sense to me, that we can choose how we view ourselves and the things that happen to us to some extent, spinning them in a positive or negative light.

It seems like I recently read somewhere how the observer effect is misunderstood. Something like: Woo seems to think the observer is influencing the results of the experiments by their consciousness, whereas the observer effect is actually related to the fact that in quantum physics different types of measurement produce different effects (i.e. the WAY they are doing the observing is what makes the difference, not what they are THINKING). I may not have that exactly right but I think that's the general idea.

 

[PingOfPong]

This sounds interesting but I must admit I don't quite get it. Could you explain it a bit further?
[\QUOTE]


I just meant that at a fundamental level we cannot say anything for certain about the state of the universe. That doesn't mean the universe depends on our interpretations (subjective). We can predict the probabilities of which state a system will be in and that's as good as it gets. It seems to be a hard limit on our capabilities as creatures made of the stuff of this cosmos.