Uh yes it definitely does.
In the Schrödinger’s cat experiment, the measuring device controls the poison release. If conscious observer doesn’t matter but only the measuring devices then the cat is dead OR alive and not both BEFORE the box is opened.
In the Wigner’s friend experiment only the friend inside the lab involves a measuring device so the moment the measuring device is used there is no superposition and thoughts of Wigner outside the lab don’t mean a thing.
The question(s) that pop-up @mitchellmckain are in the set-up. I assume the photons travel at the speed of light, and the differences (delays) for such small distances, would I think, be extremely small. Any clarrification would be great on errors. also from the internet:
As with the apparent paradox discussed …, this strategy is foiled because to see the fringes formed by the particles, your distant friend must first divide them into two groups to separate ones that form fringes from those that form anti-fringes. To do that division, however, she needs to know the results of your special photon measurements—essentially there are two types of erasing results, those corresponding to particle interference fringes, and those corresponding to particle anti-fringes—and that information is going to crawl its way to her no faster than the speed of light.
Thanks Aleo for asking.
I have attentively reread Teilhard’s “Réflexions sur le retentissement spirituel de la bombe atomique”:
In this essay of September 1946 Teilhard undoubtedly celebrates the atom bomb, and explicitly mentions the first explosion in the “Arizona” (sic) region. He hails the “recent nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll” (July 1946) as the emergence of “an interiorly and exteriorly pacified humanity”, and also argues that the new atomic destructive power will contribute to the peace in the world. However, I found no mention –let alone a tribute of remembrance– for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This is an explanation for why this delayed choice quantum eraser phenomenon cannot be used to send information faster than the speed of light.
You can consider that the observer outside the box is a measuring device that is measuring the whole box i.e. the system consisting of the cat and the measuring device inside the box.
The reason because the paradox emerges is the assumption that the cat inside the box can be in superposition of two different states, which are two possible outcomes with relation to some measuring device outside the box.
Same thing for Wigner’s friend:
Wigner can be considered a measuring device that is “measuring” the whole lab where is his friend.
The paradox does not arise because “consciousness” but because of the assumption that the whole lab is a quantum superposition of two different states, which are two possible outcomes with relation to the measuring device “Wigner”.
For a detailed description see this article.
In fact, in your reasoning you are implicitly assuming as an axiom that “the experiments have the same results for all observers”. From this you correctly derive that the measuring devices cannot be in quantum superposition with relation to other measuring devices. And then the paradox disappears.
Schrödinger’s cat and Wigner’s friend go the other way around: On assumes that quantum superposition can be applied to measuring devices and observers: a measuring device can be in quantum superposition of several possible outcomes with relation to other measuring devices. And from this one is led to the conclusion that the results of experiments are NOT the same for all observers. So, quantum superposition itself points to realms beyond the domain of validity of experimental science, and has to be limited to make the ordinary world possible, the world that can be scientifically described.
I apologize for insisting: The statement that “experiments yield the same results for all observers” IS AN ASSUMPTION we make on the basis of what we are used to see in our ordinary daily life, but it is not an inexorable law: in fact in events like Pentecost and the “Dancing Sun” the same physical system bears different results depending on the observers.
The assumption is wrong. It is demonstrable that macroscopic measuring devices are not in a superposition of states and neither are cats or anything else made of billions of billions of particles. When the poison is released or not the measurement has already been made. If you like, you can have a conscious observer release the poison based on the measurement. The point is that the conscious observer makes no difference whatsoever and since the measurement is already made there is no superposition any more.
A totally irrelevant one. When you make two of the same measurements in a row of the same thing the second always agrees with the first because the wave has already collapsed (decohered) and the superposition is already gone after the first measurement. The truth is that the conscious observers are irrelevant. Only the device making the measurement matter for in reality people cannot make such measurements without them. The presence or absence of a conscious observer makes no difference whatsoever to the outcome.
On the contrary it is testable. And the statement that “the presence of a conscious observer has no effect on the results” is also testable. And the result of such tests agree with this statement.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that is that the statement “experiments will always yield the same results for all observers” is not provable. That is correct. Science is based on what is reasonable not on what is provable. And after seeing the same results a thousand times it is reasonable to believe that doing this one more time will give the same results as well. It is on this basis of what is reasonable that all the natural laws of science are determined.
I would be interested in hearing more on the paradox(s) posed by quantum states; for example, QBism brings a new perspective to understanding to what is discussed as “Wigner’s friend thought experiments”.
If entanglement involves entities at the quantum level, is there a ‘cut-off’ point in going to the ‘classical’ level - or is this irrelevant?
That would be the measurement problem, and different interpretations of quantum physics (one of which is QBism) suggest different answers. The most likely answer is that instead of a cutoff you have a gradual transition of some sort. The many world interpretation seems to give the most significant role to the conscious observer.
I have contemplated the notion from a view in which a human being is in the world but not from it - by this I mean we conform to the materialistic laws of nature, and we add intent, choice and act, which brings to us a world of seemingly inexhaustible possibilities that often actualize from the world imposed on our intentions. This to me results in attributes (habits) that result from our choices of good and evil, and also choices that involve us with the world and others in it.
The quantum world appeals in that our beliefs and intentions may be ‘mixed’ with nature(?).
That sounds like a sort of dualism which I don’t think is correct. I think the physical universe was created precisely to give us greater freedom of will as self-organizing beings… i.e. so that we would not simply be what we were created to be, because with our nature to grow, learn, and make choices, we participate in our own creation.
I do think the quantum foundation of the physical universe shows the limits of its mathematical space-time order and thus points to a relationship with another aspect of reality than the physical/natural, i.e. the spiritual. But I think it is wrong to associate the mind and such characteristics as intent, consciousness, and choice with the spiritual, i.e. as something which the spiritual provides.
Yes, that is what I mean. And therefore you cannot state that experiments will always yield the same results for all observers with certainty, or probability 1.
Magnificent statement: “it is reasonable to believe that…”!
You are taking as an axiom a “subjective belief” we form on the basis of our ordinary daily experience. The statement: “The Sun will be tomorrow, at noon in Zürich, in the position X,Y,Z” means that we would pay no price to enter a bet with payoff 1 if the sun begins to dance in the sky tomorrow at noon, and no payoff if it follows its usual trajectory (very much in agreement with what we are taught by QBism). But it does not mean that it is absolutely impossible for the Sun to dance tomorrow at noon.
Consider the two following statements:
Statement A:
An agent can apply quantum superposition (i.e.: Born’s rule) to arbitrary systems around her/him, including large ones that may contain other agents.
Statement B:
Experiments always yield the same results for all observers
If you take Statement B as an axiom, then you are led to deny Statement A, that is, you are led to limit the domain of validity of quantum superposition. That is what you are doing when you state that “macroscopic measuring devices are not in a superposition of states”.
Accordingly, you should not say “Statement A is wrong” but “ Statement A is wrong as far as statement B is right ”.
If Statement B is only ordinarily (but not with absolute certainty) right, then Statement A is only ordinarily (but not with absolute certainty) wrong.
Notice that the limit to quantum superposition you are introducing comes obviously from outside the quantum algebra, and in this sense is not a quantum principle! (see again this article).
Coming again to the question of miracles:
In order we can live in the ordinary world, make science, and develop efficient technologies God ordinarily limits quantum superposition. But God can very well extraordinarily (for whatever wise reason) let cats be in quantum superposition of states, or the sun dance in the sky at noon. “Schrödinger’s cat” and “Wigner’s friend” are miracle narratives after all!
With presence and absence highlighted, I absolutely agree to this statement and even applaud it!
But those are not my statements. Mine are the following…
Statement C: Objects with billions of billions of particles are never in a measurable superposition of states.
Statement D: It is reasonable to expect that experiments, which have always yielded the same results for all observers who have performed them, will continue to yield the same results for all observers who perform them under the same conditions.
Statement D is the axiom of science. Thus by this axiom we can demonstrate that C is correct. However this leaves a number of other possibilities such as the following…
Statement E: Objects with billions of billions of particles can be in a superposition of states in ways that are not measurable such as…
E1: When temporally inaccessible such as in the future.
E2: When the superposition includes all present and future observers. (As is the case in the Everett “Many Worlds Interpretation” of quantum mechanics.
Notice that E1 and E2 are compatible. This in fact gives my own interpretation of Everett’s interpretation, that Everett’s interpretation describes the future which is in a superposition of possibilities.
I deny that God’s omnipotence means that God can do whatever we say by whatever means we care to dictate. That would lead to logical inconsistencies and incoherent theology. God can certainly do whatever He chooses but not without consequences. Accordingly God created the laws of nature for a reason and thus will not break those laws, especially not for such inanely trivial reasons as trying to impress a bunch of ignorant savages who wouldn’t know the difference anyway. Stage magicians do that just fine without breaking any laws of nature.
I fully endorse what you state: We cannot dictate God to perform miracles. We can only move him by prayer.
By contrast we can “dictate” God to act according to the repeatable patterns he uses to shape the ordinary world where we live in: By typing your phone number in my mobile I am “dictating” God to let your phone ring without any need to pray.
I like very much your statements E1 and E2, and will comment on them with pleasure in a coming post. But before, I would like to clarify where we can find common ground, and dare to ask:
Do you accept miracles like the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the transformation of water into wine at Cana, the multiplication of bread and fish, and Pentecost?
If YES,
Do these miracles break “the laws of nature God created”?
Was God with these miracles “trying to impress a bunch of ignorant savages”?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
I don’t believe that we are dictating anything to God or that God has to act in order for anything to happen. I deny the idea of God being the carpenter who has to hold the table he made together because it cannot stand on its own. God made the laws of nature to do such things just as the carpenter used the science of carpentry to make his table stand on its own.
I certainly call them miracles but I don’t think this excludes the possibility of a scientific explanation and in the case of Pentacost a scientific explanation would not make the spiritual explanations (presence of the Holy Spirit) incorrect either. I do not equate miracles with violations of the laws of nature and no I don’t think that and food or alcohol simply appeared out of nothing.
LOL We are talking about people without a modern scientific education. Nor were they medical doctors or scientists. Some of them were even drunk. Were they capable of telling whether any of the laws of nature were broken? No, they were not. In fact, if you compare them with the audience of a magic show, they were less attentive to details and more easily impressed.
So… was Jesus a stage magician and why would we call these miracles at all? No Jesus was not a stage magician because He did not think up magic tricks to impress people. But neither was Jesus some kind of wizard or necromancer doing magic in violation of the laws of nature. What happened were miracles because even if no laws of nature were broken, it was God the Father arranging these events to happen. Jesus said in John 5:18-20 that He did nothing by Himself but only what He saw His Father doing. Furthermore in John 14:12-14, Jesus said that we who believe in Him would do all that He has done and greater things than these. There was no magic involved – NONE. God? Yes! Magic? No.
This interesting conversation may progress further if we try to articulate what we mean by ‘the laws of nature’ and if such laws are enforced in some way.
Science, and insights into quantum physics, generally commences with mathematical equations to describe a system. A human being cannot be above the world, in a privileged position that transcends the Universe, and analyse the totality of what can be known. The scientific method does enable us however, to examine physical reality in the Universe and dispassionately draw conclusions from our observations.
So what are the grounds for invoking laws that we articulate to be inviolate - just for the sake of arguing, why should we not believe that God ensures everything in the cosmos does what He wills (including miracles) and we may only understand bits and pieces of the creation? Or instead, should we believe God has made laws of nature that we need to know, so as to have proper knowledge of what God wills?
I think this is an excellent proposal!
In the following I formulate some thoughts inspired by what you say.
With @mitchellmckain I would like to stress:
If by laws of nature we mean “inexorable laws God cannot break without contradicting himself”, and if “miracles were events contradicting such laws of nature” (as David Hume claimed), then miracles would obviously be impossible.
On the other hand, by acknowledging miracles we are in any case acknowledging events breaking the ordinary repeatable patterns we are used to, and things beyond those we can perform by means of our operational capabilities.
So, to facilitate discussion, I would like to enumerate the following points of argument:
God creates the ordinary physical world we live in according to repeatable patterns or regularities we can grasp by means of mathematical algorithms, as for instance the equations describing the trajectory of the sun in the sky. The description of such regularities is the scope of experimental science, according to the postulate (“reasonable belief”): “experiments yield the same results for all observers”.
Such repeatable patterns or regularities are commonly referred to as “laws of nature".
God created such regularities in order we can lead a reasonable life by predicting events and developing technologies. Accordingly, the so called “laws of nature” are created by God for human convenience, that is, in order we can lead a happy earthly life. They are not inexorable at all, but hold only for all practical purposes.
God bounds the use of such “laws of nature” exclusively to the performance of certain bodily operations and NOT to spiritual actions like prayer. Any human agent (whether or not she/he believes in God) can take profit of such “laws of nature” and develop useful technologies.
Since such “laws of nature” are aimed for human happiness after all, God can very well produce extraordinary events (“miracles”) deviating from the usual patterns of the ordinary world (“laws of nature”) for the sake of human eternal happiness . Such “miracles” do NOT always belong to the ensemble of events the ordinary world consists in, but may build sort of parallel world(s) lasting more or less time (like in Pentecost).
Although “miracles” may not directly let observable vestiges in the ordinary world, they can spiritually influence a group of human witnesses, and these on their turn can influence other humans by diffusing God’s message, so that, in the end, a miracle can result into huge observable outcomes as for instance places of worship: Jesus Christ’s resurrection and Pentecost are paramount in this respect.
By producing such extraordinary events (“miracles”) God is not acting like a stage magician: Such events (as for instance the resurrection of a dead) are beyond our operational capabilities and we cannot dictate God to perform them when we want, let alone “to impress a bunch of ignorant savages”. At most we can move God by means of our prayer.
I conclude with the following magnificent quote:
Our common use of laws is that of regulations that need to be enforced. Laws of nature is a phrase that seems to extend this notion - yet as theists we believe that God ordained the birth and resurrection of Christ before time existed. This sort of phrasing infers to me that the ‘stuff’ we mean by ‘laws of nature’ included things we now term miracles.
To restate the Palamas doctrine of the energies (uncreated) I infer this to mean these cause the events we observe (God sustains the Creation) and are consistent with @mitchellmckain discussion of the spiritual. The doctrine also makes coherent God’s transcendence, and also may provide a way of comprehending the accessibility of the creation to human intellect and enquiry.
My like on that last post of @AntoineSuarez might just look like mutual admiration so I want to be more specific about the parts which really made me put a like on this post.
This is exactly right, but I would put it even more strongly to say that rules and order are a necessity for LIFE! It is not just to make us happy and for our convenience or even for technology, but there is no life or even reality without them. These patterns and regularities are what distinguish reality from a dream world.
But here is where we disagree. God is not acting as a stage magician in the sense that this is for no greater purpose than to amaze and entertain. God is seeking to change us much more profoundly than that. But I quite disagree that anything was done which is beyond our operational capabilities. A great deal of what we do in modern medical science would be described in precisely that way (resurrecting the dead) in the time of Jesus. John 14:12-14 Jesus saying that we can do the things He has done is not just about moving the magic over to prayer because NOTHING in our experience as Christians supports the idea that we can pray people out of a grave – NOT EVER!
Miracles do happen. But they are never anything so far from the order of life that skeptics have no way to doubt or that all the laws of nature are overturned. And it would not be a good thing if they did.
But God doesn’t do any such thing!!! Things happen which God does not like. The Bible makes that VERY clear! So that shifts the question to WHY??? Why doesn’t God ensure everything in the cosmos go according to what He wills? My answer is that God chooses love and freedom over power and control. It is all about why God created the physical universe and what He is looking for in it. My answer is a relationship. God created the physical universe for a relationship and that is what He is looking for in it. And you don’t get a relationship when you are in absolute control of everything.
Many thanks for both, the like and the disagreement 
Now I come back to your post regarding the statements E1 and E2:
Statement D is the axiom of experimental science. Your claim “is reasonable to expect that” means no more than “for all practical purposes we can expect that”.
By this axiom you can NEVER demonstrate that C is correct but rather infer the following
Statement C*: “ for all practical purposes we can expect that objects with billions of billions of particles will not be in a superposition of states with relation to some measuring device ”.
Thereby you are introducing a postulate (the so called “objective collapse”) that establishes a sharp border between the ordinary world, where quantum superposition does not apply and experimental science holds, and the more general quantum realm. How this border is defined, nobody knows for the time being: “it is the measurement problem”. However, it is safe to say that the border or limit between classical and quantum relates somehow to the operational capabilities of the human agent/observer for reverting a process. Beyond this limit something irreversible (for the human agent) happens, just in the same sense as physicians define death as “the irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain, including the brainstem”, that is, a damage beyond our capabilities to repair.
If you reject the sharp border between classical and quantum you cannot escape the “Schrödinger’s cat” and “Wigner’s friend” paradoxes. This is proved by this this theorem.
First of all let me say that I have proposed an explanation in this paper which in my opinion includes your E1 and E2.
Secondly , I am very happy to see that in E2 you are explicitly introducing observers (present and future ones) and not only “measuring devices”!
Thirdly , your interpretation (as mine) plainly assumes an omniscient mind where the superposition of all present and future observers/agents is contained. Each observer/agent today can freely actualize in which branch of the superposition he wants to live. Thereby divine omniscience becomes compatible with human free will, and we solve an outstanding hard theological problem!
Finally , if you accept that an observer can be in superposition of present and future states, with even more reason you should accept that an observer can be in superposition of different present states, and this is exactly the assumption that bears the “Schrödinger’s cat” and “Wigner’s friend”: The states of the superposition are always inaccessible for humans, be they in the present or in the future. However, no human agent can arrange an experiment demonstrating a “Schrödinger’s cat” or a “Wigner’s friend”, i.e.: an experiment that yields different results for different observers, because in the ordinary observable world, where human agents live and work, quantum superposition is limited and does not apply to macroscopic devices. By contrast God (your omniscient mind) can do this, and in fact He does it in certain miracles like Pentecost and the “dancing sun”. But he does it not “to impress a bunch of ignorant savages” but for the sake of the eternal happiness of humanity. As you very well sate:
The free choices (free will) on the part of the experimenter is an axiom in quantum physics.
But if we acknowledge this axiom, then quantum experiments demonstrate that there is free will also on the part of nature “outside there” (so called free-will theorem).
May be this somewhat related to the Palamas’ “uncreated energies” you often refer to?
In any case, there are no pure “materialistic laws of nature” since a basic feature of the Quantum is: “not all what matters for physical phenomena is contained in space-time”.
Nonetheless at the macroscopic level, where quantum superposition does not apply, we have deterministic-looking repeatable patterns or regularities, we can grasp by means of mathematical algorithms.
Our bodies can be considered to consist in a huge bunch of highly complex algorithms.
Our free choices and intentions are ‘mixed’ in our brains with such deterministic-looking algorithms.
As well the statement E2 of @mitchellmckain
as my explanation “All-possible-worlds”,
seem to describe the “world of seemingly inexhaustible possibilities” you refer to. Nonetheless, the number of such possibilities is finite, although it is a break-taking huge number!
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.