Comment on I'm good, thanks
bitcrafter@programming.dev 1 day agoTo clarify my imprecise language, what “breaks down” is not its ability to give the correct answer, but the ability of the conceptual framework to give a clear explanation of what is going on, because it essentially defines measurement as “you know one when you see one”, which can lead to confusion.
(However, separately, I do feel the need to point out that “entanglement” is not at all a term that is related to measurement results per se, but rather to the state of a system before you measure it. In particular, if a system is entangled, you can (in principle) disentangle it by reversing whatever process you used to entangle it so that you no longer get correlations in the measurements.)
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t know, Many Worlds always led to more confusion than Copenhagen for me. But I suppose that’s a matter of taste since they’re equivalent.
As per the relationship between measurement and entanglement, from an empiricist viewpoint all quantum mechanical terms are related to measurement. If entanglement didn’t affect the outcome of measurements, it wouldn’t exist.
Indeed, you can disentangle an entangled system, which of course will change the outcome of measurements - that’s how you know it’s been disentangled.
bitcrafter@programming.dev 1 day ago
I think to some extent we have been talking past each other. Very roughly speaking, I think that am more worried about what happens in the middle of an experiment, where you are more worried about what happens at the end. I actually completely agree with you that when a conscious being performs a measurement, then, from the perspective of that being, both interpretations of what happened when it performed the observation are equivalent. That is, the being has no way of telling them apart, and asking which interpretation is true at that point is, in my opinion, roughly along the same lines as asking whether the objective world exists.
(Just to be clear, it’s not my intent to get mystical here. I think of consciousness as essentially just being a way of processing information about the world, rather than positing the existence of souls.)
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Interesting framing. But without measurements there isn’t really a need for different interpretations, is there? If that’s what you mean by “in the middle of an experiment”.
I will happily agree that before measurement, it’s very useful to think of the system as existing in many states at the same time.