[Guest]

We all know Schrodinger's cat. The one that was shoved into a box which had an atom which would die and kill said cat to prove it worked, or not die to prove it was fake. What I'm wondering is that, after the human race dies out, and there is nothing (aside from possible but improbable alien life) to observe, what happens to the cloud of possibilities? Does it ever collapse into one thing? Is it ever observed by rock or star or space? Or maybe a divine being? The way we die is meaningless to the topic, the only requirement is that all sentient life is exhausted.

[Guest]

This probably belongs in "Others"....

Anyway, I'll take the ultimate cop-out, and answer your question with more questions...

Why should the absence of an observer preclude the existence of an observable phenomenon? Do you believe that our consciousness caused the universe to exist? If so, then is everything we discover, or have discovered, an illusion? Are we instead creating entirely new bits of universe, or apparent universe, from thought?

Or, are you picking up the banner of solipsism? Or do you believe the universe created by some other consciousness? Either way, any philosophical discussion is irrelevant. Do trees fall in empty forests and make sounds? Who cares? We can neither prove nor disprove the unknowable, so what is the point of forming and discussing theories of what might be, or could just as easily not be? I will only say this: it is pretty arrogant to predicate that things only happen (or appear to happen) because someone capable of what we assume to be rational thought can witness them. Why should the universe behave differently when we are not looking? Why should it notice us, or care? I think it is far more likely that the universe went about its business long before we or any other life existed, and that it will continue to do so long after we are extinct.

[rookie1ja]

off to "Others"

[unreality]

I agree with d3k3. We don't matter to the universe; we are collections of atoms that (after billions of years of very slow but incredible physical processes) have assembled into such elaborate systems to be self aware. We as life may be the ultimate destination of the universal "computer" but it doesn't mean we were its purpose if one exists, and I don't know how that Schrondinger's cat works in physics but I think it's more of an analogy on what happens on a quantum scale and we certainly don't directly observe that.

[Guest]

The Universe exists, regardless of what is there to acknowledge that existence. Consider, if the Universe required the existence of sentient life in order to exist itself, then what happened before humans became self-aware? Did the Universe just pop into existence with humans in full swing and all evidence to the contrary is fictitious?

If so, how did we get all of this fake evidence for a Universe existing prior to man? If we want to go the consciousness-created Universe route offered by d3k3, then I refuse to accept that my subconscious is creating a world ruled by idiots and subject to random disasters (because I certainly wouldn't consciously choose to live in such a place ). I mean, my subconscious must be quite diabolical to create tsunamis and earthquakes that kill millions of people (though come to think of it, if this is all part of my own consciousness, then none of those people actually exist and I'm arguing consciously with some aspect of my own subconscious since I don't see how any of you can actually exist in a Universe created by my consciousness ). I guess we could all be living in a Universe created by someone else's consciousness and the capriciousness wouldn't be my fault, but I find that rather unlikely too.

Like unreality said, Schrodinger's cat can't physically exist as it is just an analogy describing a theoretical situation relating to quantum physics. If someone were to put a cat in a box with the collapsible atom set to release the poison, then we could monitor the cat's vital signs and know at all times whether the cat was alive or dead. At no time, would the cat's liveness be in a state of quantum flux (and if it did occur, then I predict that such an event would generate a giant black hole that would consume the Universe ).

[Izzy]

Alright, a few things. My quantum knowledge is lacking, so I can't get very elaborate, but here's my basic understanding of this.

Firstly, I'll echo the views from. Bro, it is seriously arrogant to even for one second assume that everything that happens (or anything, really) not from direct human intervention happened for us. As far as we are able to tell, the universe is not some conscious entity bending its powers for the benefit of humanity. ... The universe is just an enormous container for everything that exists (as far as we know), and it doesn't even know about it. The physical laws that govern its behavior don't change just because life came into existence, they were set at the beginning of the universe due to random constants that just happened to be the way they were at the time of "creation". "Gmoz, lifeforms!" is entirely meaningless to the universe because it's not an entity that is capable of perceiving them the life it homes.

Now, the QM bit. Tbh, it's just an underdeveloped field where pretty much no one knows wtf is going on. Atm, just a bunch of particles behavior crazily. However, from my understanding, an observer in the quantum sense does not need to be a conscious one. A single electron in the presence of another electron (or smaller, you get the idea) is enough to get things rolling. If EVERYTHING vanished, the cloud of possibilities goes back to a pre-Big Bang state, and stays as such until another Big Bang (or something different and entirely unimaginable) happens. With the creation of every new particle, the possibilities grow. It's like, if I close my eyes and don't touch/listen to/smell/eat/observe in any way my laptop, does it disappear? ...Probably not.

*edit* Just thinking. It might not even have to be two different particles because particles are able to observe themselves? Trying to remember something I read ages ago. =/

Edited January 27, 2010 by Izzy

[Guest]

Giga, Your statement is in itself self-contradictory. The Thought experiment was based to prove that the observer was not necessary for the event to occur, but that each possible event would occur in different realities regardless of. Now that we have eliminated Bohr's observer from the equation. You then ask what happens when we remove all observers. It's analogous to rejecting religion, than asking how God will punish us for defiling ourselves.

[Guest]

Actually, if my understanding is correct (and I'm no physicist), Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was his and Einstein's criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, which in essence uses superposition to describe the states of particles, due to the Uncertainty Principle.

In other words... it doesn't really have anything to do with what you're getting at, and also I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Say we have a universe. Then say all sentient life is wiped out. Universe goes on. What's the issue, the "cloud of possibilities" that you refer to? The universe will keep chugging like it has been since the Bang (and possibly before then).

[Izzy]

Brooo, Copenhagen interpretation = the worst. The same "interpretation" can be applied to essentially anything, thereby rendering EVERYTHING as unknowable. I'm really not understanding why anyone takes it seriously.

Though, that's clever. I never made the connection between it and Schrodinger's cat before.

[Guest]

We all know Schrodinger's cat. The one that was shoved into a box which had an atom which would die and kill said cat to prove it worked, or not die to prove it was fake. What I'm wondering is that, after the human race dies out, and there is nothing (aside from possible but improbable alien life) to observe, what happens to the cloud of possibilities? Does it ever collapse into one thing? Is it ever observed by rock or star or space? Or maybe a divine being? The way we die is meaningless to the topic, the only requirement is that all sentient life is exhausted.

The significance of our consciousness is that we can perceive certain things, which we then consider to exist.

The many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics is illustrative here. A quantum event in my brain could have been decisive in a choice I made this morning which affected the rest of my day. It could be that the alternative reality in which I decided differently is not objectively less real than this reality, it's just that I cannot observe it from here (just as the other "me" in the other reality cannot observe this "me"). I call this reality "real" and say it "exists", or that this is "what really happened" because it is all I can observe. In this sense existence is clearly a subjective matter, and depends entirely on the observer. But that's because existence is a label placed on things by the observer.

What I'm saying isn't that conscious observers cause things to exist, but rather that they cause things to be subjectively categorized as "existing".

[Guest]

Just to pile on here. As Izzy said "observation" does not require a conscious entity. We cannot directly observe quantum states. We use non-living (and thus non-sentient) machines to extend our senses. Whether or not someone observes the data collected by said machines the quantum states have been observed. Now the argument that those machines could not do what they do if not for a sentient builder is, in the words of Peter Griffin, shallow and pedantic IMO. Because in an infinite universe with infinite time such a machine would be assembled without any intelligent intervention.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Semper Rideo

[Guest]

SCIENCE IS NO DIFFERENT FROM RELIGION - WE HAVE BELIEFS AND RITUALS TO DO SOME OF THE TASKS.

ELECTRON ATOM QUARKS ARE ALL CREATION OF MAN --- NO ONE CAN CONFIRM THEM BUT ONLY THEIR PRESENCE OR FEEL THEM.

THAT TOO IF WE HAVE FAITH IN HUMAN SENSES

science on other planet far away does not have to be exactly same as ours. similar to different religions we have.

[Guest]

Have you guys read Flashforward? Well, here's a minor spoiler:

In the book, an event causes the consciosness of all human beings to be displaced, going about 21 years into the future during 2 minutes. During that time, the multiple realities mixed together (because no one was looking). The cameras and other recording devices recorded all that, but sice it looked and sounded exactly like static, everyone assumed the devices had just stopped working for the duration of the event, until a cientist came up with this theory.

I don't think anything would happen if mankind disappeared though. That would be assuming that before the first intelligent life, the universe was just a mess of multiple realities, and all of a sudden it collapsed into what we have today. Would also be assuming that when you sleep in your room, the room (and yourself) disappears. I honestly don't believe in that. Maybe it happens to quantum particles, I don't know why cientists think it happens, but I don't think it would happen on the macroscopic level.