0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Rafael Harth (sil-ver) · 2024-12-13T15:14:01.804Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I mean, we have formalized simplicity metrics (Solomonoff Induction, minimal description length) for a reason, and that reason is that we don't need to rely on vague intuitions to determine whether a given theory (like wave function collapse) is plausible.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2024-12-13T15:32:00.162Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thank you. I agree with everything you just said.
It's just that I hear people always talking about how "incredible" and "mysterious" phenomena like wave function collapse are. I think this is because of poor communication.
Maybe if we pointed out that reality is a process of interacting information (rather than "just static information") and then explained how human observation is a subprocess within that overall process, then people would be less confused.
Then they would realize quantum physics is actually "no big deal" and not "a mystery". No vague intuitions would be needed. They would just understand how it is.
Replies from: james-camacho↑ comment by James Camacho (james-camacho) · 2024-12-13T15:41:39.975Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think physicists like to think of the universe through a "natural laws" perspective, where things should work the same whether or not they were there to look at them. So, it seems strange when things do work differently when they look at them.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2024-12-13T16:20:27.799Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for the feedback! I agree. It's just that if we think of humans and wave functions as both being manifestations of the same pool of interacting information, then it seems less surprising that our actions (like in measuring wave functions) would be connected to the behavior of wave functions. That "surprise" is something I think we could overcome if we communicated more clearly.
Replies from: Nonecomment by James Camacho (james-camacho) · 2024-12-13T15:35:36.616Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The reason wave function collapse is so surprising, is because not collapsing seems to be the norm. In fact, the best gravimeters are made by interfering the wavefunctions of entire molecules (ref: atom interferometer). We only see "wave function collapse" in particular kinds of operations, which we then define as observations. So, it isn't surprising that we observe wave function collapse—that's how the word "observe" is defined. What is surprising is that collapse even occurs to be observed, when we know it is not how the universe usually operates.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2024-12-13T16:17:55.779Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"What is surprising is that collapse even occurs to be observed, when we know it is not how the universe usually operates."
But if we're manifestations of the same pool of interacting information as wave functions, then I don't understand how it's surprising that our actions (like in measuring wave functions) would be connected to the behavior of wave functions. That "surprise" is something I think we could overcome if we communicated more clearly.
Replies from: james-camacho↑ comment by James Camacho (james-camacho) · 2024-12-13T17:30:18.669Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Maybe, there's an evolutionary advantage to thinking of yourself as distinct from the surrounding universe, that way your brain can simulate counterfactual worlds where you might take different actions. Will you actually take different actions? No, but thinking will make the one action you do take better. Since people are hardwired to think their observations are not necessarily interactions, updating in the other direction has significant surprisal.
Replies from: None