studiot

I didn't understand how the most basic question you can ask about quantum mechanics is meaninless in a thread all about quantum mechanics.

You really are floundering.

Or is this an example of fake news ?

Still not answering the most basic question then What is being quantised ?

In some ways it is yes I agree. However the stated aim of this thread is So we should be discussing QM at the most fundamental level. To me the most fundamental level is the question What is being quantised ? The second question which follows close in the heels of the first is How do we go about studying or determining the quantisation ? In studying the second question we come across a third one. Having decided what we are quantising, what else or other physical agent do we need to be acting ? Having set these up we can plunge into details such as Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and uncle Tom Cobbly. Unfortunately the OP is refusing to answer these most basic questions, and further appears to want to work without any maths whatsoever. Whilst you can pose and answer my three questions without any maths, you will struggle to proceed much further. Some progress can be made with a little amount of maths, as Prof Jordan says in his book And we can also show the answers to the OP issues over observers, conscious or not, wave functions, collapse, and so forth.

The nonsense about conscious observers is easy to dispel for those who understand the HUP. A simple philosophical point, not metaphysical or mystic or woo, will tell those folks that not only can we not not physically observe the values of certain quantities beyond a certain accuracy, we cannot even know them. This is obvious because once you have a formula the experiment itself does not actually have be performed or the apparatus actually exist for the limitation to be expressed. Of course you need to know enough maths (and I'm sure you do) to understand this. Talking of formulae and maths, I'm also sure you understand that even more basic to QM than collapse, measurement, observation, interaction, interpretation etc is the question What is a wave function and under what conditions does it exist ? The answer to this lies in the mathematics and supplies a remarkable refutation of the many worlds interpretation if extended to the universal wave function a la Sean Carroll. I am sure you understand this because you must have done a great deal of spectroscopy, professionally.

So far as I can tell, Darksand's proposal is a variation of the Simulation hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis and perhaps the Holographic Universe https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8847863/holographic-principle-universe-theory-physics

I wasn't assuming anything except that your English was ill thought out and led me to assess your words incorrectly. "You cannot deny etc" followed immediately by "A quick example, Darwin etc" as the next sentence in the same paragraph would mean that Darwin provided the example of the previous sentence. Do you wish to answer my question ?

So why did you imply otherwise ?

Apologies I seem to have missed the link out for the mathematical modelling of fungi https://www.davidmoore.org.uk/Biog_01-13.htm Of course there are plenty of others, fom respectable organisations like universities and tha government department of health.

Are these serious questions in the quest for information or are you just extrapolating from ignorance ? I most certainly deny that geological periods are based on radiometric dating and I further challenge you to reference a single instance of radiometric dating by Darwin. If you are really interested the key piece of geology here is the startling difference between the flora and fauna of Bali and Lombok, divided by only a few miles but also the wallace line. No one could explain this before plate techtonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

I have avoided mentioning fungi up to now since the subject is really off topic for QM. However there may be no maths in your book (well done for writing one by the way) but there is certainly much maths in the scientific study of fungi. For example I did not have to look further than the first real (non AI) entry in Google to finf this excellent blog on the subject. the blog contains a good bibliography and history going back to the mid 20th cent. So you asked the guidance of a moderator ? Or did you make up your own rules ? Again I point to the rules here.

Not sure if this is the right place but BBC NewsBBC threatens AI firm with legal action over unauthorised...It is first time that the BBC has taken such action regarding alleged scraping of its content for AI.

"The Measurement Problem" is the biggest outstanding problem in QM, and has been so for the last 100 years. It is not my job to educate you about the basics of quantum mechanics. Whenever I ask you something specific about your claims. You avoid answering or offering any support for them. In your opening post you refer to of site material where you claim QM to be the reason for both biological and geological - again unsuported claims. However if your really understood either of your claims you would not have been so downright rude about Chemistry, since the 4 elements I referred to are part of the handful of most abundant at the surface of the Earth and the fact that one of them combines with oxygen to form a liquid is widely held to be reason for terrristrial biogenesis. Discussion (this is a discussion site, not your preaching platform) is a two way process. I have examined your posts and while I do not claim to have fully combed them, I note you do not pay attention to mine. Have you nothing whatsoever to say about energy ? Do you even know what energy is ?

Have you been reading ? Chapter 2 There is enough time. From 'Fundamentals' by Frank Wilczek

You have stated that you are not a mathematician, but neither are you a scientist. So why do you claim such absolute knowledge of what scientists agree on ? Where is you evidence ? Furthermore you were the one who introduced the term measurement, so it is your responsibility to define it for the purposes of this thread. Without that, discussion cannot proceed. You have already ignored the moderator's warning about the rules and this seems to be your style of discussion. Good night.

Good summary +1

Have you actually read 'On the Origin of Species' ? Darwin didn't actually coin the phrase 'survival of the fittest' Spencer did in 1864. In any event, the situation is vastly more comploicated than the one sided view you have presented. Sticking with 'survival...' this refers to changes in the environment and an organisms response/reaction to it not necessarily the environment itself. This make a huge difference and, for instance, accounts for how and why mammals outsurvived dinosaurs following Chixelub.

Whislt I don't agree that there is a 'measurement' problem, only an obscuration and obfuscation problem by those who don't understand it. When folks in Science and Technology want to solve a problem, they don't tackle the biggest one they can find first. They start with a (simple) model and try it out on a simple problem, preferably one with an already known solution. When they can match their model to this they move on through increasingly difficult problems, possibly refing the model and may be even replacing the their model with a better one as the go. I offered you the opportunity to do this with your grand hypothesis at the outset but you declined.

If I was asked to state the 'philosophy' of QM in less than 10 words I would say something like Quantum Mechanics is about minimising energy. (6 words) If I want to make it more mathematical I might say Quantum Mechanics represents the Principle of Least Energy (8 words)

We are talking about what you chose to write, not what you want to pretend you didn't Suxh as And apparantly something called Quantum Darwinism ( is A quantum of Solace next on the fiction list ?) And QM and geology

This theory doesn't attempt to replace any existing bog-standard science, such as chemistry or the phase transitions of matter. These are not outstanding scientific or philosophical problems. The only thing this theory says about this is that if it was physically necessary for the existence of conscious life that silicon, hydrogen and carbon combine with oxygen to form respectively a solid, a liquid and a gas, then it was guaranteed to happen, regardless of how improbable. This has little or nothing to do with chemistry itself. That's a no then But I asked you specifically about another science, Chemistry, which when I studied it at university was all about how and why certain chemical reactions occur. Yes of course there are many others but to suggest that they only do so to support the existence oc conscious life is nonsensical. Further I commented about mathematics since you told me that when I asked you about mathematics, Yet you included that nonsensical preaching about a subject you clearly know little about. So that is two sciences you have 'rubbished' by offerring metaphysical woo in their place, which is most definitely not a science at all.

So perhaps you can use your "interpretation" to tell me how and why silicon, hydrogen and carbon combine with oxygen to form respectively a solid, a liquid and a gas ? I suppose you could have referred to this drivel from your article when asked for some mathematics. But even the christian bible contains more proper mathematics than this offering, which as far as I can tell, contains exactly zero mathematics.

So where is the maths that offer me something I can go and measure ?

What on earth do you mean by this ? Both Darwin and Einstein were human and so it is no suprise that they both 'got something wrong' at times.