|
rocknice2
Jul 27, 2012, 11:40 AM
Post #1 of 31
(11829 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
If your leading at a remote crag and out of site from your belayer, are they still there?
I guess the fact that the belayer can perceive themselves then they exist and remain at the belay. I think therefore I am.
What if a cam is placed into a crack and neither you nor your belayer can see it, is it still there?
Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jul 27, 2012, 12:02 PM
Post #2 of 31
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
rocknice2 wrote: Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there.
If I can't see or hear my belayer, then as far as I am concerned it is a 50/50 chance that he/she is still there / paying attention / alive / awake / not being attacked by bees / ....
|
|
|
|
|
hyhuu
Jul 27, 2012, 1:29 PM
Post #3 of 31
(11769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492
|
rocknice2 wrote: If your leading at a remote crag and out of site from your belayer, are they still there? I guess the fact that the belayer can perceive themselves then they exist and remain at the belay. I think therefore I am. What if a cam is placed into a crack and neither you nor your belayer can see it, is it still there? Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there.
That's your understanding of quantum physics?
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jul 27, 2012, 1:40 PM
Post #4 of 31
(11765 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
rocknice2 wrote: If your leading at a remote crag and out of site from your belayer, are they still there? I guess the fact that the belayer can perceive themselves then they exist and remain at the belay. I think therefore I am. What if a cam is placed into a crack and neither you nor your belayer can see it, is it still there? Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there.
Edit: damn it! hyhuu beat me to it. Once again a lesson for all of us: read the whole thread.
(This post was edited by marc801 on Jul 27, 2012, 1:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 27, 2012, 2:03 PM
Post #5 of 31
(11749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
hyhuu wrote: rocknice2 wrote: If your leading at a remote crag and out of site from your belayer, are they still there? I guess the fact that the belayer can perceive themselves then they exist and remain at the belay. I think therefore I am. What if a cam is placed into a crack and neither you nor your belayer can see it, is it still there? Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there. That's your understanding of quantum physics?
this is all anyone needs to know about quantum...stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 27, 2012, 3:02 PM
Post #6 of 31
(11714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
rocknice2 wrote: If your leading at a remote crag and out of site from your belayer, are they still there? I guess the fact that the belayer can perceive themselves then they exist and remain at the belay. I think therefore I am. What if a cam is placed into a crack and neither you nor your belayer can see it, is it still there? Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there.
A prime example of why posting while stoned seems like maybe it wasn't such a great idea after you come down.
G
|
|
|
|
|
rsd212
Jul 27, 2012, 5:46 PM
Post #7 of 31
(11663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2008
Posts: 95
|
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't say the cam may not be there when not observed, it says the cam is both there and not there, existing in all possible states simultaneously until its wave function is collapsed by an intelligent observer. Only when you fall does the cam come into a definite state of being there or not being there.
As to whether or not your belayer is still there, I guess its for you to decide whether or not they are an intelligent observer...
|
|
|
|
|
Kartessa
Jul 27, 2012, 6:36 PM
Post #8 of 31
(11640 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2008
Posts: 7362
|
cracklover wrote: rocknice2 wrote: If your leading at a remote crag and out of site from your belayer, are they still there? I guess the fact that the belayer can perceive themselves then they exist and remain at the belay. I think therefore I am. What if a cam is placed into a crack and neither you nor your belayer can see it, is it still there? Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there. A prime example of why posting while stoned seems like maybe it wasn't such a great idea after you come down. G
Tell me about it
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jul 27, 2012, 7:21 PM
Post #9 of 31
(11615 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
rsd212 wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't say the cam may not be there when not observed, it says the cam is both there and not there, existing in all possible states simultaneously until its wave function is collapsed by an intelligent observer. Proves Scientifically supports my 50/50 assumption! 
Edit: see strike-through
(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Jul 27, 2012, 7:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ninepointeight
Jul 27, 2012, 7:45 PM
Post #10 of 31
(11598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2012
Posts: 102
|
Fortunately for those who are leading on gear, what applies to reality at scales approaching Planck length does not apply in our full size world. Just because a single electron may both exist and not exist until observed does not mean your cam is and isn't there when you can't see it.
That's just something Secretist zealots try to sell you as part of 'String Theory'.
(This post was edited by ninepointeight on Jul 27, 2012, 7:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Jul 27, 2012, 9:30 PM
Post #12 of 31
(11543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775
|
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jul 27, 2012, 9:43 PM
Post #13 of 31
(11536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
veganclimber wrote: sbaclimber wrote: rocknice2 wrote: Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there. Actually, common sense pretty much already suggests the same thing. If I can't see or hear my belayer, then as far as I am concerned it is a 50/50 chance that he/she is still there / paying attention / alive / awake / not being attacked by bees / .... I'd recommend a new belayer. 
It has nothing to do with the belayer (or cam), but rather my belief in the "invisible".
Granted, I have had belayers in the past where it was 50/50 even when I could see them...
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Jul 28, 2012, 2:17 AM
Post #14 of 31
(11483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
rsd212 wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't say the cam may not be there when not observed, it says the cam is both there and not there, existing in all possible states simultaneously until its wave function is collapsed by an intelligent observer. Only when you fall does the cam come into a definite state of being there or not being there. As to whether or not your belayer is still there, I guess its for you to decide whether or not they are an intelligent observer...
This is the correct interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation.
You could also plan your route based on the "Many Worlds" interpretation of QM. So instead of the cam's problematic there/not-there uncertainty, you know that of all the outcomes of your fall, you survived at least one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Jul 28, 2012, 3:45 PM
Post #15 of 31
(11390 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
rsd212 wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't say the cam may not be there when not observed, it says the cam is both there and not there, existing in all possible states simultaneously until its wave function is collapsed by an intelligent observer. Only when you fall does the cam come into a definite state of being there or not being there. As to whether or not your belayer is still there, I guess its for you to decide whether or not they are an intelligent observer...
So it may NOT be there once I fall.
|
|
|
|
|
Marylandclimber
Jul 28, 2012, 4:12 PM
Post #16 of 31
(11381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2011
Posts: 224
|
What if neither your belayer or yourself can see Africa, is it still there?
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Jul 28, 2012, 6:14 PM
Post #17 of 31
(11364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
rocknice2 wrote: If your leading at a remote crag and out of site from your belayer, are they still there? I guess the fact that the belayer can perceive themselves then they exist and remain at the belay. I think therefore I am. What if a cam is placed into a crack and neither you nor your belayer can see it, is it still there? Quantum theory suggests that it may not be there.
Do you think that an experiment where I hit the "Delete Thread" button would provide additional food for thought? Would these post still exist, or not?
You know, purely in the interest of science.
(This post was edited by edge on Jul 28, 2012, 6:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Jul 28, 2012, 11:44 PM
Post #18 of 31
(11314 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
LOL
Now your just playing God and your threatening to delete a couple of dimensions to prove a point.
The proper experiment would be to see if an intelligent observer clicks on the thread and it's not there. Sans interference from God of coarse.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jul 29, 2012, 1:19 AM
Post #19 of 31
(11289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
rocknice2 wrote: LOL Now your just playing God and your threatening to delete a couple of dimensions to prove a point. The proper experiment would be to see if an intelligent observer clicks on the thread and it's not there. Sans interference from God of coarse.
I mean, some of my best friends are Candadandian, but still.....
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 29, 2012, 9:58 AM
Post #20 of 31
(11245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
rsd212 wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't say the cam may not be there when not observed, it says the cam is both there and not there, existing in all possible states simultaneously until its wave function is collapsed by an intelligent observer.
Fixed that for you. Another way of putting it is that a quantum system is only defined to other systems that interact with it. Say an atom is in complete isolation from its surroundings. Its state is then indeterminate with respect to the rest of the universe. Then a photon interacts with it. The states of the photon and the atom at the time of interaction then become determined with respect to each other, but are still undetermined with respect to everything else.
If that photon then goes on to interact with you, you then become part of the expanding collapsed wave function - determined with respect to each other, but indeterminate with respect to everything you haven't yet (directly or indirectly) interacted with.
In reality, of course, we and every other object are constantly interacting with our environment, via atomic collisions and absorption/emission of photons in the untold trillions per second. It takes quite heroic measures to isolate even a single atom to sufficient extent to keep its state uncollapsed for a few seconds.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. Personally I think the word "observed" was really ill-founded - all it really says is that a wavefunction is indeterminate to you until something that it has interacted with goes on to interact (at however many removes) with you.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 29, 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #21 of 31
(11241 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
rsd212 wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation
|
|
|
|
|
Kartessa
Jul 30, 2012, 4:02 PM
Post #22 of 31
(11122 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2008
Posts: 7362
|
blondgecko wrote: rsd212 wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't say the cam may not be there when not observed, it says the cam is both there and not there, existing in all possible states simultaneously until its wave function is collapsed by an intelligent observer. Fixed that for you. Another way of putting it is that a quantum system is only defined to other systems that interact with it. Say an atom is in complete isolation from its surroundings. Its state is then indeterminate with respect to the rest of the universe. Then a photon interacts with it. The states of the photon and the atom at the time of interaction then become determined with respect to each other, but are still undetermined with respect to everything else. If that photon then goes on to interact with you, you then become part of the expanding collapsed wave function - determined with respect to each other, but indeterminate with respect to everything you haven't yet (directly or indirectly) interacted with. In reality, of course, we and every other object are constantly interacting with our environment, via atomic collisions and absorption/emission of photons in the untold trillions per second. It takes quite heroic measures to isolate even a single atom to sufficient extent to keep its state uncollapsed for a few seconds. All of this is a roundabout way of saying that intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. Personally I think the word "observed" was really ill-founded - all it really says is that a wavefunction is indeterminate to you until something that it has interacted with goes on to interact (at however many removes) with you.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jul 30, 2012, 4:33 PM
Post #23 of 31
(11109 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The cop asks, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg proclaims, "No idea, but I know precisely where I am."
|
|
|
|
|
rsd212
Jul 30, 2012, 6:01 PM
Post #24 of 31
(11074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2008
Posts: 95
|
sungam wrote: rsd212 wrote: The Copenhagen interpretation Not that it makes his claim any less incorrect, but I think he was talking about quantum theories that are still taken seriously.
I made an assumption from the OP's question that we were dealing with that era's thought experiments, so it seemed appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
CharlieP
Jul 30, 2012, 7:43 PM
Post #25 of 31
(11038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2012
Posts: 8
|
assume the situation is totaly lost because everything outside the moment is in the past and can no longer be relied on
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
