6 6 6

[Snuden]

Does the Copenhagen Interpretation (by Niels Bohr) prove that we live in a virtual reality?
If so, is Gendarme a real (virtual) gendarme?

[Dolan]

No

[Snuden]

/thread

[BrookG]

ffs learn your facts micro properties doesn't necessarily generalise to macro world. @momuuu pls debunk him

[Snuden]

But I have no clue, which is why I asked!

[Snuden]

Had I known the answer I would have created an [Official] thread.

[Gendarme]

We all know that @Goodspeed is not a of the Copenhagen Interpretation, so with that in mind I think it is safe to say that Bohr was wrong.

[Goodspeed]

I didn't even know that myself

[momuuu]

The copenhagen interpretation also implies that the wavefunction of a particle collapses upon measurement, so in the macroscopic world the majority of the particles will be "measuring" eachother meaning that macroscopic properties are very consistent, I believe. Also, there are so many microscopic particles that even pseudorandom behaviour, like predicted in QM, leads to consistent macroscopic properties. Look at statistical physics for example and the kinetic theory of gas: A gas is just a bunch of particles moving around randomly at pseudorandom velocity (distributed according to a specific function). The pressure is caused by these kinetic particles bumping into something. In practise, we don't feel pressure deviations and actually in the macroscopic world we don't measure them because a mole of gas contains 10^24 particles, which is so much that random deviations cancel eachother out.

[j_t_kirk]

Does the Copenhagen Interpretation (by Niels Bohr) prove that we live in a virtual reality?

Yes AND No

[japanesegeneral]

All i knew about the copenhagen interpretation is a little less than Jerom wrote. However i do not see a causal causation to reality beeing virtual. Can you guys explain how it leads to vr?

The only question i see in the copenhagen interpretation is whether live is determined or not.

[j_t_kirk]

However i do not see a causal causation to reality beeing virtual. Can you guys explain how it leads to vr?

It doesn't lead to vr.

[japanesegeneral]

I mean the virtual reality to live in not the one you use on your console...I was just too lazy to type it all.

[Hidddy_]

The copenhagen interpretation also implies that the wavefunction of a particle collapses upon measurement, so in the macroscopic world the majority of the particles will be "measuring" eachother meaning that macroscopic properties are very consistent, I believe. Also, there are so many microscopic particles that even pseudorandom behaviour, like predicted in QM, leads to consistent macroscopic properties. Look at statistical physics for example and the kinetic theory of gas: A gas is just a bunch of particles moving around randomly at pseudorandom velocity (distributed according to a specific function). The pressure is caused by these kinetic particles bumping into something. In practise, we don't feel pressure deviations and actually in the macroscopic world we don't measure them because a mole of gas contains 10^24 particles, which is so much that random deviations cancel eachother out.

I see we have another physics junkie here, this is 100% my opinion on microscopic and macroscopic properties. Macros are consistent because of the organized randomness (oxymoron) of microscopic objects.

And no the Copenhagen interpretation does not constitute virtual reality, you may also want to clarify what you mean by virtual reality. Do you mean a separate/parallel reality? Because virtual would be man made through electronics.

[Snuden]

The copenhagen interpretation also implies that the wavefunction of a particle collapses upon measurement, so in the macroscopic world the majority of the particles will be "measuring" eachother meaning that macroscopic properties are very consistent, I believe. Also, there are so many microscopic particles that even pseudorandom behaviour, like predicted in QM, leads to consistent macroscopic properties. Look at statistical physics for example and the kinetic theory of gas: A gas is just a bunch of particles moving around randomly at pseudorandom velocity (distributed according to a specific function). The pressure is caused by these kinetic particles bumping into something. In practise, we don't feel pressure deviations and actually in the macroscopic world we don't measure them because a mole of gas contains 10^24 particles, which is so much that random deviations cancel eachother out.

I see we have another physics junkie here, this is 100% my opinion on microscopic and macroscopic properties. Macros are consistent because of the organized randomness (oxymoron) of microscopic objects.

And no the Copenhagen interpretation does not constitute virtual reality, you may also want to clarify what you mean by virtual reality. Do you mean a separate/parallel reality? Because virtual would be man made through electronics.

I meant if it would be possible based on his interpretation :/

[Goodspeed]

The copenhagen interpretation also implies that the wavefunction of a particle collapses upon measurement, so in the macroscopic world the majority of the particles will be "measuring" eachother meaning that macroscopic properties are very consistent, I believe. Also, there are so many microscopic particles that even pseudorandom behaviour, like predicted in QM, leads to consistent macroscopic properties. Look at statistical physics for example and the kinetic theory of gas: A gas is just a bunch of particles moving around randomly at pseudorandom velocity (distributed according to a specific function). The pressure is caused by these kinetic particles bumping into something. In practise, we don't feel pressure deviations and actually in the macroscopic world we don't measure them because a mole of gas contains 10^24 particles, which is so much that random deviations cancel eachother out.

I see we have another physics junkie here, this is 100% my opinion on microscopic and macroscopic properties. Macros are consistent because of the organized randomness (oxymoron) of microscopic objects.

And no the Copenhagen interpretation does not constitute virtual reality, you may also want to clarify what you mean by virtual reality. Do you mean a separate/parallel reality? Because virtual would be man made through electronics.

Why man made?

[Hidddy_]

The copenhagen interpretation also implies that the wavefunction of a particle collapses upon measurement, so in the macroscopic world the majority of the particles will be "measuring" eachother meaning that macroscopic properties are very consistent, I believe. Also, there are so many microscopic particles that even pseudorandom behaviour, like predicted in QM, leads to consistent macroscopic properties. Look at statistical physics for example and the kinetic theory of gas: A gas is just a bunch of particles moving around randomly at pseudorandom velocity (distributed according to a specific function). The pressure is caused by these kinetic particles bumping into something. In practise, we don't feel pressure deviations and actually in the macroscopic world we don't measure them because a mole of gas contains 10^24 particles, which is so much that random deviations cancel eachother out.

I see we have another physics junkie here, this is 100% my opinion on microscopic and macroscopic properties. Macros are consistent because of the organized randomness (oxymoron) of microscopic objects.

And no the Copenhagen interpretation does not constitute virtual reality, you may also want to clarify what you mean by virtual reality. Do you mean a separate/parallel reality? Because virtual would be man made through electronics.

I meant if it would be possible based on his interpretation :/

I would say no that we don't live in a virtual reality based on his interpretation. His interpretation says that although the properties of small things may be indefinite, they become definite once observed or measured. Now the more complicated thing is that although the properties of particles and other small objects may be indefinite, the overall properties of a unit of particles can be definite (i.e. A cloud of gas). That's because the individual properties of a particle are undefined until the time of observation BUT whatever property you are going to measure has a value that is governed by a physical law, making it consistent with measurements of other nearby particles if you were to measure them, and consistent with the system as a whole.

[Hidddy_]

The copenhagen interpretation also implies that the wavefunction of a particle collapses upon measurement, so in the macroscopic world the majority of the particles will be "measuring" eachother meaning that macroscopic properties are very consistent, I believe. Also, there are so many microscopic particles that even pseudorandom behaviour, like predicted in QM, leads to consistent macroscopic properties. Look at statistical physics for example and the kinetic theory of gas: A gas is just a bunch of particles moving around randomly at pseudorandom velocity (distributed according to a specific function). The pressure is caused by these kinetic particles bumping into something. In practise, we don't feel pressure deviations and actually in the macroscopic world we don't measure them because a mole of gas contains 10^24 particles, which is so much that random deviations cancel eachother out.

I see we have another physics junkie here, this is 100% my opinion on microscopic and macroscopic properties. Macros are consistent because of the organized randomness (oxymoron) of microscopic objects.

And no the Copenhagen interpretation does not constitute virtual reality, you may also want to clarify what you mean by virtual reality. Do you mean a separate/parallel reality? Because virtual would be man made through electronics.

Why man made?

I only said man made because virtual refers to something running on a computer and for now we only have knowledge of computers built by man. Alternatively we could use a more physical definition of virtual.

[j_t_kirk]

I mean the virtual reality to live in not the one you use on your console...I was just too lazy to type it all.

This was obvious to me. The Copenhagen Interpretation dosn't lead to virtual reality. There was a physicist (I forgot his name) who said that it leads to vr and he published a book about his interpretation, but this isn't a generally accepted theory.

[Snuden]

I mean the virtual reality to live in not the one you use on your console...I was just too lazy to type it all.

This was obvious to me. The Copenhagen Interpretation dosn't lead to virtual reality. There was a physicist (I forgot his name) who said that it leads to vr and he published a book about his interpretation, but this isn't a generally accepted theory.

Yes, that's what I read, which is why I asked.

[momuuu]

There's a theory about a multiverse caused by quantum mechanics but I believe that is generally widely misunderstood in what it implies. I think we're talking about Pilot Wave theory here; But that aims to fix the randomness of Quantum mechanics by claiming there are hidden variables (not an insane thing to claim).