How to explain that idealism is correct?

First of all, I declare that I am a student of science and engineering, and my understanding of materialism and idealism is only superficial. I hope professionals can explain and correct me. The quantum mechanics mentioned in this paper is only a rough understanding of some stories, and the professional knowledge is half-baked.

Recently, I made a paper on cryptography (in fact, I pieced it together) and found a lot of relevant information, including a kind of password that can never be cracked in theory-quantum password. Quantum cryptography is now being studied in many countries and will soon be applied to practice. After reading some materials, I fell into the speculation of materialism and idealism, so I posted it here for your discussion.

Quantum cryptography cannot be deciphered because it uses quantum states as information carriers. If eavesdropped, the quantum state will collapse, change its properties and distort the observation. At this point, the eavesdropped information has changed, so it will never be possible to eavesdrop on quantum cryptography. Of course, this is just the simplest expression. What I want to say is about idealism.

A classic example of idealism is that if a table is not observed by us, it does not exist, that is, consciousness determines matter. Without our conscious observation, there would be no table as matter. This statement may be considered absurd by many people, but some theories of quantum mechanics support this idealistic view. As I said, quantum cryptography is an application.

When we observe a quantum state, it will change it. By extension, a table is a state (quantum state) before we observe it, but when we observe it, it collapses, thus becoming a table in our eyes. Of course, the macro-table is different from the micro-quantum, but at least it has an idealistic place in the micro-field. We can change matter through consciousness, even if we can't decide what it will be, at least we can decide when to change the state of quantum.

Here, I want to talk about the famous Schrodinger's cat. This is a hypothetical experiment based on Schrodinger equation. Don't ask me what the Schrodinger equation is, I don't understand it. ) because it involves idealism, it is controversial and many scientists strongly reject it. Let's see what this experiment is. Suppose there is a cat in a closed box with a poison controlled by radioactive atoms. According to quantum mechanics, atoms are in the superposition state of decay/non-decay if the lid is not opened for observation. Once we open the lid to observe, the atom will be in a certain state at random. Similarly, if we don't observe, the cat is in a dead/alive superposition state. Once we observe, the cat's life and death are determined.

This is a leap from the micro world to the macro world of idealism, that is, we can not only decide the collapse of quantum state through consciousness and observation, but also decide the life and death of cats through consciousness and observation. (Of course, Schrodinger put forward the concept of cat in order to solve the grandmother paradox brought by Einstein's theory of relativity, and idealism and materialism are only arguments derived from it. )

One statement about this experiment is that the superposition state of death and life is a bit incomprehensible, but in fact it has realized the macroscopic quantum superposition state, which is Schrodinger's cat state. Not understanding is only a matter of concept, and many people still can't understand the state between solid state and liquid-liquid crystal state. Another controversy is idealism involved in quantum mechanics, which is strongly refuted by more people, which leads to the theory of "parallel universe". Of course, this is a legitimate argument involved in science. Only after repeated arguments can academic theories be improved and perfected. However, some people claim to falsify the experiment only by playing word games (for example, claiming that measurement and observation are different concepts, Schrodinger changed the proposition-thinking that scientists are as boring as him).

In addition, some people think that we can record the state of the cat with a camera instead of opening the box. What I want to explain here is that this experiment is an ideal experiment, which can't be done in reality because there can't be no observers. Don't say that your camera is an observer, even a closed box is an observer. Not only living people are observers, but also inanimate cameras and boxes. It's just that the camera is weakly observed, and the cat is indirectly observed by people observing the camera. But no matter what kind of observation will have an impact. Just like friction is everywhere, even if the friction is small, the moving object will eventually change its state of motion. Uniform linear motion is only an ideal experiment, and Schrodinger's cat is also an ideal experiment. People who want Schrodinger to experience the taste of half-death, probably never will.

Suppose there was a supernova explosion in the universe, and there were no human beings at that time, then how do we know about this explosion? Is it because we didn't observe the explosion that it doesn't exist? No, the supernova explosion will change the peak value of potassium in the stone. We can know the existence of this explosion by observing the peak value of potassium. For this explosion, the stones on the earth, the whole earth and even the whole universe are observers of this explosion.

Looking back, the previously mentioned unobserved table does not exist, but in fact there can never be a situation without observers. For the table, the cup on the table and the ground under the table are all observers. So don't think that the table doesn't exist with your eyes closed. Materialism thinks that the table still exists with eyes closed, but they can't say why; Idealism also believes that the table still exists with eyes closed, because it is impossible for no observer to observe the table in the universe, so the table cannot exist.

If you have to find a situation without observers to judge whether the table exists, then well, there is a situation without observers before BIGBANG. If there were no observers before we moved the table to BIGBANG, would the table still exist? I don't know. If it can be done, it will essentially prove who is right and who is wrong between materialism and idealism.

There is another paragraph that people who think that "you will not exist when I die" are not idealists, but solipsists. Although consciousness determines matter, "I" is consciousness and "you" is consciousness. It doesn't mean that when my consciousness dies, there will be no other consciousness, and this material world will not exist. Those solipsists, please don't call yourself idealism.

Going on, we think that the table and chair observe each other and thus exist with each other (this is the point of view of quantum mechanics). Then it is deduced that when the universe erupts, there is no matter (and consciousness) without observation. So what was the original observer? Well, there is no choice but to let God do the work of the original observer. God makes it exist by observing one (or several) particles, which makes more particles exist by observing, and so on, thus making the whole universe exist by observing. This probably implies Laozi's view that "Tao gives birth to one, two, three and everything".

Those who think that with the further development of science, materialism will eventually overcome idealism may be disappointed. Because a pillar of physics, many viewpoints of quantum mechanics support idealism. For Marx, he was born in 18 18 and lived in 19 century, so he had no chance to see the development of quantum mechanics in the 20th century. For him, the scientific knowledge around him is more materialistic, and the limitations of the times make Marx's thoughts materialistic, so we can't blame him. However, we should know that it is 2 1 century, and Marx lived two centuries ago. If our current thinking still stays in his time, it will be too backward. Nowadays, science is more inclined to idealism. Perhaps materialism will prevail again in another century's development, but it is unforgivable if our minds blindly believe in materialism or idealism. Our science and technology can lag behind, but our thinking can't. Once our thoughts fall behind, the level of science and technology will never develop rapidly.

In fact, what I have always emphasized in my article is observation, and the universe exists because of observation. Did not touch the core of the dispute between materialism and idealism, whether matter decides consciousness or consciousness decides matter. This is beyond my judgment. Because I am a science and engineering major, not a philosophy and history major, I value evidence, not word games. So I won't call myself a materialist or an idealist, but I think materialism and idealism should stay in philosophical speculation and should not break into the category of science. But the reality is that when I was studying science, the deep-rooted materialism in my mind always affected my understanding, and I couldn't turn around until I abandoned the dispute between materialism and idealism.

I have written so much, but it is only half a bottle of vinegar. I hope you can give us more advice and make our thinking more profound. In addition, I hope to refine Bambusa bambusa and let more people see it here. I found that many posts that said inexplicable things in the bar were refined, but a post I just saw involving quantum mechanics and idealism was not refined. You know, quantum mechanics is by far the biggest weapon of idealism. If we say quantum mechanics, materialism is hard to refute. You can only say that you don't understand quantum mechanics, so you don't know what you are talking about.