Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Flannel Jesus]

But you know without a degree that people (with degrees) who came up with all the alternative interpretations, were just deluded?

Alternative to what? What's the main interpretation, to you, that all other interpretations are the alternative to?

[Atla]

But you know without a degree that people (with degrees) who came up with all the alternative interpretations, were just deluded?

Alternative to what? What's the main interpretation, to you, that all other interpretations are the alternative to?

I meant alternative to his "interaction" interpretation.

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh sorry, I misread that the first time. I get you now.

I can't answer for him, but I would personally not use the word "deluded". However I am under the impression that his take here is pretty standard and not particularly controversial among experts.

[Darkneos]

Fine

You use the double-slit to observe a particle. You interact with it. Do you collapse the particle's wavefunction or does the particle collapse your wavefunction or what is going on?

Without a degree I can’t give a solid answer.

Though citing the double-slit in this case is in error. That was just to demonstrate wave particule duality (though allegedly now some are arguing it’s all just waves).

Also at the macro level where we reside there is interference from several factors so the particle wouldn’t be collapsing anything. Collapse works within a closed system like a lab.

But you know without a degree that people (with degrees) who came up with all the alternative interpretations, were just deluded?

It’s not really an alternative interpretation of observation just an outdated one. That’s how science works. People who think it implies a conscious observer just don’t understand it.

Like I said, find and talk to these people. I did. But I can only give the parts they’re able to tell me without actually teaching the field to me.

Also dropping QM without citing the math or even understanding it is more or less talking about nothing.

[Atla]

Oh sorry, I misread that the first time. I get you now.

I can't answer for him, but I would personally not use the word "deluded". However I am under the impression that his take here is pretty standard and not particularly controversial among experts.

That's because you've been mislead by people who themselves didn't know any better. Strange as it may sound but quantum physicists are usually not educated in the (philosophical) fundamentals of quantum physics. They are given an education that's specifically designed to be instrumentalist.

[Darkneos]

Oh sorry, I misread that the first time. I get you now.

I can't answer for him, but I would personally not use the word "deluded". However I am under the impression that his take here is pretty standard and not particularly controversial among experts.

That's because you've been mislead by people who themselves didn't know any better. Strange as it may sound but quantum physicists are usually not educated in the (philosophical) fundamentals of quantum physics. They are given an education that's specifically designed to be instrumentalist.

“Philosophical fundamentals”

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh sorry, I misread that the first time. I get you now.

I can't answer for him, but I would personally not use the word "deluded". However I am under the impression that his take here is pretty standard and not particularly controversial among experts.

That's because you've been mislead by people who themselves didn't know any better. Strange as it may sound but quantum physicists are usually not educated in the (philosophical) fundamentals of quantum physics. They are given an education that's specifically designed to be instrumentalist.

Oh, I didn't realize you knew better than the physicists themselves. Fascinating. What do the terms measurement and observation mean then?

[FlashDangerpants]

He might be the worst of the worst of the window icking loons, but you have to give it to VA, he's somehow got you guys arguing about QM and wavefunctions in an ethics sub. He must be quite a talented absurdist.

[Atla]

Oh sorry, I misread that the first time. I get you now.

I can't answer for him, but I would personally not use the word "deluded". However I am under the impression that his take here is pretty standard and not particularly controversial among experts.

That's because you've been mislead by people who themselves didn't know any better. Strange as it may sound but quantum physicists are usually not educated in the (philosophical) fundamentals of quantum physics. They are given an education that's specifically designed to be instrumentalist.

Oh, I didn't realize you knew better than the physicists themselves. Fascinating. What do the terms measurement and observation mean then?

Err.. now you're ignoring the physicists (and philosophers) who do look into or even specialize in the philosophical foundations of QM.
Again. NO ONE knows what measurement/observations means. That's the whole point, that's why we have all the interpretations. It's one of the greatest unsolved scientific/philosophical mysteries of our time.

[Darkneos]

He might be the worst of the worst of the window icking loons, but you have to give it to VA, he's somehow got you guys arguing about QM and wavefunctions in an ethics sub. He must be quite a talented absurdist.

Yeah, I’ll be honest REALLLLLY not sure how we ended up here. Probably should stop though.

[Darkneos]

That's because you've been mislead by people who themselves didn't know any better. Strange as it may sound but quantum physicists are usually not educated in the (philosophical) fundamentals of quantum physics. They are given an education that's specifically designed to be instrumentalist.

Oh, I didn't realize you knew better than the physicists themselves. Fascinating. What do the terms measurement and observation mean then?

Err.. now you're ignoring the physicists (and philosophers) who do look into or even specialize in the philosophical foundations of QM.
Again. NO ONE knows what measurement/observations means. That's the whole point, that's why we have all the interpretations. It's one of the greatest unsolved scientific/philosophical mysteries of our time.

Again, yes they do know what measurements and observations mean.

The interpretations are just how to explain what the math is saying because, again, it’s a math dense field.

Stop being wrong.

[Flannel Jesus]

Err.. now you're ignoring the physicists (and philosophers) who do look into or even specialize in the philosophical foundations of QM.

So it's your opinion that no physicist/philosopher who looks into that would ever conclude that quantum measurements are just a type of quantum interaction?

[Atla]

Err.. now you're ignoring the physicists (and philosophers) who do look into or even specialize in the philosophical foundations of QM.

So it's your opinion that no physicist/philosopher who looks into that would ever conclude that quantum measurements are just a type of quantum interaction?

Umm.. no, that's not my opinion? Why would it be?

[Flannel Jesus]

Because of these words:

That's because you've been mislead by people who themselves didn't know any better

I only think measurement means that because I've been misled by people who don't know better, that's what that says. And the people who do know better are the ones I'm apparently ignoring.

[Atla]

Because of these words:

That's because you've been mislead by people who themselves didn't know any better

I only think measurement means that because I've been misled by people who don't know better, that's what that says. And the people who do know better are the ones I'm apparently ignoring.

You've been told by some physicists what a measurement is. Even though physicists and philosophers who know better, of course know that no one knows the answer to that one for sure.

Maaaybe it's some kind of interaction, maybe not. Personally I think it would have to be some kind of asymmetric interaction which is sort of an oxymoron, but that's just my a guess.

Anyway, I'll just copy-paste stuff from Wiki and ChatGPT about how it's "definitely" interaction, and leave it at that.

Despite the consensus among scientists that quantum physics is in practice a successful theory, disagreements persist on a more philosophical level. Many debates in the area known as quantum foundations concern the role of measurement in quantum mechanics. Recurring questions include which interpretation of probability theory is best suited for the probabilities calculated from the Born rule; and whether the apparent randomness of quantum measurement outcomes is fundamental, or a consequence of a deeper deterministic process.[61][62][63] Worldviews that present answers to questions like these are known as "interpretations" of quantum mechanics; as the physicist N. David Mermin once quipped, "New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear."[64]

A central concern within quantum foundations is the "quantum measurement problem," though how this problem is delimited, and whether it should be counted as one question or multiple separate issues, are contested topics.[54][65] Of primary interest is the seeming disparity between apparently distinct types of time evolution. Von Neumann declared that quantum mechanics contains "two fundamentally different types" of quantum-state change.[66]: §V.1  First, there are those changes involving a measurement process, and second, there is unitary time evolution in the absence of measurement. The former is stochastic and discontinuous, writes von Neumann, and the latter deterministic and continuous. This dichotomy has set the tone for much later debate.[67][68] Some interpretations of quantum mechanics find the reliance upon two different types of time evolution distasteful and regard the ambiguity of when to invoke one or the other as a deficiency of the way quantum theory was historically presented.[69] To bolster these interpretations, their proponents have worked to derive ways of regarding "measurement" as a secondary concept and deducing the seemingly stochastic effect of measurement processes as approximations to more fundamental deterministic dynamics. However, consensus has not been achieved among proponents of the correct way to implement this program, and in particular how to justify the use of the Born rule to calculate probabilities.[70][71] Other interpretations regard quantum states as statistical information about quantum systems, thus asserting that abrupt and discontinuous changes of quantum states are not problematic, simply reflecting updates of the available information.[53][72] Of this line of thought, Bell asked, "Whose information? Information about what?"[69] Answers to these questions vary among proponents of the informationally-oriented interpretations.[62][72]

In quantum physics, measurements play a fundamental role in determining the properties of quantum systems. However, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics is quite different from classical physics.

In classical physics, measurements are typically thought of as processes that reveal preexisting properties of an object. For example, when measuring the position of a classical particle, the measurement simply provides information about its location.

In quantum physics, measurements are inherently probabilistic and can cause a quantum system to undergo a fundamental change. When a measurement is made on a quantum system, it "collapses" the system's wavefunction, which represents the probability distribution of its possible states, into a specific state.

The outcome of a quantum measurement is not determined with certainty but is rather described by probabilities. The measurement result corresponds to an eigenvalue of the operator associated with the observable being measured. The probability of obtaining a particular outcome is given by the squared magnitude of the corresponding eigenvector's projection onto the system's wavefunction.

The act of measurement in quantum mechanics is often described as an interaction between the quantum system being measured and the measuring apparatus. This interaction introduces a level of uncertainty and can disturb the system being measured, particularly when precise measurements are made. This effect is known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

It's important to note that the interpretation and understanding of measurements in quantum mechanics have been the subject of extensive discussion and debate among physicists. Different interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation, and others, offer different perspectives on the nature of quantum measurements.