Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism

[seeds]

We're talking about a theory that suggests that an entirely new, yet fully-formed/fully-matured universe - springs into existence simply to accommodate the position of a single electron or photon. And if people like Flannel Jesus, for example, cannot see how the sheer weight of the absurdity of that proposition doesn't crush the theory itself, then I can't help them.

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head.

Part of the problem is that the Sean Carroll's of the world will dumb this down for his live audiences by making it seem as if the branching only occurs when large macro-objects do something of which there are perhaps only two possible outcomes, as demonstrated by Carroll in the first 2 minutes of this YouTube video...

https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY

Indeed, the fact that he makes it sound so trivial is what makes me suspect that he really hasn't mentally explored - to the fullest degree - the ridiculous implications of the theory he's promoting.

The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally explored, even to the smallest degree, these ideas you're so emotionally opposed to.

I told seeds a few times that the MWI typically doesn't claim that new universes literally keep springing into existence whenever branching happens, instead it claims that all the worlds of the many worlds have been there all along....

Do you have any idea of what that implies?

Take, for example, Carroll's own little demonstration in his video where he jumps to the right while, allegedly, his copy (in an already existing universe, according to you) jumps to the left.

Well, in order for that to take place, one would have to presume that all of the quantum phenomena and events that have taken place in the completely separate universe in which Carroll's copy jumped to the left, would have somehow managed to stay in perfect synchronization with all of the quantum phenomena and events that have taken place in this universe where Carroll jumped to the right.

Otherwise, how in the world could the two events be so precisely coordinated with each other?

And that's not even considering how ridiculously precise the arrival of an electron on a phosphorescent screen would have to be in the instance where two sets of dopplegangers are performing the exact same double slit experiment in two separate universes.

If any of these paired events were thrown-off by a nano-second (no, make that a unit of Planck time) then the many-worlds theory wouldn't really work.

Yet, by reason of what the theory itself implies, the events are going to result in different outcomes in each separate universe (Carroll jumps to the left, for example).

In which case, the whole quantum-entangled underpinning of each separate universe would probably experience minor shifts in time that would eventually evolve into major shifts in time (as per the proverbial "butterfly effect"), thus making synchronization between the two worlds (the two universes) impossible.

Now of course none of that is meant to imply that I can't be wrong about this crazy crap.

Nevertheless, you guys really need to put a little more thought into these issues and stop assuming that I haven't.

And lastly, instead of you guys taking umbrage with me for having the gall to offer these, yes, "speculative" ideas, how about you tell me where you think I am wrong?

Or, better yet, offer some of your own (un-parroted) ideas.
_______

[accelafine]

Idiot

[Atla]

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head.



The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally explored, even to the smallest degree, these ideas you're so emotionally opposed to.

I told seeds a few times that the MWI typically doesn't claim that new universes literally keep springing into existence whenever branching happens, instead it claims that all the worlds of the many worlds have been there all along....

Do you have any idea of what that implies?

Take, for example, Carroll's own little demonstration in his video where he jumps to the right while, allegedly, his copy (in an already existing universe, according to you) jumps to the left.

Well, in order for that to take place, one would have to presume that all of the quantum phenomena and events that have taken place in the completely separate universe in which Carroll's copy jumped to the left, would have somehow managed to stay in perfect synchronization with all of the quantum phenomena and events that have taken place in this universe where Carroll jumped to the right.

Otherwise, how in the world could the two events be so precisely coordinated with each other?

And that's not even considering how ridiculously precise the arrival of an electron on a phosphorescent screen would have to be in the instance where two sets of dopplegangers are performing the exact same double slit experiment in two separate universes.

If any of these paired events were thrown-off by a nano-second (no, make that a unit of Planck time) then the many-worlds theory wouldn't really work.

Yet, by reason of what the theory itself implies, the events are going to result in different outcomes in each separate universe (Carroll jumps to the left, for example).

In which case, the whole quantum-entangled underpinning of each separate universe would probably experience minor shifts in time that would eventually evolve into major shifts in time (as per the proverbial "butterfly effect"), thus making synchronization between the two worlds (the two universes) impossible.

Now of course none of that is meant to imply that I can't be wrong about this crazy crap.

Nevertheless, you guys really need to put a little more thought into these issues and stop assuming that I haven't.

And lastly, instead of you guys taking umbrage with me for having the gall to offer these, yes, "speculative" ideas, how about you tell me where you think I am wrong?

Or, better yet, offer some of your own (un-parroted) ideas.
_______

You're pointing out one of the (several) logical inconsistencies within standard MWI. That's fine, but not really what I was talking about. I simply said that new universes don't keep hopping into existence, and Carroll said this too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here from AI[wR]:

]The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics leans more towards philosophical realism.

Here's why:

Realism argues for an objective reality existing independently of our observations. MWI posits a vast number of universes following their own realities based on quantum possibilities.

Make up your mind then. Is realism a belief in A reality; or a belief in MANY realities?

Problem of one and the many...

MWI says the wavefunction is objective:

Oh yeah? So how does it collapse?

Philosophical Realism central grounding is a belief in a mind-independent reality which can be many realities or many worlds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This conversation between you (VA) and skep illustrates the problem that exists now in this thread and has always existed in every thread where you've brought up quantum mechanics: your understanding of what non-realism means in a QM context is not sufficient. You seem personally motivated to try your best to interpret QM articles that talk about non realism as talking about the same sort of anti realism you believe in - this equivocation is a misunderstanding by you, and it's exactly why you, as a so-called "philosopher", are not well equipped compared to actual physicists to do any of the interpreting of QM.

You can of course try to do that for yourself, for your own benefit, for fun, but your expertise is lacking more than you think it is, and your biases (in particular, this bias to interpret QM non realism as being the same sort of thing as your anti realism) are strong. You're caught up in words, and you pay very little attention to the actual science.

See above;

My is based on the definition of what is realism i.e. philosophical realism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

As for the science, the philosophy of science indicates here are basically two views to QM, i.e. either realism[p] [as defined above] or anti-p_realism.

[Flannel Jesus]

As for the science, the philosophy of science indicates here are basically two views to QM, i.e. either realism[p] [as defined above] or anti-p_realism.

Your philosophy does. Once again you're taking your beliefs and pretending like they represent what some kind of majority of experts agree with or something. "The philosophy of science" doesn't indicate that at all, your so called "philosophy of science" does maybe.

I made a mistake entering this ridiculous thread.

[accelafine]

As for the science, the philosophy of science indicates here are basically two views to QM, i.e. either realism[p] [as defined above] or anti-p_realism.

Your philosophy does. Once again you're taking your beliefs and pretending like they represent what some kind of majority of experts agree with or something. "The philosophy of science" doesn't indicate that at all, your so called "philosophy of science" does maybe.

I made a mistake entering this ridiculous thread.

He clearly doesn't have the slightest interest in the subject. I don't understand why he keeps making threads that mention it in the title.

[Flannel Jesus]

You're pointing out one of the (several) logical inconsistencies within standard MWI. That's fine, but not really what I was talking about. I simply said that new universes don't keep hopping into existence, and Carroll said this too.

What he said isn't an inconsistency in mwi anyway, it's yet another of his own inventions about what he likes to imagine mwi says

[Veritas Aequitas]

As for the science, the philosophy of science indicates here are basically two views to QM, i.e. either realism[p] [as defined above] or anti-p_realism.

Your philosophy does. Once again you're taking your beliefs and pretending like they represent what some kind of majority of experts agree with or something. "The philosophy of science" doesn't indicate that at all, your so called "philosophy of science" does maybe.

I made a mistake entering this ridiculous thread.

He clearly doesn't have the slightest interest in the subject. I don't understand why he keeps making threads that mention it in the title.

Instead of clearing the cobwebs of your ignorance, all you do is complaining about the views of others.
If you do not want to discuss, just ignore my views, why complain and risk exposing your ignorance.

AI has its limitation, but generally it has access to whatever is accessible in the internet and it give its views in summary form therefrom.
AI [wR] is a notch better than WIKI [Wr] because AI do not have any human limitations [never tired or bored] can scour from the net what is available out there in contrast to human contributors who are limited by their limitations as humans.

Here from AI re realism[philosophical] vs philosophical antirealism.
wR = with reservations.

Question:
Topic: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.
It is reasonable to state the The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics falls within either Philosophical Realism [mind independent reality] and Philosophical anti-realism?


From AI [wR]:
You're right, the philosophy of quantum mechanics delves into a fascinating debate that sits right between philosophical realism and anti-realism. Here's why:

Realism: This camp argues for a mind-independent reality. In our world, objects have definite properties, like a ball being either here or there. However, quantum mechanics challenges this with ideas like superposition, where a particle can be in multiple states at once.

Anti-realism: This side questions the existence of an objective reality independent of the mind. Quantum mechanics, with its emphasis on probabilities and the role of the observer, seems to suggest reality depends on the act of observation.

So, how does quantum mechanics fit? Many interpretations emerge:

Copenhagen Interpretation: A prominent view (developed by Bohr and Heisenberg). It accepts the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and suggests the wave function collapses (settles into a definite state) upon observation. This leans slightly towards anti-realism as the act of observation seems to define reality.

Many-Worlds Interpretation (Everett): This proposes that the wave function doesn't collapse. Instead, the universe splits into multiple branches for every possibility. This leans more towards realism, but with a rather mind-bending twist!

The beauty (and complexity) of quantum mechanics is that it forces us to re-evaluate our understanding of reality. It might not be a clear-cut case for either realism or anti-realism, but rather a new perspective that challenges our classical notions.

The point is, philosophy wise,
there are two philosophical QM camps, i.e. realism or anti-realism.

I have argued [details given in various threads] the philosophical realism perspective is grounded on an illusion while the anti-realist [Kant] is very realistic.

It is up to you whether there something worth discussing or not, if not, just ignore it.

[Flannel Jesus]

AI has its limitation, but generally it has access to whatever is accessible in the internet and it give its views in summary form therefrom.
AI [wR] is a notch better than WIKI [Wr] because AI do not have any human limitations [never tired or bored] can scour from the net what is available out there in contrast to human contributors who are limited by their limitations as humans.

Here from AI re realism[philosophical] vs philosophical antirealism.
wR = with reservations.

Question:
Topic: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.
It is reasonable to state the The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics falls within either Philosophical Realism [mind independent reality] and Philosophical anti-realism?


From AI [wR]:
You're right, the philosophy of quantum mechanics delves into a fascinating debate that sits right between philosophical realism and anti-realism. Here's why:

Realism: This camp argues for a mind-independent reality. In our world, objects have definite properties, like a ball being either here or there. However, quantum mechanics challenges this with ideas like superposition, where a particle can be in multiple states at once.

Anti-realism: This side questions the existence of an objective reality independent of the mind. Quantum mechanics, with its emphasis on probabilities and the role of the observer, seems to suggest reality depends on the act of observation.

So, how does quantum mechanics fit? Many interpretations emerge:

Copenhagen Interpretation: A prominent view (developed by Bohr and Heisenberg). It accepts the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and suggests the wave function collapses (settles into a definite state) upon observation. This leans slightly towards anti-realism as the act of observation seems to define reality.

Oh so it's chat gpt who can convince you. Let's see what gpt says for me.

In quantum mechanics, when they say "observer", must that be a conscious observer?

ChatGPT
In quantum mechanics, the term "observer" does not necessarily imply a conscious observer. The concept of an observer in quantum mechanics is tied to the act of measurement or interaction with a quantum system, which leads to the collapse of the wave function.

This interaction or measurement can be performed by any physical system capable of causing decoherence, such as a measuring instrument or another particle. The key point is that the observer causes the system to transition from a superposition of states to a definite state. This does not require consciousness.

This interpretation aligns with the Copenhagen interpretation, where the observer effect is a result of the interaction with a macroscopic measuring device. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation, do away with wave function collapse altogether, eliminating the need for any special role of the observer.

In summary, while the language of "observer" might suggest a conscious entity, in the context of quantum mechanics, it generally refers to any interaction that causes a quantum system to exhibit definite properties.

Therefore, even interpretations that say observation causes collapse, like Copenhagen, do not necessarily say MINDS cause collapse (in fact I'd wager most of them don't). The way you split it into mwi=realist and Copenhagen=anti-realist isn't remotely correct

[Flannel Jesus]

In fact, while we're here, let's just ask gpt that question as well

Do most Copenhagen interpretationists think consciousness is an important part of observation, or do they mostly accept a view that doesn't rely on consciousness for collapse?


ChatGPT
Most proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation do not consider consciousness to be a necessary component for the collapse of the wave function. While some early interpretations and philosophical discussions, notably influenced by figures like John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner, entertained the idea that consciousness could play a role in the measurement problem, this view is not widely held among physicists today.

The modern understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation typically focuses on the role of measurement devices and interactions with the environment in causing wave function collapse. These interactions lead to decoherence, which effectively transitions a quantum system from a superposition of states to a single definite state as observed. This perspective does not require the involvement of a conscious observer.

Therefore, most contemporary Copenhagen interpretationists would accept an explanation of wave function collapse that relies on physical processes and interactions rather than invoking consciousness.





ChatGPT

Is that enough to convince you to get off this Copenhagen=anti realist train? It should be, if you care about this stuff instead of just using it as a tool to promote your own personal beliefs

[Veritas Aequitas]

AI has its limitation, but generally it has access to whatever is accessible in the internet and it give its views in summary form therefrom.
AI [wR] is a notch better than WIKI [Wr] because AI do not have any human limitations [never tired or bored] can scour from the net what is available out there in contrast to human contributors who are limited by their limitations as humans.

Here from AI re realism[philosophical] vs philosophical antirealism.
wR = with reservations.

Question:
Topic: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.
It is reasonable to state the The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics falls within either Philosophical Realism [mind independent reality] and Philosophical anti-realism?


From AI [wR]:
You're right, the philosophy of quantum mechanics delves into a fascinating debate that sits right between philosophical realism and anti-realism. Here's why:

Realism: This camp argues for a mind-independent reality. In our world, objects have definite properties, like a ball being either here or there. However, quantum mechanics challenges this with ideas like superposition, where a particle can be in multiple states at once.

Anti-realism: This side questions the existence of an objective reality independent of the mind. Quantum mechanics, with its emphasis on probabilities and the role of the observer, seems to suggest reality depends on the act of observation.

So, how does quantum mechanics fit? Many interpretations emerge:

Copenhagen Interpretation: A prominent view (developed by Bohr and Heisenberg). It accepts the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and suggests the wave function collapses (settles into a definite state) upon observation. This leans slightly towards anti-realism as the act of observation seems to define reality.

Oh so it's chat gpt who can convince you. Let's see what gpt says for me.

In quantum mechanics, when they say "observer", must that be a conscious observer?

ChatGPT
In quantum mechanics, the term "observer" does not necessarily imply a conscious observer. The concept of an observer in quantum mechanics is tied to the act of measurement or interaction with a quantum system, which leads to the collapse of the wave function.

This interaction or measurement can be performed by any physical system capable of causing decoherence, such as a measuring instrument or another particle. The key point is that the observer causes the system to transition from a superposition of states to a definite state. This does not require consciousness.

This interpretation aligns with the Copenhagen interpretation, where the observer effect is a result of the interaction with a macroscopic measuring device. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation, do away with wave function collapse altogether, eliminating the need for any special role of the observer.

In summary, while the language of "observer" might suggest a conscious entity, in the context of quantum mechanics, it generally refers to any interaction that causes a quantum system to exhibit definite properties.

Therefore, even interpretations that say observation causes collapse, like Copenhagen, do not necessarily say MINDS cause collapse (in fact I'd wager most of them don't). The way you split it into mwi=realist and Copenhagen=anti-realist isn't remotely correct

Based on your context, ChatGpt will give you the general view but not the philosophical view.
This is a Philosophy Forum, so, what is relevant is the philosophical view.

Here from ChatGPT [wR];

Yes, it is reasonable to state that the philosophy of quantum mechanics can be viewed through the lenses of either philosophical realism or philosophical anti-realism. Here's a brief explanation of how these perspectives apply to quantum mechanics:

Philosophical Realism
Philosophical realism, in the context of quantum mechanics, posits that the entities and phenomena described by quantum theory exist independently of our observation or knowledge of them. There are several forms of realism within the philosophy of quantum mechanics, including:

Scientific Realism: Asserts that the theoretical entities posited by quantum mechanics, such as wave functions, particles, and quantum fields, exist in a mind-independent reality.
Ontological Realism: Claims that there is a definite reality that quantum mechanics describes, even if it is not fully accessible to us. This includes interpretations like the Many-Worlds Interpretation, which suggests that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are realized in some "branch" of the universe.
Philosophical Anti-Realism
Philosophical anti-realism, on the other hand, denies that the entities and descriptions provided by quantum mechanics correspond to a mind-independent reality. Instead, it views quantum mechanics as a useful tool or framework for predicting observations without making ontological commitments about the underlying reality. Forms of anti-realism in quantum mechanics include:

Instrumentalism: Suggests that quantum mechanics is merely an instrument for predicting experimental outcomes, without asserting that the mathematical formalism corresponds to a real, physical world.
Constructive Empiricism: Argues that the goal of science is not to find true theories but rather empirically adequate ones, meaning that quantum mechanics does not necessarily describe a true reality but must fit observed phenomena.
Operationalism: Focuses on the procedures and operations used in experiments, arguing that the meaning of quantum mechanical concepts is defined by the operations used to measure them.

Examples of Interpretations
Copenhagen Interpretation: Often associated with an anti-realist stance, emphasizing that quantum mechanics does not describe an objective reality but only the outcomes of measurements.
Bohmian Mechanics: A realist interpretation that posits an underlying deterministic reality with hidden variables guiding the behavior of particles.
Many-Worlds Interpretation: A realist view suggesting that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements actually occur in a vast multiverse.

Conclusion
Thus, the philosophy of quantum mechanics can indeed be categorized within the broader debates between philosophical realism and anti-realism, depending on the specific interpretation and stance one adopts regarding the nature of quantum phenomena.

If you cannot counter the above, you must withdraw your arrogance and consider your philosophical views bankrupt.
Note again, we are doing philosophy here, not science [which very limited].

[Flannel Jesus]

Withdraw my arrogance. Hilarious.

You're the one here telling everyone that your understanding is the only right one, people who aren't anti realists are stupid or immature or whatever.

And I'm here saying, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, not just one.

And I'm arrogant?

No. You're so fucking lost dude. No, I'm not arrogant. I'm not telling anybody that if they don't accept my view, they're immature morons. Only you're doing that. Look in the mirror some time.

Your response to what I posted was an entire evasion, you're so scared of taking it seriously. Read it seriously. Think about what it says. Don't be scared of it.

[Skepdick]

Anyway, again, the point is that there is a huge difference between the "multiverse" theory and the "many-worlds" theory.

There's no difference. On the surface they appear like different theories. The underlying metaphysical sleight of hand is identical. A combinatorial explosion. In both theories there's instantiation of more worlds/universes happening.

Whether it's one Big Bang immediately branching to create an infinite number of parallel universes; Or Infinite Big Bangs creating 1 universe.

You end up with the exact same configuration.

No, Skepdick, they are not the same.

In the "multiverse" theory, universes "evolve" into whatever it is that qualifies them being dubbed a "universe," of which, allegedly, the vast majority are incapable of manifesting consciousness.

Whereas, on the other hand, in Everett's "many-worlds" theory, literally all of the universes appear to be pre-stocked with conscious beings.
_______

They are mechanically identical.

On multiverse theory some universes evolve to have no consciousnesses.
On many-worlds theory the exact same thing happens in principle, but we only get to observe the subset of worlds in which consciousnesses exist.

Whereas, on the other hand, in Everett's "many-worlds" theory, literally all of the universes appear to be pre-stocked with conscious beings.
_______

EXCEPT the worlds in which the necessary conditions for observers to exist were not met!

It's a sampling bias.

[Skepdick]

Here from AI[wR]:

Make up your mind then. Is realism a belief in A reality; or a belief in MANY realities?

Problem of one and the many...

MWI says the wavefunction is objective:

Oh yeah? So how does it collapse?

Philosophical Realism central grounding is a belief in a mind-independent reality which can be many realities or many worlds.

Seems you failed to understand the first time.

A belief in A mind-independent reality (singular!) is not the same thing as a belief in mind-independent realitieS (plural!).

Realism is typically understood as the former. NOT the latter.

This indeterminacy around plurality - this inability to identify which reality you are in (from the set of All Possible Realities) is sufficient to manufacture all the usual philosophical nonsense. It gives you the absolute freedom to say whatever you want. About ANYTHING.

Which Reality are we in right now? The one in which the sky is blue; or the one in which the sky is red? How can you tell?
Which Reality are we in right now? The one in which murder is morally wrong; or the one in which murder is morally right? How can you tell?

And all the usual philosophical nonsense can be trivially framed as disagreements over location. Which Reality are we in?