QM: Objective Reality May Not Exists At ALL

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objective Reality May Not Exist at All, Quantum Physicists Say,
Reality might be “in the eye of the observer,” according to new research.
BY STAV DIMITROPOULOSPUBLISHED: JUN 29, 2022 2:02 PM EDT
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... not-exist/

Here is summary of the article from AI [wR]:

The article [as above] discusses recent research in quantum physics that challenges the notion of objective reality. Specifically, it explores the idea that reality may be dependent on the observer, a concept rooted in quantum mechanics.

Here's a summary of the key points from the article:

Quantum Mechanics and Observation: In quantum mechanics, the act of observation affects the outcome of an experiment. This phenomenon is famously illustrated by the double-slit experiment and the concept of wave function collapse.

Wigner’s Friend Thought Experiment: The research builds on a thought experiment known as "Wigner’s Friend," which involves an observer (Wigner's friend) measuring a quantum system inside a lab, while Wigner measures the lab from the outside. The results suggest that different observers can have conflicting accounts of what happened, implying that there is no single objective reality.

Recent Experiments: Recent experiments have tested this idea and found results consistent with the notion that there might not be a single, objective reality. These experiments suggest that different observers can experience different realities, depending on their perspective and what they measure.

Implications: If these findings hold true, they challenge the classical view of an objective reality that exists independently of observation. Instead, reality might be fundamentally tied to the observer, meaning that what we perceive as reality could be subjective and dependent on our measurements and interactions with the quantum world.

The article does not definitively confirm that "objective reality may not exist at all," but it does present compelling evidence from recent research that supports this idea. The conclusion is still a matter of ongoing scientific debate and further experimentation.

Note this critical point:
Implications: If these findings hold true, they challenge the classical view of an objective reality that exists independently of observation.
Instead, reality might be fundamentally tied to the observer, meaning that what we perceive as reality could be subjective and dependent on our measurements and interactions with the quantum world.

My point:
1. From the antirealist [Kantian and like] it philosophically opposed the philosophical realists ideological claim that there is an absolutely independent reality that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

2. There are loads of other antirealists arguments to counter the philosophical realists' ideological and dogmatic views.

3. Science as the most credible and objectivity has also argued against the philosophical realists' claim of an absolutely objective mind-independent reality.

4. The onus is on the philosophical realists to prove their positive claim.

5. What I am against the philosophical realists [PH & gang] being emotional and simply brush off the antirealists' counter without solid justifications.
Because the philosophical realists dogmatic belief adopted from an evolutionary default, naturally the majority of people are inclined to a mind-independence reality at least relatively, but the philosophical realists take up further one-notch to make it absolute as a dogmatic ideology.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Here are some papers and article on the subject:

Experimental test of local observer independence
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832
Abstract
The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them.
In quantum mechanics the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most markedly exposed in Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities.
The question whether the observers’ narratives can be reconciled has only recently been made accessible to empirical investigation, through recent no-go theorems that construct an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers.
In a state-of-the-art six-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by five standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows
https://www.livescience.com/objective-r ... cists.html

Reality doesn’t exist until you measure it, quantum parlor trick confirms
Two players leverage quantum rules to achieve a seemingly telepathic connection
https://www.science.org/content/article ... k-confirms

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Age]

Objective Reality May Not Exist at All, Quantum Physicists Say,
Reality might be “in the eye of the observer,” according to new research.
BY STAV DIMITROPOULOSPUBLISHED: JUN 29, 2022 2:02 PM EDT
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... not-exist/

Here is summary of the article from AI [wR]:

The article [as above] discusses recent research in quantum physics that challenges the notion of objective reality. Specifically, it explores the idea that reality may be dependent on the observer, a concept rooted in quantum mechanics.

Here's a summary of the key points from the article:

Quantum Mechanics and Observation: In quantum mechanics, the act of observation affects the outcome of an experiment. This phenomenon is famously illustrated by the double-slit experiment and the concept of wave function collapse.

Wigner’s Friend Thought Experiment: The research builds on a thought experiment known as "Wigner’s Friend," which involves an observer (Wigner's friend) measuring a quantum system inside a lab, while Wigner measures the lab from the outside. The results suggest that different observers can have conflicting accounts of what happened, implying that there is no single objective reality.

Recent Experiments: Recent experiments have tested this idea and found results consistent with the notion that there might not be a single, objective reality. These experiments suggest that different observers can experience different realities, depending on their perspective and what they measure.

Implications: If these findings hold true, they challenge the classical view of an objective reality that exists independently of observation. Instead, reality might be fundamentally tied to the observer, meaning that what we perceive as reality could be subjective and dependent on our measurements and interactions with the quantum world.

The article does not definitively confirm that "objective reality may not exist at all," but it does present compelling evidence from recent research that supports this idea. The conclusion is still a matter of ongoing scientific debate and further experimentation.

Considering the irrefutable Fact that absolutely every thing is 'relative', to the observer, there is no surprise at that 'reality', itself, is 'subjective', and in a particular sense, dependent upon 'the observer's' perspective of, that is; the measurements and interactions also with, 'the world'.

But, what is also, obviously, an irrefutable Fact is that if so-called 'reality', itself, is affected by 'an observer', then an 'objective reality' 'must' actually exist, and in the form of 'the Observer', Itself.

Note this critical point:
Implications: If these findings hold true, they challenge the classical view of an objective reality that exists independently of observation.

But, and obviously, 'the Observer', Itself, 'must be' 'an objective reality'.

Instead, reality might be fundamentally tied to the observer, meaning that what we perceive as reality could be subjective and dependent on our measurements and interactions with the quantum world.

The only 'thing' that anyone can be absolutely '100% sure' of are the 'thoughts' that arise, and 'the One', which is 'Aware' of 'thoughts', that is; 'the Observer', is an 'Objective Fact' that, literally, 'no one' could refute.

So, an 'objective reality' actually does exist, which 'no one' could refute, and 'this reality' is; Every thing is relative to 'the Observer'.

My point:
1. From the antirealist [Kantian and like] it philosophically opposed the philosophical realists ideological claim that there is an absolutely independent reality that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

2. There are loads of other antirealists arguments to counter the philosophical realists' ideological and dogmatic views.

3. Science as the most credible and objectivity has also argued against the philosophical realists' claim of an absolutely objective mind-independent reality.

Yet, 'science', itself, is based upon the 'studying' of 'those things', which some, like "veritas aequitas", believe never existed until human beings were created, through evolution.

4. The onus is on the philosophical realists to prove their positive claim.

5. What I am against the philosophical realists [PH & gang] being emotional and simply brush off the antirealists' counter without solid justifications.
Because the philosophical realists dogmatic belief adopted from an evolutionary default, naturally the majority of people are inclined to a mind-independence reality at least relatively, but the philosophical realists take up further one-notch to make it absolute as a dogmatic ideology.

Discuss??
Views??

Once again, it is seemingly always up to 'the other' to 'prove their position'.

you "veritas aequitas" hold, absolutely, 'your position' here that there was absolutely nothing HERE, until you human beings evolved in creation and existence. So, is 'the onus' on 'you' to 'prove your position and claim' here?

Or, is it different, for you?

[Iwannaplato]

As far as I can tell the research does not mean realism is false. Bohr' complementarity isn't necessarily antirealist. It certainly leads to an interesting realism where what is out there is affected by how it is observed, but that doesn't necessarily entail there's nothing there. Bohr himself was more instrumentalist - hey, let's not talk about it like this but rather like that - but I don't think he took a stance on things not being there without us or not really existing. Given that the authors think they are giving support to Bohr's position, which they say in the text, even if this research is confirmed I don't think it rings the bell on realism's death.

This

Objective Reality May Not Exist at All

Is an odd thing to say, in context. The article is very clearly trying to say not simply what happened in their lab, but what is happening everywhere. That is describing objective reality, even if that reality is quite what we thought. The claim itself presumes that it holds in places that are not being observed by the scientists.

One way to look at the realism vs. anti realism debate is:
are maps useful
and
can we demonstrate they are false because they posit continual existence of things on the maps.

Taking maps here to mean not just the two dimensional ones, but also 3 and four dimensional maps/models, where 3 spatial and even the fourth temporal are included. So, a model of the solar system, with orbits continuing through time and existing prior to humans.

An instrumentalist, for example, may well yes be cautious about saying things are really there, but they should also look askance at assertions the planets aren't there when no observed. That doesn't add anything useful to the model and it can't be demonstrated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As far as I can tell the research does not mean realism is false. Bohr' complementarity isn't necessarily antirealist. It certainly leads to an interesting realism where what is out there is affected by how it is observed, but that doesn't necessarily entail there's nothing there. Bohr himself was more instrumentalist - hey, let's not talk about it like this but rather like that - but I don't think he took a stance on things not being there without us or not really existing. Given that the authors think they are giving support to Bohr's position, which they say in the text, even if this research is confirmed I don't think it rings the bell on realism's death.

This

Objective Reality May Not Exist at All

Is an odd thing to say, in context. The article is very clearly trying to say not simply what happened in their lab, but what is happening everywhere. That is describing objective reality, even if that reality is quite what we thought. The claim itself presumes that it holds in places that are not being observed by the scientists.

One way to look at the realism vs. anti realism debate is:
are maps useful
and
can we demonstrate they are false because they posit continual existence of things on the maps.

Taking maps here to mean not just the two dimensional ones, but also 3 and four dimensional maps/models, where 3 spatial and even the fourth temporal are included. So, a model of the solar system, with orbits continuing through time and existing prior to humans.

An instrumentalist, for example, may well yes be cautious about saying things are really there, but they should also look askance at assertions the planets aren't there when no observed. That doesn't add anything useful to the model and it can't be demonstrated.

From the above;

Bohr' complementarity isn't necessarily antirealist. ...... Bohr himself was more instrumentalist -

On the contrary ........ as matter of Philosophy of Science,

In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism, although its mere lack of commitment to scientific theory's realism can be termed nonrealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

It is obvious from the debates between Bohr and Einstein, as a fanatical philosophical realists [god does not play dice, moon existed before there were humans] that Einstein's basis is scientific realism [philosophical realism].
Thus Bohr's opposition to Einstein within the philosophy of science is antirealism.

Following the Bohr - Einstein debates and advent of QM, the subject of philosophy was a compulsory paper for a Physics degree in many universities.

[Iwannaplato]

As far as I can tell the research does not mean realism is false. Bohr' complementarity isn't necessarily antirealist. It certainly leads to an interesting realism where what is out there is affected by how it is observed, but that doesn't necessarily entail there's nothing there. Bohr himself was more instrumentalist - hey, let's not talk about it like this but rather like that - but I don't think he took a stance on things not being there without us or not really existing. Given that the authors think they are giving support to Bohr's position, which they say in the text, even if this research is confirmed I don't think it rings the bell on realism's death.

This

Objective Reality May Not Exist at All

Is an odd thing to say, in context. The article is very clearly trying to say not simply what happened in their lab, but what is happening everywhere. That is describing objective reality, even if that reality is quite what we thought. The claim itself presumes that it holds in places that are not being observed by the scientists.

One way to look at the realism vs. anti realism debate is:
are maps useful
and
can we demonstrate they are false because they posit continual existence of things on the maps.

Taking maps here to mean not just the two dimensional ones, but also 3 and four dimensional maps/models, where 3 spatial and even the fourth temporal are included. So, a model of the solar system, with orbits continuing through time and existing prior to humans.

An instrumentalist, for example, may well yes be cautious about saying things are really there, but they should also look askance at assertions the planets aren't there when no observed. That doesn't add anything useful to the model and it can't be demonstrated.

From the above;

Bohr' complementarity isn't necessarily antirealist. ...... Bohr himself was more instrumentalist -

On the contrary ........ as matter of Philosophy of Science,

In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism, although its mere lack of commitment to scientific theory's realism can be termed nonrealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

It is obvious from the debates between Bohr and Einstein, as a fanatical philosophical realists [god does not play dice, moon existed before there were humans] that Einstein's basis is scientific realism [philosophical realism].
Thus Bohr's opposition to Einstein within the philosophy of science is antirealism.

Following the Bohr - Einstein debates and advent of QM, the subject of philosophy was a compulsory paper for a Physics degree in many universities.

Good points. I shouId, however, have been cIearer. He's not your kind of antirealist - one who has a metaphysicaI stance on mind independent reaIity. InstrumentaIists, to be intrumentaIists, need not say there is no externaI independent reality. They are focused on the effectiveness of the ideas and not on whether thay match reality. Functionally agnostic. Pragmatic focus. And if one disagrees with a specific realist that doesn't mean one has the opposite opinions. Just as an agnostic can disagree with an atheist, whiIe not being a theist.

Also fanatical realist is a silly label. He and Bohr deeply respected each other and admired each other. They treated each other extremely well, and neither deserves the adjective fanatical, even if they were convinced of their positions which obviously differed.

[accelafine]

What do you mean when you say 'us'? We ourselves are quantum systems. We've just evolved to only see 'reality' as giant clumps of matter.
There are many highly regarded physicists like Max Tegmark who believe that the universe consists of maths and nothing else--that mathematical equations are the true 'reality'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu28y7vZmrI

But do we REALLY want to know this for certain? What will it achieve? How do we know that once we discover the ultimate fundamental truth that everything won't just collapse back into that state? I think it would be easy to drive yourself nuts thinking about these things. You often hear these physicists saying that the universe 'doesn't want us to know' and words to that effect, that it keeps making it harder and harder the deeper they get.

[Iwannaplato]

What do you mean when you say 'us'? We ourselves are quantum systems. We've just evolved to only see 'reality' as giant clumps of matter.
There are many highly regarded physicists like Max Tegmark who believe that the universe consists of maths and nothing else--that mathematical equations are the true 'reality'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu28y7vZmrI

I seem to be the only one who said 'us'. I meant humans. You know: VA thinks nothing exists that is not directly, at this moment perceived by us. He's a strong position anti-realist.

Tegmark is very interesting. He's also a realist.

Tegmark believes in the Many Worlds Hypothesis, which puts him about as far away from VA as possible.

He believes some noumena are real and while his position on what is real is unique, he falls into the scientific realist category.

But perhaps your posts was aimed at VA.

As far as my beliefs, I don't think 'reality' or reality is giant clumps of matter. In fact, I don't think 'matter' is even a coherent term.

[accelafine]

It was aimed at VA. I didn't notice you were on here

[Flannel Jesus]

What do you mean when you say 'us'? We ourselves are quantum systems. We've just evolved to only see 'reality' as giant clumps of matter.
There are many highly regarded physicists like Max Tegmark who believe that the universe consists of maths and nothing else--that mathematical equations are the true 'reality'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu28y7vZmrI

Surprised you respect him, his "universe of maths" is many worlds - max tegmark is one of the most famous proponents of many worlds! That's what he thinks the maths of this universe is.

[accelafine]

What do you mean when you say 'us'? We ourselves are quantum systems. We've just evolved to only see 'reality' as giant clumps of matter.
There are many highly regarded physicists like Max Tegmark who believe that the universe consists of maths and nothing else--that mathematical equations are the true 'reality'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu28y7vZmrI

Surprised you respect him, his "universe of maths" is many worlds - max tegmark is one of the most famous proponents of many worlds! That's what he thinks the maths of this universe is.

Why would that 'surprise' you? I don't have the answer There are many theories that are plausible. Sean Carroll is very convincing too, and so is Donald Hoffman.

[Flannel Jesus]

What do you mean when you say 'us'? We ourselves are quantum systems. We've just evolved to only see 'reality' as giant clumps of matter.
There are many highly regarded physicists like Max Tegmark who believe that the universe consists of maths and nothing else--that mathematical equations are the true 'reality'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu28y7vZmrI

Surprised you respect him, his "universe of maths" is many worlds - max tegmark is one of the most famous proponents of many worlds! That's what he thinks the maths of this universe is.

Why would that 'surprise' you? I don't have the answer There are many theories that are plausible. Sean Carroll is very convincing too, and so is Donald Hoffman.

every time you talk about it, you go out of your way to talk about how idiotic it is. unless i'm confusing you with someone else... Apologies if I am, there's like 3 on this forum who don't just think it's not true, they take time out of their day to say people are morons for taking it seriously.

[accelafine]

Surprised you respect him, his "universe of maths" is many worlds - max tegmark is one of the most famous proponents of many worlds! That's what he thinks the maths of this universe is.

Why would that 'surprise' you? I don't have the answer There are many theories that are plausible. Sean Carroll is very convincing too, and so is Donald Hoffman.

every time you talk about it, you go out of your way to talk about how idiotic it is. unless i'm confusing you with someone else... Apologies if I am, there's like 3 on this forum who don't just think it's not true, they take time out of their day to say people are morons for taking it seriously.

Definitely not me.

[Flannel Jesus]

Why would that 'surprise' you? I don't have the answer There are many theories that are plausible. Sean Carroll is very convincing too, and so is Donald Hoffman.

every time you talk about it, you go out of your way to talk about how idiotic it is. unless i'm confusing you with someone else... Apologies if I am, there's like 3 on this forum who don't just think it's not true, they take time out of their day to say people are morons for taking it seriously.

Definitely not me.

well then let me say again, my apologies for the mistake.

I started reading a book for the first time in a few years (I used to be a prolific reader, now I'm too internet-addicted), because I'm in a lil book club to read Sean Carroll's Biggest Ideas in the Universe series. I love that guy.