Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:03 am For the Nth time: QM is thought to be grounded on antirealism only by those who insist that QM is 4-dimensional (but physicists nowadays think that over 4 dimensions are more likely), and insist that QM's inherent relative nature is tied to the conscious observer (but physics has no idea what the observer actually is, or whether there is even something like an observer and not something of drastically different nature is going on).

Without these assumptions, QM is neither realist nor anti-realist, just inherently relative from our perspective, in a yet incomprehensible way. Bohr was a genius, but his Advaita-influenced philosophical take isn't gospel either.

And let's not forget that even if QM is 4-dimensional and even if reality is relative to the conscious observer, that reality can still be "objectively real". A world that is strangely dependent on our minds still isn't automatically anti-realist in the philosophical sense.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:03 am For the Nth time: QM is thought to be grounded on antirealism only by those who insist that QM is 4-dimensional (but physicists nowadays think that over 4 dimensions are more likely), and insist that QM's inherent relative nature is tied to the conscious observer (but physics has no idea what the observer actually is, or whether there is even something like an observer and not something of drastically different nature is going on).

Without these assumptions, QM is neither realist nor anti-realist, just inherently relative from our perspective, in a yet incomprehensible way. Bohr was a genius, but his Advaita-influenced philosophical take isn't gospel either.

And let's not forget that even if QM is 4-dimensional and even if reality is relative to the conscious observer, that reality can still be "objectively real". A world that is strangely dependent on our minds still isn't automatically anti-realist in the philosophical sense.

Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:03 am For the Nth time: QM is thought to be grounded on antirealism only by those who insist that QM is 4-dimensional (but physicists nowadays think that over 4 dimensions are more likely), and insist that QM's inherent relative nature is tied to the conscious observer (but physics has no idea what the observer actually is, or whether there is even something like an observer and not something of drastically different nature is going on).

Without these assumptions, QM is neither realist nor anti-realist, just inherently relative from our perspective, in a yet incomprehensible way. Bohr was a genius, but his Advaita-influenced philosophical take isn't gospel either.

And let's not forget that even if QM is 4-dimensional and even if reality is relative to the conscious observer, that reality can still be "objectively real". A world that is strangely dependent on our minds still isn't automatically anti-realist in the philosophical sense.

Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

Not 'being' real isn't the same as being 'anti' real. I don't see why Sean Carroll's Many World Theory is incompatible with our fundamental 'non reality'. The fascinating thing about QM is that non scientists like philosophers and psychologists or even anyone who actively thinks about it seem to have just as much chance as each other of eventually making sense of this--if ever. Some of the most insightful and brilliant discussions are with non scientists.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4

Carroll's Many Worlds tries to solve QM a bit like this:

We keep drawing circles and keep calculating pi, to see whether pi is always 3.14159..? And yes, it always turns out to be 3.14159.. no matter how many circles we draw, no matter where we draw them.

But why is it 3.14159.. and not some different value anyway? Well MWI explains that the world is over 4 dimensional, there must be infinite universes with infinitely many different possible values of pi, including 3.14159.., any value of pi is possible, and that's why pi is 3.14159.. here.

Well sure, that explains it, but then again it doesn't.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 10:13 pm Carroll's Many Worlds tries to solve QM a bit like this:

We keep drawing circles and keep calculating pi, to see whether pi is always 3.14159..? And yes, it always turns out to be 3.14159.. no matter how many circles we draw, no matter where we draw them.

But why is it 3.14159.. and not some different value anyway? Well MWI explains that the world is over 4 dimensional, there must be infinite universes with infinitely many different possible values of pi, including 3.14159.., any value of pi is possible, and that's why pi is 3.14159.. here.

Well sure, that explains it, but then again it doesn't.

He doesn't say that. It's about making 'event decisions' and all the possible outcomes that could have resulted from those decisions prior to making them. Those 'other worlds' will have the same 'physical laws' as the one we inhabit. It seems more plausible to me that these 'alternate worlds' might well pop into existence in the microsecond before an event 'decision' is made but then cease to exist once it's made. Carroll seems to be sure that his calculations fit the former.

This womans pretty fantastic to listen to as well. A philosopher with a physics background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twY2q1F-ciI

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

Like I said in the thread where the following (slightly altered) rant is taken from, I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (MWI).

First, let's imagine that the following simplistic representation of our universe...



...contains approximately (for rounding-off purposes) a hundred-billion galaxies, with each galaxy containing approximately a hundred-billion sun systems, and with each of those sun systems consisting of its own unique assortment of orbiting (and richly detailed) planets.

Now, inside of just one of those hundred-billion galaxies, in the midst of its hundred-billion sun systems, there is a tiny speck of a planet that we call Earth, upon which sits a confused physicist named Sean Carroll who (as per the implications of the MWI that he openly promotes) must assume that trillions of full-blown copies of this galaxy-packed "bubble" of reality...



...instantaneously spring into existence (branch-off of his universe) as a result of the infinitesimal quantum events that take place between photons of light and his eyes as he gazes at his little computer screen for a few seconds.

However, if such an absurd situation were actually the case, then it must also be understood that each one of those trillions of instantly created copies of Sean's universe also contains a copy of Sean Carroll who is also gazing at a computer screen for a few seconds,...

...thus causing yet another instantaneous branching of new universes off of their universes. And, likewise, each of the trillions of copies of those universes contains a copy of Sean Carroll gazing at their computer screens....and so on...and so on --> ad infinitum.

Now, with the above in mind, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that within a span of perhaps a few seconds of just the copies of Sean Carroll gazing at their little computer screens,...

(never mind the almost infinite number of other quantum events taking place, each and every second throughout the rest of each of the universes)

...we would have a situation in which these galaxy-packed "bubbles" of reality...



...would be replicating so fast and so furiously that they would appear to be the metaphorical equivalent of some kind of effervescing foam, that is perpetually BLASTING out of a shaken bottle of warm champagne...



...and instantly expanding in a never-ending/omnidirectional EXPLOSION of branching universes.

In other words, if infinity itself were somehow able to be filled to capacity (which it can't), then in a matter of just a few seconds, it would be filled with a veritable infinity of the MWI's branching universes.

All of which presents a vision of reality that is so utterly ridiculous that I can't believe that anyone would even consider the plausibility of such nonsense.

I mean, come on now people, we can't even begin to fathom how the richly detailed reality of just this one universe alone came into existence. Yet here we have humans believing that the entire thing can be instantly duplicated (on an unfathomable scale) faster than you can duplicate your résumé at Kinkos.

Another absurd aspect of the MWI that its proponents never seem to consider, is that the theory also implies that our own universe,...

(along with you, and me, and all 8 billion of our fellow humans)

...may have only come into existence a mere 10 minutes ago as a result of a branching that occurred from the interaction of methane particles from a bear farting in the woods in the pre-existing universe that our universe just branched off of.

Indeed, I call it the "Tiny Toot" theory , as opposed to the "Big Bang" theory.

The bottom line is that anyone who thinks that the MWI is a logical alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation, needs to pull their head out of the, perhaps, elegant math set-forth in Hugh Everett's thesis written back in the 1950s...

...and take a good hard look at its profoundly absurd implications.
_______

So you can't imagine it. Nor can anyone else. That's the point

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:03 am For the Nth time: QM is thought to be grounded on antirealism only by those who insist that QM is 4-dimensional (but physicists nowadays think that over 4 dimensions are more likely), and insist that QM's inherent relative nature is tied to the conscious observer (but physics has no idea what the observer actually is, or whether there is even something like an observer and not something of drastically different nature is going on).

Without these assumptions, QM is neither realist nor anti-realist, just inherently relative from our perspective, in a yet incomprehensible way. Bohr was a genius, but his Advaita-influenced philosophical take isn't gospel either.

And let's not forget that even if QM is 4-dimensional and even if reality is relative to the conscious observer, that reality can still be "objectively real". A world that is strangely dependent on our minds still isn't automatically anti-realist in the philosophical sense.

Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... tion#Polls

• [1991 ]A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[85]
  
  [2011]A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[90] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[90]

Rejection of the Many-worlds_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... #Rejection
"Some scientists consider some aspects of MWI to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them."

The above views are from science-cosmologist community which in general is based on scientific speculations, thus not reliable, credible and less objective to begin with.

Philosophy is definitely more rational than science itself [merely polishing conjectures], thus we have Philosophy of Science.
The dichotomy of realism[philosophical] vs anti-p_realism is on of the most fundamental dichotomy within philosophy.

Philosophical realism is from a very primal & primitive basis driven by an evolutionary default. It is only effective for common and conventional sense.
Meanwhile anti-p_realism [Kantian] is the more advanced and evolved realization of reality, so it is effective to deal with more complex and refined issues of reality.

As such, the anti-p_realism [Kantian] perspective of QM is more a advanced and more evolved realization of QM.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:16 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:37 pm
And let's not forget that even if QM is 4-dimensional and even if reality is relative to the conscious observer, that reality can still be "objectively real". A world that is strangely dependent on our minds still isn't automatically anti-realist in the philosophical sense.

Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... tion#Polls

• [1991 ]A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[85]
  
  [2011]A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[90] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[90]

Rejection of the Many-worlds_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... #Rejection
"Some scientists consider some aspects of MWI to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them."

The above views are from science-cosmologist community which in general is based on scientific speculations, thus not reliable, credible and less objective to begin with.

Philosophy is definitely more rational than science itself [merely polishing conjectures], thus we have Philosophy of Science.
The dichotomy of realism[philosophical] vs anti-p_realism is on of the most fundamental dichotomy within philosophy.

Philosophical realism is from a very primal & primitive basis driven by an evolutionary default. It is only effective for common and conventional sense.
Meanwhile anti-p_realism [Kantian] is the more advanced and evolved realization of reality, so it is effective to deal with more complex and refined issues of reality.

As such, the anti-p_realism [Kantian] perspective of QM is more a advanced and more evolved realization of QM.

The possiblitly of communication came up in a discussion, via a quantum computer. I won't attempt to explain it. You would have to watch the video yourself.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 10:36 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 10:13 pm Carroll's Many Worlds tries to solve QM a bit like this:

We keep drawing circles and keep calculating pi, to see whether pi is always 3.14159..? And yes, it always turns out to be 3.14159.. no matter how many circles we draw, no matter where we draw them.

But why is it 3.14159.. and not some different value anyway? Well MWI explains that the world is over 4 dimensional, there must be infinite universes with infinitely many different possible values of pi, including 3.14159.., any value of pi is possible, and that's why pi is 3.14159.. here.

Well sure, that explains it, but then again it doesn't.

He doesn't say that. It's about making 'event decisions' and all the possible outcomes that could have resulted from those decisions prior to making them. Those 'other worlds' will have the same 'physical laws' as the one we inhabit. It seems more plausible to me that these 'alternate worlds' might well pop into existence in the microsecond before an event 'decision' is made but then cease to exist once it's made. Carroll seems to be sure that his calculations fit the former.

What I wrote was a metaphor. He doesn't say it because proponents of MWI think that it's sufficient to "solve" the measurement problem by saying that everything that can happen does happen, but then they have no natural way to derive the Born rule. MWI is designed to circumvent the measurement problem by claiming that we can just ignore it, but many others think that's not good enough of an explanation (even if there are many worlds).

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

VA doesn't care about truth, logic, critical thinking, Occam's razor etc. Ha is campaigning which imo is not philosophy.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:16 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm

Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... tion#Polls

• [1991 ]A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[85]
  
  [2011]A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[90] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[90]

Rejection of the Many-worlds_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... #Rejection
"Some scientists consider some aspects of MWI to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them."

The above views are from science-cosmologist community which in general is based on scientific speculations, thus not reliable, credible and less objective to begin with.

Philosophy is definitely more rational than science itself [merely polishing conjectures], thus we have Philosophy of Science.
The dichotomy of realism[philosophical] vs anti-p_realism is on of the most fundamental dichotomy within philosophy.

Philosophical realism is from a very primal & primitive basis driven by an evolutionary default. It is only effective for common and conventional sense.
Meanwhile anti-p_realism [Kantian] is the more advanced and evolved realization of reality, so it is effective to deal with more complex and refined issues of reality.

As such, the anti-p_realism [Kantian] perspective of QM is more a advanced and more evolved realization of QM.

The possibility of communication came up in a discussion, via a quantum computer. I won't attempt to explain it. You would have to watch the video yourself.

It seems you do not understand the significance of the realism[p] vs anti-p_realism dichotomy.

Any communication [by humans] via a quantum computer or whatever is subsumed within anti-p_realism ultimately, which then cannot be within realism[p].

I recognize realism i.e. the independent external reality but not as a dogmatic ideology like those from realism[p].

VA believes in an Independent External Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42369&sid=f7d3b450f2525 ... 85a39bec07

Ultimately what prevails with reality is cannot be the dogmatic ideological p-realism, but rather it is anti-p_realism [Kantian] that prevails within reality.
This is because p-realism is grounded on an illusion.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

You insist on an illusion to argue and justify your claim?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:31 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:16 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... tion#Polls

• [1991 ]A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[85]
  
  [2011]A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[90] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[90]

Rejection of the Many-worlds_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... #Rejection
"Some scientists consider some aspects of MWI to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them."

The above views are from science-cosmologist community which in general is based on scientific speculations, thus not reliable, credible and less objective to begin with.

Philosophy is definitely more rational than science itself [merely polishing conjectures], thus we have Philosophy of Science.
The dichotomy of realism[philosophical] vs anti-p_realism is on of the most fundamental dichotomy within philosophy.

Philosophical realism is from a very primal & primitive basis driven by an evolutionary default. It is only effective for common and conventional sense.
Meanwhile anti-p_realism [Kantian] is the more advanced and evolved realization of reality, so it is effective to deal with more complex and refined issues of reality.

As such, the anti-p_realism [Kantian] perspective of QM is more a advanced and more evolved realization of QM.

The possibility of communication came up in a discussion, via a quantum computer. I won't attempt to explain it. You would have to watch the video yourself.

It seems you do not understand the significance of the realism[p] vs anti-p_realism dichotomy.

Any communication [by humans] via a quantum computer or whatever is subsumed within anti-p_realism ultimately, which then cannot be within realism[p].

I recognize realism i.e. the independent external reality but not as a dogmatic ideology like those from realism[p].

VA believes in an Independent External Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42369&sid=f7d3b450f2525 ... 85a39bec07

Ultimately what prevails with reality is cannot be the dogmatic ideological p-realism, but rather it is anti-p_realism [Kantian] that prevails within reality.
This is because p-realism is grounded on an illusion.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

You insist on an illusion to argue and justify your claim?

You are trying to make it sound as if you are very knowledgable about the subject but you make no sense--a sure sign that you know squat.
I listen to people who are great science communicators, not silly twats who don't have a clue about anything but think they do.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:14 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

VA doesn't care about truth, logic, critical thinking, Occam's razor etc. Ha is campaigning which imo is not philosophy.

Yes. I can't even work out what exactly it is he's 'campaigning' about. A pompous know-it-all who makes up his own 'scientific' terms