Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:49 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:07 pm I'm not an instrumentalist. I have made my case all over this forum, as well as here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Pages 13 to 19 to be specific. The difference is I don't make extravagant claims, such as there is "one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM".

I looked at pages 13-19 of your work and it said nothing on the subject.

I think the problem might be that it is written so that a 15 year old might understand it.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:51 pm ...any interpretation of the phenomena that isn't explicitly ruled out by the phenomena, could be true.

Why state the obvious? Or is this what is a deep understanding for you?

Well, if you are leading by example then I take it that petulantly refusing to answer questions is what looks like a philosophical argument to you.

I answer questions and the answers go over your head, and then you usually say something unrelated.

then yes you are.

The maths work, but no one knows why. And you can only make use of the math if you already add some very minimalist interpretation to it, which is already wrong, nonsensical.

Good thing you came to the rescue. If only all those great physicists who said that no one knows what's really going on, were as smart as you.

Ah good, at least that has sunk in, because only a couple of hours ago, you said this:

And btw there were many great scientists since Newton who would have been insulted if you told them that science shouldn't also at least try to make sense of the world, just because Newton said so.

Taking things out of context again, I see. If you understand what context is, which I doubt.

I think the problem might be that it is written so that a 15 year old might understand it.

Or the problem might be that you are unaware of the problem I'm talking about, which is why it's not addressed in any way in your work.

Which is frankly not a problem, because it can take like weeks to even start to grasp what QM is hinting at.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:50 am...the problem might be that you are unaware of the problem I'm talking about, which is why it's not addressed in any way in your work.

You could be right, but unless you can state the problem clearly, we'll never know.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:50 amWhich is frankly not a problem, because it can take like weeks to even start to grasp what QM is hinting at.

Great. It's not a problem and I'm very patient. Let's go.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:48 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:50 am...the problem might be that you are unaware of the problem I'm talking about, which is why it's not addressed in any way in your work.

You could be right, but unless you can state the problem clearly, we'll never know.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:50 amWhich is frankly not a problem, because it can take like weeks to even start to grasp what QM is hinting at.

Great. It's not a problem and I'm very patient. Let's go.

I can't state the measurement problem clearly, after thinking about it on and off for like 5 years and also reading about quantum biology, and some additional wild things, I still don't fully understand it either. No one fully understands it, and even if I did, I still couldn't state it in a way that would get the idea across correctly in a forum post.

If you are interested in it, I would suggest this book, it's a decent introduction written by physicists, not New Age quantum woo bullshitters. In hindsight the book still has a rather timid and one-sided tone, but maybe that's a good thing. Also, don't let the word "consciousness" in the title fool you.

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-P ... 1531871569

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:08 amI can't state the measurement problem clearly, after thinking about it on and off for like 5 years and also reading about quantum biology, and some additional wild things, I still don't fully understand it either.

Ah. Well that's pages 21-27 https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk What you have to remember is that the wave function is simply a mathematical description of the probability that a particular phenomenon will be observed; it is not an actual system that exists in physical reality. The collapse of the wave function occurs when the particle in question appears somewhere and the probability that it is also somewhere else collapses to zero. p27: frame 3 in particular is one way to visualise what actually happens in the 'real' world, away from mathematics.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:08 amIf you are interested in it, I would suggest this book, it's a decent introduction written by physicists, not New Age quantum woo bullshitters. In hindsight the book still has a rather timid and one-sided tone, but maybe that's a good thing. Also, don't let the word "consciousness" in the title fool you.

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-P ... 1531871569

Thank you for the link. I had a look at a couple of reviews:
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/qefoundations.pdf
Both were written by professors of physics at perfectly reputable universities (John Hopkins and UCSC respectively) On the other hand, the publications they were for were The Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is dedicated to 'fringe' science, ufology and parapsychology for example, and Foundations of Physics, which is much more mainstream. The first was effusive to the point that it was critical of the authors for not being strident enough; like you, they thought it had a timid tone. The second was much more critical and was enough to persuade me that there is no great urgency to read the book. That is not to say the thesis is wrong, but from what I gather, the authors don't make a very strong case.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:55 pm Here is a hilarious way to speed up, slow down or theoretically stop time evolution.

Sorry to omit the rest of your OP but I see it simply as the universe - or at least our reality -which lets face it, is all that matters to us, has a finite boundary, in that take a true single moment in 'time'...the cause that was about to emit the event (the effect) is 'suspended' - this suggests that our reality is a projection bound by the 'emit' - the sub atomic particle, the higgs for example has yet to be permitted ITS attribute - its effect within the field of other sub atomic particles, and their 'conditioned' attribute within the scheme of the said field. Hence, right here, we have a TRUE MOMENT - time does not yet have the ability to progress.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:55 pm Here is a hilarious way to speed up, slow down or theoretically stop time evolution.

So take a quantum system, for example an unstable particle, that will soon decay. Keep observing this particle as frequently as possible.

(It is not possible to observe it infinitely frequently, so time evolution can't be 100% stopped, this can only be approached. Neither is it really known what "observe" means here, but a measuring device or an adult human seems to do the trick. Whether or not this is completely true is not the point here.)

So we keep observing the particle that will soon decay. And it never decays, because we have "frozen it in time" (arrested it's time evolution). Or at least we slowed it down to an almost complete halt.

Depending on the frequency of observation, we can also speed it up in time, so the decay will likely happen faster than it should.

-----------------------

Time is already a difficult thing to think about in several ways, so I thought why not make it even more confusing.

So for example one could wonder, when we suddenly stare at an analog watch, does the seconds dial sometimes really stop for a moment, or is our mind simply playing a trick on us?

A caesium clock will decay at the same rate no matter how you stare at it, or not.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:18 am Ah. Well that's pages 21-27 https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk What you have to remember is that the wave function is simply a mathematical description of the probability that a particular phenomenon will be observed; it is not an actual system that exists in physical reality. The collapse of the wave function occurs when the particle in question appears somewhere and the probability that it is also somewhere else collapses to zero. p27: frame 3 in particular is one way to visualise what actually happens in the 'real' world, away from mathematics.

But that too is an interpretation, or non-interpretation, one of many.
It is not known whether or not the wave function is simply a mathematical desciption or real.
It is not known what "observed" means here.
It is not known whether or not some system exists in physical reality or both or neither or whatever. And well, what does it even mean that something is "not part of reality"?
What does it mean that a particle appears.
What does it mean that the probability of it being elsewhere collapses to zero, and why does it happen.
Why is mathematics sometimes away from the real world, sometimes not.

Besides observation can be shown to be independent of interaction.

Philosophically speaking, why is this interpretation better than the others?

Thank you for the link. I had a look at a couple of reviews:
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/qefoundations.pdf
Both were written by professors of physics at perfectly reputable universities (John Hopkins and UCSC respectively) On the other hand, the publications they were for were The Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is dedicated to 'fringe' science, ufology and parapsychology for example, and Foundations of Physics, which is much more mainstream. The first was effusive to the point that it was critical of the authors for not being strident enough; like you, they thought it had a timid tone. The second was much more critical and was enough to persuade me that there is no great urgency to read the book. That is not to say the thesis is wrong, but from what I gather, the authors don't make a very strong case.

Err it's not a thesis, it is QM. If we are to throw reviews (btw the one you dismissed is generally right but also somewhat wrong, of course there's nothing to say that the universe is "mental" or that it "doesn't exist" etc.) then here's a review from a Nobel laureate:
“A remarkable and readable presentation of the basic mysteries of science, our universe, and human life. Critically important problems in our understanding are interestingly discussed with perception, depth, and careful objectivity.”

Do not worry, even if you were aware of this stuff, it would probably still be a better idea not to put it into your work.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:18 am The collapse of the wave function occurs when the particle in question appears somewhere and the probability that it is also somewhere else collapses to zero. p27: frame 3 in particular is one way to visualise what actually happens in the 'real' world, away from mathematics.

Actually you seem to be avoiding the measurement problem alltogether. These jumps have basically nothing to do with the measurement problem.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:00 am A caesium clock will decay at the same rate no matter how you stare at it, or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:18 am http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/qefoundations.pdf

As for the second review, this is how far I got into it:

"Abstract The central claim that understanding quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer"

I don't remember the book making such a claim. They do use the word "consciousness" rather vaguely but they themselves don't really know what they mean by it, maybe it just means that something about most humans seems to make them QM observers. But I don't remember the book saying that it's restricted to humans or even alive things.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amBut that too is an interpretation, or non-interpretation, one of many.

Strictly speaking it's a simplified description of the behaviour of a hypothetical relativistic quantum field.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amIt is not known whether or not the wave function is simply a mathematical desciption or real.

True.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amIt is not known what "observed" means here.

Granted it's a vague term, but in practice it means that any mechanism capable of measuring the position, momentum or any property (mass, charge, spin etc) of a particle, has done so.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amIt is not known whether or not some system exists in physical reality or both or neither or whatever. And well, what does it even mean that something is "not part of reality"?

Yup, you got me bang to rights on that one. It's another vague term which I am rather sloppily using to mean something like 'consciousness independent physical stuff'. But since consciousness clearly is present in the universe, and is the subject of the current discussion, it is not a very helpful definition.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amWhat does it mean that a particle appears.

Again for practical purposes; that it is observed.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amWhat does it mean that the probability of it being elsewhere collapses to zero, and why does it happen.

Well, once you establish the positional eigenstate, the chances of it having two are nil.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amWhy is mathematics sometimes away from the real world, sometimes not.

Again that's my sloppy use of 'reality', but since any mathematical description is necessarily underdetermined (which is also true of any physical model), there is no way of knowing that the axioms refer to any 'consciousness independent physical stuff'.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amBesides observation can be shown to be independent of interaction.

Not to an observer it can't.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amPhilosophically speaking, why is this interpretation better than the others?

Well, the fact that it isn't strictly an interpretation notwithstanding; it isn't.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amErr it's not a thesis, it is QM.

So what point are they trying to make?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:33 amDo not worry, even if you were aware of this stuff, it would probably still be a better idea not to put it into your work.

I agree.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:43 amActually you seem to be avoiding the measurement problem alltogether. These jumps have basically nothing to do with the measurement problem.

Well however you interpret the measurement problem, the practical issue is that to verify anything empirically at the subatomic level, you have to create a chain of quantum events that will result in some flash or bleep on whatever monitoring device you are using.
It's not the jumps which are relevant, rather the state of an electron when it is in neither the starting, nor destination shell. Even when an electron is 'in a shell' its state is hazy enough; outside of that, it is simply an excess of energy/excitation in a field, which will slip into the first glove it finds that fits. That could be anywhere, but probably not too far from where it started and if you want to 'observe' the electron, you have to materially affect its environment, so that the first link in the chain of quantum events that will result in it registering, is at least an option.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:00 amStrictly speaking it's a simplified description of the behaviour of a hypothetical relativistic quantum field.

But that's not the measurement problem.

Yup, you got me bang to rights on that one. It's another vague term which I am rather sloppily using to mean something like 'consciousness independent physical stuff'. But since consciousness clearly is present in the universe, and is the subject of the current discussion, it is not a very helpful definition.

So you think that there is the consciousness and there is the physical? I disagree, why do you think this? There is no sign that humans are made of anything else than the rest of the universe. And you kept going on and on about how we must always follow the evidence.

Well, once you establish the positional eigenstate, the chances of it having two are nil.

Yes but how and why is it established or appears to be established. That's the problem.

Again that's my sloppy use of 'reality', but since any mathematical description is necessarily underdetermined (which is also true of any physical model), there is no way of knowing that the axioms refer to any 'consciousness independent physical stuff'.

I agree but again, I see no evidence that there are two kinds of things. None was ever seen.

Not to an observer it can't.

Interaction has nothing to do with measurement. For example in the DCQE we have the same kind of interactions and get the two different outcomes anyway.

So what point are they trying to make?

What do you mean? They just present what was found in physics 80+ years ago. And no one really knows what it means.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:23 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:43 amActually you seem to be avoiding the measurement problem alltogether. These jumps have basically nothing to do with the measurement problem.

Well however you interpret the measurement problem, the practical issue is that to verify anything empirically at the subatomic level, you have to create a chain of quantum events that will result in some flash or bleep on whatever monitoring device you are using.
It's not the jumps which are relevant, rather the state of an electron when it is in neither the starting, nor destination shell. Even when an electron is 'in a shell' its state is hazy enough; outside of that, it is simply an excess of energy/excitation in a field, which will slip into the first glove it finds that fits. That could be anywhere, but probably not too far from where it started and if you want to 'observe' the electron, you have to materially affect its environment, so that the first link in the chain of quantum events that will result in it registering, is at least an option.

There is always a chain of interactions, but that isn't what's causing the collapse.
If that was the case then there was no mistery then, huh.

And if interaction was driving the collapse then how do you explain that any quantum system can evolve at all, shouldn't they just always collapse themselves?