Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:15 am Applying Occam's razor, it's probably the case that no collapsible substance or information-based substance is needed to resolve the quantum measurement problem. However the problem persists, one of the, if not the biggest scientific/philosophical mysteries of our time. Good to see that someone here resolved it so easily.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:24 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:15 am Applying Occam's razor, it's probably the case that no collapsible substance or information-based substance is needed to resolve the quantum measurement problem. However the problem persists, one of the, if not the biggest scientific/philosophical mysteries of our time. Good to see that someone here resolved it so easily.

Since the quantum measurement problem is actually only a problem within the context of the statistical description of wave functions, how is it a philosophical problem? I offer no solution to anything until it can be demonstrated there is a problem.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:38 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:24 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:15 am Applying Occam's razor, it's probably the case that no collapsible substance or information-based substance is needed to resolve the quantum measurement problem. However the problem persists, one of the, if not the biggest scientific/philosophical mysteries of our time. Good to see that someone here resolved it so easily.

Since the quantum measurement problem is actually only a problem within the context of the statistical description of wave functions, how is it a philosophical problem? I offer no solution to anything until it can be demonstrated there is a problem.

The QM interpretations are philosophy. If we don't want to interpret what's happening, we are left with pure instrumentalism.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:38 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:24 pm
Since the quantum measurement problem is actually only a problem within the context of the statistical description of wave functions, how is it a philosophical problem? I offer no solution to anything until it can be demonstrated there is a problem.

The QM interpretations are philosophy. If we don't want to interpret what's happening, we are left with pure instrumentalism.

Who's, "we?" There was no philosophy before Max Planck and Einstein (photo-electric effect)? What do you think all of philosophy was before Dewey? Good grief!

Are you an academic?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:49 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:38 pm
The QM interpretations are philosophy. If we don't want to interpret what's happening, we are left with pure instrumentalism.

Who's, "we?" There was no philosophy before Max Planck and Einstein (photo-electric effect)? What do you think all of philosophy was before Dewey? Good grief!

Are you an academic?

Judging from your comments you don't know what is meant by the measurement problem.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:24 pm Since the quantum measurement problem is actually only a problem within the context of the statistical description of wave functions, how is it a philosophical problem? I offer no solution to anything until it can be demonstrated there is a problem.

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 9:44 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:24 pm Since the quantum measurement problem is actually only a problem within the context of the statistical description of wave functions, how is it a philosophical problem? I offer no solution to anything until it can be demonstrated there is a problem.

It most certainly is not just a problem within the context of the "statistical description" of wave functions.

"Something" of a substantive nature is going on in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and the measuring screen in the double slit experiment.

"Something" is spreading-out into a wave that, apparently, interferes with itself and then allegedly (at least according to the Copenhagen Interpretation) "collapses" into a positionally-fixed, particle-like phenomenon once the wave hits the measuring screen.

The question is, is it the particle itself that spreads-out into a wave, as is suggested in the Copenhagen Interpretation, that then collapses upon impact with the screen?

...Or...

Is it some sort of ancillary "pilot wave" that transports and delivers an intact particle to the screen as is suggested in the "de Broglie/Bohm" Interpretation?

...Or...

Is the status of the particle more in line with the Everettian "Many Worlds" interpretation?...of which I won't even dignify with a description.

The point is that, again, "something" of a substantive nature...

(and not just abstract "statistics")

...is obviously going on in the double slit experiment that elicits these varying theories.

And, finally, the reason why this whole enterprise gets relegated to the realm of "philosophy" is because all of the above described waving business taking place in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and the measuring screen...



...is occurring in the context of what physicists call "non-local" reality, which is completely beyond our reach.

In other words, trying to measure and discern the actual ontological status of a waving (superpositioned) particle in the double slit experiment, is the metaphorical equivalent of trying to measure and discern the actual ontological status of a Kantian "noumenon."

Hence, "philosophizing" (or, more accurately, "speculating") about it is our only means of approaching the so-called "measurement problem."
_______

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 9:36 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:49 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:37 pm
Who's, "we?" There was no philosophy before Max Planck and Einstein (photo-electric effect)? What do you think all of philosophy was before Dewey? Good grief!

Are you an academic?

Judging from your comments you don't know what is meant by the measurement problem.

Well, there you go. You have to trust your own judgement. Feel better?

The so-called, "measurement problem." is, in fact, "what is not understood." It is only a problem because some scientists expect something to provide an explanation that it doesn't.

It is not understood how the motion of a particle is determined by the laws of probability when the probability is determined by, "causal laws," (as Max Born described it). The mathematics of quantum mechanics simply provide no way to predict when the wave function stops evolving in a predictable fashion but collapses randomly and unpredictably.

Physicists who see this as a problem are just misunderstanding statistics. The whole of quantum behavior is described in terms of statistcs based on wave mechanics, i.e. wave functions. Statistics cannot ever explain or predict any specific phenomena. Statistics only works over a range of similar events. I agree with Einstein, to expect statistical mathematics to predict when anything is going to happen is just bad mathematics. Probability does not determine anything. At best it can only describe what is determined by whatever the nature of things behaving are.

In my view, the idea that the so-called, "collapse of a wave function." is or provides new information is totally absurd. Just because something is not predicted by the method one likes does not mean an unexpected event is new information. That would make every instance of any "chaos," event (like fractals and strange attractore) consisting of an infinite chain of mathematically determined but totally unpredictable events a continuous stream of new information.

There are other mistakes regarding the nature of measurement itself and a wrong notion of, "cause," as some kind of agency. But don't worry about any of that. It's just my ignorance of the so-called, "measurement problem."

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 4:48 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 9:36 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:49 pm
Judging from your comments you don't know what is meant by the measurement problem.

Well, there you go. You have to trust your own judgement. Feel better?

The so-called, "measurement problem." is, in fact, "what is not understood." It is only a problem because some scientists expect something to provide an explanation that it doesn't.

It is not understood how the motion of a particle is determined by the laws of probability when the probability is determined by, "causal laws," (as Max Born described it). The mathematics of quantum mechanics simply provide no way to predict when the wave function stops evolving in a predictable fashion but collapses randomly and unpredictably.

Physicists who see this as a problem are just misunderstanding statistics. The whole of quantum behavior is described in terms of statistcs based on wave mechanics, i.e. wave functions. Statistics cannot ever explain or predict any specific phenomena. Statistics only works over a range of similar events. I agree with Einstein, to expect statistical mathematics to predict when anything is going to happen is just bad mathematics. Probability does not determine anything. At best it can only describe what is determined by whatever the nature of things behaving are.

In my view, the idea that the so-called, "collapse of a wave function." is or provides new information is totally absurd. Just because something is not predicted by the method one likes does not mean an unexpected event is new information. That would make every instance of any "chaos," event (like fractals and strange attractore) consisting of an infinite chain of mathematically determined but totally unpredictable events a continuous stream of new information.

There are other mistakes regarding the nature of measurement itself and a wrong notion of, "cause," as some kind of agency. But don't worry about any of that. It's just my ignorance of the so-called, "measurement problem."

Right, so the problem isn't with the statistical approach of calculating the result of a "collapse". QM is predictably random, at least to us humans, so a statistical approach is all we have. That's a non-issue.

The problem is how/why/when a "collapse" occurs at all, what is a "collapse". What the hell was happening between the two "collapsed" states, when apparently particles were in some kind of infinite superposition, what is that. What are the implications for the entire universe.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:52 am @Atla, I think what you're missing is that RC seems to be rejecting QM as a description of reality, and instead just as a statistical/mathematical calculation tool. In other words, when QM says that certain things exist in a "superposition", and that superposition has to "collapse" at some point to a singular value, RC is thinking, "Well it collapses in the model to a singular value after existing in the model as a superposition, but that's not true IN REALITY, that's just true in the model."

Ever since I started getting interested in QM, this has been one of the most frequent viewpoints I find - that QM is JUST a model, but reality doesn't work that way. In REALITY, things have discrete definite values, and we just measure them later, and QM is just a mathematical model about what we do with our uncertainty about those values.

I personally think this view can only come from not looking at, or not genuinely engaging with, some of the ACTUAL experiments that underpin QM. The important ones are of course the class double-slit, but also the less well known but actually mind-blowing Mach–Zehnder interferometer
experiment, and the notoriously difficult to understand but fundamentally important Bell's Inequalities and the experiments that prove that naive local realism is untenable.

People's first instinct when coming across QM ideas is to explain the weirdness away as some sort of illusion, as part of the model that isn't part of the reality. In my opinion deeper understanding of QM and the experiments that we've done with it make it impossible to do so - the weirdness is not just part of the model, it's part of our reality.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:44 pm The problem for me is much more fundamental. The so-called, "collapse," is not something that has ever or even can be observed, it is only a way of picturing something based on a mathematical description (specifically involving measurement and statistics). All that is actually observed is the fact of radio-active half-life. Turn the question around. Instead of asking why the collapse happens when it does, ask why doesn't it happen before. Why do the extra neutrons of radio active substances remain as long as they do? [I'm not suggesting that's the right approach, only pointing out that science makes assumptions as premises that are only guesses, and that's not science.]

To me, the whole thing is like that. No matter what is being considered, when one arrives at a contradiction it means there as some premise or assumption that is not correct. If the statistical description of wave theory results in a contradiction it is not the nature of what is being describe that is contradictory, it is the description that is contradictory, meaning there is something wrong with the description. One obvious mistake to me is the implied assumption that statistics are in some way causative. They are not, they are only descriptive.

I see no philosophical problem arising out of the so-called measurement problem except a refusal on the part of a small number of scientists and philosophers that refuse to admit they are holding on to a contradiction which they refuse to recognize. There is nothing wrong with saying, "we just don't know yet."

When you get through all the math and technical descriptions, the whole thing only says, "the reason radioactive decay happens when it does is because the statistics make it happen," which anyone can see is nonsense. So there is a mistaken premise somewhere.

One obvious mistake to me is the implied assumption that statistics are in some way causative.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:27 pm I think I would say that "probabilities" are fundamentally a part of the causative process if we take QM litera lly - and that's true of afaik nearly every major interpretation of QM, including Many Worlds. I wouldn't phrase it as "statistics are in some way causative" personally, but that might just be pedantic of me, I'm not sure.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 4:52 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:44 pm The problem for me is much more fundamental. The so-called, "collapse," is not something that has ever or even can be observed, it is only a way of picturing something based on a mathematical description (specifically involving measurement and statistics). All that is actually observed is the fact of radio-active half-life. Turn the question around. Instead of asking why the collapse happens when it does, ask why doesn't it happen before. Why do the extra neutrons of radio active substances remain as long as they do? [I'm not suggesting that's the right approach, only pointing out that science makes assumptions as premises that are only guesses, and that's not science.]

To me, the whole thing is like that. No matter what is being considered, when one arrives at a contradiction it means there as some premise or assumption that is not correct. If the statistical description of wave theory results in a contradiction it is not the nature of what is being describe that is contradictory, it is the description that is contradictory, meaning there is something wrong with the description. One obvious mistake to me is the implied assumption that statistics are in some way causative. They are not, they are only descriptive.

I see no philosophical problem arising out of the so-called measurement problem except a refusal on the part of a small number of scientists and philosophers that refuse to admit they are holding on to a contradiction which they refuse to recognize. There is nothing wrong with saying, "we just don't know yet."

When you get through all the math and technical descriptions, the whole thing only says, "the reason radioactive decay happens when it does is because the statistics make it happen," which anyone can see is nonsense. So there is a mistaken premise somewhere.

???

What does radioactive decay have to do with the measurement problem? (Aside from being used in the Schrödinger's cat?)

Fun fact, you can postpone the decay of radioactive particles almost indefinitely using repeated measurement, in a sense freezing them in time.

One obvious mistake to me is the implied assumption that statistics are in some way causative.

Statistics causative? Who did you hear say something like that?