|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 30, 2013 14:40:44 GMT 1
I politely ask you to answer my actual questions specifically, only then can we make progress, I feel. My questions are 1. If nothing is absolutely true, then is it possible that nothing at all exists (including ourselves)? 2. On your theory about things being actualised by observation, is it not absolutely true that the things actualised really do now exist, or is their existence in doubt? You have said "Nobody is saying that reality does not exist (at least in my view) but not in any absolute sense." - which is a rather strange sentence, which I assume means "Reality does exist (at least in my view) but not in any absolute sense." Then you attempt clarification by saying "By this, I mean that reality is not a single entity because it changes its character over time," I am having difficulty in grasping what you mean here, as obviously a thing MUST exist ABSOLUTELY to change in character over time. The nature of the Earth has changed over time, but there is no doubt about the absolute reality of the Earth. An individual human being changes in character over time, but that individual really does exist, absolutely, so why are you trying to say he can't exist in an absolute sense just because of change? Again, the whole Universe has greatly changed in character over time, but the important fact here is that the Universe does continue to exist, absolutely. Just because we don't know what the Universe will be like in thousands of years time doesn't invalidate the fact; I think we can assume that nothing is about to come along and destroy the Universe in the next few thousand years (a very short space of time in terms of the whole Universe), therefore the Universe will then ABSOLUTELY EXIST IN REALITY, as it does now, no matter what development it undergoes. I think I have a little more understanding of what you mean. You take the word "absolutely" to mean "fixedly", I think, so that if things change, they (to you) become less absolute. But "absolutely" simply means "definitively" or maybe "literally" or "undeniably". I would contend that I exist and that is an absolute truth; the fact that I change all the time doesn't invalidate that, there has to be that "me" undeniably existing to change! I have never said nothing exists. How could nothing have given rise to the Big Bang which led to the universe? You have to make a distinction between what may be called the "material" world and the "non-material world" which are all part of reality but which have their own distinctions. In the study of atomic particles physicists have had to invent what are called probability waves which are not really waves like the waves you find on a pond but are mathematical probabilities of where a particle might be found on inspection. So, we can only regard such probabilities as potentials of what might happen and such potentials are not actually materialised until we attempt to measure them. So, the point I have been attempting to get over to you is that what you would call "reality" is a combination of potentials existing in some non-material realm and our interaction with them brings about objective reality. This is in no way my personal view but has been verified scientifically time and again but the fact of the matter is many scientists feel embarrassed to admit that this is the way reality is because it goes against their traditional ideas about what is real and what is not and, no doubt, smacks of the paranormal.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 30, 2013 19:59:17 GMT 1
So if you, I and my dog all observe something, what we see depends on who saw it first? Or more to the point, if I observe a phenomenon, that observation collapses the wavefunction into an observable state, which is therefore fixed for all subsequent times and observers. So you can know if I have made an observation because your observation will have no indeterminacy. But everything we observe has the indeterminacy of previously-unobserved phenomena, so the notion that determinacy is imposed by an observer is inconsistent with actual results.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 31, 2013 10:21:45 GMT 1
So if you, I and my dog all observe something, what we see depends on who saw it first? Or more to the point, if I observe a phenomenon, that observation collapses the wavefunction into an observable state, which is therefore fixed for all subsequent times and observers. So you can know if I have made an observation because your observation will have no indeterminacy. But everything we observe has the indeterminacy of previously-unobserved phenomena, so the notion that determinacy is imposed by an observer is inconsistent with actual results. No two observers experience precisely the same waveform collapse even though we use the same concepts to label them. Since we are all members of the same species we are generally able to agree on what each of us experience, however, this requires cultural knowledge and conditioning. Before the advent of astronomy people tended to regard the patterns of celestial bodies they saw in the night sky in terms of mythological entities rather than as stars, planets, nebulae, etc. A primitive tribesman who had never had any contact with the modern world would not interpret the sight of an automobile, for example, in the same way as you or me due to his cultural (or lack thereof) conditioning. A dog and a man can observe the same phenomenon yet "see" different things.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 3, 2014 17:35:54 GMT 1
Abacus said Thank you for answering my question directly; I can now give a response. Think about what you have written here, if NOTHING is absolutely true then it may be that there is no Land's End or John O Groats, no finger and thumb, no Abacus and no Universe at all. But you then go on to insist that information or reality evolves somehow, and from what you have said before it actualises the possible realities by the mechanism of experiencing by sentient beings. Which brings us back to the problem of how there can be sentient beings in the Universe before it has evolved enough to produce those sentient beings. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. You have stated that nothing can be absolutely true. If you don't mind I would like you to answer a couple more questions. 1. If nothing is absolutely true, then is it possible that nothing at all exists (including ourselves)? 2. On your theory about things being actualised by observation, is it not absolutely true that the things actualised really do now exist, or is their existence in doubt? Once again, misunderstandings abound! Nobody is saying that reality does not exist (at least in my view) but not in any absolute sense. By this, I mean that reality is not a single entity because it changes its character over time, which is why we Homo-Sapiens do not define reality as would (say) a Velociraptor in the age of the dinosaurs. The fact that there were no sentient beings at one point in the past demonstrates that reality changes radically, given enough time. Also, the fact that the universe had the potential to develop sentient beings means that there has always existed the possibility of the development of reality. Surely this is straightforward enough, isn't it? Who can say what reality will be like in thousands of years time, assuming we survive as a species? I'm sure that if we could somehow transport a caveman/cavewoman from the distant past to the present time he/she would consider much of what they saw as magic, yet to us it's just "reality." Your whole argument boils down to a simple misunderstanding, abacus. You fail to differentiate between reality and our knowledge (or "definition") of reality.On what basis have you taken it upon yourself to eliminate the standard definition of "reality" in this presumptious manner?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 3, 2014 17:50:03 GMT 1
I politely ask you to answer my actual questions specifically, only then can we make progress, I feel. My questions are 1. If nothing is absolutely true, then is it possible that nothing at all exists (including ourselves)? 2. On your theory about things being actualised by observation, is it not absolutely true that the things actualised really do now exist, or is their existence in doubt? You have said "Nobody is saying that reality does not exist (at least in my view) but not in any absolute sense." - which is a rather strange sentence, which I assume means "Reality does exist (at least in my view) but not in any absolute sense." Then you attempt clarification by saying "By this, I mean that reality is not a single entity because it changes its character over time," I am having difficulty in grasping what you mean here, as obviously a thing MUST exist ABSOLUTELY to change in character over time. The nature of the Earth has changed over time, but there is no doubt about the absolute reality of the Earth. An individual human being changes in character over time, but that individual really does exist, absolutely, so why are you trying to say he can't exist in an absolute sense just because of change? Again, the whole Universe has greatly changed in character over time, but the important fact here is that the Universe does continue to exist, absolutely. Just because we don't know what the Universe will be like in thousands of years time doesn't invalidate the fact; I think we can assume that nothing is about to come along and destroy the Universe in the next few thousand years (a very short space of time in terms of the whole Universe), therefore the Universe will then ABSOLUTELY EXIST IN REALITY, as it does now, no matter what development it undergoes. I think I have a little more understanding of what you mean. You take the word "absolutely" to mean "fixedly", I think, so that if things change, they (to you) become less absolute. But "absolutely" simply means "definitively" or maybe "literally" or "undeniably". I would contend that I exist and that is an absolute truth; the fact that I change all the time doesn't invalidate that, there has to be that "me" undeniably existing to change! I have never said nothing exists. How could nothing have given rise to the Big Bang which led to the universe? You have to make a distinction between what may be called the "material" world and the "non-material world" which are all part of reality but which have their own distinctions. In the study of atomic particles physicists have had to invent what are called probability waves which are not really waves like the waves you find on a pond but are mathematical probabilities of where a particle might be found on inspection. I've pointed out to you before: this is an interpretation of what that particular function in the wave equation means. It's an idea of Born's, which was endorsed by Bohr, and generally agreed to be the best interpretation at Solvay and henceforward jnown as the "Copenhagen Interpretation". But it was never universally agreed to - not by the original inventor of wave mechanics, Schrodinger, nor by a host of other leading lights of the quantum revolution - Einstein, Planck, de Broglie, Dirac, to name just a few. And in more modern times, of course, there are still many leading quantum physicists who disagree with that interpretation - including Bell! As I've also pointed out, this interpretation now seems to me to have been definitively disproven by the experiments cited in the OP. And yet this is the sole piece of evidence you proffer to support your contention. Indeed, you paradoxically state ( absolutely falsely!) that it has been "verified scientificially". Please tell us how - please tell us how such an interpretation could indeed be "verified". As you're such a keen Popperian, kindly inform us what are its falsification conditions? What could they be? You have taken a highly contentious and it seems to me (and this is also not a "personal view" but a widely held one - at least as widely held as yours!) logically senseless theoretical interpretaion of a piece of mathematics and asserted beyond any possible evidence that this is scientifically true - verified time and again (how?!)
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 4, 2014 10:21:02 GMT 1
Definitively disproven? If so, then how else can you interpret the results of this experiment.
I admit I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the experiment, but the introduction of the which-way filters is held to not interfere with the incoming photon at all - can this be true? The introduction of the which way filter causes the interference pattern to disappear doesn't it? So something is being affected right? Or have I got this completely wrong?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 4, 2014 12:48:32 GMT 1
Once again, misunderstandings abound! Nobody is saying that reality does not exist (at least in my view) but not in any absolute sense. By this, I mean that reality is not a single entity because it changes its character over time, which is why we Homo-Sapiens do not define reality as would (say) a Velociraptor in the age of the dinosaurs. The fact that there were no sentient beings at one point in the past demonstrates that reality changes radically, given enough time. Also, the fact that the universe had the potential to develop sentient beings means that there has always existed the possibility of the development of reality. Surely this is straightforward enough, isn't it? Who can say what reality will be like in thousands of years time, assuming we survive as a species? I'm sure that if we could somehow transport a caveman/cavewoman from the distant past to the present time he/she would consider much of what they saw as magic, yet to us it's just "reality." Your whole argument boils down to a simple misunderstanding, abacus. You fail to differentiate between reality and our knowledge (or "definition") of reality.On what basis have you taken it upon yourself to eliminate the standard definition of "reality" in this presumptious manner? That's a very easy question to answer. Reality can be defined as what can be measured.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 4, 2014 12:56:41 GMT 1
I have never said nothing exists. How could nothing have given rise to the Big Bang which led to the universe? You have to make a distinction between what may be called the "material" world and the "non-material world" which are all part of reality but which have their own distinctions. In the study of atomic particles physicists have had to invent what are called probability waves which are not really waves like the waves you find on a pond but are mathematical probabilities of where a particle might be found on inspection. I've pointed out to you before: this is an interpretation of what that particular function in the wave equation means. It's an idea of Born's, which was endorsed by Bohr, and generally agreed to be the best interpretation at Solvay and henceforward jnown as the "Copenhagen Interpretation". But it was never universally agreed to - not by the original inventor of wave mechanics, Schrodinger, nor by a host of other leading lights of the quantum revolution - Einstein, Planck, de Broglie, Dirac, to name just a few. And in more modern times, of course, there are still many leading quantum physicists who disagree with that interpretation - including Bell! As I've also pointed out, this interpretation now seems to me to have been definitively disproven by the experiments cited in the OP. And yet this is the sole piece of evidence you proffer to support your contention. Indeed, you paradoxically state ( absolutely falsely!) that it has been "verified scientificially". Please tell us how - please tell us how such an interpretation could indeed be "verified". As you're such a keen Popperian, kindly inform us what are its falsification conditions? What could they be? You have taken a highly contentious and it seems to me (and this is also not a "personal view" but a widely held one - at least as widely held as yours!) logically senseless theoretical interpretaion of a piece of mathematics and asserted beyond any possible evidence that this is scientifically true - verified time and again (how?!) What you seem to be missing here is that whatever interpretation is applied to QM it will introduce an immaterial element within it at some point. It strikes me that this is an aspect you refuse to deal with, preferring instead to cling to a basically Newtonian interpretation of reality which never gets away from a fundamentally "clockwork" model of the way things work. Of course, you may be one of those who advocates that we ignore possible interpretations of QM and go about the business of simply measuring, not questioning, in which case scientific progress stops.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 8, 2014 2:56:52 GMT 1
Definitively disproven? If so, then how else can you interpret the results of this experiment. That's a huge question, of course. I can think of three ways - two outlandish (though not as outlandish as abacus') and one that seems to me to make a great deal of sense. That would unfortunately take a few pages of text to explain even roughly. (I'm happy to do that, over time - but I think it'd be better to do so on another thread, or by pm, if you want.) What I say seems to me definitively disproven is the Copenhagen Interpretation of the wavefunction that abacus wrongly states has been confirmed - it has not, and can of course never be so, even in principle. Errr...I'm getting a bit confused with all these different experiments being offered up for consideration too. I'll try and find a nice clear example.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 8, 2014 3:04:58 GMT 1
Your whole argument boils down to a simple misunderstanding, abacus. You fail to differentiate between reality and our knowledge (or "definition") of reality.On what basis have you taken it upon yourself to eliminate the standard definition of "reality" in this presumptious manner? That's a very easy question to answer. Reality can be defined as what can be measured. Leaving aside the host of obvious problems with that definition in itself, it suffices to point out that you are shifting your ground into an entirely different metaphysical camp with this assertion. From basic Idealism to crude Materialism. I apparently need to remind you that you have previously asserted that it is our measurements that create reality. Thus, your definition at the very least needs to be amended: Reality can be defined as what is measured. Right? That's your definition. I don't deny there are a few people here and there who agree with you - especially in Physics in the 20s and 30s - but it is very far from being the standard definition.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 8, 2014 3:15:26 GMT 1
I've pointed out to you before: this is an interpretation of what that particular function in the wave equation means. It's an idea of Born's, which was endorsed by Bohr, and generally agreed to be the best interpretation at Solvay and henceforward jnown as the "Copenhagen Interpretation". But it was never universally agreed to - not by the original inventor of wave mechanics, Schrodinger, nor by a host of other leading lights of the quantum revolution - Einstein, Planck, de Broglie, Dirac, to name just a few. And in more modern times, of course, there are still many leading quantum physicists who disagree with that interpretation - including Bell! As I've also pointed out, this interpretation now seems to me to have been definitively disproven by the experiments cited in the OP. And yet this is the sole piece of evidence you proffer to support your contention. Indeed, you paradoxically state ( absolutely falsely!) that it has been "verified scientificially". Please tell us how - please tell us how such an interpretation could indeed be "verified". As you're such a keen Popperian, kindly inform us what are its falsification conditions? What could they be? You have taken a highly contentious and it seems to me (and this is also not a "personal view" but a widely held one - at least as widely held as yours!) logically senseless theoretical interpretaion of a piece of mathematics and asserted beyond any possible evidence that this is scientifically true - verified time and again (how?!) What you seem to be missing here is that whatever interpretation is applied to QM it will introduce an immaterial element within it at some point. What I definitely am missing is a straight answer to any straight question that's ever put to you! Frankly, you're rather infuriating, I don't mind telling you. This is no way to conduct a debate. I need you to explain what you mean by "immaterial element". What do you mean by it? Then I could tell you whether you're correct or not in your assessment. As it stands, you're probably right - I don't know what "immaterial elements" are, or could be, so it's very likely I would refuse to deal with them in any serious discussion about physics. You keep erecting this Aunt Sally of yours. And I'll give you the same answer - if you mean by "Newtonian" an interpretation that is logically coherent and rational and is in principle verifiable, then yes: I believe in reason, and science. Oh no, you can't have it both ways. Those people are solidly in your camp. That is, in a nutshell, the Interpretation that you advocate.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 18, 2014 13:28:28 GMT 1
That's a very easy question to answer. Reality can be defined as what can be measured. Leaving aside the host of obvious problems with that definition in itself, it suffices to point out that you are shifting your ground into an entirely different metaphysical camp with this assertion. From basic Idealism to crude Materialism. I apparently need to remind you that you have previously asserted that it is our measurements that create reality. Thus, your definition at the very least needs to be amended: Reality can be defined as what is measured. Right? That's your definition. I don't deny there are a few people here and there who agree with you - especially in Physics in the 20s and 30s - but it is very far from being the standard definition. Again, semantics gets in the way here. If, by reality, you mean scientific reality then yes, something has to be subject to testing and measurement to be scientifically viable (blame Popper, not me), however, from a philosophical standpoint, we can reason that there must be realities that are "in waiting", so to speak, that we probably have yet to discover through scientific means. And, of course, my view of the noumenal realm means there exist realities that are realities but that we can never directly know about.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 18, 2014 13:32:38 GMT 1
You keep erecting this Aunt Sally of yours. And I'll give you the same answer - if you mean by "Newtonian" an interpretation that is logically coherent and rational and is in principle verifiable, then yes: I believe in reason, and science. Then why did Feynman state that: "Nobody understands quantum mechanics?"
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 19, 2014 22:53:05 GMT 1
Because it isn't there to be understood, but to be accepted. At some level the universe just is as it is. QM tells us what happens at that level, but can't necessarily tell us why, because there doesn't have to be a reason.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 20, 2014 3:25:36 GMT 1
Leaving aside the host of obvious problems with that definition in itself, it suffices to point out that you are shifting your ground into an entirely different metaphysical camp with this assertion. From basic Idealism to crude Materialism. I apparently need to remind you that you have previously asserted that it is our measurements that create reality. Thus, your definition at the very least needs to be amended: Reality can be defined as what is measured. Right? That's your definition. I don't deny there are a few people here and there who agree with you - especially in Physics in the 20s and 30s - but it is very far from being the standard definition. Again, semantics gets in the way here. If, by reality, you mean scientific reality then yes, something has to be subject to testing and measurement to be scientifically viable (blame Popper, not me) "Popper has said that something has to be subject to testing and measurement to be scientifically viable..." ...I think that's what you meant to say. "There are aspects of reality that we have yet to discover..." ...I think is probably what you meant to say. If not, it should have been. Can we know about them indirectly? How?
|
|