ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 09:33 PM   #881
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,033
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Refer to a dictionary. Any one you choose are aware of.
there are qualifiers such as physically exists . . . I would need to know you are using the word ‘exist’. It is at the heart of this discussion.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:37 PM   #882
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,106
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
there are qualifiers such as physically exists . . . I would need to know you are using the word ‘exist’. It is at the heart of this discussion.
If you wish to use qualifiers feel free. Choose a dictionary. Choose a definition. I will likely accept it.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:46 PM   #883
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,628
Originally Posted by IanS
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
My point is that the Copenhagen Interpretation seems to suggest the universe is observer dependent, similar to conclusions found in philosophical idealism.




Not calling myself an Idealist or a supporter of the non-realism that is the Copenhagen Interpretation.

OK, so to repeat - what do you say is wrong with the Copenhagen Interpretation? What is the mistake that you think Heisenberg & the others were making?

Heisenberg, Bohr, those guys were amazing. That doesn't mean the Copenhagen Interpretation has to be accepted as gospel.

Quantum mechanics is more than only a means to predict the outcomes of experiments, isn't it? Is science concerned with how the universe works or just how the calculations work?

At the center of the Copenhagen Interpretation is complementarity...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics))

My question is: is this physics class or the Tao Te Ching? And check out the elephant in the room.


An independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can ... neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation - Niels Bohr

The elementary particles are abstractions, no longer possible to ask whether or not these particles exist in space and time objectively - Werner Heisenberg

The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them, is impossible - Werner Heisenberg



Such a perspective has not gone away with time. The issue sometimes now called "counterfactual definiteness":

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured). The term "counterfactual definiteness" is used in discussions of physics calculations, especially those related to the phenomenon called quantum entanglement and those related to the Bell inequalities.[1] In such discussions "meaningfully" means the ability to treat these unmeasured results on an equal footing with measured results in statistical calculations. It is this (sometimes assumed but unstated) aspect of counterfactual definiteness that is of direct relevance to physics and mathematical models of physical systems and not philosophical concerns regarding the meaning of unmeasured results.

"Counterfactual" may appear in physics discussions as a noun. What is meant in this context is "a value that could have been measured but, for one reason or another, was not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counte...l_definiteness

Copenhagen Interpretation rejects counterfactual definiteness. It says that because we are part of the world we must interact with the atoms we would describe. If that means including our measuring instruments in the superposition... it looks like Wigner's friend, instead of turtles, all the way down.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832

Quote:
Eugene Wigner designed the thought experiment to illustrate his belief that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process (and therefore, that consciousness in general must be an "ultimate reality"[1] according to Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum" philosophy): "All that quantum mechanics purports to provide are probability connections between subsequent impressions (also called 'apperceptions') of the consciousness".[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend

A deliberate surrender of objectivity. A self-styled philosophical revolution. An approach to physics concerned with epistemology instead of matter. A rejection of old-fashioned notions of reality and our ability to comprehend it.
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:00 PM   #884
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,635
Wow. Thanks for all of that, Frank Newgent, including your earlier post addressed to me.

I won't pretend I understood all of that, but what little I did, does point to subjectivity lurking in the weirdness.

I hope the QM-literate on this forum -- IanS is one, I think, and perhaps others might yet chip in -- take you up on this, and explore whether you're right. I'll go fetch a large tub of popcorn, half salted and half caramel, in anticipation.

Two things:

(1) This is QM. None of this impacts anything the others have said about general, non-QM things. None of this has anything to do what ontology, in the philosophical sense, addresses.

(2) Any thoughts on how QM subjectivity and general weirdness translates to objectivity and normalcy on an everyday, macro scale? Have the denizens of Copenhagen, or of any other geography, said anything about that?
Chanakya is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:09 PM   #885
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,635
Whoops, wrong thread! Post must've quantum-entaglement-ed its way on to this thread somehow!

Last edited by Chanakya; Yesterday at 10:11 PM.
Chanakya is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:48 PM   #886
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,764
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
there are qualifiers such as physically exists . . . I would need to know you are using the word ‘exist’. It is at the heart of this discussion.
If something exists in any way, physical or not physical,but is undetectable, then what, beyond a rich solipsistic imagination, gives rise to the presumption that anything but one's mind exists at all?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:00 AM   #887
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,782
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
What you perceive is six people watching a flipped coin and then all agreeing that it's heads.

Now the original question remains to be answered.
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
So the Idealist must answer the question: Avoiding Solipsism and without an appeal to a God or SuperMind, or appealing to a material world; how can we account for an objective shared reality?
I'm surprised you ask this. The subjective idealist believes that no one can know that other minds exist and even if it could be known we would not be able to know what is inside your minds. How could it be known? It is literally absurd to say that someone perceives what his neighbor thinks. By what means? Answer this simple question... if you can.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:04 AM   #888
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,426
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Heisenberg, Bohr, those guys were amazing. That doesn't mean the Copenhagen Interpretation has to be accepted as gospel.



Quantum mechanics is more than only a means to predict the outcomes of experiments, isn't it? Is science concerned with how the universe works or just how the calculations work?



At the center of the Copenhagen Interpretation is complementarity...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics))



My question is: is this physics class or the Tao Te Ching? And check out the elephant in the room.





An independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can ... neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation - Niels Bohr



The elementary particles are abstractions, no longer possible to ask whether or not these particles exist in space and time objectively - Werner Heisenberg



The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them, is impossible - Werner Heisenberg






Such a perspective has not gone away with time. The issue sometimes now called "counterfactual definiteness":









Copenhagen Interpretation rejects counterfactual definiteness. It says that because we are part of the world we must interact with the atoms we would describe. If that means including our measuring instruments in the superposition... it looks like Wigner's friend, instead of turtles, all the way down.



https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832









A deliberate surrender of objectivity. A self-styled philosophical revolution. An approach to physics concerned with epistemology instead of matter. A rejection of old-fashioned notions of reality and our ability to comprehend it.
I'm struggling to understand your point, you just seem to be posting about how strange the world is at "quantum" scales.

I think everyone knows this.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:06 AM   #889
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,426
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I'm surprised you ask this. The subjective idealist believes that no one can know that other minds exist and even if it could be known we would not be able to know what is inside your minds. How could it be known? It is literally absurd to say that someone perceives what his neighbor thinks. By what means? Answer this simple question... if you can.
Nope subjective idealism doesn't say that.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:08 AM   #890
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,782
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
It ("materialism") was not "invented" to "answer to the question". Material objects are what we experience, what we detect. Plant's detect the same material objects, such as fences and brick walls ... plants do not "invent" a concept or belief ... and they do not do any such thing (as "inventing a belief") for the deliberate purpose of "answering the question".
Classic definition of vulgar materialism.
According to this, electrons are immaterial and mirages are material.
You will have to fine-tune your definition.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:13 AM   #891
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,782
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Identify something you are aware of that does not exist.
Heavenly visions, dreams, mirages, blue mountains, the arm the surgeon has cut me...

Last edited by David Mo; Today at 02:44 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:48 AM   #892
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,782
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope subjective idealism doesn't say that.
Subjective idealism, or empirical idealism, is the monistic metaphysical doctrine that only minds and mental contents exist. ( Wikipedia)

And what does subjective idealism say, according to you?

Last edited by David Mo; Today at 03:13 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:00 AM   #893
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,874
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
‘Matter’, that which lies outside of and independent of the observer/observation is non detectable. You and anyone can prove this this to yourself - point to any substance that lies outside of your being aware of it.

No, absolutely not! Look, you just started the above with this claim " ‘Matter’, that which lies outside of and independent of the observer/observation is non detectable." ... and because you just stated that as an absolute fact, you now have a burden of providing an absolute proof that your claim is true ...

... you claimed that "matter ... is non detectable" ... you must now prove that what we detect is NOT something that as you put it "lies outside of and independent of the observer/observation" ... and lets be clear about this so that you do not try yet another evasion (for the 50th or 60th time) ... you have claimed as an absolute certainty that we (ie humans) are not detecting any objects that are in a world outside of our mere thoughts ... you are claiming that there is no "outside world" that we can detect ... OK, so you now have to give an absolute proof for that claim ...

... where is your proof that no reality exists (except as something we call thoughts)?

... where is your proof that what we are detecting does not exist as a real external world of real objects?

Do not prevaricate with anything else please. Just produce a complete proof that we are not detecting/sensing real objects.

Last edited by IanS; Today at 03:02 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:25 AM   #894
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,874
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Heisenberg, Bohr, those guys were amazing. That doesn't mean the Copenhagen Interpretation has to be accepted as gospel.

Quantum mechanics is more than only a means to predict the outcomes of experiments, isn't it? Is science concerned with how the universe works or just how the calculations work?

At the center of the Copenhagen Interpretation is complementarity...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics))

My question is: is this physics class or the Tao Te Ching? And check out the elephant in the room.


An independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can ... neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation - Niels Bohr

The elementary particles are abstractions, no longer possible to ask whether or not these particles exist in space and time objectively - Werner Heisenberg

The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them, is impossible - Werner Heisenberg



Such a perspective has not gone away with time. The issue sometimes now called "counterfactual definiteness":




Copenhagen Interpretation rejects counterfactual definiteness. It says that because we are part of the world we must interact with the atoms we would describe. If that means including our measuring instruments in the superposition... it looks like Wigner's friend, instead of turtles, all the way down.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832




A deliberate surrender of objectivity. A self-styled philosophical revolution. An approach to physics concerned with epistemology instead of matter. A rejection of old-fashioned notions of reality and our ability to comprehend it.


You are giving a series of quotes from various dead physicists, telling us what they apparently thought at some past time. But you are not answering my question - which was asking you where you think those physicists had made a mistake in what they had concluded from their knowledge of QM ...

... you have merely said or implied that you find what they say unsatisfactory or unconvincing - I am asking you why you find their words unsatisfactory or unconvincing. I'm asking you where in their deductions you think they have made a mistake ...

... can you explain where they have gone wrong in terms of understanding QM?

I'm not asking you whether you find their views convincing or believable. I am asking you (since you say you disagree with them), where you think they have made a mistake in what they apparently deduced from their work in QM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:34 AM   #895
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,782
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Wow. Thanks for all of that, Frank Newgent, including your earlier post addressed to me.

I won't pretend I understood all of that, but what little I did, does point to subjectivity lurking in the weirdness.

I hope the QM-literate on this forum -- IanS is one, I think, and perhaps others might yet chip in -- take you up on this, and explore whether you're right. I'll go fetch a large tub of popcorn, half salted and half caramel, in anticipation.

Two things:

(1) This is QM. None of this impacts anything the others have said about general, non-QM things. None of this has anything to do what ontology, in the philosophical sense, addresses.

(2) Any thoughts on how QM subjectivity and general weirdness translates to objectivity and normalcy on an everyday, macro scale? Have the denizens of Copenhagen, or of any other geography, said anything about that?
(1) It matters because quantum mechanics refers to the ultimate components of matter.
(2) The problem of the relationship between quantum micro-objects and macro-reality is not solved. The boundaries between one and the other cannot even be defined. I find it incomprehensible that a particle of my body may be delocalized and my body may be located. Mysteries of quantum mechanics.

Don't expect them to be solved in this or other amateur forums. They have no idea of this subject even though they appear to be very wise.
If you want to get an idea of the difficulty of understanding quantum mechanics take a look at this site:
http://la-mecanica-cuantica.blogspot...uacion-de.html

It's in Spanish, but just see it will give you an idea.

Last edited by David Mo; Today at 03:56 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:50 AM   #896
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,644
I have difficulty accepting interpretations that attribute quantum superposition states to entire cats or entire physics laboratories as long as they're not observed by an external conscious human, given the elaborate measures scientists and engineers must employ to deliberately create and maintain quantum superposition states in particles or tiny domains for quantum computing.

If the whole "superposition remains until someone is conscious of the result" concept were actually valid, we should be able to build a quantum computer out of Tinkertoys, the way we can with a regular digital computer, as long as no one is around to watch it operate.


ETA: Now I'm imagining the reaction of a group of sarcastic IBM engineers in their quantum computing project reading the quantum speculations in this thread. They're saying things like, "Gawrsh, why are we moh-rons spending millions of dollars messing around with lasers and cryogenics and stuff when all we have to do is not look at it. Herp derp."
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; Today at 04:59 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:09 AM   #897
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
(1) It matters because quantum mechanics refers to the ultimate components of matter.

Oh, it matters, sure it matters. I'm simply saying, this doesn't have anything to do with ontology as generally discussed here.


Quote:
(2) The problem of the relationship between quantum micro-objects and macro-reality is not solved. The boundaries between one and the other cannot even be defined. I find it incomprehensible that a particle of my body may be delocalized and my body may be located. Mysteries of quantum mechanics.

As do I!


Quote:
Don't expect them to be solved in this or other amateur forums. They have no idea of this subject even though they appear to be very wise.

Oh, I don't know. Not solved, no; but presenting clearly and lucidly what others have solved, why not?

You're right, there are plenty of folks here who appear, in some degree, well, poseurs. Like I've seen in the sig of one of the members here -- paraphrasing very freely based imperfect memory -- we've a host of brilliant biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and what have you here, most of who turn back into pumpkins once they log off. So yeah, I take what folks say, as well as the expertise they display here, with a pinch of salt, never you fear!

That said, there do appear to be a pretty good sprinkling of the real goods here too, knowledgeable folks who do go to great lengths to share their knowledge and understanding. So, while not quite naively trusting, I'm nowhere as cynical as you are about the folks here. I've not seen any better collection of knowledgeable folks, reasonable folks, good folks, myself.


Quote:
If you want to get an idea of the difficulty of understanding quantum mechanics take a look at this site:
http://la-mecanica-cuantica.blogspot...uacion-de.html

It's in Spanish, but just see it will give you an idea.

Heh, yes, I do have an idea that QM's complicated! As for the Spanish website -- Caramba! -- that does make the subject somewhat more comprehensible!

(Kidding, kidding. Yeah, I know, this is complicated ****. In a way no less apparently nonsensical than theology! Still, it seems to work, and work spectacularly, so ...)
Chanakya is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.