Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12387
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is a discussion that represent the OP.
popeye1945 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:18 pm .......
Do you insist that apparent reality is more than a biological readout? Spinoza knew that the body was the mind's idea, but taking it further the physical world is the body's idea. If you feel you can substantiate that physical apparent reality is more than the body's reading of energy wave frequencies, I am all ears.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
I have been arguing on the basis of the above article all along. However it must be reinforced with stronger and robust philosophical reasonings.

Noted in the article;
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
4-1 Why Nature Does not Appear Compatible with Realism.
For many years, there have been attempts to rationalize physics. But, since the first part of this century the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation of modern physics has taught that [size]there is no reality [/size]* in physics.
It claims that what we perceive as real does not have its own independent existence.
It exists only in our imagination.
Descriptions in modern physics cannot be compatible with reality since some fundamental definitions are not compatible with realism.

The above does not reject reality-proper but merely reject realism, i.e. philosophical realism;
4-2 What Is Realism? [specifically Philosophical Realism]
The concept of realism was accepted and used in all fields of physics from the beginning of history until the beginning of this century.
However, since the development of modern physics, the interpretation of quantum mechanics has rejected realism.
....
Realism has been defined in various ways.
One of the definitions of realism is:
"The quality of the universe existing independently of ourselves."
However, the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation denies the existence of realism.

According to modern physics, matter starts to exist only at the moment the observer learns about its existence.
This bizarre belief is illustrated by one of the great masters of the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. Heisenberg [4.1] states:

"But then one sees that not even the quality of being (if that may be called a "quality") belongs to what is described. It is a possibility for being or a tendency for being."
(Parentheses and quotation marks are from Heisenberg's book.)
Let us recall that Cramer[4.2]makes the same claim in different words:

"It is the change in the observer's knowledge that precipitates the state vector collapse"
Heisenberg also insists on this lack of reality in the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. He [4.3]writes:
"In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the objective reality has evaporated, and quantum mechanics does not represent particles, but rather, our knowledge, our observations, or our consciousness of particles."
But unfortunately the ignorant being stuck in the old paradigm believes the following'
If nature does not even have the quality of being, and if it is the observer's knowledge that precipitates that being, the universe did not exist before life began on earth, as suggested by Davies [4.4].
The universe will therefore cease to exist at the moment all life disappears on earth. If matter cannot have its own existence, independent of human mind, as dictated by the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation, cosmologists cannot study the birth of galaxies or the origin of the universe. There was no observer before humans started to observe. If the creation of the universe is the result of the observer's knowledge, then the universe could not exist before we did. Then the observer had to be there at the very first instant of creation in order to precipitate the creation. In other words, the universe is a creation of our mind and will disappear with it.
How can such an absurd theory be considered as the best interpretation of modern physics of the 20th century?
The philosophical realists are astounded and insist the new view of reality is absurd because they are ignorant.

This is typical of many posters here who are philosophical realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=573523 time=1652859743 user_id=7896]
Here is a discussion that represent the OP.

[quote=popeye1945 post_id=573498 time=1652846565 user_id=21999]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=573461 time=1652815111 user_id=3619]
.......
[/quote]
Do you insist that apparent reality is more than a biological readout? Spinoza knew that the body was the mind's idea, but taking it further the physical world is the body's idea. If you feel you can substantiate that physical apparent reality is more than the body's reading of energy wave frequencies, I am all ears.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
[/quote]
I have been arguing on the basis of the above article all along. However it must be reinforced with stronger and robust philosophical reasonings.

Noted in the article;
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html

[quote][b]4-1 Why Nature Does not Appear Compatible with Realism.[/b]
For many years, there have been attempts to rationalize physics. But, since the first part of this century the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation of modern physics has taught that [size][b]there is no reality [/b][/size]* in physics.
[b]It claims that what we perceive as real does not have its own independent existence[/b].
It exists only in our imagination.
Descriptions in modern physics cannot be compatible with reality since some fundamental definitions are not compatible with realism.[/quote]


The above does not reject reality-proper but merely reject real[b]ism[/b], i.e. philosophical realism;

[quote][b]4-2 What Is Realism?[/b] [specifically Philosophical Realism]
The concept of realism was accepted and used in all fields of physics from the beginning of history until the beginning of this century.
However, since the development of modern physics, t[b]he interpretation of quantum mechanics has rejected realism[/b].
....
[b]Realism[/b] has been defined in various ways.
One of the definitions of realism is:
"[b]The quality of the universe existing independently of ourselves[/b]."[/quote]

[quote]However, [b]the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation denies the existence of realism[/b].

According to modern physics, matter starts to exist only at the moment the observer learns about its existence.
This bizarre belief is illustrated by one of the great masters of the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. Heisenberg [4.1] states:

"But then one sees that not even the quality of being (if that may be called a "quality") belongs to what is described. It is a possibility for being or a tendency for being."
(Parentheses and quotation marks are from Heisenberg's book.)
Let us recall that Cramer[4.2]makes the same claim in different words:

"It is the change in the observer's knowledge that precipitates the state vector collapse"
Heisenberg also insists on this lack of reality in the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. He [4.3]writes:
"In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the objective reality has evaporated, and quantum mechanics does not represent particles, but rather, our knowledge, our observations, or our consciousness of particles."[/quote]

But unfortunately the ignorant being stuck in the old paradigm believes the following'

[quote] If nature does not even have the quality of being, and if it is the observer's knowledge that precipitates that being, the universe did not exist before life began on earth, as suggested by Davies [4.4].
The universe will therefore cease to exist at the moment all life disappears on earth. If matter cannot have its own existence, independent of human mind, as dictated by the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation, cosmologists cannot study the birth of galaxies or the origin of the universe. There was no observer before humans started to observe. If the creation of the universe is the result of the observer's knowledge, then the universe could not exist before we did. Then the observer had to be there at the very first instant of creation in order to precipitate the creation. In other words, the universe is a creation of our mind and will disappear with it.
[b] How can such an [color=#FF0000]absurd theory[/color] be considered as the best interpretation of modern physics of the 20th century?[/b][/quote]

The philosophical realists are astounded and insist the new view of reality is [b]absurd[/b] because they are ignorant.

This is typical of many posters here who are philosophical realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
[/quote]

It's absurd prima facie, and there's no saving it with "but we said so".
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 8:42 am
the best interpretation of modern physics of the 20th century?
googling "Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation"

14 hits worldwide
it's a well-kept secret.. even from modern physics
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by bahman »

Of course, idealism is the correct view.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

The totality is independent as it has no comparison.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:05 pm Of course, idealism is the correct view.
Or not. Realism is of course still the main view in QM, however it may need an extra dimension. Actually, physicists are moving away from the Copenhagen, interpretations based on realism are getting more popular.

VA doesn't know this because he is an ignorant gnat making noises.

And even among the Copenhagenists, very few have taken an actual Berkeleyen stance, because it just seems dumb. To be affected by things that don't exist until measured.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12387
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:55 pm The totality is independent as it has no comparison.
What??

Whatever the "totality," it cannot be independent of its parts.
Humans and every thing else are intricately part and parcel of totality1.
Totality1 is intricately part and parcel of totality2 and so on.

Image
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12387
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:58 am
bahman wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:05 pm Of course, idealism is the correct view.
Or not. Realism is of course still the main view in QM, however it may need an extra dimension. Actually, physicists are moving away from the Copenhagen, interpretations based on realism are getting more popular.

VA doesn't know this because he is an ignorant gnat making noises.

And even among the Copenhagenists, very few have taken an actual Berkeleyen stance, because it just seems dumb. To be affected by things that don't exist until measured.
You are insulting your own intelligence by clinging to Realism for Quantum Physics.
Show me evidence that current modern physicists are moving towards interpretations based on Realism, i.e.
  • philosophical realism.
    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind
There are alternative interpretations re Quantum Mechanics basic principles, But these alternatives do not relapse to Realism [as defined].

Note Model Dependent Realism which is opposed to the conventional sort of realism;
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
    It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
My main focus re the reference article in the OP is on the fundamental principle of QM,
i.e.
there is no independent reality without any consideration for the human conditions.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 6:24 am You are insulting your own intelligence by clinging to Realism for Quantum Physics.
Lie - I'm not clinging to realism. Looks like you are clinging to anti-realism due to some existential crisis or whatever.
Show me evidence that current modern physicists are moving towards interpretations based on Realism, i.e.
  • philosophical realism.
    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind
You are too incompetent to be able to handle the various meanings of "reality", "independent" and "mind".
Anyway decoherence, many-worlds, and even the standard Copenhagen, which can be seen as the three main ideas, don't deal with "mind".
My main focus re the reference article in the OP is on the fundamental principle of QM,
i.e.
there is no independent reality without any consideration for the human conditions.
This is a word salad. No one knows what you mean by "consideration for the human conditions".
If this is the fundamental principle of QM then how come physicists don't keep saying it. Did you forget to tell them what QM is about?

And no, in the OP you went all-out batshit crazy about a Berkeleyen version, it wasn't about mere independence.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:58 am
bahman wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:05 pm Of course, idealism is the correct view.
Or not. Realism is of course still the main view in QM, however it may need an extra dimension. Actually, physicists are moving away from the Copenhagen, interpretations based on realism are getting more popular.

VA doesn't know this because he is an ignorant gnat making noises.

And even among the Copenhagenists, very few have taken an actual Berkeleyen stance, because it just seems dumb. To be affected by things that don't exist until measured.
I have an argument in favor of idealism. Interested?
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:35 pm I have an argument in favor of idealism. Interested?
Go ahead if you want, but you know I'll refute your argument no? (I'm no materialist nor idealist)
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:35 pm I have an argument in favor of idealism. Interested?
Go ahead if you want, but you know I'll refute your argument no? (I'm no materialist nor idealist)
Change exists. Consider a change in an object, A to B, where A initial state and B is the final state (two states are extremely close to each other). To be B the object must not be A. But there is nothing and nothing cannot cause B. Therefore, there should exist a mind that experiences A and causes B. Mind should exist otherwise we face regress. Mind should have the ability to experience A otherwise it cannot create B that is somehow related to A. It is obvious that mind should have the ability to cause too otherwise we cannot have B. So we have two things, mind and the thing which is subject to change, qualia, which its existence is due to mind. So we are dealing with idealism.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:43 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:35 pm I have an argument in favor of idealism. Interested?
Go ahead if you want, but you know I'll refute your argument no? (I'm no materialist nor idealist)
Change exists. Consider a change in an object, A to B, where A initial state and B is the final state (two states are extremely close to each other). To be B the object must not be A. But there is nothing and nothing cannot cause B. Therefore, there should exist a mind that experiences A and causes B. Mind should exist otherwise we face regress. Mind should have the ability to experience A otherwise it cannot create B that is somehow related to A. It is obvious that mind should have the ability to cause too otherwise we cannot have B. So we have two things, mind and the thing which is subject to change, qualia, which its existence is due to mind. So we are dealing with idealism.
A and B aren't the same object in an at least 4-dimensional universe. So change could just be an illusion, and the rest with the mind doesn't follow either.

We just treat them as the same object for everyday convenience, that's just an everyday approximation.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:50 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:43 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm
Go ahead if you want, but you know I'll refute your argument no? (I'm no materialist nor idealist)
Change exists. Consider a change in an object, A to B, where A initial state and B is the final state (two states are extremely close to each other). To be B the object must not be A. But there is nothing and nothing cannot cause B. Therefore, there should exist a mind that experiences A and causes B. Mind should exist otherwise we face regress. Mind should have the ability to experience A otherwise it cannot create B that is somehow related to A. It is obvious that mind should have the ability to cause too otherwise we cannot have B. So we have two things, mind and the thing which is subject to change, qualia, which its existence is due to mind. So we are dealing with idealism.
A and B aren't the same object in an at least 4-dimensional universe.
Of course, they are not the same object.
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm So change could just be an illusion,
Now you are not making any sense.
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm and the rest with the mind doesn't follow either.
Which part does not follow.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:25 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:50 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:43 pm
Change exists. Consider a change in an object, A to B, where A initial state and B is the final state (two states are extremely close to each other). To be B the object must not be A. But there is nothing and nothing cannot cause B. Therefore, there should exist a mind that experiences A and causes B. Mind should exist otherwise we face regress. Mind should have the ability to experience A otherwise it cannot create B that is somehow related to A. It is obvious that mind should have the ability to cause too otherwise we cannot have B. So we have two things, mind and the thing which is subject to change, qualia, which its existence is due to mind. So we are dealing with idealism.
A and B aren't the same object in an at least 4-dimensional universe.
Of course, they are not the same object.
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm So change could just be an illusion,
Now you are not making any sense.
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm and the rest with the mind doesn't follow either.
Which part does not follow.
Change and causation don't have to exist, they are probably everyday illusions. We are simply talking about two different 3-dimensional "slices" of a 4d block universe.
So the part with the mind doesn't follow.
Post Reply