Apparent retrocausality - the delayed choice quantum eraser demonstrates this in my opinion. I think those who claim that it's "actual" classical retrocausality, are wrong though.
Fair enough. So do you have an alternative explanation?
Well the simplest interpretation involves matter and information. How do you explain that in your model?
Alternative explanation of what? I believe that there are only correlations in the quantum world, so it may look like we decide the past in the present, but actually past and present simply correlate. So we don't literally, actively "change", "rewrite" the past.
What do you mean by "simplest interpretation"? If by simplest we mean that it has the least amount of equations, then it's my interpretation, the Everettian.Well the simplest interpretation involves matter and information. How do you explain that in your model?
This:
But you believe in "the quantum world" and "correlations".
You mean Hugh Everett's many worlds?
Entangled particles and the properties they communicate.
Well yes, that's one possibility.
Well.. yeah, quantum behaviour seems to be happening, no prediction of QM was ever wrong and a third of the global economy is based on it.
Yes, I see it as the natural interpretation, with only one set of equations instead of two, and the collapse being only apparent. Now there aren't literally many worlds, the way I understand it, there is only the universal wavefunction.You mean Hugh Everett's many worlds?
Hard to say. Depending on how we interpret it, this statement can already be misleading twice. Particles and their properties are the same thing. Entangled particles don't communicate in the classical sense, they just correlate (a property of theirs correlates).Entangled particles and the properties they communicate.
Fair enough, but under this interpretation, quantum effects are completely local, there is no retrocausality, and no nonlocal effects at 10000x light speed. And BTW, the number is easily far greater than 10000x.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:18 am Yes, I see it as the natural interpretation, with only one set of equations instead of two, and the collapse being only apparent. Now there aren't literally many worlds, the way I understand it, there is only the universal wavefunction.
That's my interpretation, and it may not be correct.
Have to disagree, how do you make it local? That sounds completely impossible to me.
Yes as I said, theorethically it's instantaneous (infinite "speed").And BTW, the number is easily far greater than 10000x.
Mmmm thanks for pointing out the MWI locality vs nonlocality issue. I did some reading and found several online discussions where physicists argue passionately with other physicists about it, turns out they themselves use the term "nonlocality" in like 2-3 different ways, confusing the hell out of each other. I don't know how many different versions of MWI there are, must be like a dozen or so.
For practical purposes, you can add "property" to "observation" and "measurement" and use all three interchangeably. You can take this instrumentalist approach, bolt on a positivist angle and insist that is all there is, and frankly it's impossible to prove otherwise. In Kantian language they are all interchangeable with phenomenon. On the other hand, you can have a realist outlook and while it serves no scientific purpose, it is just as impossible to prove that there is no noumenon in which 'properties' inhere and are responsible for the observable and measurable phenomena.
Well 'they' have to be treated as a single quantum system, but point taken, 'communicate' is misleading.
I was unaware of different versions, but I suppose there are.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:44 pm Mmmm thanks for pointing out the MWI locality vs nonlocality issue. I did some reading and found several online discussions where physicists argue passionately with other physicists about it, turns out they themselves use the term "nonlocality" in like 2-3 different ways, confusing the hell out of each other. I don't know how many different versions of MWI there are, must be like a dozen or so.
The whole point was to eliminate necessity of spooky action at a distance. Sure, there is entanglement, but that is not an action. Each particle of the pair is still in superposition until measured, with the original probabilities holding.The version I subscribe to is this: there is only the universal wavefunction, and it is automatically nonlocal because of entanglement.
I think we agree then, we just meant something else by or some other aspect of nonlocality.Noax wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:29 amI was unaware of different versions, but I suppose there are.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:44 pm Mmmm thanks for pointing out the MWI locality vs nonlocality issue. I did some reading and found several online discussions where physicists argue passionately with other physicists about it, turns out they themselves use the term "nonlocality" in like 2-3 different ways, confusing the hell out of each other. I don't know how many different versions of MWI there are, must be like a dozen or so.
By nonlocality, I mean taking a measurement of one entangled particle has no causal effect on other particles that are not present. This means the wave function of the unmeasured entangled pair particle is not effected while outside the light cone of the measurement of the first particle. Other interpretations state otherwise, but without demonstration of transfer of information, it remains interpretation. Nobody has devised a faster than light messaging device.
The whole point was to eliminate necessity of spooky action at a distance. Sure, there is entanglement, but that is not an action. Each particle of the pair is still in superposition until measured, with the original probabilities holding.The version I subscribe to is this: there is only the universal wavefunction, and it is automatically nonlocal because of entanglement.
Again, I'm not really sure what this Kantian noumenon-phenomenon delusion system is all about, but all such dualities seem to break down in QM. It is inherent in the laws of QM.uwot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:37 pm For practical purposes, you can add "property" to "observation" and "measurement" and use all three interchangeably. You can take this instrumentalist approach, bolt on a positivist angle and insist that is all there is, and frankly it's impossible to prove otherwise. In Kantian language they are all interchangeable with phenomenon. On the other hand, you can have a realist outlook and while it serves no scientific purpose, it is just as impossible to prove that there is no noumenon in which 'properties' inhere and are responsible for the observable and measurable phenomena.
Well, as long as you insist it is a delusion, you are going to struggle. It is true that many people believe that there is something independent of mind which 'causes' phenomena; you yourself allude to as much here:
Strictly speaking though, it is an hypothesis. Simply put it is something like: The cause of all the phenomena that suggest there is a universe made of some stuff, is a universe made of some stuff. However, as Descartes pointed out, and Hume hammered home, you cannot prove that any interpretation of phenomena is true.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:24 am Sunlight is reflected from the Moon, that light travels for a little more than a second, and then hits the eye. What happens after that is up to debate, no one really knows yet, but those signals get processed in various ways in the brain and then an imagine of the Moon is constructed from them.
If you say this, then you are claiming that there exists something independent of measurement, which is precisely what noumenon means.
Yup. Pretty much up to the publication of the second edition of Newton's Principia. Responding largely to Cartesians, Newton added the General Scholium, which included a passage known as hypotheses non fingo:
Which is why physicists generally ignore philosophy and concentrate on the maths: "Shut up and calculate".
Strictly speaking though, it is an hypothesis. Simply put it is something like: The cause of all the phenomena that suggest there is a universe made of some stuff, is a universe made of some stuff. However, as Descartes pointed out, and Hume hammered home, you cannot prove that any interpretation of phenomena is true.
I can't make sense of any of this, sounds like thinking from 1900. QM has pretty much shown that things can't be divided into noumena and phenomena. I don't really know what mind or interpretation of phenomena or independent is supposed to mean here.If you say this, then you are claiming that there exists something independent of measurement, which is precisely what noumenon means.
Yup. Pretty much up to the publication of the second edition of Newton's Principia. Responding largely to Cartesians, Newton added the General Scholium, which included a passage known as hypotheses non fingo:
"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phaenomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc’d from the phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr’d from the phaenomena, and afterwards render’d general by induction." https://isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/
Yes, but we are on a philosophy site. 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.Which is why physicists generally ignore philosophy and concentrate on the maths: "Shut up and calculate".
