And that seems to me pretty clear in itself - is there something about it you did not understand that I could clarify? Why would you need a superfluous label, or template, to consider it? Or more simply, what's your point? — tim wood

My point was just to see if you were arguing from a well-thought-out personal worldview, or just parroting a party line (or template). For example, for all practical purposes (e.g. science & technology) I could be placed under the heading of "Materialist". But, for theoretical purposes (e.g. philosophy & ethics) I might fit better into the category of "Idealist". That's because the non-human material aspects of the world have no Ideas (words, concepts) for us to argue about : either it is, or it ain't.

Since my personal worldview is multi-faceted & complementary, I have labeled it a "BothAnd" philosophy. Yet, for Either-Or One-Siders, that broad-mindedness is confusing. Another way to look at it is : my scientific worldview is both Classical (matter/energy/objective) and Quantum (mind/observer/subjective). Since the topic of this thread is a Quantum physics question, my comments will be primarily focused on the mental interpretation. Which I suspected might clash with your views. Hence, the request for clarification. So yes, my intuition has been confirmed. But there is still room for further philosophizing. :smile:

Would you characterize the world model described above as "Materialism", or "Physicalism", or merely "Atheism"? No information, no patterns, no interrelationships, just atoms whirling in the void? — Gnomon
I wouldn't characterize it. I have a memory of something read that I think came from Wittgenstein, that all theories are templates placed over the world, and not to be mistaken for the world itself or how it works. And buying that, I have no urge to resort to templates - except of course when my human business requires me to. — tim wood

Are you using Wittgenstein as an authority to justify an evasive non-position on a philosophical question? Does that side-step imply that you have no philosophical worldview, or just that you don't want to expose your subjective personal "template" to objective critical analysis? I too, am wary of being dismissively labeled, but it's a risk I'm willing to take, in the interest of refining my beliefs in the give & take of philosophy. Perhaps you would be willing to deny the labels that don't apply to you?

By "template" you may mean Wittgenstein's "explanatory pictures" or merely "arbitrary belief systems". But humans seem to be born with a crude template to overlay on the outside world*1. That elementary world model is neither true nor false, but merely necessary to begin learning how to live in the real world. Immanuel Kant called the elements of knowledge "Categories of Understanding"*2. They are "pure" in the sense of not yet adulterated with conventional cultural belief systems.

For him that list of semantic compartments was merely a philosophical hypothesis, but modern Neuroscientists also assume that the brain stores experiences in a few pre-set categories. But, even with current technology, it's hard to locate them in the neuronal network, except in the most basic senses : taste, touch, etc. The inborn categories are general & imprecise, but become more specific with experience. Some brain scientists have even postulated a specialized "grandmother" or "Jennifer Anniston" cell {see image}. But the brain-maps are not likely to be single cells, or even that particular. Instead, they are organized into broad "meanings" or "semantic categories"*3.

Since these primitive templates (world maps) are inborn, you don't have to be "urged" to apply them to the non-self world. They automatically divide incoming sensory information into something like Kant's four categories and twelve classes. Over time, these general templates are refined into the specific concepts and comprehensive worldviews that philosophers argue over interminably. :smile:


*1. Category Learning :
We have instead evolved the ability to detect the higher-level structure of experiences, the commonalities across them that allow us to group experiences into meaningful categories and concepts. This process imbues the world with meaning. . . . . Categories represent our knowledge of groupings and patterns that are not explicit in the bottom-up sensory inputs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709834/

*2. Immanuel Kant's Categories of Understanding :
Kant ultimately distinguishes twelve pure concepts of the understanding, divided into four classes of three: 1. Quantity (Unity, Plurality, Totality), 2. Quality (Reality, Negation, Limitation), 3. Relation (Inherence and Subsistence (substance and accident), Causality and Dependence (cause and effect), Community (reciprocity)), and 4. Modality (Possibility, Existence, Necessity).
https://www.thephilosophyproject.in/post/immanuel-kant-s-categories-of-understanding

*3. New Map of Meaning in the Brain :
“Our understanding, our knowledge about things, is actually somewhat embedded in the perceptual systems,”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-map-of-meaning-in-the-brain-changes-ideas-about-memory-20220208/

BRAIN CATEGORIES including questionable Jennifer Anniston cells

I’ve recently discovered this term “apolitical” and since political opinions are tied to values most of the time, I was wondering what an “apolitical” person without values would be like. It's obviously impossible for a human to completely lack values and political opinions, but what I mean is someone who would actively try to minimize/ignore them. — Skalidris

One interpretation of "politics" is "polarized people" : Lords vs Commons, Republican vs Democrat, us vs them ; friends vs enemies ; Good vs Evil ; our people (NAZI volk) vs aliens (Jews, etc). That rational (non-emotional) assessment sums up why I am literally apolitical. It's not that I have no interest in the issues being argued, but simply that I'm not prepared to choose-up sides and fight for my values. My personal values are multivalent, and are found on both sides of most either/or, two-value party lines.

For example, I can see both pro & con & non of Abortion : A> murder of innocent, or B> personal reproductive choice vs government mandate, or C> population control in an over-peopled world. Besides, in democratic politics, it's not always the majority that rules, but the most powerful minority. So, I stand on the sidelines, hopefully out of the line of fire, and watch the predators & prey engage in the eternal struggle for survival : as groups, they can't survive without each other. But I (alone) can survive here on my little apolitical philosophical perch on the un-peopled mountaintop. :smile:

APOLITICAL PHILOSOPHER

Do laws govern the universe? Of course not; how could they, the universe primordial to any law? — tim wood

My two bits worth :
I assume you meant that the universe is lawless, and completely random. Of course, the "Laws of Physics" are human interpretations of how the world works, as experienced by highly-evolved creatures with both senses and reasons. But our sensory experience of those lawful behaviors has occurred only in the last few million years of evolution. And modern scientists have picked-out the law-like Order within a background of Randomness. Do you view the universe as a Big Accident that just happened to haphazardly produce highly-organized creatures who ask question about the origins of Order?

Since the Big Bang, Nature has been coasting along on the angular momentum (vector) from a primordial burst of Energy of unknown etiology. The "angle" Nature takes over Time, seems to be regulated by primordial limits on the path of causal Energy. Which we know in retrospect as The Arrow of Time. Evolution is autonomous only in the details, due to random mutations (rearrangement of structure). Other than those details, the general direction was set in the initial conditions. Which included a trigger and the power to evolve, to change.

The unfolding of evolution is not impelled & guided by internal "laws". Instead, we infer the primordial "Laws" from observation of natural behavior. And some of us attribute such lawful behavior to a preternatural Lawmaker, imagined as a human king. As far as Cosmologists know though, Space & Time did not exist before the Bang. But how could nothingness "bang" without available Energy, or produce angular momentum without some input of direction? :smile:

My view is that the world knows nothing of information, knows nothing of anything. It exists as the stuff in it that constitutes it. These things interact in certain ways and not in others. And thus the world goes from this moment to the next. No information, no patterns, just immediate continuous evolution. — tim wood

Would you characterize the world model described above as "Materialism", or "Physicalism", or merely "Atheism"? No information, no patterns, no interrelationships, just atoms whirling in the void? The missing element is Meaning, which is significant only to evolved creatures capable of knowing, and knowing that they know, hence possessing a Self Concept, and the concept of Other Minds.

Before Shannon defined it in terms of abstract mathematical values, the original definition of Information was "knowledge in a mind"*1. The "form" part of Information simply refers to an Idea (a mental concept), rather than a material thing. For example, "uncertainty" is a state of mind, and Information Theory is intended to reduce the uncertainty of a communication*2. A world of mindless "stuff" would not know the feeling of uncertainty, only a world of persons can feel & know. Are you a thing, or a person?

A world that "knows nothing of information" is a world without Ideas, a world without Meaning, just Things doing whatever Energy forces them to do. If that is the case, what is the purpose of Philosophy? Does it put food on the table for "things that interact"? Are you saying that the only form of information you are interested in is in the form of "stuff"? What kind of "stuff" do you get from this forum? :smile:

*1. Information Etymology :
late 14c., informacion, "act of informing, communication of news," from Old French informacion, enformacion "advice, instruction," from Latin informationem (nominative informatio) "outline, concept, idea," noun of action from past participle stem of informare "to train, instruct, educate; shape, give form to"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/information

*2. Information theory :
Information theory studies the transmission, processing, extraction, and utilization of information. Abstractly, information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

a whole cottage industry arises that replies to the world and insists that it must work on models we create, on the basis of information, even to the extent of saying that the world itself just is information!
And the only way that makes any sense is by defining "information" in very peculiar ways, such that "information" and information no longer share meaning. — tim wood

Another term for that "cottage industry" you mentioned is Philosophy. And yes, Philosophers & Scientists do indeed "define information in peculiar ways". One of those ways is to create imaginary "models" of reality, that are not in themselves real, but ideal*3. Another term for a mental model of reality is Theory. Do you know the real world directly, or only by means of models & theories (a la Kant)?*4

Gregory Bateson was a people-watcher, and defined Information in a strange", but human-oriented way *5. Claude Shannon was an engineer, not a philosopher, and he redefined Information in an odd way : as a degree of uncertainty (i.e. entropy). But what is Uncertainty to a bit of stuff? What difference does Entropy make to a rock?

On this forum, do you communicate information to mindless things, or to the minds of unseen persons, for whom that knowledge might make a difference in their understanding of the world? A world with "no pattern" is a world of Random Noise. Do you hear the static, and miss the signal?*6 :cool:


*3. It from Bit :
It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
Note --- John Archibald Wheeler was a quantum physicist, not a philosopher. But this theory is philosophical, not scientific. The metaphysical philosophy of Materialism accepts his physical science, but rejects his metaphysical philosophy.

*4. On Reality :
"Uncertainty" is NOT "I don't know." It is "I can't know." "I am uncertain" does not mean "I could be certain." ____Werner Heisenberg
Real Things vs Appearances :
The world as it is before mediation Kant calls the noumenal world, or, in a memorable phrase, Das Ding an sich, a phrase which literally means “The thing in itself”, but whose sense would be more accurately caught by translating it as “the thing (or world) as it really is”(as distinct from how it appears to us).
https://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Kant_and_the_Thing_in_Itself
Note --- Empirical Science aspires to reality, but due to the "mediation" of the imperfect senses, must be content with "appearances" :
Appearance vs. Reality in the Sciences : https://academic.oup.com/book/7392/chapter-abstract/152237212?redirectedFrom=fulltext

*5. A bit of Information :
"What we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continuously transformed are themselves provided with energy."
https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/information-difference.html
Note --- During the early period of Quantum science, Gregory Bateson was an English anthropologist, social scientist, linguist, visual anthropologist, semiotician, and cyberneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields. His first "difference" is physical, but the second "difference" is metaphysical (i.e. meaning), hence philosophical.

*6. "Call it the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Error : we can be wrong, or we can know it, but we can't do both at the same time"
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/uncertainty-principle

My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. — Gnomon
:lol: That is preposterous that an evolved species would think itself the ultimate ruler of the universe and so they make a god in their own image. — Athena

To be clear, the "immaterial power" I was referring to is Logical Reasoning (including mathematics), which seems to have reached its pinnacle of evolution (to date) in the homo species. When we begin to allow non-human posters on this forum, I might need to be more circumspect in my language. :smile:

Exactly, however, it might help if we resist using human pronouns when referring to logos or a prime mover. — Athena

Plato & Aristotle apparently used abstract non-anthro-morphic notions of "Logos & Prime Mover" intentionally, to avoid implications of the humanoid deities of their day. Similarly, when I occasionally use the term "G*D" when referring to an unknown & unknowable creative/causal power behind the Big Bang, I often use un-gendered pronouns, such as "he/r" and "s/he". But I do so with tongue in cheek, imagining the "huh?" question mark above the head of the reader. :joke:

↪Gnomon
Thank you for the references. I think if you read/listen to them critically, they omit just exactly the detail needed. For example, on the assumption that information is an efficient cause, then how can that work? — tim wood

If the "detail" you're looking for is empirical evidence, it's probably not forthcoming. Mathematics is a language for science, not an object to be studied under a microscope. Likewise, Energy is an intangible invisible force that is observed only in its physical effects, not as a ding an sich. Both Math & Energy are now regarded, by scientists & philosophers, as forms of Generic Information. Basically most of the referenced links in my posts are philosophical/theoretical generalizations & opinions, not empirical evidence. So, the bottom line is : do you trust these theoretical scientists to know what they are talking about?

Since the advent of Quantum Theory, there has been a divergence between Theory & Practice. Classical physics, beginning around the 16th & 17th centuries, replaced the traditional philosophical observations & interpretations of Aristotle & such, with repeatable, recorded experimental evidence. But, on the quantum scale of reality, things are not that simple. Heisenberg defined the distinction between classical and quantum as "Uncertainty". For example, statistical observations cannot be just recorded as fundamental facts, they must be interpreted in the light of personal or conventional beliefs about their indirect observations. That's why Quantum Bayesianism*1*2 begins with subjective interpretations (beliefs) and adjusts the percentage of Certainty as more evidence comes in. Some empirical Quantum scientists, such as Feynman, objected to the Copenhagen incursion of philosophy into physics. Yet today, many quantum physicists are mathematical theorists (i.e. philosophers), who do no empirical work at all.

Regarding "how can that work?", I have my own personal theory, but I also post links to sites where professional scientists publish their own philosophical opinions on the "how" question*3*4. The empirical and philosophical research is ongoing on many fronts. For example, the Santa Fe Institute for the Study of Complex Systems is at the cutting edge of Quantum Information knowledge. But it also looks for enforming & causal effects in Biology & Chemistry*5. Little of this ongoing research is textbook stuff at the moment, but the direction is obvious : everything in the world is a form of Information, including Mathematics, Mind, & Matter*6. :smile:


*1. Quantum Philosophy :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the most prominent of which is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

*2. Unraveling QBism :
In QBism, the wave function represents an observer's subjective beliefs about the possible outcomes of a measurement rather than an objective description of reality.
https://medium.com/physics-philosophy-more/qbism-a-technical-discourse-34109e2b3c16

*3. Information causality :
Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009. . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality#cite_note-1

*4. Information converted to energy :
Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*5. New paper answers causation conundrum :
Called downward causation . . . . However, as soon as one spends a little time considering how this causality works, trouble arises.
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/new-paper-answers-causation-conundrum

*6. Information and the Nature of Reality :
Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/information-and-the-nature-of-reality/811A28839BB7B63AAB63DC355FBE8C81
Note --- several of the authors of this anthology are associated with Santa Fe Institute

*7. From Matter to Life, Information and Causality :
If information makes a difference in the physical world, which it surely does, then should we not attribute to it causal powers?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/from-matter-to-life/4DA89C33D0FF29E749E6B415739F8E5A
Note --- several of the authors of this anthology are associated with Santa Fe Institute

Would life as an immortal real be with less meaning? Can't we just invent it as we go in any event? — TiredThinker

Yes. The meaning of immortality would be just the sum of meaningful experiences of the observer. Yet the perspective of infinite experiences might eventually merge into a single undifferentiated blob of memory. But, is the whole more than the sum of its parts? Wait and see. :smile:

PS___ Meanings are mental, not physical ; internal, not external. The Meaning of Life is what you read into it.

In her Marginalian essay on Borges, The Mirror of Enigma, Maria Popova quotes :
"Borges recognized this, closing the essay by acknowledging “it is doubtful that the world has a meaning… even more doubtful that it has a double or triple meaning.” " . . . . or infinite meaning.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-mirror-of-enigmas-chance-the-universe-and-the-fragile-loveliness-of-knowing-who-we-are?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

but I think math is the reality, — flannel jesus
I invite you to think about your own remark and the difficulties of it. What if anything can you imagine that would make math more than, other than, just descriptive and give it causal efficacy? — tim wood

Slightly off-topic : If you will think of Mathematical relationships as A> a form of Information, and B> Information as "the power to enform a mind", plus C> Energy as the power to enform matter (as in E=MC^2), then the notion of a Real universe consisting of mathematical (structural) & informational (meaningful) relationships might begin to make sense. Of course, it's a great leap from Atomism & Materialism.

Some of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe conjectures are preternatural & transcendent, but the notion that reality is fundamentally Mathematical & Informational is compatible with our modern knowledge of Nature via Physics. Below are a few other thoughts on Math (information) as the fundamental element of Reality. To answer your question, the Abstract Math form of Information may-or-may-not-be inert (depending), but the Energy form of Generic Information "gives it causal efficacy". :smile:

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/9/9/095206/1076232/The-mass-energy-information-equivalence-principle

Mathematics : Greek máthēma (μάθημα), meaning "that which is learnt",[11] "what one gets to know",
Note : Knowledge is Information ; hence Math is information.

Is Information Theory Mathematics? :
Yes, Information Theory is a branch of mathematics
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1083862/is-information-theory-mathematics

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

What is Information? :
Abstract Information : the 1s & 0s of computer language. Existence = 1, Non-existence = 0

Causal Information : Energy - e.g. the ratio between Hot & Cold. Energy is the causal power of Information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Material Information : E=MC^2. Mass is Enformed Energy, and is an essential property of Matter. "the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ ... 2expl.html

Shannon Information : The abstract ratio of One to Zero. It yields accuracy in computation, but omits any meaning or significance. Quantity without Quality. Like language, its utility is in its ability to mean anything you want to convey.
https://informationphilosopher.com/index.30.en.html

Organic Information : Living organisms are defined and organized by their "Information Molecule", which we call DNA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Semantic Information : Meaning in a conscious mind; for example the relationship between Self and Other. It can be expressed mathematically as a numerical ratio, or emotionally as a positive/negative feeling.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/info ... -Semantic/
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

The interplay is certainly interesting. — jgill

JG, I'm not picking on you by posting long dissertations to your name. It's just that I'm on a roll here, expanding the topic of Quantum Entanglement is Holistic. And your math background may allow you to hold apparent paradoxes (counterintuitive results) in your mind, while keeping an open mind --- pax . For example, math has Paradoxes of infinity‎ ; of set theory‎ ; Probability theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mathematical_paradoxes . But those "non-commutative" sub-sets don't invalidate the consistency of mathematics in general. Note --- I'm using that term in an unconventional way.

A new forum post on the topic of Explaining Bell violations from a statistical / stochastic quantum interpretation seems to be parallel to this thread, although the lines may never meet :
says, "even though realism is given up in a way compatible with the requirements of Bell's theorem*1, particles can still retain their definite properties as individuals in a realist way". responded with the "conclusion that the violation is strictly an artifact of the statistics. That is, it occurs in the aggregate but not identifiably for any individual". Taken together, these statements seem to be talking about an apparent BothAnd paradox of Statistical Holism and Sensory Particularism as complementary truths of both Ideality and Reality. In Quantum theory the "aggregate" is a statistical (holistic) value, while an "individual" property is the value of a single particle of matter/energy.

Fortunately, as philosophers and mathematicians, we can hold Holistic notions (Fields) & Reductive concepts (Particles) as aspects of a complete / comprehensive set : the Logical / Physical Universe. I can imagine Quantum Entanglement as a Holistic-Statistical (non-local) state of being -- with unknowable properties --- which is also compatible with the Classical Mechanics concept of interacting (local) individuals -- with properties of position & momentum. One way to interpret that paradox is to define "Statistics" as an Ideal (Potential ; future) state, and Particles as Real (Actual ; now) states*2.

All of this is just a long way to say, in philosophical terminology, that "quantum entanglement is holistic". Therefore, using the Yin/Yang symbol --- as a graphic illustration (not an actual photograph) of entangled photons --- is appropriate. Note that your term "interplay" occurs in the dictionary definition below*3. :smile:



*1. Bell's theorem shows that no theory that satisfies the conditions imposed can reproduce the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics under all circumstances.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/

*2. Is statistics "real" math? :
The way I see it statistics is a practice of expressing data recorded from observations of some kinds of events, so that one may be able to potentially use these expressions to make inferences about future events, or probability statements. Whereas other math, calculus for instance, deals with measurable parameters which can be used to find definite answers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/46tulr/is_statistics_real_math/
Note --- Another way to answer that question is to say that "Statistics is Philosophy with numbers". It doesn't produce here & now hard facts, but projections into the future.

*3. Yin Yang : philosophical meaning
the two complementary forces that make up all aspects and phenomena of life. . . .
The two are both said to proceed from the Great Ultimate (taiji), their interplay on one another (as one increases the other decreases) being a description of the actual process of the universe and all that is in it. In harmony, the two are depicted as the light and dark halves of a circle.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/yinyang

SIDE NOTE : Reality is a whole System ; Ideality is particular Categories
Pinter begins by noting that the categories by which we parse the world are projected onto the field of view, not detected out there in the world. “Contrary to commonsense realism, the physical world has no pre-existing segmentation”. So, A> the Spaces separating things, and B> the Connections binding things together, and C>the Borders defining composite objects are drawn by the brain in order to make sense of random energy inputs.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

"this is the idea that mathematical truths are a byproduct of our linguistic conventions". — Gnomon
The interplay is certainly interesting. — jgill

Yes. I think you could safely say that Mathematics is a mental philosophical language that is used by Science to describe it's sensory observations precisely. Ancient math concepts were originally devised by desert civilizations -- Egyptians & Mesopotamians -- in order to understand why the stars (gods?) formed patterns that reminded men of terrestrial things & events : Astrology. Later, Greek logicians (e.g Euclid), with cloudier skies, refined geometry to make it more abstract and less subject to variable interpretations : Astronomy.

Ironically, modern Physics has been transformed from a Classical Empirical science into a more Philosophical Interpretive science. I continue to read Heisenberg's book, as he describes the "history of quantum theory". After noting some of the complexities & contradictions & paradoxes that the Q pioneers had to deal with, he noted : "Bohr was well aware of the fact that the quantum conditions spoil in some way the consistency of Newtonian mechanics". He went on to suggest that "asking the right questions is frequently more than halfway to a solution of the problem". Then he addressed some of those philosophical "how" & "why" questions : "How could it be that the same radiation that produces interference patterns, and therefore must consist of waves, also produces the photoelectric effect, and therefore must consist of moving particles?" Their compromise solution was not to choose True/False or Either/Or, but to accept that both of those logically incompatible observations must be true, depending on the context. And that productive Quantum holism led me to my BothAnd search for a middle ground on contentious questions.

The quantum pioneers in Europe were forced by the paradoxical evidence to engage in a series of philosophical arguments over many years. Heisenberg noted that they gradually became "accustomed to these difficulties". Then he summed it up as "this was not sufficient to form a consistent general picture of what happens in a quantum process, but it changed the minds of the physicists in such a way that they somehow got into the spirit of quantum theory". The "spirit of quantum theory" is an attitude of compromise : to meet in the middle. That's why the Copenhagen Interpretation was called a "compromise" or "accord", to allow squabbling practitioners with different inter-pretations to "shut-up and calculate"*1. Perhaps that's what you meant by inter-play.

Heisenberg also offered his "impression that Bohr's theory gave a qualitative but not a quantitative description of what happens inside the atom"*2. Such a BothAnd compromise between flakey Philosophy and factual Physics did not go down smoothly for those with strong opposing beliefs. But it did allow all parties to "shut-up" about their incompatible opinions, and get-on with their calculations. Ironically, I get the strong impression that some posters on The Philosophy Forum are not willing to compromise their Black/White & True/False beliefs for the sake of philosophical accord. They won't accept that New Age interpretations of Quantum Physics are philosophical, and not subject to the same numerical criteria as Classical Mechanics. For example, Holistic Philosophical opinions are not in the same game as Reductive Scientific facts. So, instead of annihilating each other, they can offset each other's weaknesses, to form a complete system of knowledge, as the Yin/Yang symbol suggests. :smile:

PS__Absolute uncompromising Rules require perfect knowledge. For the rest of us, accommodation & adaptation is necessary for survival of a still-evolving species.

*1. Philosophical Physics :
The Copenhagen interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

*2. Qualia vs Quanta :
A Quantitative (mathematical) description provides abstract numerical values.
A Qualitative (philosophical) interpretation produces meaningful human values.

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*4. BothAnd Dilemma :
Binary human nature – animal motives & rational choices – allows us to navigate a course between the Sirens of Good and the rocky shoals of Evil. But long experience indicates that the least bad solution and the safest good option are usually in the middle range of moderation between extremes.
Fixed Rules for Life can never fit all situations. But Wise Character adapts to changing conditions.
There is no perfect answer to these common dilemmas :

When to be . . .
• General vs Specific
• Figurative vs Literal
• Typical vs Targeted
• Synthetical vs Analytical
• Holistic vs Particular

When to prefer . . .
• Ideal vs Real
• Left vs Right
• Liberal vs Conservative
• Individualism vs Tribalism
• Reasons vs Feelings
• Self vs Others

The BothAnd principle endorses general Wisdom instead of specific Rules.

That's nicely done. I suppose my point is that QM is all sophisticated mathematics and equally sophisticated experimental processes. — jgill

Yes. That seems to be the point that Heisenberg was making when he said " . . . . it's a question of translation : the conventional language of physics is fashioned according to the world we experience". But most of us don't directly experience the world on the subatomic level. So, it's an abstruse language for sophisticated initiates into the mysteries of the foundations of Reality. And easily misconstrued*1. The current issue (157) of Philosophy Now magazine has an article about Solving The Mystery of Mathematics. For the purposes of this article, the author -- Jared Warren -- rejects the Ideal definition of math as presented by Plato, and also the Real definition of math as "like the physics of this reality". Instead, he prefers a linguistic definition : "this is the idea that mathematical truths are a byproduct of our linguistic conventions".

I like to think that pure & embodied & semantic notions of Math are all true in some contexts. Yet, like some of the Quantum scale objects of Physics, he notes that "mathematical objects : numbers, points, sets, functions, groups . . . These are non-physical". Which, for philosophical purposes, makes them Meta-physical*2 (mental concepts). He adds "Mathematical objects are not out there in any sense of the term". Moreover, "clearly, our mathematical knowledge comes to us in special ways. No experiments are performed . . . . no data catalogued, no observations made." We know math by reason (inference), not by sensory experience. By the same token, current theoretical Physics experiments are not done in a laboratory, but in a mind. For example, Einstein was once asked where his laboratory was, and he simply held up a pencil.

Modern quantum-scale Physics, unlike Classical Physics, is not mechanical, with direct transfer of force from cog to cog. It is instead, non-local, and involves "spooky action at a distance". In place of hard, massy Atoms, it describes the fundamental object as a Quantum Field*3, not a cloud of physical particles, but intangible mathematical Points, which are imaginary objects in hypothetical space. And it's these spooky improvised definitions that the quantum pioneers found to be weird.

So, Warren focuses, not on the physical substance of physics, but on the language of Math that tends to enshroud its Ontological & Epistemology essence in abstruse technical dialects. He refers to his approach to physics as Conventionalism (based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed). He notes that "our conventional rules for using mathematical terms like "number', 'zero', 'plus', "set" 'functions", etc, determine our mathematical concepts. Conventional rules are also the source of mathematical truth." Therefore, he concludes : "Mathematics is mysterious. To solve the mystery we must fit mathematical practices into a reasonable picture of the world." {my bold}

That's what the quantum pioneers, like Heisenberg & Schrödinger, tried to do, when they adopted some Eastern cultural concepts --- like "holism", non-separability", "interconnection" --- to describe the strange entangled behavior of subatomic particles. Some of them transferred such other-worldly concepts into their social world to support religious & mystical intuitions. Therefore, as Heisenberg warned : "it's a question of translation". Some translate quantum reality as Fields of non-spatial mathematical points, while others prefer ghosts of spiritual ectoplasm. Who's to say which conventional translation is True or False? Show me the evidence! :smile:

PS___ This post is not trying to prove anything. Just something to think about, when one man's conventional language & beliefs conflicts with another's. It's not Physics, just Philosophy.


*1. Quantum Mysticism :
"A signature feature of quantum mysticism is its misappropriation of physics terminology in a wider, every-day context"
"it draws upon "coincidental similarities of language rather than genuine connections" to quantum mechanics."
Note --- Mystical entities (ghosts) are just as "reasonable" to some people, as Mathematical entities (quarks) are to others. Each community has its own conventional words & ideas.

*2. Meta-Physical : not supernatural, but merely non-physical, i.e. mental phenomena
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the notes about nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/engloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- In modern Western culture, we are comfortable with the concept of invisible Photons & Electrons causing things to appear and to move, but even with sophisticated technology, we never directly sense the entities referred to by those words.

*3. Quantum Field :
According to our best laws of physics, the fundamental building blocks of Nature are not discrete particles at all. Instead they are continuous fluid-like substances, spread throughout all of space. We call these objects fields. The most familiar examples of fields are the electric and magnetic field.
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html
Note --- Doesn't that sound ghostly?

Here's a quick look at ground zero in quantum studies by Mark John Fernee for Quora: — jgill

Thanks for that quickie quantum update. I assume the article is interesting to Theoretical/Mathematical Physicists. But, can you tell me, in a few jargon-free words, what that account means -- in the real world -- to a non-mathematical layman, or to an atom-smashing CERN physicist, or to a matter-molding Chemist?

The Quora excerpt refers to "an abstract space, called a Hilbert space". In the Medium Blog*1, the author says : "Space in “Hilbert Space”, is a mathematical construct and not the “space” which we normally understand". Not the factual “space” which we normally know as a place for real things. Am I correct to say that as a "mathematical construct" it's not a Real physical space -- housing material objects -- but an Imaginary metaphysical space -- containing non-euclidean "inner products" (mathematical objects)? If so, what significance does it have for a pragmatic non-mathematician? Or for an empirical physicist?

In Werner Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy, he describes the revolutionary transition from 17th century Classical physics, to 20th century Quantum physics. He labels the before & after as "old physics" and "new physics". In David Lindley's Introduction, he says "in the early 1920s, the old quantum theory . . . . had become over-elaborate and unwieldy". Which sounds like descriptions of a previous epochal change in philosophical worldview, from Ptolemaic epicycles to Copernican models of the universe.

Ironically, it was pragmatic Heisenberg, who proposed "that one should write down the mechanical laws not as equations for the positions and velocities of the electrons, but as equations for the frequencies and amplitudes of the Fourier expansion". Thus began the transformation of physics from manipulating Matter to imagining Mathematical constructs. And that change of attitude marked the transition of "Physics" from observable Aristotelian phusis (corporal Nature) to imaginary Quantum mathematos (abstract knowledge).

Heisenberg said it's a question of translation : "the conventional language of physics is fashioned according to the world we experience . . . . the quantum world is not a world of waves and particles . . . . the thing measured and the thing doing the measurement are inextricably intertwined". Thus, in the New Physics, Real and Ideal have become entangled, just as illustrated in the Yin Yang symbol. :smile:


*1. What is a Hilbert Space? :
In this blog, I aim to develop a comprehensive understanding of hilbert spaces cutting through the mathematical jargon.
https://medium.com/@brcsomnath/hilbert-space-7a36e3badac2

↪Gnomon
My best friend, who passed away seven years ago, was a physics major up until the required introductory senior level course in quantum theory. He switched to mathematics and retired a fellow professor. A very bright guy - certainly smarter than me - but math made more sense at the time, easier to understand.

I think dropping a physics major at this crucial point of transition in thinking happens fairly frequently. Some become engineers, a profession using physics that moves along Newtonian lines. Well, maybe not so much electrical engineers.

It's a shame the forum doesn't have quantum physicists who might elucidate better than philosophical minded novices. But this is not a physics forum. Our best is not good enough. — jgill

After Quantum Physics introduced Uncertainty into Science, and substituted Virtual Particles for Real Atoms, I suspect that quite a few disillusioned undergrads dropped-out of their physics programs. The most famous expression of the "switch" you noted is Feyman's "shut-up and calculate" quip*1. Since then, physics divided into large teams of experimental scientists (atom smashers) and a few individual philosophical (theoretical) scientists. But both groups are "chasing rainbows" that are more & more elusive. Also, the empiricists are typically distrustful of un-tethered Philosophical Reasoning for epistemological knowledge of Material Reality.

Theoretical Physicists are mostly mathematicians*2 instead of empiricists. And what they are exploring is the Logical Structure of Reality, not the Material Stuff of classical physics. But the pioneers of Quantum Theory were primarily classically-trained empirical-lab-laboring scientists, who were baffled when their real-world experiments returned weird results. Instead of just shaking their heads, and "doing the math", several turned to Eastern philosophy for clues to the mysteries of Reality's foundation. Perhaps they concluded, as I have, that a material world with mental observers is both Real and Ideal. Moreover, Quantum Superposition is not just Uncertain, it is inconceivably Complex*3.

Since I am neither a Physicist nor a Mathematician, I turn to the experts for information about the non-classical under-pinnings of Reality. But, although I think it's a Holistic/Statistical state, I don't rely on New Age gurus to explain the nuts & bolts & symbolism of Quantum Superposition. Speaking of quantum experts, I just ordered a copy of Heisenberg's 1958 book : Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. He was already doing the math, but saw a need for philosophical generalizations to make sense of Quantum non-sensical specifications. What do you think he would make of the juxtaposition of Photon photography and Yin Yang symbol? :smile:


*1. Shut-up and Calculate :
N. David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying often misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin later found insufficiently nuanced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

*2. Theoretical Physicists today :
Hawking, Higgs, Guth, Smolin, Weinberg, Penrose, Greene
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=theoretical+physicists+today

*3. Superposition Complexity :
The principle of quantum superposition states that if a physical system may be in one of many configurations—arrangements of particles or fields—then the most general state is a combination of all of these possibilities, where the amount in each configuration is specified by a complex number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

HOLISTIC SCIENCE : Holism in science, holistic science, or methodological holism is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

SYSTEMS THEORY : Systems theory is the transdisciplinary study of complex systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent components that can be natural or human-made ___Wiki

You wouldn't. By the time you can take a picture of something, the quantum superposition has already decohered.
It's good to see you've accepted the arbitrariness of the yin yang symbol in the context of this experiment. — flannel jesus

I agree : picture-taking is an observation/intervention, that -- like silver & vampire -- is incompatible with mystery-shrouded superposition. And the irrational "arbitrariness" of the symbol/article juxtaposition is exactly why I started this thread. I was not trying to assert --- as some posters have assumed, and the quoted article seems to imply --- that Yin Yang is a "hard" scientific concept, instead of a "soft" philosophical conjecture.

Instead, I was using this "arbitrary" association of symbol & science to ferret-out some diametrically-opposed worldviews on this forum. One way to define those clashing perspectives on reality is by labeling them as A> Classical/Deterministic or B> Quantum/Statistical. Ironically, my BothAnd philosophy straddles those opposite shores : Objective Realism & Subjective Idealism. The latter takes the idealizing Observer as an active component of Reality.

I've recently been looking into Quantum Bayesianism (QBism)*1 as a way to make sense of these antagonistic views of what is Real, as opposed to Ideal. Just today, I found an article online that deals with QBism. On the question whether Quantum Superposition is real & objective (Classical Physics) or ideal & subjective (Statistical Physics), the author says: "Objective states . . . . are what classical physics is all about . . . . However, things are very different in quantum mechanics. Quantum states can be “superposed, meaning a particle can have many values of position and momentum at the same time." Hence, superposition of entangled photons is a statistical state, not a deterministic state. Quantum mechanics is unavoidably uncertain. And the interpretation of statistical averages is inherently subjective. Thus, the need for QB probabilities.

The author proposes, what he calls a "radical conclusion", which agrees with my own understanding of the quantum scale foundation of Reality*2."Instead, quantum states are about our knowledge of the world. They are descriptions encoding our interactions with particles. QBism would say it’s not the particle’s state — it’s your state about the particle .QBism leads not with ontology — a story about what fundamentally exists independent of us — but with epistemology: a story about our information about the world. That change makes all the difference." {my bold} By "your state" he means a belief or conjecture about the future deposed state of the currently superposed particle.

Classical Physics was fatalistic, in that its progress was rigidly determined --- according to Newton by God --- from the beginning of creation. But the QB author has a different idea : "The answer QBism produces is as radical as it is mundane. By turning away from an impossible (and paradoxical) God’s-eye view of the Universe, QBism puts human beings squarely in the middle of the scientific enterprise". So, our universe is determined by stable Laws of Nature, but it is indeterminate in the degrees of freedom allowed by the uncertain/statistical nature of Quantum Nature. Both top-down determined by law, and bottom-up arbitrary & unrestrained by selfish & willful agents. :smile:

PS___This may sound off-topic, but since it's my topic, it's right on course. Do you find human arbitrariness compatible with lawful Science?


*1. QBism : The most radical interpretation of quantum mechanics ever :
"offers a radical interpretation of quantum physics, suggesting that quantum states are not objective realities."
https://bigthink.com/13-8/qbism-quantum-physics/
Note --- The author, "Adam Frank, is an American physicist, astronomer, and writer. His scientific research has focused on computational astrophysics with an emphasis on star formation and late stages of stellar evolution. His work includes studies of exoplanet atmospheres and astrobiology". ___Wikipedia

*2. Foundation of Reality :
The ancient fundamental particle was the Atom : "hard, massy & solid". But the classical search for that particular Holy Grail has passed through several soft bottoms : aggregate molecules, Rutherford/Bohr atom, Electrons, Photons, Quarks. Yet, even ghostly mathematical quarks are defined in six delicious flavors, which seem to indicate that even the Quark is not the essential particle of reality. At the moment the physical foundation of physics is open to question.

Do not assume that just because you managed to misinterpret the meaning of it, that it was MEANT to be misinterpreted. You said yourself that you're not qualified to interpret the paper. — flannel jesus

I didn't "misinterpret the paper", and I didn't "interpret the paper", because I didn't read the technical paper. I did request that others, more qualified, would interpret the significance of the symbol relative to the experiment.

The OP was based on the linked article that was reproduced by several other science publications. All have a big colorful Yin Yang image next to a brief description of a technique that was supposed to produce a "visualization of the wave function". And there was no indication that the YY image had nothing to do with photons or functions. I hope the articles were not "meant" to be misinterpreted. But the fact that they are misleading, led me to post the OP. What would you "interpret" if you saw the symbol and the quote below? :smile:

PS___TC has portrayed me as a "gullible New Ager", who could, presumably due to hippie-flower-child beliefs, "manage" to misinterpret the juxtaposition of an apple & orange as symbols of Peace & Love. For the record : I am not now, nor have I ever been a hippie, or "New Ager". I will admit to being an amateur philosopher. And I do think the Yin Yang symbol represents a valid philosophical concept : Holism. I also think -- along with Schrödinger & Heisenberg -- that entanglement is literally Holistic (i.e. an integral System), in the sense that the parts (e.g. photons) are not particular until the system "collapses". But I don't interpret that scientific notion with any idealistic metaphysical moral. Anyway, it's all irrelevant to this thread about a misleading science article. Which has devolved into smarter-than-you condescension. :cool:


Researchers at the University of Ottawa, . . . . recently demonstrated a novel technique that allows the visualization of the wave function of two entangled photons, the elementary particles that constitute light, in real-time.
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-visualizing-mysterious-quantum-entanglement-photons.html

Note --- Speaking of "collapse of wave function", how would you take a picture of Schrödinger's Cat when it's both dead and alive?

You posted your opinion implying that the common Yin Yang symbol was used as input... — Gnomon
Have you looked at the original paper? (Which T Clark linked early in the thread.)
I just took a look and the caption under the only picture of the Yin-Yang symbol says:
a, Coincidence image of interference between a reference SPDC state and a state obtained by a pump beam with the shape of a Ying and Yang symbol (shown in the inset). The inset scale is the same as in the main plot. b, Reconstructed amplitude and phase structure of the image imprinted on the unknown pump. — wonderer1

Thanks for that information. I asked TC where he got the information to support his assertion that the Yin Yang image was both input & output, and he did not respond. I guess I was supposed to take his word for it. But he didn't state his qualifications as an expert on the subject.

No, I didn't look at the original paper. I'm not qualified to interpret such technical data. For example, what is a "pump beam"? So, I was hoping someone else would. This confirms my suspicion that the Yin Yang symbol had nothing to do with the shape of entangled photons. There are lots of other images in the paper that also don't mean anything to me. So the published Yin Yang image seems to be a Red Herring*1. What does it reveal about entanglement? In what sense is the published image a "visualization of the wave function"? Can you enlighten me?

seems to be accusing me of being a "gullible New Ager". But I expressed my skepticism in the OP. "The relevant question here : is the image a mere coincidence or a consonance?" Apparently, it's neither. Just an irrelevance. But it served the purpose of the OP : "A secondary question that might be illuminated : is this forum polarized along physics vs metaphysics, eastern vs western, science vs philosophy lines on an evocative topic like this?" TC seems to have established his polarized position on that question. :smile:


*1. u]Red Herring[/u] : "a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting." ___Oxford

I did not say that. Ignore my evidence if you want, make up your own fantasies about little fairies dancing on the taiji, but don't misrepresent what I wrote. I always thought you were a little goofy, but I didn't think you were dishonest too. — T Clark

What evidence? You posted your opinion implying that the common Yin Yang symbol was used as input for the process of photographing entangled photons (not your literal words). I asked, "for what scientific purpose?" and you gave no response. I asked you to post a quote to support your nonsensical opinion, but you gave no response. Am I supposed to accept your non-expert opinion as evidence to support your own opinion? Talk about "dishonest". Show me the money (er, photon)! :smile:

GOOFY SCIENTISTS TAKE A PICTURE OF A PICTURE AND CALL IT A PHOTON

Did you interpret the symbolic image as an error of judgment, or a deliberate hoax? — Gnomon
Isn't that a false dichotomy?
Maybe a stunt to get a lot of attention to their paper? Maybe one of the researchers is into Taoism? Maybe a target that was handy and interesting enough? — wonderer1

My question was not a dichotomy. Merely an incomplete list of unknown possibilities. Maybe they are Alien beings trying to sow discord among PF posters . . . :smile:

Thank you so much! I think our discussions would be much improved the the notions of logos and prime mover. And from there, even the gods were subject to logos. — Athena

Unfortunately, Logos and Prime Mover might be rejected by Materialists*1 as unprovable Transcendent beings or forces. For me that's not a problem, because they are merely hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2, with no need for empirical proof, only logical consistency. And, since they have no "favorite people", they provide no reason for slavish religious worship. They also have no need to "violate" natural laws, since they are essentially the LawMakers. :smile:


*1. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Note --- My disagreement with classical mechanical Materialism (Newton) is that Quantum physics has undermined its basic assumption of Atomism. My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. Their rejection of any Transcendent forces, forces them to postulate such unprovable conjectures as infinite Multiverses or Many Worlds, which are themselves transcendent of the only knowable Real world. I don't necessarily disagree with Materialism in its rejection of ancient Spiritualism (ghosts, angels, body-hopping souls, etc).

*2. Is materialism an axiom or a metaphysical belief? :
https://www.quora.com/Is-materialism-an-axiom-or-a-metaphysical-belief

Frankly, I don't know what's going on here. But at the beginning of the paper
: Here we introduce biphoton digital holography, in analogy to off-axis digital holography, where coincidence imaging of the superposition of an unknown state with a reference state is used to perform quantum state tomography.
This stuff is way beyond me. — jgill

Thanks for the reference. The technical stuff is beyond me too. But the references to three different "states" provides fodder for speculation. The "unknown state" must be the entangled photons, and the "quantum state" might be the mathematical wavefunction. But the "reference state" is a mystery.

seemed to be certain that the researchers took a picture of a YinYang symbol and passed it off as a picture of entangled photons. Perhaps he saw "reference state" and inferred that it was the Taoist symbol. The implication seems to be A> they are hoaxing gullible New Agers, or B> the scientists did not realize that combining a Holistic symbol with a Reductive science project might cause a philosophical commotion. And the latter is what prompted me to start this thread.

The input to the experiment was the image of the yin/yang symbol — T Clark
Seems to be the case as far as I can determine. Difficult reading. — jgill

didn't respond to my request for the source of his information/opinion about the intentional use of the YY symbol as input instead of as output of the holographic method. Will you post where & how you determined that is the case? Did you interpret the symbolic image as an error of judgment, or a deliberate hoax?

Some posters are asserting that it's just another "Jesus image on toast", but the Yin/Yang symbol is not so subtle, even to skeptics & unbelievers. And the contentious Holistic implication*1 is obvious in the spurious arguments against its legitimacy. Yet, the article says that this provocative image was produced by named Phototonic researchers, not by anonymous bong-smoking hippies. Anyway, my reason for posting is to see if religious or anti-religious prejudices would clearly divide the responses on a philosophical forum. So far, it seems to bring out defensive or ridiculing arguments from one side, and approving or so-what's-new comments from the other.

But a key issue is the intent of the researchers. If it was a deliberate hoax, then shame on them. If it was an unanticipated result, then shame on the accusers. I assume the "truth will out" eventually. But another example may be instructive. Since the general "scientific" consensus in the early 20th century was that the universe had existed eternally, or at least continually-self-creating ; I suspect that Edwin Hubble did not anticipate that his astronomical evidence of an expanding universe would eventually lead to a generally accepted theory of a "creation event" or even an "origin point of space-time" --- leaving it vulnerable to preternatural arguments.

And that divide among scientists & philosophers continues to this day. I don't expect this minor Yin Yang Bang will go down in history next to the cosmic Big Bang. But as I implied in the OP, it does provide a see-saw point for polarized forum arguments. :smile:


*1. Yin Yang Holism : not anti-science, but alternative to comprehensive Reductionism

Maybe, maybe not. The 4mm may be measuring the object under scrutiny, or the photographic image produced by the equipment. Some labels would help. — Gnomon
No sense going on any further. You should be ashamed of yourself. — T Clark

Since you are reading-into the "4mm", a prejudiced meaning which is not expressed in the image, who should be ashamed? If you can produce evidence to support your "reading", I will retract my attribution of "prejudice". :smile:


PS__What is it about Yin/Yang concept that puts you on the offensive? Does Holism somehow contradict your faith in Reductive Science?

Great question. Because that's not what the measurements indicate. Good science shows that these phenomena are part of the material world, but energetic in nature; immaterial.
What's really exciting about all of this, is that the immaterial aspects of this world are present, just waiting to be rediscovered. That is what entices me, as an individual. — Bret Bernhoft

Yes. Materialists, for doctrinal reasons, typically lump Energy into the same ontological category as Matter. Admittedly, Energy is essential to Physics & Chemistry --- and I mean that literally. The common definition of Energy is "ability", but I think "potential" is more accurate : Energy is the potential to cause change in matter. And Potential (not-yet-actual) is by definition, immaterial and unreal --- although its effects on matter are immanent. Energy is indeed a Phenomenon, in the sense of an interpretation of sensory impressions. But the thing being interpreted is itself a Noumenon.

is offended by the notion of anything transcendent of temporal reality, or Immaterial, in the sense of unreal (or not yet actual). He points to Spinoza as an authority on the immanence of all substance. Yet Baruch imagined God or Nature as eternal. And that was centuries before modern science discovered --- to the surprise of Einstein --- that the material universe had a beginning --- not in time, but of Time. Spinoza's active "Natura naturans" would be what we now call Energy, and passive "natura naturata" would be Matter*1. Hence, assuming the Big Bang theory is as close to an accurate description of a scientific creation act as possible, then Energy would necessarily "transcend" the existence of the material world*2. However, since immaterial Energy is an attribute of Spinoza's Nature/God, it is not super-natural. :smile:

*1. Spinoza on Substance :
There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active, productive aspect of the universe—God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, “naturing Nature”. Strictly speaking, this is identical with God. The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, “natured Nature”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Note --- You could interpret "the productive aspect of the universe" as Energy. And "that which is produced and sustained" as Matter. In that case, Energy is the eternal power of "God/Nature" to produce & sustain the temporal stuff of the universe ("things which are in God").

*2. What is natura naturans and natura naturata for spinoza? :
Before going any further, I wish here to explain, what we should understand by nature viewed as active (natura natarans), and nature viewed as passive (natura naturata). I say to explain, or rather call attention to it, for I think that, from what has been said, it is sufficiently clear, that by nature viewed as active we should understand that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself, or those attributes of substance, which express eternal and infinite essence, in other words (Prop. xiv., Coroll. i., and Prop. xvii., Coroll. ii.) God, in so far as he is considered as a free cause.
By nature viewed as passive I understand all that which follows from the necessity of the nature of God, or of any of the attributes of God, that is, all the modes of the attributes of God, in so far as they are considered as things which are in God, and which without God cannot exist or be conceived.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10arl5f/what_is_natura_naturans_and_natura_naturata_for/
Note --- Nature in the modern, non-Spinozan, sense is a "mode" of God. Likewise, Matter is a "mode" of Energy, in the sense of E=MC^2.

Yet, this is not the point. We are talking about just a visualization. Nothing more. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I had imagined quantum entanglement as random noise, and the dis-entangled particle as a recognizable image. It never occurred to me that a tangle of photons would look like a Taoist symbol. :smile:

OBJECT EMERGING FROM NOISY BACKGROUND

Here's a figure from the article from which you've clipped your yin/yang symbol. It shows the black and white input image and the colored output. Note the size, measured as 4mm, or about 1/4 inch. This does not show entangled photons, it shows the recreation of an image. — T Clark

Maybe, maybe not. The 4mm may be measuring the object under scrutiny, or the photographic image produced by the equipment. Some labels would help.

I'm still more interested in why a legitimate scientist would take a picture of a common symbol and try to pass it off as a picture of a mathematical wavefunction. Are you accusing them of falsification of scientific results, or of proffering a hoax as a joke?

I'd like to think the image is truly what the scientists claim. But now I'm more inclined to think it's a joke, in poor taste. Maybe time will tell. It could prove to be just another example of quantum weirdness, or of human ridiculousness. :smile:

I am not sure but I think the big divide between materials and the spiritualist is disagreement about the source of the energy that makes life possible. — Athena

Good Point! For all practical purposes, and within the here & now world, I am essentially an Atheist, but I prefer the more modest & philosophical label Agnostic. Even so, the physicalistic/materialistic Big Bang theory, was formulated with the unprovable assumption (axiom) that Energy & Natural Laws pre-existed the Bang.

So, my philosophical curiosity naturally wonders about the original Source of that all-important creative & animating power. I don't imagine the origin of the world as a biblical Genesis, but Plato/Aristotle's abstract notion of LOGOS & Prime Mover suits me for philosophical purposes. That gives me a point from which to reason about our temporary sojourn in a habitat suitable for matter-transcending living & thinking creatures. :smile:

Note --- Energy provided the push, and Laws limit the direction of this guided missile cosmos. And here we are, 14 billion earth-years later, trying to remember the birth moment of this thrill-ride of ups & downs, while plaintively asking WHY? So far, the Logical Laborer remains mum (punny) :joke:

Gnomon, Fritjof Capra has talked about this subject extensively since 1975 in his famous book "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism" — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I'm familiar with Capra's seminal work. But, I doubt that even he, as a physicist, would imagine that entangled photons would graphically resemble an ancient symbol of harmony & balance. :smile:

“Physicists do not need mysticism,” Dr. Capra says, “and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both.”

No, you've completely misunderstood. As punos noted:
They made a bad choice in using the taiji because gullible new-agers could so easily jump to the incorrect conclusion without understanding the substance of the experiment. — T Clark

I certainly don't understand why an attempt to create an image of a "physical" object would require the inclusion of a completely unrelated image. Which part of the published picture are we supposed to identify with the entangled wavefunctions? Even if the swirling dots are supposed to be entwined photons, what scientific meaning are we supposed to learn from the image? An artist could have done the same with much less technological tomfoolery. Were the scientists themselves "gullible new-agers" trying to send a message to blind black-&-whiters?

The whole idea of photographing photons sounds like trying to catch lightning in a klein bottle. I watched Anton's video clip, but I'm still confused*1. I'd still like to see a quote from the article you referenced ; to help me understand why they needed an image within the image. Not because I'm a New Ager, but because I'm an amateur philosopher, who is interested in both Quantum Physics and Causal Information. It's kind of my thing on this forum. :smile:

*1. Is he accusing the scientists of stupidity or deliberate deception?
@GIRGHGH : For anyone still confused, what he's basically saying is that it's a fancy photograph of a literal physical object.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4yAIj9ZL8
Note -- Is he implying that a photon is not a "literal physical object"?

After slogging through the original paper (link - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-023-01272-3#Fig2) I think I've sort of figured it out. Not certain. If I'm right, you've misunderstood what's really going on. The input to the experiment was the image of the yin/yang symbol. It was disrupted and then recreated using the new holographic/entangled photon technique. Somebody else take a look and see if they think I'm right. — T Clark

Is it your understanding that the scientists took a picture of a cultural symbol, and published it as-if it's a picture of two photons orbiting each other?*4 If so, was it a joke on gullible New Agers?*5 Or were they deliberately trying to deceive us ignorant Philosophers? Either way, it's unprofessional behavior. Please post a quote from your source that says "The input to the experiment was the image of the yin/yang symbol", so we can "take a look".

The articles I've seen don't mention that they started with a yin/yang symbol as input. But the article*1 below says : "This leaves scientists with the onerous task of painstakingly weeding out nonsensical, unphysical states, an effort that can take hours or even days depending on a system's complexity.
To get around this, the researchers used holography to encode information from higher dimensions into manageable, lower-dimensional chunks". That sounds pretty devious in itself. Especially, since the particular nature of a photon seems to be imaginary*2, as a way to envision a mathematical wave consisting of abstract numbers, not concrete matter.

The "real space" images*3 below portray a single photon (i.e. wavefunction) in the form of concentric rings, as we might imagine an elementary particle. But the image covers the evolution of the wavefront over time. So, it's not exactly a snap-shot.

In the OP I noted that I was not taking this "coincidence" seriously, but with tongue-in-cheek. One purpose was to see if others would also take it with good humor. So far, so-so. :smile:

*1. Quantum 'yin-yang' shows two photons being entangled in real-time :
Scientists have used a first-of-its-kind technique to visualize two entangled light particles in real time — making them appear as a stunning quantum "yin-yang" symbol.
https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/quantum-physics/quantum-yin-yang-shows-two-photons-being-entangled-in-real-time

*2. Is the photon really a particle? :
Photons deliver their energy and momentum to a point on a material target. It is commonplace to attribute this to particle impact. But since the in-flight photon also has a wave nature, we are stuck with the paradox of wave-particle duality. It is argued here that the photon’s wave nature is indisputable, but its particle nature is open to question.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402621003983

*3. Real-space image of the photon part of the wave function :

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Real-space-image-of-the-photon-part-of-the-wave-function-showing-evolution-of-a-Gaussian_fig1_6769263

*4. PEPPERONI STAR HOAX

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/scientist-apologizes-after-photo-of-star-turns-out-to-be-slice-of-chorizo

*5. JOY Joke's On You

Energy being physical is fairly well established. If you want to get into a more wonky question there is the matter of it information is physical (Landauer's Principle) and there remains some hot debate on that.

But, if information because essential for explaining cause in a way that people do not think is somehow an epistemic artifact, I imagine we'd see widespread acceptance of information as physical (it's already a majority opinion I would think). — Count Timothy von Icarus

This thread seems to have diverged into a debate on Physics (energy, matter) instead of Metaphysics (abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space). But the OP seems to be implying a metaphysical (philosophical) distinction : Theism postulates non-physical (metaphysical) causes, while Materialism denies anything non-physical. Yet even Materialists must accept the existence of causal Energy, even though scientists don't know what it is (ontology) -- only what it does (epistemology)*1.

My position on the OP is somewhere in between mundane Materialism and spooky Theism. And it's based on a "wonky" concept (the role of information in reality) that is fiercely challenged on this forum. It is definitely eccentric, in the sense that it is not aligned with the mainstream Materialism of modern Physics. That's because generic Information as Causation is on the cutting-edge of science, not in the dusty textbooks. For example, In computation, Energy is lost as Entropy only upon erasure of Information*2*3. As you implied : Information is physical in the same sense that Energy is physical.

I won't go into the abstruse details of the Information = Energy equation here. But I will note that, for those to whom Mind is just as real as Brain, the notion that Information = Energy + Relationship = Mind*4 may make sense. Of course, a materialist/chemist will find that assertion absurd. But a Physicalist, who deals mostly with Change (causation) instead of focusing on the inert Material substrate, may be quicker to grasp that invisible intangible Energy is the cause of all changes in Form : i.e. en-form-action. Which opens up a whole new range of possibilities for the sciences of Physics & Computation. And, perhaps novel ways to define Theism & Metaphysics. :smile:

*1. Physics of Energy :
Energy is defined as the “ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object.” Despite this confusing definition, its meaning is very simple: energy is just the force that causes things to move. Energy is divided into two types: potential and kinetic.
https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/education/tell-me-about/physics-of-energy#:~:text=Energy%20is%20defined%20as%20the,two%20types%3A%20potential%20and%20kinetic.
Note --- "Ability" is not a material thing, but merely the immaterial Potential for change. Kinetic energy is the causal process of change in a material substrate. What I call "en-form-action".

*2. INFORMATION IS PHYSICAL : Rolf Landauer,
Earlier centuries gave us clockwork models of the
universe. A similar, but more modern, orientation leads
to the position of Zuse and Fredkin that the universe is a
computer. Without going quite that far, I do suggest that
there is a strong two-way relationship between physics
and information handling
https://www.w2agz.com/Library/Limits%20of%20Computation/Landauer%20Article,%20Physics%20Today%2044,%205,%2023%20(1991).pdf

*3. Rolf Landauer . . . . Award in Quantum Computing :
This award recognizes recent outstanding contributions in quantum information science, especially using quantum effects to perform computational and information-management tasks that would be impossible or infeasible by purely classical means.
https://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/landauer-bennet.cfm

*4. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

That's why I commented. You shouldn't appropriate scientific terminology in a way that misrepresents it's meaning. — T Clark

I apologize for offering you novel ideas that your background didn't prepare you to understand. But the scientific terminology I used, by analogy, did represent my unconventional meaning. So, it was not intended to mislead.

It's that unorthodox post-quantum interpretation of conventional science that you misunderstand. Information = Energy is not yet mainstream science, but envelope-pushing scientists are finding Information hidden in more & more places. This cutting edge science is mostly discovered on the invisible immaterial mathematical quantum level of reality.

Note that I didn't claim to have scientific authority for my hypothetical analogical postulation on a Philosophy Forum. Besides, mainstream scientists tend to think that most philosophical conjectures are gobbledygook --- not to mention "Gnomodynamics". At the risk of more misunderstanding, here's a non-philosophical scientific equation of Information with Energy. How would you interpret that equation in philosophical terms? :smile:


Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion :
In 1929, Leó Szilárd invented a feedback protocol in which a hypothetical intelligence—dubbed Maxwell’s demon—pumps heat from an isothermal environment and transforms it into work. After a long-lasting and intense controversy it was finally clarified that the demon’s role does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, implying that we can, in principle, convert information to free energy
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821


What great analogy do you know that puts a misunderstood thing into perspective?
https://www.quora.com/What-great-analogy-do-you-know-that-puts-a-misunderstood-thing-into-perspective
Caution : Quora might offer to connect you to ChatGPS.

Having rowed back on analogy as a human USP, what then defines our ability? I would posit the following as specifically human (but now without complete confidence!): — Christopher Burke

You could say that what defines a unique ability of homo sapiens is that "we know that we know, and we can communicate that knowledge in words". Although, as drag-on disputes on this forum indicate, the communication is imperfect. :smile:

These are not the Laws of Thermodynamics, they're the Laws of Gnomodynamics. — T Clark

Your defensive skepticism missed the point. It's just an analogy.

As I said, this Energy/Information equation is a novel philosophical concept, not a settled scientific fact. I am not parroting any conventional science, here. I'm postulating a new approach to old science. And it's not just Gnomodynamics, there are many credentialed scientists who are following a similar path of Information in many forms. One of which is Energy. Please note that I quote pragmatic scientists, not preachy gurus. :smile:

PS___ Are you aware that classical/mechanical Newtonian physics does not apply to the elementary fundamentals of sub-atomic physics? The building blocks of the foundation of reality now seem to be made of Potential/Information/Energy instead of Actual/Tangible/Matter. The philosophical implications of that invisible underlying Reality provide plenty of food for thought. At least, for those who are hungry for new knowledge, and can adapt their skeptical filter to accommodate the spooky stuff on the quantum floor of Ideality.

Information is Energy
Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

Is information the fifth state of matter?
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence. — universeness

FWIW, here are some thoughts on the relation between Enformy (the natural tendency to create and transform material objects) and Energy. You won't find that term in any science books, because I coined it to express an underlying relationship that is more useful for philosophical reasoning than for empirical manipulation of matter. There's lots more where this came from, but it's not in the category of settled science. Again, it's not a factual "claim", but a philosophical conjecture about the role of Form in the world. Plato & Aristotle used that idea long before anyone had the modern concept of physical Energy. :smile:

From a previous forum post :
However, for me, the laws of Form are essentially the same as laws of Energy or Thermodynamics*1. By analogy : First law : EnFormAction (power of causation) is universal & permanent. Second law : the Power to Enform (to cause changes in matter) is not a material substance that could be used-up, but it can be transformed into Entropy (material substance). Third law : pure Enformy has zero Entropy.

*1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (er, Enformy) :
#1 -- Enformy : Potential (P) for Causation/Change is finite but unbounded. EnFormAction is never lost, but merely transformed into Actual (A) material forms . (P = A)
#2 -- Entropy : Inputs are proportional to Outputs (ΔE = q + w)
#3 -- Origin : Initial state & Final state balance out (qualitatively the same)
https://www.chadsprep.com/chads-general-chemistry-videos/3-laws-of-thermodynamics-definition/

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence. — universeness

Do you require empirical evidence for a "philosophical thesis*1"? Most philosophical assertions are supported by argumentation, that you can accept or reject for personal reasons, but can't disprove empirically --- only by authority.

A more complete argument was given above to TClark*2. There, I referenced an anthology by several scientists & philosophers presenting their expert opinions on the role of Mind/Information in the world. They offer some empirical results into evidence, but that does not carry the same weight as the "official" philosophical position (collective opinion) of modern Science, which at this moment is Materialism or Physicalism*3. But the certainty of that pre-quantum (classical physics) position seems to be crumbling under the weight of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (waves are not material), plus the spooky implications of the Observer Effect (see OP), and the failure of Science to find a fundamental Atom of matter (12 kinds of quarks so far).

My personal philosophical position departs from mainstream science, and if you are a believer in Scientism, then that lack of authority will determine your antithesis to my thesis. That's OK for a forum post, but you can't disprove it empirically. :smile:

PS___What scientific "claim" do you think I'm making? We may be fruitlessly arguing about completely different ideas.

*1. Gnomon to Schopenhauer1 :
"My philosophical thesis suggests that human Consciousness is a high evolutionary stage of causal Energy, combined with directional Enformy*1".

*2. Gnomon to TClark :
Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.

*3. Gnomon blog :
Pinter’s book also has a chapter discussing the Mind vs Matter debate in modern philosophy. Regarding the materialistic bias of modern Science and Philosophy, He says “the most widely shared opinion today is that mental phenomena are subject to physical law, and can be fully explained by the principles of physics”. Ironically, that presumption is more of a hopeful belief than a settled science.

I'll say it again one more time and leave it at that. No... I won't say it again, I'll just copy my previous comment here:

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark — T Clark

I don't want to sound obtuse, but "role of observation"*1 and "observer effect"*2 are different in what sense? Does, or does not, experimental observation (looking + perturbing) have an empirical effect on the object of the experiment? As I said, I don't think "just looking" can cause a change in matter. But a quantum-scale scientific observation involves more than just passively seeing what happens. So here, I'll try to answer my own question.

In the science of Ethology, animal behavior, the scientist is often -- but not always -- careful not to interfere with the activities of the animals they observe & record. Yet, in observing sub-atomic particles a drastic intervention is necessary in order to split the atom into its constituent parts. In such cases, the observation always follows perturbation.

That's why I conclude that The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Hence, "looking" = no effect ; "perturbing" = observer effect. The Copenhagen controversy was apparently an over-reaction to the magical-mind-over-matter notion that "looking is causing". So, I agree with you that an atom-smasher observation (physics) is completely different from the erroneous magical "Observer Effect" (metaphysics) as imagined by critics.

However, it's possible that Bohr was making a physics assertion with metaphysical implications, as later expressed by Wheeler as "It from Bit". And we could debate that quip for decades. :smile:


*1. What is an observation in science? :
That's what it means to observe during a scientific experiment. It means to notice what's going on through your senses, but, more specifically, we can define observation as the act of knowing and recording something. This has to do with both the act of knowing what's going on, and then recording what happened.
https://www.mometrix.com/academy/observations/
Note -- In the case of subatomic observations, the human senses are augmented by artificial instruments of enormous physical power. So it's not a mere "observation" in the usual sense, but more like "looking" at a bug with a sledge hammer.

*2. Observer effect (physics) :
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
Note : a metaphysical "Observer Effect" might be something like the spooky feeling of being watched by someone you can't see.
The psychic staring effect (sometimes called scopaesthesia) is a supposed phenomenon in which humans detect being stared at by extrasensory means.

OBSERVATION MADE WITH 13 tera-electronvolts OF ATOM-SMASHING POWER
(TeV = trillions of electron volts)

That is a very big claim. It obviously can't be proved, but what aspects of animal behaviour make you think that is plausible? I believe that analogical thinking is uniquely human, because no other species produces symbolic artefacts or behaves in ways indicating such abstraction. Am I wrong here? I'd be interested to know. — Christopher Burke

For me, that was just a guess. I'm not an expert in animal psychology. But I see videos on YouTube of animals that seem to make analogies in order to judge relationships. For example, a crow who imagines that a stick could be an extension of its beak to reach a morsel in a jar.

So, some experts think it's plausible, though perhaps un-provable, that some animals can reason by likeness. Of course animal reasoning is likely very primitive compared to human judgement. But the ancient assumption that rational thought (this relative to that) is "unique" to humans is passé. Scientists are beginning to seriously study animal thinking, but they are limited by the language barrier --- except possibly for parrots. :joke:


A new study has shown that monkeys are capable of making analogies. Recognizing relations between relations is what analogy is all about.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110923102213.htm

Zoosemiotics is the semiotic study of the use of signs among animals,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosemiotics

That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. — Gnomon
We just can't take your word for that. You need to prove it's true! — universeness

You don't find my postulation convincing? How do you explain the "change"? It was a personal philosophical guess, based on the discussion above. I didn't ask you to accept it as a fact, just something to think about. I'm not a quantum scientist, so challenging me to "prove it" on a philosophy forum is not appropriate.

When the experts disagree*1 on the role of the observer in causing "collapse", how could a non-expert prove a forum postulation, except by pointing to an expert whose professional opinion agrees with the reasoning & conclusion. I'm not aware of any expert who has even addressed the question of "collapse" in terms of perception to conception transition. :smile:

*1. Why does observation collapse the wave function? :
This is actually an unresolved question in QM. There are many interpretations of QM. Some attempt to define what constitutes measurement and what causes collapse. In some interpretation, wavefunctions never collapse. In some others, wavefunctions are not a good enough description for quantum systems. The canonical interpretation, Copenhagen interpretation, simply dodges this question.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark

I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. That an observation (or perturbation) precedes the so-called "collapse" is not in question. But "correlation does not prove causation". In my quoted definition above, "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it". The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Does witnessing an event (the role of observation) cause the event, or does the physical disturbance by experimental apparatus cause the noted change?

The Copenhagen Interpretation seemed to imply that it was the consciousness of the observer that triggered a phenomenal change in the target particle field. And it's the causal power of consciousness that the OP is using to postulate another effect on a completely different philosophical question : the cosmological Fine-Tuning Problem. In several of my posts above, I proposed a different way to interpret the phenomenon of "collapse". I doubt that human awareness has magical mind-over-matter powers. But an awareness event (perception) does seem to cause a change in how a phenomenon is conceived : statistical Potential becomes observed Actual. :smile:



Does observation cause collapse? :
In Bohm interpretation the collapse of the wave function happens when the observer introduces into the measured system some perturbation, which is inevitable when performing the measurement.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function

The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation