So quantum tunnelling ain't quantum physics. You learn something new everyday. :roll: — apokrisis

Biological processes take place at a level above that which quantum physics operates hence quantum physics has nothing to offer in the realm of biology. Even googling biophysics shows it doesn't deal with quantum physics.

Also that paper you cited doesn't mention tunneling. It just thinks there is evidence for it but doesn't prove it.

Like I said, not sure what you're smoking.

... and yet still agreeing that if they swapped places then they would also swap observations. The one would see the spoon, the other the fork.

Ok, you missed the point. Not my problem. — Banno

Again, no. that's not what's being said here. You're just not getting it. We are TALKING ABOUT a SPOON being seen by one person while ANOTHER PERSON is looking at the same object but seeing a FORK and BOTH being RIGHT. That's the analogy. You're making this harder than it has to be.

More what if nonsense.

Quantum physics says something more, that the real-unreal dichotomy is old, outdated, and useless. — Agent Smith

Not really.

I think you might agree with this take I found:

No, it hasn’t proven that, and even when it’s talked about you have to twist your use of the word “reality.” What is reality? I think it’s the sum total of all of our collective conscious experiences. No more and no less. How that reality is “implemented” is really of little consequence.

In the movie The Matrix Neo points out a Asian restaurant inside the Matrix that he’d previously patronized, noted that they had great noodles, and said “I have all these memories. They never happened.” I completely disagree. He had those experiences, and furthermore he shared them with other living thinking human beings (who were also in the Matrix, but that’s not the point). He didn’t dream them in isolation from other humans. So they happened. If a man and woman fell in love in the Matrix, would they be less in love because of meeting inside a simulation? I don’t think so at all.

Physicists say the universe is comprised of quantum fields, among which quanta of energy move back and forth. But they don’t say, or even try to say, what a quantum field is. They just presume such fields exist and describe their interactions. They’ve built a model that we can use to make predictions, which in many cases can be extremely accurate. But there is absolutely no way to know what that model actually is or how it works.

A big debate along these lines today (which I don’t think is even a scientific debate, because science can’t actually answer the question) is whether reality is “materialist” (i.e., made of physical matter and energy from which our minds arise via the laws of physics) or “idealist” (our minds are fundamental and our interactions create our perception of physical things). Does it even matter? The point is that you and I are self-aware and we consciously experience events and interactions with one another (well, not you and me specifically, but you know what I mean).

Usually when someone says there is no objective reality they are professing a position of idealism, the second of the two positions I outlined above. But as I said, I think it’s an empty claim. Reality is what we experience.

Stay safe and well!

Kip

Though I don't get this one:

[Subjective reality is a local perspective adapting to context. This is complementarity in QM. Each causal relation resulting in a contextual interaction is objective. This is a condition to be a valid complement in QM. The generalization of all local positions and contexts is also objective. The shift from local subjective to general objective is split by uncertainty principle.

When you understand Copenhagen Interpretation correctly, questions like this do not occur. They become the play things of those who haven't graduated from philosophy to empirical reality./quote]

Yeah, it is. One fork. Left, right.

You haven't made a case for a difference, which leaves the suspicion that you only wish to hide your views behind QM verbosity. — Banno

Again, no. This isn't difference. It's the same object. I explained what I meant with my example. In this case it would be like two people observing and one saying they see a fork and another a spoon. It's not just a simple position change but something entirely different.

Get it through your head.

Not sure what you're smoking but those studies don't prove your claim, especially the second one.

To reiterate, it's not quantum physics. Again Biophysics isn't quantum physics.

What? They are how we can even derive counterfactuals to test. They are the axiomatic basis of truth claims. — apokrisis

Uhh no they aren't. Metaphysical claims don't have truth values, they are all unfalsifiable and have no impact on reality.

Have you studied biophysics? — apokrisis

A little, but again that's not quantum physics. Doesn't apply here.

Again, no not even close. Your case isn't different responses to the same thing. I'm talking about seeing a spoon where you see a fork.

Like I said not even close.

If by "real" you are referring to counterfactual definiteness then Bell's theorem says that either counterfactual definiteness or locality (no "spooky action at a distance") are false.

The Nobel Prize in Physics is being awarded this year to three scientists who have shown locality to be false.

I don't yet know of any experiments that have shown counterfactual definiteness to be false. — Michael

What does any of that mean?

But your body and brain depend on being able to harness quantum chemistry. Life and mind start at the quasi-classical nanoscale of molecular machines where proteins can beat the classical odds by employing quantum tricks.

So without the ability to harness things like quantum tunneling, enzymes and respiratory chains wouldn’t work. Photosynthesis wouldn’t exist. Sensory receptors would be impossible.

I think you are just too dismissive of the quantum realm. It is how there could even be the classical realm as its “other”.

It is crazy that nature even exists in one form. It is doubly crazy that a second form hatches emergently from that. It is triply crazy that even the quantum form has to be emergent - or at least that is an implication of the success of quantum field theory.

So stand back and marvel of all that we have discovered - some of it only very recently. — apokrisis

Don't think that's how it works. None of that is crazy and it sounds like you're misrepresenting quantum mechanics. The stuff that's crazy only applies at that level. It doesn't apply to our level, hence why it's crazy.

Why?

Sitting opposite each other at table, you see the fork on the left, I see it on the right.

Are you saying that because we see it differently, there is no "objective" statement as to the position of the fork?

But that's not right. — Banno

That's not what it means. The point is that we are both seeing the fork and can confer it objectively exists. That's what it means to be objective, no matter what side you're sitting on. What you are referring to isn't even in the ballpark of what I mean as it is still objective.

The point of the Wigner's Friend is that both can see the different responses to the same thing and be right, meaning we aren't seeing the same thing yet aren't wrong, at least on the quantum stage not the macro stage.

Your example doesn't come close.

Actually it does require we all see the same thing hence why Wigner's Friend threatens objectivity.

Who?

I'm just going by what the links say. At some point it seems like QM drifts into philosophy with how weird stuff gets after a certain level, as shown in this experiment.

https://qr.ae/pveiQl

Though to be fair the post also says it says nothing new about QM and in the previous experiments like it (and including this one) we can't draw any hard conclusions. But that won't stop sensationalist titles from emerging.

Actually they are when it comes to quantum physics.

Not anymore, not with the Wigner's friend experiment evidently. Now science and philosophy are becoming one and the same or at least blending.

Did you read what he said about the experiment and how it invites questions about our reality.

Not really. Kastrup is very clear it is not solipsism and it certainly doesn't read this way to me. But you need to read the full account. I know some people share your view, but I don't see solipsism at all - just as others can't see anything but solipsism.

The clue is in the notion of universal mind. All of reality is held by this mind and you and all beings are 'dissociated alters' of this one great cosmic consciousness. Solipsism by contrast is the argument that only you exist. For Kastrup and perhaps Schopenhauer, it would be closer to say you don't really exist, so solipsism isn't even on the table. — Tom Storm

I'm aware of his argument. I join the forum that was linked from his website, but when I started arguing how their line of reasoning inevitably leads to solipsism none of them could give a good argument as to why it's not. IMO the guy is too stupid to really understand the conclusions his view leads to.

Kastrup just speculates something he cannot validate, a universal mind. Not to mention badly butchering quantum mechanics by thinking consciousness is involved at all.

Idealism inevitably leads to solipsism. Berkley couldn't escape it and neither did Kastrup.

So what about the Wigner's friend experiment.

https://qr.ae/pveiQl

I read through his stuff and all his thoughts inevitably lead to solipsism the same way that idealism does. Like you have to have MAJOR cognitive dissonance to say idealism doesn't lead to solipsism.

You don't just have my word, you have my argument, which I've made over my past posts on this thread. The heart of that argument is that the question of what reality is and whether or not objective reality exists is not a scientific question, it is a metaphysical, i.e. a philosophical, one. The answer to the question is in philosophy, not science. Scientists are not generally very good metaphysicians.

There's not much more I can say. If you don't get it or you disagree, there's no place else for this conversation to go.

Also - note the poster in the second Quora link you provided agrees with my position, although Quora is not generally considered an authoritative source. You'll find all sorts of inconsistencies and disagreements there. — T Clark

Which link was that one?

Are you serious or sarcastic right now? I think solipsism being true would be the end of any sort of science.

Sooooo you're saying Quantum Mechanics essentially says solipsism is true?

The fact they link to experiments and science sites and I just have your word. Most like this just reference the Wigner's Friend experiment.

https://qr.ae/pveiQl

This stuff too:

https://qr.ae/pveiQo

I have to agree with I like sushi here - it’s not solipsism at all. An experience exists whether or not it’s deemed ‘real’, and absolutely CAN impact in a meaningful way. What looks like an apple is still the experience of an apple, even if it’s an hallucination, or a prediction error. We make mistakes all the time - we jump to conclusions, we react too soon, we dismiss ideas prematurely - all based on a consensus understanding of what is real, tangible, evident, etc. — Possibility

Well no. Color doesn't exist even though it is an "experience" in our heads. Phantom limb isn't a real experience and neither are hallucinations either. Which is why the terror from such things can be dismissed. What looks like an apple isn't an experience of an apple, especially if it's wax.

We use terms such as ‘really’ and ‘truly’ to make distinctions in a discussion between what we experience and what we accept. Have a go at rephrasing your argument without using these qualifiers. Dismissing what looks like an apple, or even a dream as ‘not an experience’ is an attempt to ignore/isolate/exclude aspects of what is based on how we define ‘reality’. — Possibility

But it's not a matter of what you accept, these things can be tested. That's how dreams can be known to not be real. Just because it's an experience doesn't make it real and if there is nothing behind the experience creating it then solipsism would have to be true.

You keep trying to get around it but Kant's logic flows there every time.

The links seem to say different. Even the first one I posted about useful fictions.

Though TBH referring to other people as a useful fiction scares me. It sounds...lonely.

How do you know? I from all the links I've gathered there seems to be something to there being no objective reality based on what that guy on Quora is saying.

But then again I know next to nothing about QM so.....

Whether the experience of an apple is a hallucination, dream or lucid and conscious does not really make the experience anything other than that of an apple. — I like sushi

Well no, if it's not real then it's not really an experience of an apple but just what looks like an apple. A dream wouldn't really be much of an experience either, especially since a dream doesn't quite feel like reality and nothing in there truly can affect you. So it's not an experience in the sense that it can impact you in any meaningful way.

Consciousness is ‘conscious of …’. Phenomenology is not bothered about whether there is or is not an apple it is only concerned with the experience of said apple.

The ‘of what?’ question you pose was dealt with by Kant. The ‘thing in itself’ is called noumenon. There is no ‘noumenon’ though in any Positive sense only in the Negative as a limiting boundary for knowledge. — I like sushi

Which again only makes sense if there is a corresponding thing of experience otherwise it's incoherent or leads to solipsism. If you want to argue there is "no thing" behind the experience then you fall into solipsism, that's it. So congrats Kant's logic slides into solipsism.

I think I started a thread in regards to whether Quantum mechanics has any affect on this, maybe that might have some insight.

But what you are describing is essentially solipsism or at the very least goes directly to it.

Additional food for thought:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

https://qr.ae/pvepzt

https://qr.ae/pvepjo

But experience of what? Experience only is coherent with a corresponding thing of experience.

Sounds like it does have a concern with real since experience is in the mix.

It sounds so much like it though.

Like I said I'm not that good at this sort of thinking let alone reading.

Suffering is what makes pleasure and joy mean something. Without that contrast they eventually dull.

Plus looking at all the different responses to suffering from people across history I'd say it's a rather complex issue.

How is that? I'm just asking because I didn't really follow what was being said.

Actually waaaaaayyyy at the bottom he makes it clear that this is NOT solipsism and explains the problems associated with going in that direction. Not that I understood it but just pointing it out.

I wouldn't say nothing exists.

You do have logical proof though and to a lesser extent empirical.

There is no seed, it's a non starter and not to mention not even related to the behind you question.

Whether you do or don't it won't change that there is something behind you. Though it does say something how philosophical musings don't change reality, sometimes it makes me question why even bother asking such questions.