The correlated events or actions can be because of a common cause. — universeness
I think the use of the term correlation for quantum entanglement is a wise use but really just indicates that the detailed nature of the relationship is not yet well understood. — universeness
So "tree" here is a reference to an individual. Is 'two" an individual in this way? — Banno
Numbers are abstract objects. They do not actually exist. — Alkis Piskas
If locality is the case, then the common cause of the entangled particles' correlation is their initial preparation (See spontaneous parametric down-conversion). — Andrew M
Does your mind create the concept of 2? Does the concept of 2 cease to exists when you stop thinking about it? — Art48
Because numbers have objective properties. — Art48
Why can't your 2 be greater than your 3? — Art48
The chief difficulty with Platonism is that while proposing a distinct type of reality of mathematical entities, it must then explain how this reality interacts with everyday things. — Banno
You are right. The term "objects" I ised in saying "Numbers are abstract objects" might be confusing because it normally refers to something physical. I could use the word "things" --which is more general and can refer to anything-- but it's too commonplace and banal. So I prefer to use neither and say, "Numbers are abstract".It might appear like a very acceptable approach, to say that abstract objects are objects, only a different kind of object from physical objects, but then we need acceptable principles to set the two apart, or else we'll have equivocation between two types of "objects" in logical proceedings. As Banno indicated, this is problematic, because it presents the issue of interaction between the two types. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry, I was just jotting down some preliminary ideas related to the OP, and to your notion of "Creative Step" and "Discovery". When you "decided to extend this idea to a more general realm" (specific-to-general) you were doing Inductive Reasoning, which is one kind of creative act in Philosophy, and in Mathematics. But, another approach is to break-down a broad general concept into more particular applications (general-to-specific) Deductive Reasoning. I suppose both can be creative, depending on their practical or theoretical implementation (involvement??).Sorry, good try, but an appreciation of creativity and discovery comes with involvement, not philosophical chatter. — jgill
Imagine at a particular place and time in the world there is something. The public name "two" is attached to this something by the authorities. From my observation of this something, in my mind I have the private concept two. Someone else observing the same thing will also have the private concept two. However, it may well be that my private concept two is different to their private concept two, but as we are both part of the same community, we will both name our private concepts as "two". — RussellA
What do you think of the following explanation for explaining interaction? — Art48
Look again at 'The word "two" refers to the objectively real number 2, just as "tree" refers to an objectively real tree'. So here I take it that we are talking about, say, the tree in your yard? So "tree" here is a reference to an individual. Is 'two" an individual in this way? So are you saying that when I talk about your two feet and then the two dollars in my pocket, I'm talking about the very same, individual, two? That "two" is a proper name for an individual? The same individual, two, can't be both in your feet and in your pocket, so it must be outside of space and time, is that the thinking? — Banno
And not a reference to something else in the world, besides the two trees.What if instead of "one mind creating the concept of 2", it is a construct of our communal capacity to use language - a way of talking about cases where we have two things? "There are two trees in my yard" as a way of talking about the trees, and so not a reference to some platonic form. — Banno
It's a pre-existent idea which we encounter in the "mindscape," just as we encounter a pre-existent tree in the landscape. In my view, ideas are pre-existent. — Art48
Your "actual input" is a misleading notion. One's neural network, starting at one's retina, constantly and actively re-works the signal it receives in order to construct the sense of green and brown. The "idea of tree" is constructed much later in the neural net, perhaps involving the areas of the brain that handle language. Our resident Neuroscientist, Isaac, might be able to explain with greater clarity — Banno
you seem to be working with a homunculus-like view of the self, as if you were sitting inside your head looking out, receiving raw inputs of information that you interpret using a priori scripts. That is a view often attributed to Kant, although there are Kantians who deny it. The homunculus is, for several reasons, to be rejected. — Banno
In this case, I think, there would be no equivocation, as you say, neither any kind of interaction of two types of objects. — Alkis Piskas
When you "decided to extend this idea to a more general realm" (specific-to-general) you were doing Inductive Reasoning, — Gnomon
PS__"Philosophical Chatter", as you put it, seems to be how philosophers get involved in discovering new ways to look at old ideas. Are the mathematician's chalk-marks on the blackboard more involved than text-marks on a philosophical forum? — Gnomon
Excuse my being blunt, but it is wrong on multiple levels. There are far more than five senses. — Banno
If locality is the case, then the common cause of the entangled particles' correlation is their initial preparation (See spontaneous parametric down-conversion).
— Andrew M
Phew! That link was to a physics level that is a bit high for me. I clicked on sub-links such as 'non-linear crystal,' 'etc to gain a better insight. But I found I had to click on further and further sub-links eg 'Schwinger limit' and then 'Birefringence,' to gain any clarity. I will go back to it, but you have moved past my current width and depth of physics understanding. — universeness
The philosopher in the street, who has not suffered a course in quantum mechanics, is quite unimpressed by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations. He can point to many examples of similar correlations in everyday life. The case of Bertlmann’s socks is often cited. Dr. Bertlmann likes to wear two socks of different colours. Which colour he will have on a given foot on a given day is quite unpredictable. But when you see (Fig. 1) that the first sock is pink you can be already sure that the second sock will not be pink. Observation of the first, and experience of Bertlmann, gives immediate information about the second. There is no accounting for tastes, but apart from that there is no mystery here. And is not the EPR business just the same? — Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality - John Bell, 1981
If the meaning of "two" is a private concept in my mind, and is different to a private concept in your mind, then you and I literally do not share the same concept of two. — Banno
So those private aspects of the concept two make no difference, and it is only the public aspects that have a place in our affairs. — Banno
The key difference is that the observation of Bertlmann's socks is explained by the pre-measurement colors of the socks. Whereas the observation of the entangled qubits can't be explained by pre-measurement values, as shown by Bell's Theorem. Which is why quantum interpretations become relevant (note the Local dynamics column). — Andrew M
I'd submit that consciousness is the very processing you dismiss. Again, you are not sitting inside your head looking at the results of the processing, but rather you are the processing.input to consciousness, after all processing has been done. — Art48
...those private aspects of the concept two make no difference". — RussellA
Imagine at a particular place and time in the world there is something. The public name "two" is attached to this something by the authorities. From my observation of this something, in my mind I have the private concept two. Someone else observing the same thing will also have the private concept two. However, it may well be that my private concept two is different to their private concept two, but as we are both part of the same community, we will both name our private concepts as "two". — RussellA
I’m not sure idealism applies. I’d say our consciousness directly experiences its physical, emotional, and mental sensations, and so we can be certain the sensations exist. (Much like “I think therefore I am” although I’d replace “think” with “experience”.) What causes the sensations? Are we a brain in a vat? Or are we experiencing the world more or less as it is? Or is what we experience Platonic forms? Or is there a monist entity responsible for what we experience? I can make some intelligent hypotheses, but I just don’t know.What you are proposing in the OP is . . . the physical world is exactly the world of forms. Some form of idealism. — Banno
I think of consciousness as what is aware of the sensations. I think some philosophers view consciousness in the same way. Thus, the “hard problem of consciousness.” And, thus, the concept of philosophical zombies, which have all the sensations but no consciousness.I'd submit that consciousness is the very processing you dismiss. Again, you are not sitting inside your head looking at the results of the processing, but rather you are the processing. — Banno
I understand that in this sense, the two gloves are set at their creation. Is SPDC simply asserting the same for these two entangled photons? — universeness
So, when you locally open one of the boxes, that act, does not affect the state of the gloves.
But a qubit can have more that two states due to superposition states. A qubit does not just resolve to 1 or 0, it can be in a superposition of 1 and 0. — universeness
The nature of the gloves as left or right handed is there from the beginning, just like in QFT, a coordinate in spacetime can manifest any of the known particle states/field excitations (almost like an interdimensional vibrating superstring). Entanglement may 'correlated' (as a field excitation 'travels') the states of two spacetime coordinates, regardless of the distance between them.
What's wrong with the imagery I am invoking, if it's incorrect. — universeness
Hence any private mental stuff is irrelevant to the meaning of "two". — Banno
For instance, the number “2” exists outside spacetime. — Art48
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.