There's a good book called Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality, Manjit Kumar,, which goes into that in depth. — Wayfarer

I've been reading "Subtle is the Lord," which is a scientific biography of Einstein looking for ideas about these same types of issues. It is a wonderful book, but haaard. It stretches me beyond what I can understand, even trying hard. I'll take a look at your suggestion.

It's a matter of irony that nowadays, the so-called 'realist' interpretations of physics are often said to be the 'parallel universes' of Hugh Everett or the various permutations of the multiverse suggested by string theorists. If you look back at Bohr and Heisenberg's philosophical musings on QM (retrospectively named the 'Copenhagen Interpretation'), they seem lucid - and parsimonious - by comparison. — Wayfarer

Your talking about the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, yes? I've never understood why sophisticated scientists can't just say "look, it may seem weird, but it's not. That's just the way things happen to be." I've always wondered if the multiverse interpretation brings something else to the story that adds to our understanding.

Well, isn't that sort of like the yin-yang duality that is supposed to be the manifestation of Tao? :) The first quote was an intuitive/holistic characterization of existence while the second was an analytic/logical specification of what existence is and how it is instantiated in the structure of reality. I am sorry if this specification was confusing, I just tried to pack it into a few sentences. — litewave

I wasn't complaining. I like that you can hold both visions in your head at the same time. I try to do that too.

I'm sorry to burst the bubble here but I find the Tao Te Ching to be like a horoscope - ambiguous and vague enough to fool people into believing something which they really wouldn't. — TheMadFool

No bubble has been burst. I don't expect that everything that inspires, informs, and moves me will do the same for everyone. Do you assume that because you don't get what I get, that it doesn't have value? I don't much like jazz, but I recognize that there is something of value there.

If I'm trying to interpret that so that it has things right, I'd take it to simply be a map/territory distinction. The map is not the territory, but we can only "speak the map." Or in other words, the world isn't like natural language, except for that part of the world that is natural language. The same goes for mathematical language, logic, etc. — Terrapin Station

I think the view consistent with the Tao te Ching is more radical than that. There is a sense that before it is mapped, the territory doesn't exist. "The 10,000 things;" i.e. the world we live in on a day to day basis with busses, supernovas, and tree frogs; don't exist until a they are named. I find that way of thinking very useful and I don't think it puts any restriction on a scientific viewpoint.

To claim that the world is illogical is to claim that the world is not what it is. Therefore, the world is not illogical. The claim refutes itself. — litewave

The Tao is not logical or illogical. To call it either would be naming the unnamable.

I'm not sure if the human world, the ten thousand things, is logical or not. I think it's probably a matter of choice. If logic works, use it. If not, do something else. I guess you find it useful. Or do you think logic is the fundamental basis of reality? From what you've written, I think you probably do.

I guess I'm saying that I feel the Tao points more towards the interplay between the objective and subjective then it being interchangeable with objective reality. — Gooseone

Did I say that the Tao is interchangeable with objective reality? Did I mean that? Do I think it is? Let me think.

I guess I think the Tao and objective reality fill the same metaphysical role - a description, to the extent that's possible, of fundamental reality. Both work equally well in some applications - I think the practice and application of science is one. I find the idea of objective reality misleading in other situations. I think it is important to understand that there is a fundamental, irreversible, unavoidable connection between what we call the world and human observers. The universe is, in a profound way, human.

Do you assume that because you don't get what I get, that it doesn't have value? — T Clark

No. No. I don't mean that at all. The Tao clicks with me too (not saying that I understand it well). I believe that there's more to reality than meets the eye. However, it worries me that such a view could be wishful thinking growing out of a fertile imagination, and that we know, bottomline, is self-deception.

However, it worries me that such a view could be wishful thinking growing out of a fertile imagination, and that we know, bottomline, is self-deception. — TheMadFool

For all of us here, when we get to the end, all we have is trust in ourselves, our judgment, and our experience. Thinking about it now, maybe that is the fundamental fact of philosophy.

This is off-post, but have you read "Self Reliance" by Emerson. It had a strong effect on me. We have to trust ourselves, what he calls our "genius."

The Tao is not logical or illogical. — T Clark

If Tao is what it is then it is logical.

Or do you think logic is the fundamental basis of reality? From what you've written, I think you probably do. — T Clark

Yes, if reality is what it is then logic (consistency) is its fundamental basis. I can't see how reality could be otherwise.

If the world isn't like logic then the world is like logic. — litewave

No idea how that makes any sense to you.

Thanks for the clarification, that helps to see where you were going with that thought. I would tend to agree with what you said here about wishful thinking. We seek wisdom, not wishdom! The Buddhist teaching of the Three Poisons is illuminating. Greed, hatred, ignorance make the karmic world go around (to summarize pithily). Self-deception is an ever-present pitfall. (Not unlike the cool tarot card pictured in your avatar, btw (Y)). What seems to help me is to have self-confidence on one hand balanced by a healthy self-skepticism on the other hand. Without either i tend to get off the track and into a ditch very quickly. YMMV.

No idea how that makes any sense to you. — Terrapin Station

Well, that's the point - it doesn't make sense to say that the world isn't like logic, because that would mean that the world is not what it is. If the world is what it is then the world is logical (logically consistent).

Question: is the "DEALTHmatch"in the thread title intentional, or a typo? If intended, could you please explain? Thanks!

Question: is the "DEALTHmatch"in the thread title intentional, or a typo? If intended, could you please explain? Thanks! — 0 thru 9

Yes, as everything I write, it has a profound, obscure meaning. Or maybe I was trying to see if anyone was paying attention. Alternatively, it might have been a mistake, which I might have fixed.

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." — T Clark

For the simple reason that 'to speak of' is to locate within the realm of phenomena, 'this' as distinct from 'that'. It is, in the terminology of religious studies, an apophatic statement.

They imply one universe with a (possibly finite) number of branches in superposition. — Andrew M

And just what would 'a branch' be, in plain language?

For the simple reason that 'to speak of' is to locate within the realm of phenomena, — Wayfarer

Or to go from non-being into being. To be created.

But, and although this is a contentious point, I think LaPlace's daemon was slain by the uncertainty principle. — Wayfarer

Laplace's Demon was already slain by the "Three Body Problem". It is slain even in a completely deterministic world.

And just what would 'a branch' be, in plain language? — Wayfarer

The familiar example would be Schrodinger's Cat. In the thought experiment, after a while, there is a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat. One branch is the evolution over time of the live cat. The other branch is the evolution over time of the dead cat.

The familiar example would be Schrodinger's Cat. — Andrew M

I asked the question, what would a 'branch' be, in relation to 'a universe which branches'. That's a much bigger deal than a 'thought experiment'.

For the simple reason that 'to speak of' is to locate within the realm of phenomena,
— Wayfarer

Or to go from non-being into being. To be created. — T Clark

Actually I don't think that is the point - it's overly theist. The standard Taoist description for the phenomenonal domain is 'the ten thousand things'; which is contrasted to 'the nameless' which is the source of the ten thousand things. But there's nothing corresponding to 'creation' in that; it's more that the sage 'merges with the nameless' through contemplation or concentrated action. 'Flow', they call it nowadays. But I don't think it's a linear 'creation story' in the Biblical sense.

I asked the question, what would a 'branch' be, in relation to 'a universe which branches'. That's a much bigger deal than a 'thought experiment'. — Wayfarer

Consider the double-slit experiment where a single photon produces interference. There is amplitude for the photon going through both slits (all interpretations agree about this). On the Everettian view, this is the universe branching such that a photon goes through the first slit on one branch and another photon goes through the second slit on another branch. Both branches subsequently merge to produce the observed interference pattern on the back screen.

I asked the question, what would a 'branch' be, in relation to 'a universe which branches'. That's a much bigger deal than a 'thought experiment'. — Wayfarer

Let me take a shot if I may, since I have interest and this model seems most plausible to me. I agree with AndrewM's responses except for the double-slit one just above.

In relation to the universe, a branch is simply part of it, like the Sicilian Defense is a branch of the set of outcomes of chess, all one set, but a branch from which positions resulting from Queen's Indian Defense are disjoint. You seem incredulous that from the subjective viewpoint of one chess opening, the other ones are less existent. They're just nonexistent from that subjective viewpoint.

Some splitting event (measurement) occurs forming multiple outcomes at only that point. The universe is not cloned. The difference between the two grows at up to the speed of light, so a minute after the cat experiment measurement, the exact same sun shines on both. The lab guy is also the same, but only if the cat is still in the box, else the lab guy is split as well, each knowing a different outcome for the cat.

So the live-cat branch (a bubble confined to the box or not) has no causal relation to the dead cat branch. Hence I (a particular state of the whole that is more than 'me') have no awareness of other parallel states of my personal history, despite sharing an identical past (not a copy of a past state) at some point.

They have built a Schrodinger's box, but not one that holds a cat. The before-before experiment relies on taking a measurement, but not revealing the results of it for a time, which requires effectively such a box. Any other QM interpretation seems to require the ability to alter the past to explain that experiment.

Actually I don't think that is the point - it's overly theist. The standard Taoist description for the phenomenonal domain is 'the ten thousand things'; which is contrasted to 'the nameless' which is the source of the ten thousand things. But there's nothing corresponding to 'creation' in that; it's more that the sage 'merges with the nameless' through contemplation or concentrated action. 'Flow', they call it nowadays. But I don't think it's a linear 'creation story' in the Biblical sense. — Wayfarer

I don't think it's theist at all. Creation is going from non-being (the Tao) into being (the 10,000 things). I take that seriously, not just as a metaphor. This is not a creation story in any normal sense of the word. The Tao came before god.

They have built a Schrodinger's box, but not one that holds a cat. The before-before experiment relies on taking a measurement, but not revealing the results of it for a time, which requires effectively such a box. Any other QM interpretation seems to require the ability to alter the past to explain that experiment. — noAxioms

Do you have a link?

They have built a Schrodinger's box, but not one that holds a cat. The before-before experiment relies on taking a measurement, but not revealing the results of it for a time, which requires effectively such a box. Any other QM interpretation seems to require the ability to alter the past to explain that experiment. — noAxioms

The deBroglie-Bohm causal, real, non-deterministic model nicely resolves all quantum paradoxes without resorting to infinite worlds, altering the past, etc. All that it's required is the acceptance of non-local actions which had more-or-less been observed in laboratory experience. Action at a distance via Bohm's quantum field satisfies all issues. Bohm was never properly recognized (and still isn't despite Bell's best efforts) because he dared to be different.

Let me take a shot if I may, since I have interest and this model seems most plausible to me. I agree with AndrewM's responses except for the double-slit one just above. — noAxioms

Nice post, but I'm curious about where we might disagree.

In the double-slit experiment, the detection of the photon at the back screen is not the only interaction that occurs in the system. It's just the obvious one since it involves someone observing it.

However there are also the distinct photon/slit interactions that occur. These constitute "measurements" between the photon and the apparatus independent of observer interaction and so also result in branching. The observed interference effect when we detect the photon on the back screen just is the interference of those branches (which is quantified as the sum of the wave amplitudes from both branches).

However there are also the distinct photon/slit interactions that occur. These constitute "measurements" between the photon and the apparatus independent of observer interaction and so also result in branching. The observed interference effect when we detect the photon on the back screen just is the interference of those branches (which is quantified as the sum of the wave amplitudes from both branches). — Andrew M

An interesting notion. A measurement is being taken without a conscious observer. Exactly how is this known? Something indeed may be happening, and if course, one is free to speculate about anything but a fundamental notion of quantum physics it's that impossible to separate the observer from the experiment. What ever is happening prior to the observation it's totally unknown and inaccessible. Everything in the system is totally and irrevocably entangled. That's the whole point.

For all of us here, when we get to the end, all we have is trust in ourselves, our judgment, and our experience. Thinking about it now, maybe that is the fundamental fact of philosophy. — T Clark

Bold mine.

Western philosophy warns us against it. Trust in ourselves is often betrayed. Isn't this why logic and rationality are so vehemently emphasized? We need an unbiased and reliable mediator between us and reality. That role is currently played by logic and it's doing a fine job.

The Tao doesn't diminish the importance of reason and logic. In fact I think, owing to its poetic composition, it relies heavily on the reader's logic to infer the message the Tao wishes to convey.

That said, I think logic and rationality aren't enough to comprehend the whole of reality. Logic and reason fail at the scale of atoms and the universe. Didn't someone say ''if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.'' Also ''the heart has reasons the mind knows not''.

What seems to help me is to have self-confidence on one hand balanced by a healthy self-skepticism on the other hand — 0 thru 9

Ah! Middle path?

the universe branching... — Andrew M

Just consder what that actually says.