A lot of the confusion comes from us applying our everyday concepts like 'particle' or 'wave' and giving them an absolute, real meaning.

A good (though imperfect) way to think about it is a water surface: Is it a wave or individual droplets? The question isn't really answerable until you measure it. The moment you put an object into it, a droplet sticks to it—you've made a measurement. The previous superposition of possibilities (wave/droplet) has 'collapsed' into a single, concrete result (one droplet).

The crucial point that goes beyond the water analogy is that the mathematics describing this 'fuzziness' (the Schrödinger equation) is ultimately a probability calculation. It's a tool for our knowledge about the system (epistemic), not necessarily an exact description of a physical vibrating process. What happens 'in reality' before we measure is the subject of various interpretations of quantum mechanics. The most common one (the Copenhagen Interpretation) indeed says that the measurement itself brings about a definite state.

It's common for folk with idealist tendencies to confuse what they believe, understand, think etc. with what is true. — Banno

What you're saying perchance isn't just that pseudo idealists (those with idealist tendencies) confuse the mental as the only real, but it's that's true idealists are confused because they think the mental is the only real.

In other words, true idealists are being true to their worldview. It's not as if they're realists but have illogically assessed the consequences of representationalism to mean there is no ontological truth (as a pseudo idealist might).

As in, Berkeley is logically consistent and Kant allows a distinction between the unknowable noumena (the ontologically real) and the phenomena (the mentally known). Those folks aren't muddling epistemology with ontology.

You've misread your own reference. sure, mēns (“mind”) is from PIE *men- (“to think”), but mensūra (“to measure”) is form from PIE *meh₁- (“to measure”).
Measure dervives from Meh, not Mens. — Banno

I didn't misread the reference, I just focused on the parts that were pertinent to my post :
Mensura = to measure ; Mens- = mind*1*2
A yardstick can provide a comparison, but only a Mind can measure the meaning : to interpret.

Hence, In the quantum context, I infer that "to measure" is to extract information (meaning) into a Mind (observer). Which sheds light on the Quantum Measurement Problem, regarding the cause of the "collapse" of holistic entanglement into particular particles. A machine can obtain mathematical (probability) information about an experiment. But only the conscious experimenter can interpret its Meaning. Collapse (disintegration) happens when energy is extracted by the machine. like a cue ball hitting the neatly-stacked billiard balls. But the Event is only known when the bits of energy/information are interpreted into meaning.

Since scientists are now equating Information with Energy*3, I imagine (philosophical conjecture) that what is extracted from an entangled (interactive) system is a quantum of potential Energy (photon or gluon), which may serve as a keystone, holding the system together. By contrast, Entropy pulls the plug on a system to break it down into isolated parts. Shannon noted that Information is negatively measured in terms of meaningless Entropy*4.

Probability & Potential are not a real things ; they are ideas that are meaningful only to conscious minds. Only when they become Actual does a meaningful Event happen. Consciousness & Events go together like things that are similar. :smile:


*1. The English phrase "to measure" ultimately derives from the Latin verb metiri ("to measure"), which comes from the Proto-Indo-European root me- ("to measure"). The word entered English via the Old French verb mesurer, which was derived from the Latin noun mensura ("a measurement"), the past participle of metiri.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22to+measure%22+etymology

*2. In Latin, "mens" refers to "mind," "intellect," or "plan," as seen in the legal term mens rea (guilty mind) and the English words "mental" or "dementia". It is a feminine noun belonging to the third declension, with the genitive form mentis.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+%22mens-%22

*3. Is information matter or energy? :
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are. Operationally--just as energy is defined in terms of its capacity to perform work--so is information defined in terms of its capacity to organize a system.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

*4.In information theory, entropy (H) is a measure of the average uncertainty or randomness associated with a random variable or process. It quantifies the expected amount of information needed to describe the outcome of a random event, with higher entropy indicating greater uncertainty and more information required to specify the outcome. The unit of entropy is the bit, and it is calculated as the weighted average of the information content of each possible outcome, where the information content of an outcome is inversely related to its probability.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+entropy

As in, Berkeley is logically consistent and Kant allows a distinction between the unknowable noumena (the ontologically real) and the phenomena (the mentally known). Those folks aren't muddling epistemology with ontology. — Hanover

:up: