Einstein predicted it based on science. Confirming observations were made after the predictions. — Real Gone Cat
It is based on the converse view, that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. — Banno
The dependence of what is observed on the choice of experimental arrangement made Einstein unhappy. It conflicts with the view that the universe exists "out there" independent of all acts of observation. In contrast, Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us. In struggling to make clear to Einstein the central point as he saw it, Bohr found himself forced to introduce the word "phenomenon". In today's words, Bohr's point - and the central point of quantum theory - can be put into a single, simple sentence. "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon." ...In broader terms, we find that nature at the quantum level is not a machine that goes its inexorable way. Instead what answer we get depends on the question we put, the experiment we arrange, the registering device we choose. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to happen. — John Wheeler, Law without Law
Not sure what you mean. What was the original error? — Real Gone Cat
still lost. — Real Gone Cat
A good rule of thumb is that when non physicists start to talk about physics, it is time to leave. — Banno
And a very convenient one. — Wayfarer
I know anti-realists like to trot out QM as support, without really understanding it. Using science to put down science. — Real Gone Cat
Thus, Wittgenstein, even in his early work, suggests that the realist versus anti-realist debate is meaningless because both sides are trying to say things that are only showable. From this early Wittgensteinian perspective, a mathematical equation – in fact, any equation, including the ones governing quantum mechanics – is like a photograph of reality. Like photographs, we do not need anyone to interpret its meaning as realist or anti-realist. We do not need a Copenhagen or a many-worlds to indicate the sense of the equation to us, because it is already as apparent as it is ever going to be. To ask what the wavefunction represents is like asking what Michelangelo’s statue of David or Van Gogh’s painting The Starry Night represents: any explanation beyond the mere facts is insufficient and subjective.
My comment went unnoticed. — Real Gone Cat
My interpretation here with a supporting citation
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/711348 — Wayfarer
This new duality omits Descartes’ res cogitans
it should be noted that with respect to quantum mechanics, res potentia is not itself a separate or separable substance that can be ontologically abstracted from res extensa
I claim that numbers, scientific principles, lexical and logical laws, and much more, are real. — Wayfarer
QP ... do not obey the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) or the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC).
measurement is a real physical process that transforms quantum potentiae into elements of res extensa, in a non-unitary and classically acausal process, and we offer specific models of such a measurement process.
I take the question of how things are to be subservient to the question of what to do. We only need to know how things are so far as it helps working out what to do. — Banno
Wayfarer would discuss a spiritual aspect of the world, which seems to me an impossible task. It's not that I deny this sublime aspect of reality, but taking seriously that it is ineffable, and hence beyond discussion. Hence it becomes a place of disagreement. — Banno
Relativity does to show that reality is dependent on the observer.
It is based on the converse view, that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. That reality is the same for all observers. — Banno
I don't understand how that citation supports your interpretation. The authors (of the paper) state...
This new duality omits Descartes’ res cogitans
...and...
it should be noted that with respect to quantum mechanics, res potentia is not itself a separate or separable substance that can be ontologically abstracted from res extensa
I'm also interested in how you square your belief earlier that...
I claim that numbers, scientific principles, lexical and logical laws, and much more, are real.
— Wayfarer
...with the author's prescription that...
QP ... do not obey the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) or the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC).
If you believe the laws of logic are real and yet also believe that res potentia are real then it seems you believe two contradictory things. — Isaac
Kastner and colleagues also reject Descartes’ res cogitans. But they think reality should not be restricted to res extensa; rather it should be complemented by “res potentia” — in particular, quantum res potentia, not just any old list of possibilities.
In the new paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. It is perhaps less of a full-blown interpretation than a new philosophical framework for contemplating those quantum mysteries. At its root, the new idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.
Along with the researchers Carlton Caves and Rüdiger Schack, he interpreted the wave function’s probabilities as Bayesian probabilities — that is, as subjective degrees of belief about the system. Bayesian probabilities could be thought of as gambling attitudes for placing bets on measurement outcomes, attitudes that are updated as new data come to light. In other words, Fuchs argued, the wave function does not describe the world — it describes the observer. “Quantum mechanics,” he says, “is a law of thought.”
I'm not asking about the TV. I'm asking about the rock. When I see a rock on a TV screen, am I seeing the rock directly?
That doesn't make it direct. There are real, physical connections when a rock is seen in the reflection of a mirror, but I'm not seeing the rock directly. There are real, physical connections when a rock is seen on TV, but I'm not seeing the rock directly.
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.