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.

But on the other hand, who cares? Sure, you do and I do and a bunch of other dorks do. — T Clark

Thanks. So you, Banno, and others come crowding on to these kinds of threads to show that you don’t take deep and interesting questions seriously. You know better because you haven’t learnt either the physics or the metaphysics. Ignorance of the subject matter becomes your trump card.

C’mon. You can do better than that.

Out of interest, what do you think are reasonable speculations in relation to QM? Do you think it can point to idealism?

do you think are reasonable speculations in relation to QM? Do you think it can point to idealism? — Tom Storm

Definitely not. As I’ve said in other threads, thermal decoherence is a robust explanation for how a wavefunction can be so contextually constrained that it is as good as a collapse. You could say the outcome is still probabilistic, but the probability becomes 1 (or 0).

The human observer thus collapses the wavefunction by imposing such constraint - after first also preparing a system that is unconstrained and isolated from thermal noise.

So the collapse doesn’t seem like such a mystery anymore because the quantum maths has had a statistical mechanics module bolted on. The noisy thermal environment that is always present is included in the probability calculus.

The weirdness is reduced to the nonlocality or contextuality of the act of decoherence. In a limited and probabilistic sense, the constraints must transcend space and time to exert their effect. So you get “retrocausal” effects like the quantum eraser.

This is only starting to be taken seriously recently. I cited Emily Adlam’s work.

So there is weirdness to tackle. And the deep aspect has been put off for a long time. Spatial nonlocality is an everyday fact now. But temporal nonlocality still really screws with people’s classical prejudices about causal,order.

But hey. That boat already sailed with special relatively you would have thought.

Thank you. :up:

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

Not quite. Bell's Theorem showed that QM is incompatible with local realism, i.e., either QM or local realism is false. By experimentally establishing the violation of Bell inequalities, these scientists showed that local realism was false. The rejection of either locality or realism (counterfactual definiteness) is an interpretational issue.

For example, Bohmian Mechanics rejects locality. Copenhagen and Many Worlds reject counterfactual definiteness.

It says in the article that their experiments showed entanglement. I thought that meant that they showed non-locality. Are you saying that entanglement under the Copenhagen interpretation can be local?

It's not that QM is supposed to make you second guess your first hand experiences. It's the assumptions we use to contextualize those experiences which are challenged by QM (and Relativity of course.)

It's just not the case that something odd is happening at the small scale, but this has no bearing on the way we conceptualize the universe as a whole.

This isn't an idealism vs. realism debate. You're right that much of that debate takes place outside the realm of science, but that could very well change in the next century, so let's not imagine that we've reached the pinnacle of understanding. We haven't. We're just somewhere on the trail.

In the meantime, we have QM telling us that the world we live in is definitely not what our ancestors thought it was. Much of what they counted as real, just is not.

It says in the article that their experiments showed entanglement. I thought that meant that they showed non-locality. Are you saying that entanglement under the Copenhagen interpretation can be local? — Michael

Yes. Entangled particles are correlated, but that doesn't imply a non-local influence (i.e., action at a distance).

Physicist Asher Peres, who held the Copenhagen interpretation, noted that "Bell’s theorem does not imply the existence of any nonlocality in quantum theory itself. In particular relativistic quantum field theory is manifestly local." (longer quote here).

Some people do use the term non-local to describe entanglement, in the sense that if you measure one particle, you know immediately what the measurement on the other (non-local) particle will be. But that's because you know what QM predicts; it doesn't imply a faster-than-light-speed influence. Also, per relativity of simultaneity, the order of the measurements may be different in each particle's reference frame.

Thanks for the clarification.

Are there any proposed experiments that could show which of locality and counterfactual definiteness is incorrect, or is it entirely dependent on an untestable interpretation?

↪apokrisis Out of interest, what do you think are reasonable speculations in relation to QM? Do you think it can point to idealism? — Tom Storm

I think there are varieties of idealism that cogently complement QM. Critical Idealism, in particular, does not assert the primacy of either the mental or the material, but holds that what is fundamental is the reciprocal interaction of the mental and the material. This is difficult to deny, since it is never possible to isolate a fact from a knower.

Thanks. So you, Banno, and others come crowding on to these kinds of threads to show that you don’t take deep and interesting questions seriously. You know better because you haven’t learnt either the physics or the metaphysics. Ignorance of the subject matter becomes your trump card.

C’mon. You can do better than that. — apokrisis

I think I've shown I do take interesting questions seriously and I am very interested in these questions. As I noted, though, I think the gee whiz gets in the way of the science and philosophy. "Gee whizz" is not metaphysics, but in QM, it is treated as if it were.

Also, I didn't mean to include you among the dorks on the forum, although it came out that way. I have always thought of you, Fdrake, and Streetlight as the voices I can trust in math, science, and related philosophy.

It's just not the case that something odd is happening at the small scale, but this has no bearing on the way we conceptualize the universe as a whole. — frank

One of the points I've beaten till it's black and blue is that metaphysics is not universal. We don't need a one-size-fits-all universal metaphysical foundation. For me, metaphysics should be applied piecemeal. It's a tool to help with thinking and understanding - a tool box. When you're doing reductionist science, maybe pull out the materialism and realism. When it's math, pull out the idealism. When you're trying to see how it all fits together, you might need holism or even mysticism.

This isn't an idealism vs. realism debate. You're right that much of that debate takes place outside the realm of science, but that could very well change in the next century, so let's not imagine that we've reached the pinnacle of understanding. We haven't. We're just somewhere on the trail. — frank

As I understand it, metaphysics and science are different kinds of things. One is the ground, foundation, of the other, especially if we include epistemology in with the metaphysics. Given that view, metaphysics and science will never meld into each other.

I agree we are nowhere near the pinnacle, if there even is one.

One of the points I've beaten till it's black and blue is that metaphysics is not universal. We don't need a one-size-fits-all universal metaphysical foundation. For me, metaphysics should be applied piecemeal. It's a tool to help with thinking and understanding - a tool box. When you're doing reductionist science, maybe pull out the materialism and realism. When it's math, pull out the idealism. When you're trying to see how it all fits together, you might need holism or even mysticism. — T Clark

Do we really need to sort metaphysics out to talk about QM and reality? When we discovered that the sky is not a rigid dome, we discovered that heaven, as we had conceived it, isn't real.

Newton worked within a framework of absolute space and time that we now know isn't real.

QM says some of our assumptions about reality have to be wrong.

As I understand it, metaphysics and science are different kinds of things. One is the ground, foundation, of the other, especially if we include epistemology in with the metaphysics. Given that view, metaphysics and science will never meld into each other. — T Clark

The first ontologists were doing speculative physics. The two have already melded. There is a kind of metaphysics which is just language on holiday. It's fun to follow its convoluted paths, but it's ultimately pointless. Science is almost never pointless, so we might draw a distinction between that pointless kind of metaphysics and science.

There is a kind of metaphysics which is just language on holiday. It's fun to follow its convoluted paths, but it's ultimately pointless. — frank

Opportunity to quote Ryle's quip, on being elected Waynflete Professor of Metaphysics, that a chair in metaphysics is like a chair in tropical diseases — doesn't mean you're supposed to be in favor of it.

Much more respectable business these days, of course, than what he had in mind.

Newton worked within a framework of absolute space and time that we now know isn't real. — frank

Except that 99.99999% of the time we do live within a framework of absolute space and time.

QM says some of our assumptions about reality have to be wrong. — frank

QM says that things work differently at small scale than they do up here where we are.

The first ontologists were doing speculative physics. The two have already melded. There is a kind of metaphysics which is just language on holiday. It's fun to follow its convoluted paths, but it's ultimately pointless. Science is almost never pointless, so we might draw a distinction between that pointless kind of metaphysics and science. — frank

As I wrote previously, for me, metaphysics and science are completely different things.

QM says that things work differently at small scale than they do up here where we are. — T Clark

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.

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. — apokrisis

And the success of a cake recipe depends on chemical reactions which take place when you add heat to processed chemical and biological material. But I just want to eat a piece of cake. I know I sound flip, but I'm serious about this. When I'm figuring out how long a train takes to get from Preston MD to Cincinnati OH I don't need to think about relativity. That's a trick example. There is no rail service to Preston.

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

I'm not dismissive at all, at least not of the science. I am a bit dismissive about overcomplicating the metaphysics. I think you and I have a different understanding about the value and use of metaphysics. I guess that's metaphysics too, or maybe meta-metaphysics.

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

I do. I marvel all the time.

Except that 99.99999% of the time we do live within a framework of absolute space and time. — T Clark

There is no absolute space and time, so no, we don't live there.

Opportunity to quote Ryle's quip, on being elected Waynflete Professor of Metaphysics, that a chair in metaphysics is like a chair in tropical diseases — doesn't mean you're supposed to be in favor of it. — Srap Tasmaner

:lol:

There is no absolute space and time, so no, we don't live there. — frank

You and I see things differently. I doubt there's any middle ground in our views.

I think that means you're wrong. :nerd:

I think that means you're wrong. — frank

I'm not surprised at your conclusion.

I do. I marvel all the time. — T Clark

But just not at the metaphysics of being apparently. So why hang around these threads to tell folk that?

It’s not like I would join a cake making site or train travel blog to talk about the wonder of an existence that is founded on its own dialectical necessity. We reject the mechanical only to find the mechanical is what then must be recovered in the quantum limit of that rejection. We reject the global to embrace the local only to find the global is what then must be recovered in the relativistic limit of that rejection.

It is fine to carve out your own domains of expertise and interest. But once you go looking for a place where you can assert a stance of lumpen realism - an anti-metaphysics agenda - then you are now engaging in the very thing you claim to be rejecting.

Sense the pattern? Like a moth to a flame, you are being drawn to a dialectic where you might recover lumpen realism in the limit of everyday, unphilosophical, mundanity.

The logic of the dialectic is so strong, nothing escapes it. The desire to reject metaphysics is itself what must manifest metaphysics as the “other” which has been placed at the greatest possible distance.

A lack of gee whiz is the blunting which then defines what is antithetically the sharp.

You are caught in the web of denying there is a web to be caught in.

Actually (objectivity) does require we all see the same thing... — Darkneos

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.

For me, metaphysics should be applied piecemeal. It's a tool to help with thinking and understanding - a tool box. When you're doing reductionist science, maybe pull out the materialism and realism. When it's math, pull out the idealism. When you're trying to see how it all fits together, you might need holism or even mysticism. — T Clark

Interesting (I guess 'analytical') approach. :chin:

The desire to reject metaphysics is itself what must manifest metaphysics as the “other” which has been placed at the greatest possible distance. — apokrisis

No doubt true of cataphatic "anti-metaphysics".

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.

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.

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 just not at the metaphysics of being apparently. So why hang around these threads to tell folk that? — apokrisis

It's the world that's wonderful. I love metaphysics, but I see that it's just a bunch of stories people have made up to explain it to themselves. We get to choose the one that works best right now and right here. Why shouldn't I tell people how I see it.

The logic of the dialectic is so strong, nothing escapes it. The desire to reject metaphysics is itself what must manifest metaphysics as the “other” which has been placed at the greatest possible distance. — apokrisis

I don't reject metaphysics at all. Along with epistemology it's the part of philosophy that interests me the most. As I've noted elsewhere, it represents the essence of intellectual self-awareness. I've said it dozens of times here on the forum - metaphysical claims have no truth value.