This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” write Ruth Kastner, Stuart Kauffman and Michael Epperson.
Considering potential things to be real is not exactly a new idea, as it was a central aspect of the philosophy of Aristotle, 24 centuries ago. An acorn has the potential to become a tree; a tree has the potential to become a wooden table. — Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities - Tom Siegfried
That shouldn't suggest an "extraspatiotemporal" limbo world where tree potentialities exist and evolve until they are actualized as trees in our "spatiotemporal" world. — Andrew M
As I thought had been established, the interference pattern in the double-slit experiments is independent of time and space (shown by its rate independence), thus indicating an extraspatiotemporal cause. — Wayfarer
Show me a macroscopic entity existing in superposition. — Wayfarer
A piezoelectric "tuning fork" has been constructed, which can be placed into a superposition of vibrating and non-vibrating states. The resonator comprises about 10 trillion atoms. — Quantum superposition - Wikipedia
Researchers have demonstrated a device that can pick up single quanta of mechanical vibration similar to those that shake molecules during chemical reactions, and have shown that the device itself, which is the width of a hair, acts as if it exists in two places at once—a "quantum weirdness" feat that so far had only been observed at the scale of molecules.
"This is a milestone," says Wojciech Zurek, a theorist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. "It confirms what many of us believe, but some continue to resist—that our universe is 'quantum to the core'." — Macro-Weirdness: 'Quantum Microphone' Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once
As to how the day-to-day reality of objects that we observe, such as furniture and fruit, emerges from such a different and exotic quantum world, that remains a mystery. — Macro-Weirdness: Quantum Microphone Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once
Until I get there I do not know. She resides in that mystical state of superposition, being both there and not there. But I have calculated the probability and it has come out .7 in favor of her standing there and .3 her not. — jgill
Very clever experiments but I did notice
"As to how the day-to-day reality of objects that we observe, such as furniture and fruit, emerges from such a different and exotic quantum world, that remains a mystery."
— Macro-Weirdness: Quantum Microphone Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once — Wayfarer
The problem is not the interpretation of quantum mechanics. That’s getting things just backwards. The problem is the interpretation of classical mechanics. — Quantum Mechanics in Your Face - Sidney Coleman (transcript and slides)
Now people say the reduction of the wave packet occurs because it looks like the reduction of the wave packet occurs, and that is indeed true. What I’m asking you in the second main part of this lecture is to consider seriously what it would look like if it were the other way around—if all that ever happened was causal evolution according to quantum mechanics. What I have tried to convince you is that what it looks like is ordinary everyday life. — Quantum Mechanics in Your Face - Sidney Coleman (transcript and slides)
While some might take this and claim Coleman as an Everettian, note that there’s zero mention anywhere of many-worlds. Likely he found that an empty idea that explains nothing, so not worth mentioning. — Peter Woit
Question: You said in passing that you were a follower of Everett.
Coleman: Yeah, but that's a tricky thing to say. That's like saying you're a Christian. I mean, Everett wrote this one truly wonderful paper and then everyone got on their horse and rode off in all directions. The position I'm advocating is a position that, at least in my case, was certainly largely inspired by Everett's paper. Whether it's really Everett's position or not I would prefer not to discuss. — Quantum Mechanics in Your Face - Sidney Coleman (video)
It's not a valid analogy, though. The strangeness of the observer problem in physics is that the act of observation itself is instrumental in determination of the outcome. The proper analogy would be that, prior to you seeing your wife, she didn't exist in any specific location at all, she's not simply in an unknown location. — Wayfarer
That shouldn't suggest an "extraspatiotemporal" limbo world where tree potentialities exist and evolve until they are actualized as trees in our "spatiotemporal" world. Instead the world we inhabit just is where an acorn develops into a tree. — Andrew M
The proper analogy would be that jgill observed interference effects until he and his wife met up and she pointed out that she had been standing there all the time. — Andrew M
But I have calculated the probability and it has come out .7 in favor of her standing there and .3 her not. — jgill
OK, my mistake, since I was envisioning an enumeration of the rationals to prove that there are irrational numbers. But the proof of that is less complicated.Cantor's proof assumes an enumeration of the set of real numbers — Andrew M
How can any enumeration not be ordered?(any enumeration, not just an ordered one)
Maybe. The list of interpretations on wiki says some of the Copenhagen interpretations say this. This implies at least that there’s more than one interpretation using this name. The reference they give on the ‘maybe’ talks about the epistemic view I mentioned, but then:Copenhagen-style interpretations also generally deny a physical collapse. — ”Andrew M”
You know I’m talking about it’s property of motion, in complete absence of a second thing relative to which that motion (or lack of it) is meaningful.A statement about a single body is not completely "meaningless", because we can still state properties of the body itself, and this is meaningful. — Metaphysician Undercover
Non-sequitur. The principle (your chosen wording) seems only to say that there’s no way to tell, not that there cannot be an immobile one.That is, if we take the principle of relativity as our primary premise, and add the observational premise that there are numerous bodies observed to be moving in different ways, we can conclude that noting is immobile.
My chosen wording of the principle makes no mention of ‘at rest’ or ‘stationary’, nor does it make any mention of internal change, so it’s not mine to demonstrate.If you can show me a valid concept of rest, lack of change, which can be maintained consistently along with the principle of relativity as well, I would appreciate the demonstration.
The train example presumes the premises listed. If you deny those premises, then the train example ceases to demonstrate any inconsistencies.Even if we accept locations to be "at rest" relative to each other in an internal way, and deny Einsteinian relativity, these locations are still not at rest in the wider (external) context. And when we start mapping the points which are supposed to be at rest relative to each other, in comparison with external things, we inevitably find minor inconsistencies which cannot be resolved, as demonstrated by Einstein's train example.
You know I’m talking about it’s property of motion, in complete absence of a second thing relative to which that motion (or lack of it) is meaningful. — noAxioms
Non-sequitur. The principle (your chosen wording) seems only to say that there’s no way to tell, not that there cannot be an immobile one. — noAxioms
The train example presumes the premises listed. If you deny those premises, then the train example ceases to demonstrate any inconsistencies.
I always took you for somebody in denial of Einstein’s theory precisely because only in one frame (and not an inertial one either) are all the events in ‘the present’ simultaneous with each other. In all other frames, this is not so, so the laws of physics are different between this and that frame, in violation of the principle. This follows from your assertions, ones with which I do not agree. — noAxioms
The proper analogy would be that jgill observed interference effects until he and his wife met up and she pointed out that she had been standing there all the time.
— Andrew M
So we say that jgill has extremely bad eyes, and all he sees until he's about three metres from his wife is a strange interference pattern? Suppose he's 50 metres away. How would he interpret the interference pattern as probabilities for the actual location of his wife? Consider that if this is a true analogy, the closer that he gets, he ought to be able to observe changes to the interference pattern which would increase his certainty. — Metaphysician Undercover
Wrong, but interesting. :smile: — jgill
"(any enumeration, not just an ordered one)"
How can any enumeration not be ordered? — noAxioms
If collapse isn’t physical and isn’t epistemological, then what is it? — noAxioms
"The dividing line between the system to be observed and the measuring apparatus is immediately defined by the nature of the problem but it obviously signifies no discontinuity of the physical process. For this reason there must, within limits, exist complete freedom in choosing the position of the dividing line." — Heisenberg cut - Wikipedia
Per QM, the system could either be weakly measured (giving some information without destroying the superposition) or strongly measured resulting in rapid decoherence. Alternatively, the system could be transformed such that the probabilities change (including to certainty). — Andrew M
It's the Wigner's friend thought experiment where the system in question (in this case Walmart rather than a laboratory) is isolated from the rest of the environment. — Andrew M
Until Walmart opened its otherwise impervious doors. Contrary to most of the posts you’re getting, it has nothing to do with anybody actually looking at anything, with good or bad eyes.The proper analogy would be that jgill observed interference effects until he and his wife met up and she pointed out that she had been standing there all the time. — Andrew M
That’s just a different ordering, but any ordering can have a counting number assigned to each item in order. It’s still ordered.How can any enumeration not be ordered?
— noAxioms
I meant, "not just in order of smallest number to largest number."
OK, that seems to be a distinction between objective collapse and relational collapse, both of which are physical.If collapse isn’t physical and isn’t epistemological, then what is it?
— noAxioms
Pragmatic. At some point it's necessary to ground a quantum mechanical description in a definite observation or measurement.
A Heisenberg cut is a form of relational expression, that a system on one side of the cut is in some state (as represented by the wave function) relative to the system on the other side of the cut. Yes, the placement of the cut is arbitrary. The cut was first introduced as an epistemic cut (what one system knows about the other) but became a metaphysical one once the interpretation moved away from its epistemic roots.So a Heisenberg cut is employed.
I’m talking about the physics definition of motion, which does not require a human to be around deciding if it’s motion or not, even if it does require a human to have a human saying it’s motion.That something is moving, or in motion, is a human judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover
And yet again, your preferred wording of PoR does exactly that.Therefore it's completely nonsensical to talk about the motion of a thing in the complete absence of a second thing.
I don’t see how that produces that conclusion.Then we add the observational data that there is always at least one body moving relative to any other, and this produces the conclusion that nothing is at rest.
It renders it meaningless, which is different than ‘not true’.The ontological principle "relativity" renders "rest" as not true.
Our measurements of the passing of time are based in the ancient concept of motion within which, we as observers are assumed to be at rest.
Time wasn’t frame dependent back then, so it wasn’t based on any particular designated rest frame.Newton assumed that we ought to continue with "time" based in our rest frame. This is said to be an "absolute time".
The absolute perspective has no dependency on the motion of any observer. Assignment of say Earth as the true rest frame is just arrogance and I’ve never seen a modern absolute interpretation that suggests it. Most of them suggest us moving at variable speed of around 350 km/sec and maybe twice that back when the T-rex was the local scary thing. This can be determined because spacetime isn’t Minkowskian, and the PoR only applies to Minkowskian spacetime.but the "absolute time" perspective clings to our perspective as the true rest frame for producing temporal measurement.
Somehow I’m not surprised. Presentism requires a preferred frame. You don’t know this? Any other frame labels past and future events as simultaneous (ontologically different according to your assertions), which would be a contradiction. So presentism contradicts Einstein’s postulates and his theories along with them.This is really confused. I haven't the foggiest idea of what you're trying to say.
Presentism says that all events in the present are necessarily simultaneous, does it not? Relativity of simultaneity is wrong in that case, something only derived from SR postulates, both of which are wrong under any form of absolute space and time.You seem to be employing the "absolute time" perspective to come up with "the present", yet also using "the relativity of simultaneity" to say that events in the present are not necessarily simultaneous.
I’m talking about the physics definition of motion, which does not require a human to be around deciding if it’s motion or not, even if it does require a human to have a human saying it’s motion. — noAxioms
The absolute perspective has no dependency on the motion of any observer. — noAxioms
Somehow I’m not surprised. Presentism requires a preferred frame. You don’t know this? Any other frame labels past and future events as simultaneous (ontologically different according to your assertions), which would be a contradiction. So presentism contradicts Einstein’s postulates and his theories along with them. — noAxioms
Per QM, the system could either be weakly measured (giving some information without destroying the superposition) or strongly measured resulting in rapid decoherence. Alternatively, the system could be transformed such that the probabilities change (including to certainty).
— Andrew M
Can you elaborate these three, Andrew? What would be the act of a weak measurement? And, how could the probabilities involved with a specific system be changed to certainty without some form of measurement? To me, such a change would require a cause, and the cause would be a matter of "fixing" the system, like cheating if you're a gambler. But if "fixing" was possible then there would be no real mystery unless only the cheaters had figured it out. — Metaphysician Undercover
Allowing that causes of change which come from the inside are very real, and distinct from causes of change which come from the outside, forces the conclusion that systems theory does not provide an adequate representation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Until Walmart opened its otherwise impervious doors. Contrary to most of the posts you’re getting, it has nothing to do with anybody actually looking at anything, with good or bad eyes. — noAxioms
That’s just a different ordering, but any ordering can have a counting number assigned to each item in order. It’s still ordered. — noAxioms
A Heisenberg cut is a form of relational expression, that a system on one side of the cut is in some state (as represented by the wave function) relative to the system on the other side of the cut. Yes, the placement of the cut is arbitrary. The cut was first introduced as an epistemic cut (what one system knows about the other) but became a metaphysical one once the interpretation moved away from its epistemic roots. — noAxioms
Except maybe the measurement dials! — Andrew M
The entire quantum subject would be better served if "observer" were eliminated everywhere and replaced by "measurement". — jgill
The entire quantum subject would be better served if "observer" were eliminated everywhere and replaced by "measurement". — jgill
Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement.
The concepts 'system', 'apparatus', 'environment', immediately imply an artificial division of the world, and an intention to neglect, or take only schematic account of, the interaction across the split. The notions of 'microscopic' and 'macroscopic' defy precise definition. So also do the notions of 'reversible' and 'irreversible'. Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is 'observable'. I think he was right - 'observation' is a complicated and theory-laden business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of fundamental theory. Information? Whose information? Information about what?
On this list of bad words from good books, the worst of all is 'measurement'. It must have a section to itself.
Against 'measurement'
...
The first charge against 'measurement', in the fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics, is that it anchors there the shifty split of the world into 'system' and 'apparatus'. A second charge is that the word comes loaded with meaning from everyday life, meaning which is entirely inappropriate in the quantum context. When it is said that something is 'measured' it is difficult not to think of the result as referring to some pre-existing property of the object in question.
...
In other contexts, physicists have been able to take words from everyday language and use them as technical terms with no great harm done. Take for example, the 'strangeness', 'charm', and 'beauty' of elementary particle physics.
No one is taken in by this 'baby talk', as Bruno Touschek called it. Would that it were so with 'measurement'. But in fact the word has had such a damaging effect on the discussion, that I think it should now be banned altogether in quantum mechanics.
The role of experiment
Even in a low-brow practical account, I think it would be good to replace the word 'measurement', in the formulation, by the word 'experiment'. For the latter word is altogether less misleading. However, the idea that quantum mechanics, our most fundamental physical theory, is exclusively even about the results of experiments would remain disappointing.
In the beginning natural philosophers tried to understand the world around them. Trying to do that they hit upon the great idea of contriving artificially simple situations in which the number of factors involved is reduced to a minimum. Divide and conquer. Experimental science was born. But experiment is a tool. The aim remains: to understand the world. To restrict quantum mechanics to be exclusively about piddling laboratory operations is to betray the great enterprise. A serious formulation will not exclude the big world outside the laboratory. — Against ‘measurement’ - John Bell, 1990
Then the casual physics dilettante could think, Yes, if I aim my flashlight at my keys on the table I don't disturb the keys, but if the keys were quantum size I might disturb them in the act of "observing" them. Just a comment. — jgill
Even looking at the measurement dials has no impact on the collapse or not. Of course, the descriptions you quote give a special role to an observer (writing down the reading of the dial say), but 1, it doesn’t take a human (or actual ‘observation’) to do that, and 2, it being written down isn’t what causes collapse. If the dial says |here>, then the wave function is collapsed whether or not anything (or person) reads that dial since the dial is not inside Walmart.Until Walmart opened its otherwise impervious doors. Contrary to most of the posts you’re getting, it has nothing to do with anybody actually looking at anything, with good or bad eyes.
— noAxioms
Except maybe the measurement dials! — Andrew M
Pretty much agree, but Andrew quotes a text that bashes even this word since it is still so open to common language interpretation, but I still agree and use the word in its proper context. Bell suggests ‘experiment’, but that loads the whole situation with intent that is meaningless. The dial unobserved seems not to be an experiment since nobody is recording what it says.The entire quantum subject would be better served if "observer" were eliminated everywhere and replaced by "measurement". — jgill
Nonsense. You can have measurement without observation such as the dial, reading |here>, but unnoticed by anybody.Can't have one without the other though. — Wayfarer
That’s an epistemological issue, not a metaphysical one. Measurement results a physical fact (in interpretations with physical collapse), and observation results in knowledge of that fact. The far side of the moon is still there when nobody looks at it since looking at it isn’t what makes it there.People often say, well measurement is any form of registration on any instrument, but we would never know that, save by checking.
Well I googled ‘motion definition in physics’ and get a britannica one saying “change with time of the position or orientation of a body.“ which makes no mention of a requirement for observation (human or otherwise) to be involved. You seem to be attempting to worm in the definition of ‘measurement of motion’ or ‘human concept of motion’ or some other obfuscation hiding behind the line between map and territory.I’m talking about the physics definition of motion, which does not require a human to be around deciding if it’s motion or not, even if it does require a human to have a human saying it’s motion.
— noAxioms
You never provided any such definition, but if you think you can provide me with a definition of motion which does not require observation, be my guest, let's see it. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is a difference of position states at two different times. It is still motion even if those two positions are not compared by anything.Do you realize that motion is always a comparison?
That’s a pretty idealistic assertion. Are you one of those people that suggest that nothing happened before humans came along? I think that position can be driven to solipsism, which means motion cannot occur without you specifically to judge that time has passed, and that’s assuming that time is something that passes, something else with which I don’t agree, and which none of the definitions above require.How do you suppose that motion could occur without a human to judge that time has passed?
I wasn’t speaking of measurement. Absolute time has no dependency on its being measured. If it flows, the rate (and direction) at which it does so is entirely independent of anything’s perception or measurement of it. You seem to keep attempting to make everything about your knowledge of something, about the map and not about the territory.The absolute perspective has no dependency on the motion of any observer.
— noAxioms
Yes it does. The measurement of time is dependent on the observer's observations of motion.
Apologies for ragging on every word, but you seem to be going out of your way with the weird suggestions this time. This statement here is no exception. If I’m here now and here later, that seems to be not-moving relative to ‘here’. OK, one might express that as motion at velocity (relative to here) of zero, which is arguably still motion. I would accept that.When motion is relative, the observer is necessarily moving if time is passing.
Again, I’m talking about time, not about how it is measured, so I’ve given no demonstration of my understanding of how time is measured or my lack thereof.You don't seem to understand how time is measured.
The far side of the moon is still there when nobody looks at it since looking at it isn’t what makes it there — noAxioms
Can't have one without the other though. — Wayfarer
I think it's useful since we are observers. At any rate, since our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, there's going to be differences of opinion on the best way to talk about it. — Andrew M
If you do lose your quantum car keys, you can just call your local quantum mechanic. — Andrew M
Who could be anywhere :lol: — Wayfarer
Measurement results a physical fact (in interpretations with physical collapse), and observation results in knowledge of that fact. — noAxioms
What if the purely "mechanical" act of measurement produces a numerical result that goes automatically into a computer file and is never "observed" as it sits there and rots? — jgill
That comment was what made the moon the thing to exist (or not) based on watching it, sort of like the cat became the classic thing in the box.The far side of the moon is still there when nobody looks at it since looking at it isn’t what makes it there
— noAxioms
You do recall the anecdote that Einstein once exclaimed, when walking with one of his friends, 'surely the moon still exists when no-one is looking at it!' — Wayfarer
But I'm not making the assumption you probably think I am. I suspect the principle of counterfactual definiteness (scientific realism) is false. I'm pretty public about that. I take more a relational view.This was in relation to the very assumption you're making
Which is why I'm not such a realist. If I say the moon exists, I mean that I've measured it, which doesn't involve looking or any other conscious function.he said it because of the challenge that quantum mechanics poses to scientific realism.
But that's true classically. A human phenomenon by definition involves a human observation. Quantum collapse doesn't. It involves an interaction between two systems. Andrew M quoted Bohr on this distinction just a few posts above in the part labeled 'Against measurement'.Bohr said 'no elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is observed'.
It was observed in that scenario, so it makes no sense to say it was subsequently not observed. The statement attempts to use the dictionary definition of observation.What if the purely "mechanical" act of measurement produces a numerical result that goes automatically into a computer file and is never "observed" as it sits there and rots? — jgill
You seem to do likewise. Conscious observation plays zero role except epistemic.As I said - through inductive reasoning, we can expect that the measurement is taken, that the data exists on that system unobserved. — Wayfarer
No, that's just an epistemic effect that has nothing to do with whether the result took place or not.But you won't empirically verify that inductive step without observing the result. And isn't this very much at the heart of the whole issue? — Wayfarer
No, not at all. The realist attitude is that these things (objectively?) occur whether or not there is interaction with some other system. It has nothing to do with observation as you seem to be using the word: an action that a human does and a rock doesn't. Being forced to choose, I chose to discard objective realism of this sort, and for this reason.The realist attitude is, well all these processes simply occur, whether we're observing or not.
since the moon had been measured, it cannot suddenly jump into a nonexistent state. It's not a solution to the moon's wave function, or at least not one with a probability of zero to more digits than you can imagine. That's what I mean by the moon still being there when nobody looks at it. The moon has been measured and cannot be unmeasured. — noAxioms
Bell suggests ‘experiment’, but that loads the whole situation with intent that is meaningless. — noAxioms
Well I googled ‘motion definition in physics’ and get a britannica one saying “change with time of the position or orientation of a body.“ which makes no mention of a requirement for observation (human or otherwise) to be involved. — noAxioms
That’s a pretty idealistic assertion. Are you one of those people that suggest that nothing happened before humans came along? — noAxioms
Absolute time has no dependency on its being measured. If it flows, the rate (and direction) at which it does so is entirely independent of anything’s perception or measurement of it. You seem to keep attempting to make everything about your knowledge of something, about the map and not about the territory. — noAxioms
If I’m here now and here later, that seems to be not-moving relative to ‘here’. — noAxioms
Even looking at the measurement dials has no impact on the collapse or not. Of course, the descriptions you quote give a special role to an observer (writing down the reading of the dial say), but 1, it doesn’t take a human (or actual ‘observation’) to do that, and 2, it being written down isn’t what causes collapse. If the dial says |here>, then the wave function is collapsed whether or not anything (or person) reads that dial since the dial is not inside Walmart. — noAxioms
Neville Mott worried way back in 1929 about cloud chambers. He said: “Look, an atom releases an ionizing particle at the center of a cloud chamber in an s-wave. And it makes a straight line track.
Why should it make a straight line track? If I think about an s-wave, it is spherically symmetric. Why do they not get some spherically symmetric random distribution of sprinkles? Why should the track be a straight line? — Quantum Mechanics in Your Face - Sidney Coleman
Having imbibed a bit too much at the local pub he enters a state of superposition, thoroughly confused, an unknowing victim of a partial differential equation. — jgill
Now I will give an argument due to David Albert[21] with respect to Zurek’s question. Zurek asked: “Why do I always have the perception that I have observed a definite outcome?” To answer this question, no cheating: we can’t assume Zurek is some vitalistic spirit loaded with élan vital unobeying the laws of quantum mechanics. We have to say the observer—well I don’t want to make it Zurek, that would be using him without his permission, I’ll make it me, Sidney—has some Hilbert space of states, and some condition in Sidney’s consciousness corresponds to the perception that he has observed a definite outcome, so there is some projection operator on it, the definiteness operator. If you want, we could give it an operational definition: the state where the definiteness operator is +1 is one where a hypothetical polite interrogator asks Sidney: “Have you observed a definite outcome?”, and he says: “Yes”. In the orthogonal states he would say: “No, gee, I was looking someplace else when that sign flashed” or “I forgot” or “Don’t bother me, man, I’m stoned out of my mind” or, you know, any of those things. — Quantum Mechanics in Your Face - Sidney Coleman
That also seems true of say Newtonian theory. Is there some way in which human agency or observation makes a difference in (grounds) QT in a way that it doesn’t in NT? That would be a pretty incredible claim, that physics (and not just human theories/knowledge of physics) is different in the presence of humans than it is in a universe absent them.Nonetheless the observer - or, even better, agent or person - closes the loop in the sense that it is human experience that grounds quantum theory and the quantities that can be measured. — Andrew M
But the converse is not true. It being independent of perception doesn’t necessitate a stance of realism. My ontology has nothing to do with perception, and yet I don’t suggest things ‘are real’ in any objective sense.But I don't think this is what philosophical idealism means - not, at least, as I understand it. This has to do with the nature of the objects of perception. Realism posits that the existence of those objects is independent of our perception or experience. — Wayfarer
For instance, I wouldn’t make statements like that, but a realist would.They exist just so - in the case of the moon for billions of years.
OK, but I’m not claiming idealism as you describe it. That’s about perception as you say.So it is preposterous to claim that they could cease to exist simply because nobody is looking at them. Yet this is what idealism seems to claim.
I don’t think quantum theory suggests idealism. Perhaps there was a suspicion way back then. People were just coming to terms with the new implications, watching all their classical assumptions getting trampled. The conversation by Einstein was part of that realization that the classical assumptions cannot all be correct. Bell went on later to prove that, saying that either realism or locality had to go. I think Einstein would have had a much harder time letting go of locality since all his relativity theory rests on premises that assume it.And I think this was the point of Einstein's rhetorical question. Realism expects that all such objects are really existent, independently of any mind or anyone's perception. That is, after all, the very definition of realism. This is the gist of Einstein's well-known declaration that he 'cannot seriously believe in [the quantum theory] because it cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.'
Don’t think any of that contradicts what I’m saying. Reality itself is neither absolute nor a function of perception, but judgment of it is a function of perception.But an alternative is to acknowledge that the existence of sensable objects is contingent and not absolute. This not to assert that objects exist in any absolute sense, on the one hand, but neither is it to claim that they cease to exist when they're not observed, on the other. It is to acknowledge that judgement concerning the reality of objects is a function of human sensory perception and reason, and that it is therefore not absolute. From the human point of view, all such objects exist - you'd better believe it! - but their existence is contingent and not absolute.
I don’t see how that follows, sorry.I think it teaches us to respect that science is a human undertaking and that it's not a revelation of what is truly the case independently of any observer.
Usage of the word implies that quantum effects only occur when there is intent behind the measurements. There’s no evidence for that and heavy evidence against it. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with intent in scientific experiments. That’s the point after all.It's not meaningless to point out the intent which is inherent within observation, measurement, etc.. And the intent is much more evident with the word "experiment". It's a fundamental fact that experiments are designed, and this points to the theory-laden nature of measurements and observations. — Metaphysician Undercover
Poor example I think since a magnifying glass doesn’t usually qualify as a measurement. They’re used in multiple places in typical laser experiments and they don’t collapse wave functions in them, else the experiments would fail. They’re not detectors, only refractors, and refraction wouldn’t work (wouldn’t bend light) at all if it constituted a measurement.The magnifying glass is the medium between the observer and the thing observed, it's the apparatus.
How very idealistic of you. See Wayfarer’s post above about if perception is required for the reality of something.I told you, time requires observation, it is the outcome of observation.
But I wasn’t asking about descriptions. You say time requires observation. You didn’t say a description of time requires observation. I’d have agreed to that. So you’re evading the question instead by answering a different one.I think there was no descriptions derived from human observations (of which "motion" is one), before humans came along.
The origin of the coordinate system defined by the series of events at which I am present.First, what the hell does "here" refer to?
Don’t be silly. You know it does. It is the location of that which said ‘here’.The term gives no positional reference.
But you said that being stationary was not possible, so you seem to exclude the possibility that you didn’t go anywhere during that interval. And as for my statement, had I indeed flown all around during that interval, at no time would I not be where I am, thus I’d always still be ‘here’. I’d simply not be inertial, so the coordinate system in which I am perpetually at the origin would not be an inertial coordinate system.there's nothing to exclude the possibility that you flew around the whole universe in the meantime.
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.