As opposed to what? A world at thermodynamic equilibrium? — SophistiCat
Yes. Since there are more ways to be high entropy than low entropy we should have more worlds with high entropy than low. So why are we in a low entropy world if it is very statistically unlikely?
Some version of the past hypothesis, right? But then seeing a world where the past hypothesis is true is vanishingly unlikely, even if it occurs with probability 1, according to MWI derivations of the Born Rule. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It seems to me that either low probability events should always be surprising and make us ask questions or they never should, not a too cute mix of both. Just bite the bullet and say the Born Rule is meaningless, a total illusion, in that case. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I am surprised that you went for this explanation, given what you said above about frequentist explanations. This is a textbook case where statistics does not apply because it simply does not exist.
Your reasoning applies to an ergodic system that has been evolving for a long time, or an equivalent ensemble. But the early universe is nothing like that. If there is no explanation for the past hypothesis (we don't have a good theory of the universe's origin), then it makes no sense to talk about how likely or unlikely it is, because the universe was and still is far from ergodic, it hadn't been evolving for a long time (ex hypothesi), and we don't have an ensemble (unless some kind of a multiverse theory is true, but that is still very speculative, so we can't take it as given).
we lack for vocabulary since ‘measurement’ and ‘physics’ are both human undertakings and apparently cannot be used for interactions not involving humans.
What do you call the actual mechanisms of the universe, as opposed to ‘physics’, the human undertaking to describe it? What would you call an interaction between systems of which humans are completely unaware, say where one system (some radioactive atom) emits an alpha particle which alters a second system (some molecule somewhere) by altering its molecular structure (and probably heating up the material of which the molecule is part). It isn’t a measurement because there’s no intent and no numerical result yielded, so what word describes this exchange between the atom and the molecule? — noAxioms
The definition of counter-factual definiteness I provided was generated by ChatGPT. Granted, ChatGPT is no all-knowing oracle, but I felt it to be a reasonable summary.Given your definitions... — noAxioms
Alternatively, you perhaps suggest an epistemological definition of counter-factual definiteness, where in the absence of human measurement/observation, humans would not know of the thing, and existence is defined by human knowledge of it. Hence, again, by definition, nothing can exist in the absence of humans since no human could know of it. Counter-factual definiteness is therefore false either way.
Correct me where I’ve misinterpreted what you’ve been trying to tell me. — noAxioms
Then the measurement takes place and a "collapse" occurs giving a particular solution. Did the measurement "do something" to the system, or does one simply experiment to find the appropriate value of the constant? Where is the magic? — jgill
No, I’m asking for vocabulary that you would accept in describing parts of the world that are not in a laboratory or anywhere else where attention is being paid by some human.You’re asking for a description of the world that is not described by physics. — Wayfarer
I found it quite reasonable. I wasn’t speaking of that, I was speaking of your definition of ‘measurement’, ‘physics’ and such, all those words that you refuse to apply to a case where a human isn’t involved.Given your definitions...
— noAxioms
The definition of counter-factual definiteness I provided was generated by ChatGPT. Granted, ChatGPT is no all-knowing oracle, but I felt it to be a reasonable summary.
There are valid interpretations that hold to the principle. It has never been falsified, but of course neither has it been proven.Counter-factual definiteness is therefore false either way.
This statement contradicts your assertion that the word ‘physics’ implies a human endeavor and thus cannot ‘obtain independently of any observer’. It seems that you use the word that way, but refuse to let me do it.From a naturalistic perspective, it is perfectly sound to presume that the laws and objects of physics obtain independently of any observer
There is undeniably an element of idealism in a relational view. I might find a copy of this worth reading, but cannot accept anything where the operation of the universe is different for humans than it is for anything else. I doubt it goes there.One of the text books I've been consulting on this is Nature Loves to Hide, Shimon Malin. He advocates an idealist interpretation which he says is consistent with Western philosophy (unlike the other authors on this subject who appeal to Eastern philosophy. You can find a profile of Malin here).
I think that’s what all the interpretations try to explain, or ‘explain away’ if you happen to disapprove of the way it was explained.The act of observation is not described by the equations but appears central to the outcome. That is what the many-worlds interpretation seeks to explain away.
Kindly give examples of each so I get a clue as to what you’re attempting to convey. The second one seems pretty obvious. The stop sign appears red from the front, but from the rear (a different point of view) it isn’t. From a realist position, the stop sign is not different due only to this difference of perspective, but it appears different. I don’t know what you mean by the first one, a different perspective that isn’t a different point of view, hence my request for an example. OK, I think maybe the apple thing below is such an example, but unclear if it illustrates point 1 or 2.1) The world appears different to us, depending on the perspective we take.
2) The world is different from different points of view. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, maybe I’m confusing your usage of both, and my stop sign example was a difference of perspective, in which case I need an example of a different PoV that isn’t a different perspective. Point of view usually means appearance from some specific location in space, but you seem to be using the term differently.The former is realist, as assuming a true way that things are, independent of the various perspectives.
You seem to be attempting to mix theories of two very different things. Relativity theory isn’t different depending on one’s realism stance on quantum theory and works pretty much the same either way.And the problem is that to apply relativity theory, and make it work for us, we need to assume the latter. Since that position is adopted for the purpose of applying relativity theory, we cannot make the results derived from the application of relativity theory compatible with the realist assumption of a real independent world.
OK, but it wasn’t what I was talking about. Is there a point then? The apple is open to different descriptions. I don’t disagree with any of it, but it’s all still just descriptions. The actual physical system isn’t any different due to your choice of description, unless I suppose if you’re proposing some sort of reality that supervenes on language. Anyway, is this what you mean by ‘different point of view’?Consider "an apple hanging from a tree". That's one way of describing the scenario, it's a static scenario, though "hanging" is still a verb. But we could also describe it as a whole bunch of different molecules with atoms interacting, and the gravity of the earth interacting with the massive molecules, putting immense force on the stem, until with ripeness, the atomic and molecular interactions change considerably, and the apple falls.
Notice, the former is a very simple description, as a static state, it takes no account of the passing of time, except for the word "hanging". The latter description makes an attempt to account for the effects of time passing, by describing the scenario in terms of activity.
This is what I am talking about.
No. A system in isolation will remain in superposition indefinitely, so it isn’t time that ‘does something’.This question is answered with "the passing of time".
There’s no violation. MWI essentially posits exactly that: that the wave function evolves deterministically and there is no collapse, and no contradiction.The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states.
— ”Wiki: Measurement problem
This "deterministic" evolution of the wave function is completely a feature of the type of description employed. It is described so as to be deterministic, when in reality, this description, the "superposition of different states", violates the law of noncontradiction, showing that this deterministic description is actually very faulty.
Marbles in a jar is a classical system, and yes, the count of them is fixed before they’ve been counted. At the quantum level, which is what Bell was talking about, these things are not necessarily true.I discussed this principle in another thread with a number of participants. Suppose there is a jar with marbles in it. The marbles can be counted and this will determine the quantity. The others argued that the quantity is already determined, prior to the counting. The quantity is a "pre-existing property".
If I said that, it would be faulty, yes. You should include my quote then.You were arguing that "here" constitutes a frame. If you still can't admit to the fault in this, I really don't see the point to continuing.
No coordinate system was specified, so one isn’t necessary when specifying a metric as I did, one relative to which the velocity of anything can be expressed, despite the lack of coordinates.And "metric" doesn't imply "coordinate system" to you, in this context, such that a coordinate system is a logical necessity for a metric?
I’m asking for vocabulary that you would accept in describing parts of the world that are not in a laboratory or anywhere else where attention is being paid by some human. — noAxioms
From a naturalistic perspective, it is perfectly sound to presume that the laws and objects of physics obtain independently of any observer - Wayfarer
This statement contradicts your assertion that the word ‘physics’ implies a human endeavor and thus cannot ‘obtain independently of any observer’. It seems that you use the word that way, but refuse to let me do it. — noAxioms
I...cannot accept anything where the operation of the universe is different for humans than it is for anything else. — noAxioms
https://mateusaraujo.info/2021/03/12/why-i-am-unhappy-about-all-derivations-of-the-born-rule-including-mine/
I don't have these same concerns, but I think it is important than many proponents of MWI do list similar concerns about other theories in quantum foundations. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If the physics in question is reversible, why do we posit a splitting universe instead of a merging one, aside from the fact that having it split in both directions (forwards and backwards in time) is incoherent?
Perhaps whenever we make a measurement we merge universes, such that we progress by such merges to one of many potential end points, final conditions, of the universe, assuming ad hoc that it has an end? This might work, but it blows up the rational-agent based derivations of the Born Rule. Rational agent models are not reversible, we don't say, "given what I observe now, what must have happened in the future, what endpoint must I be most likely to be converging on?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. However, actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution of the wave function is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution
— ”Wiki: Measurement problem
...
There are an infinite number of solutions depending upon that constant (measurement) - a superposition. Then the measurement takes place and a "collapse" occurs giving a particular solution. Did the measurement "do something" to the system, or does one simply experiment to find the appropriate value of the constant? Where is the magic? — jgill
No, I’m asking for vocabulary that you would accept in describing parts of the world that are not in a laboratory or anywhere else where attention is being paid by some human. — noAxioms
OK, maybe I’m confusing your usage of both, and my stop sign example was a difference of perspective, in which case I need an example of a different PoV that isn’t a different perspective. Point of view usually means appearance from some specific location in space, but you seem to be using the term differently.
None of this seems to have anything to do with relativity theory. — noAxioms
Relativity theory isn’t different depending on one’s realism stance on quantum theory and works pretty much the same either way. — noAxioms
The actual physical system isn’t any different due to your choice of description... — noAxioms
Marbles in a jar is a classical system, and yes, the count of them is fixed before they’ve been counted. At the quantum level, which is what Bell was talking about, these things are not necessarily true. — noAxioms
It is a matter of vocabulary. You denied my saying that the moon existed relative to a rock because I used words you feel can only be used for human intentful actions. I cannot discuss a metaphysical view that isn’t based on human intent.And I'm saying, it's not a matter of vocabulary. — Wayfarer
I mostly agree with that. But firstly, naturalism does not necessarily imply objective realism even though most of the time it does. Your comment was worded using the language of realism.What I'm arguing is that naturalism presumes that the world would exist, just as it appears to us, even without there being an observer and for pragmatic purposes, it is a sound assumption.
I don’t see how it does anymore than say Newtonian physics which equally wasn’t different when human intent or observation was involved than when not.But quantum physics challenges that assumption.
Yes, but that’s pretty easy. It gets tricky (not impossible) when you attempt a truly mind-independent description of reality, but I suppose you would deny it being possible by the anthropocentric restrictions you place on vocabulary, where any description made by something not human is by definition not a description, even when discussing non-anthropocentric metaphysics.You still require that we can arrive at a description of a truly mind-independent reality.
What is ‘true realism’ as distinct from realism? Does it mean something more significant than ‘my personal opinion’?It isn't the case that relativity theory is different depending on one's realism stance, but it is the case that a true realism cannot be maintained in the application of relativity theory — Metaphysician Undercover
I didn’t say any such thing. For instance, I described a stop sign, all without either of us observing it. Had you never seen a stop sign, perhaps the description would have needed to be more thorough, but no reason it cannot be done.Take what you said above for example. Axiom: to be described requires that the thing described be observed.
Both correct, but not equally. The physics of a rotating accelerating frame is not the same as a different kind of frame, so they’re not equal. The frames are abstractions. The abstractions are different (not equal), but both refer to the exact same reality, so they’re not wrong in that sense.[Galileo's i] point was to show that the orbits of the planets could equally be represented by the geocentric model, or the heliocentric model. By relativity theory each model is equally correct
That one abstract system describes my baguette as about 61 cm and another as about 2 feet is not a contradiction, just a different abstraction. I think the physics community would have noticed by now if there were contradictions between different abstractions of the exact same thing.That each representation, or description, is equally correct, and they are contradictory to each other, is the reason why relativity is not consistent with realism.
It seems a form of reality supervening on models instead of the other way around. The baguette is skinny and long. The baguette is circular. Both are equally valid. Something like that.Are you familiar with "model-dependent realism".
But the baguette being circular and skinny-long are not wrong descriptions, but neither are they complete. Neither fully describes the thing. Models are inherently simplifications. I’m not sure how model-dependent reality deals with that part.There is no axiom which allows us to say that the physical system is different from what is described, because that would imply that the description is wrong.
Right. It was fixed, but then before they were counted, somebody goes and adds a handful more. It has changed, so it was a mistake to say the first time that it was fixed. Where’s the controversy? The actual number of marbles in the jar has nothing to do with somebody’s knowledge of the count. The latter is epistemology, and the judgement only serves epistemology. Watching it doesn’t make it stay fixed or not. Watching it only makes it somewhat more likely that the watcher knows if the number is changing or not, all of which is irrelevant to the actual count. Point still is, it’s a classical system that does not exhibit quantum behavior. None of your comment seem to suggest otherwise.Think about this. If the number is fixed, prior to the count, then it is necessary that nothing changes in the meantime, the time between the fixing and the count. If it is even possible that something could change, then we cannot say that the number is fixed.
It does not matter what is counted. What matters is how many marbles are in there. I’m discussing metaphysics, not acquisition of information. The number is what it is, and if by some means marbles are added or removed, then that number changes. At no point is the jar in superposition of having different numbers in it. That’s why it’s a classical system.But what if we do not apprehend all the possible ways, and there's other ways, what a physicalist might call "magic" or something like that. The proper conclusion therefore, is to recognize that the number is not actually fixed prior to the count
I never denied that marbles can be added or removed. There’s no particularly logical necessity that such changes can’t happen. It happens frequently to a typical cookie jar.because there is always some logically possible way that it could change in the meantime.
All measurements of anything physically affect the thing measured.Does this measurement physically affect a photon on its way to the far screen? — jgill
The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide as well as a powerful explanatory framework in certain specific situations. However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impressions that uncertainly only arises when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. ...Since the wave is uniformly spread throughout space, there is no way for us to say the electron is here or there. ...And this conclusion does not depend on our disturbing the particle. We never touched it. Instead it relies on a basic feature of waves - they can be spread out. — Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos
You denied my saying that the moon existed relative to a rock because I used words you feel can only be used for human intentful actions. — noAxioms
and I disputed the idea that rock measures anything, and also that the expression that 'the moon exists to the rock' is meaningless. //Both 'measurement' and 'existing for' imply intentionality, which both the moon and the rock are devoid of. Why they're devoid of intentionality is not a matter of vocabulary but of metaphysics (or more specifically of ontology).A rock measures the moon as much as I do, and so the moon exists to the rock.
But firstly, naturalism does not necessarily imply objective realism even though most of the time it does. — noAxioms
For instance, I described a stop sign, all without either of us observing it. — noAxioms
It seems a form of reality supervening on models instead of the other way around. The baguette is skinny and long. The baguette is circular. Both are equally valid. Something like that. — noAxioms
But the baguette being circular and skinny-long are not wrong descriptions, but neither are they complete. Neither fully describes the thing. — noAxioms
It was fixed, but then before they were counted, somebody goes and adds a handful more. — noAxioms
It does not matter what is counted. What matters is how many marbles are in there. — noAxioms
Only because you will not accept how I mean the words. I say ‘measurement’, I mean that to which the ‘measurement problem’ refers. If you think that means human intended action with a numeric result, then you don’t know quantum theory at all.It's not the words you used, but their meaning, which I'm disputing. — Wayfarer
Yea, because you insist on using your human-intent definition of the word. Being unable to get around that, I asked for a different word to describe the interaction between the moon and rock, but none was offered. ‘Interaction’ seems reasonable, and I’ve tried to use that since. Hence:What you actually said was
A rock measures the moon as much as I do, and so the moon exists to the rock.
and I disputed the idea that rock measures anything
despite my defining its meaning. The whole relational ontology is based on it, instead of being based on realism.and also that the expression that 'the moon exists to the rock' is meaningless
There you go again, insisting on using your definitions of those words. Hence my request for alternate vocabulary since existence supervening on intentionality is not what I’m trying to convey.Both 'measurement' and 'existing for' imply intentionality, which both the moon and the rock are devoid of.
Nonsense. Objectivity is the touchstone for realism. Naturalism is just not-supernaturalism. No woo. One can be a realist but not a naturalist, or one can be a naturalist but not a realist, such as the relational view.But firstly, naturalism does not necessarily imply objective realism even though most of the time it does.
— noAxioms
It certainly does. Objectivity is the touchstone for naturalism
Wow, something I agree with. Good thing I didn’t specify a particular stop sign. You said “Axiom: to be described requires that the thing described be observed“. That statement didn’t mention that the axiom only applies to particular things. I also question the statement since ‘observed’ is not defined. You tend to take the common definitions of words (at least when it suits your purpose), which would imply that a blind man couldn’t possibly describe anything particular since he cannot observe.For instance, I described a stop sign, all without either of us observing it.
— noAxioms
To describe a type of thing, a stop sign for example, is not the same as describing a particular thing, like a particular stop sign. — Metaphysician Undercover
I know Bell’s point, but the marble thing is classical and thus doesn’t illustrate the point at all.You are not grasping the point which Bell is making.
That’s a pretty idealistic statement. Not being one, I deny this. Knowledge of the count has nothing to do with how many marbles are in there. It’s not a wave function that is yet to collapse. Perhaps you mean a mental concept of a number, but for that, no measurement is necessary. A number can be assigned without consulting the jar. The number is then fixed, regardless of the number chosen.The number is not fixed, because no one has determined the quantity.
Correlates to what?If they are not counted there is no number which correlates.
I asked for a different word to describe the interaction between the moon and rock, but none was offered. ‘Interaction’ seems reasonable, and I’ve tried to use that since. Hence:
The rock interacts (a one-way interaction) with the moon as much as I do, and so the moon exists to the rock. — noAxioms
Good thing I didn’t specify a particular stop sign. — noAxioms
I know Bell’s point, but the marble thing is classical and thus doesn’t illustrate the point at all. — noAxioms
That’s a pretty idealistic statement. Not being one, I deny this. — noAxioms
What I'm arguing is that there is no existence without mind and that the nature of the universe outside any mind is unintelligible and unknowable. That's why I keep referring to the book Mind and the Cosmic Order, which is not a philosophy book, but a book about neural modelling — Wayfarer
But to stretch this to imply "there is no existence without mind" seems a tad sketchy. — jgill
Suppose, instead, that there is a measurement at the slits
— Andrew M
Does this measurement physically affect a photon on its way to the far screen? — jgill
For single photons, the double-slit interference pattern can be made to disappear by using a marker.
...
The which-path marker consists of two, mutually perpendicular, polarizing filters.
...
When either the vertical or the horizontal filter covers both slits, the double-slit interference pattern is preserved, albeit at a reduced intensity compared to no filter. When the vertical filter covers one slit and the horizontal filter covers the other, the double-slit pattern disappears completely. Two superimposed single-slit patterns are all that remain. This new arrangement changes the setup into a which-path experiment in the sense that it is now (in principle) possible to know which slit the photon passed through; this destroys the quantum interference.
Introducing a third polarizing filter, the quantum eraser, between the marker and the detector thwarts the which-path experiment if it is oriented 45° with respect to the marker filters. Every photon reaching the detector is now polarized in the direction of the third polarizer and it is no longer possible to know which slit each photon passes through; as a result, the interference phenomenon is restored. — Young's double-slit experiment with single photons and quantum eraser - Rueckner, Peidle
I gave no such definition. Just for example, one mass might be larger than the other. That’s a relation that isn’t gravity related. It’s also not the relation of which I speak, which is one about A existing relative to B.The relationship between two such masses is defined solely in terms of gravitational attraction. — Wayfarer
The way sentience affects the interaction of things is irrelevant to an ontology not based on sentience. The analogy is spot on if you would just stop interjecting assumptions from different views. I’m really surprised that you can’t do that, let go of your biases for a moment to consider a different view. You can’t falsify it if you presume alternate views to do the falsification.The way sentient beings interact with the moon is through the mind and the senses, which rocks don't possess. So it's not a valid analogy.
Not in a view that doesn’t define existence based on epistemology. This is exactly what I mean about your inability to set aside this bias long enough to consider something that doesn’t assume this.What I'm arguing is that there is no existence without mind
I said no such thing. That’s realism, a valid view in itself even if it contradicts your biases. But I’m not talking about that view either, and I didn’t suggest that there is a universe that would exist even if there was no mind at all to behold it. And yes, we’re going in circles because almost all my responses are pointing out where you put in your assumptions in a view that doesn’t posit them, or you insisting on realist assumptions in a view that isn’t realist.If we're going around in circles, it's because you continue to insist that, no, there is a universe that would exist, even if there was no mind at all to behold it.
You mean most people agree with realism. But I’m describing something else. Realism seems to have problems, but not the problems you see which is only an incompatibility with your views.And I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to believe, in fact most people would agree with you.
That’s fine. I’ve never asked you to agree with anything, realism or otherwise. I don’t think you’ve shot down realism since various realist interpretations (MWI, the subject of this topic, being one of them) are still considered valid interpretations by the physics community.However, I don't agree with it, for the reasons I have been stating.
If you think I described a particular stop sign, then surely you can inform me which one was specified.Good thing I didn’t specify a particular stop sign.
— noAxioms
In your question you asked about describing "parts of the world". This implies particular stop signs. — Metaphysician Undercover
I’m not anti-idealist, but the premises of idealism shouldn’t be asserted when discussing a non-idealistic view.It appears like your anti-idealist attitude is making it difficult for you to understand the nature of the act of measurement.
You did not answer my question about this, and it’s important. Correlates to what?If they are not counted there is no number which correlates. — Metaphysician Undercover
If you think I described a particular stop sign, then surely you can inform me which one was specified.
The sign thing was simply my attempt to figure out how you distinguish ‘perspective’ from ‘point of view’, something you’ve not clarified. — noAxioms
You did not answer my question about this, and it’s important. Correlates to what? — noAxioms
set aside this bias... — noAxioms
The way sentience affects the interaction of things is irrelevant to an ontology not based on sentience. — noAxioms
It's a bias if you apply the assumptions of that view to all other view.My trying to explain a philosophical view to you is not 'bias'. — Wayfarer
I didn't see that either of us was trying to distinguish 'perspective' from 'point of view'. What would be the point of making such a distinction?
You said the following, suggesting two different ways to 'take' relativity, seemingly differing only in the words 'perspective' or 'point of view'. — Metaphysician Undercover
Not knowing how you distinguish those, I don't see the two ways. I think you're speaking of relativity theory, but not sure about that either.We can take "relativity" in two ways. 1) The world appears different to us, depending on the perspective we take. 2) The world is different from different points of view. — Metaphysician Undercover
But you defined the latter as the same as the former. 'How many marbles are in the jar' is a mental quantity in your mind, which tautologically is going to correlate to count, also the mental quantity in your mind, no matter which number you choose. Interaction with the jar (counting) seem unnecessary for this.Correlates to what?
— noAxioms
The number which correlates with the defined parameter. The defined parameter is 'how many marbles are in the jar?' — Metaphysician Undercover
This seems to agree with my assessment just above.The point is that there is no answer to the question of "how many marbles are in the jar?" until someone answers it.
But you defined the latter as the same as the former. 'How many marbles are in the jar' is a mental quantity in your mind, which tautologically is going to correlate to count, also the mental quantity in your mind, no matter which number you choose. Interaction with the jar (counting) seem unnecessary for this. — noAxioms
You seem to suffer from the same problem as Wayfarer, which is insistence on applying the premises and definitions of idealism to falsify a view that isn't idealism, which is a begging fallacy.' — noAxioms
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.