I appreciate your insight, thanks!

Response shifted from here.

↪Gnomon
Generally :up: but watch out for the tendency to reify, 'make into a thing'.
— Wayfarer
Thanks. You have warned me about "reification" before*1. But it seems that most Philosophy-versus- Science arguments, going back to Plato's Idealism, hinge on the Reality (plausibility ; utility ; significance) of abstractions. Are Mathematics and Metaphysics "real" or "ideal"? Regardless of how you categorize them, Ideal or Abstract non-things are very important for philosophical discussions, no?.

Is the Aether, postulated by physicists to explain such ideas as "vacuum energy" real or ideal? Here's what I said about that : "I argue that the metaphysical Aether is immaterial, just like the hypothetical Quantum Vacuum and the Universal Quantum Field. It's not physical or spiritual, but mathematical (statistical) and mental (logical). If Math & Mind are real, so is the statistical sphere of Probability & Potential.". Is "immaterial" the same as non-thing & unreal? Is Math a real thing, or an abstraction in a human mind? Is the Quantum Field*2 a perceivable real thing, or an abstract human concept?

I didn't claim that Aether is an actual physical thing, as some physicists seem to imply*2. Instead, I'm saying that it is the Potential for causal Energy ; which is the Potential for actual Matter*3. So, the philosophical question here seems to be : is Potential to Actual*4 the same as Reification". It seems to "make nothing into a thing". :smile:


*1. Reification means to treat something abstract as if it were a physical thing. For example, you might reify an abstract concept like fear, happiness, or evil.
The process of turning human concepts, actions, processes, relations, and properties into tangible things
___Google AI overview

*2. According to current scientific understanding, quantum fields are considered to be real, existing throughout space and acting as the fundamental building blocks of the universe, with experimental evidence supporting their existence and effects; although they are a theoretical construct, they provide incredibly accurate predictions about the behavior of particles and are considered the best explanation for our physical reality at the subatomic level.
___Google AI overview
Note --- Is "considered to be real" a fact or a belief? Is a "theoretical construct" a real thing, or a reification?

*3. Yes, "energy is potential for matter" means that energy represents the capacity to do work or cause change in matter, essentially acting as a stored potential that can be released to create movement or transformations within matter; this is often described as potential energy, which is energy stored due to an object's position or state, ready to be converted into kinetic energy (motion) when conditions change.
___Google AI overview

*4. In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity of something to develop into a specific state or perform a specific function, while actuality is the realization of that capacity. These concepts are central to understanding change and reality, and helped Aristotle explain how things can change while maintaining their identity.
___Google AI overview — Gnomon

///

Regardless of how you categorize them, Ideal or Abstract non-things are very important for philosophical discussions, no?. — Gnomon

The specific point at issue was the idea that while the wavefunction predicts probabilities, it seems a 'wave without a medium' - to which you mused whether that might be 'aether' of yore. But again, the epistemological interpretations don't posit that the wavefunction is physically real, but a wave-like pattern of likelihoods. The question as to what is the medium then doesn't arise. Isn't that what bothers the realists, like Hawking and Einstein? The fact that the theory can't say what is 'really there'?

is Potential to Actual*4 the same as Reification". It seems to "make nothing into a thing". — Gnomon

My hazy understanding is that the observation or measurement process 'makes manifest' what was previously indeterminate. The issue being, if you ask the question, 'what do you mean "indeterminate"?' then it's an impossible question to answer, as to identify it is to make a determination! (as per above).

In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity of something to develop into a specific state or perform a specific function, while actuality is the realization of that capacity. — Gnomon

I think I've mentioned this article before about how Heisenberg incorporates Aristotle's 'potentia'. (But then, Heisenberg was the most 'Platonist' of the quantum pioneers, he was known to carry around a copy of the Timeaus at University. I posted a copy of one of his talks on Platonism 'The Debate between Plato and Democritus'.)

The issue with reification is a subtle one, but it has to do with the shift to 'objective consciousness' that occured in the transition to the modern period. Perhaps look at this post from another thread.

I think the 'vaccum energy' is something quite different from the wave function and that it is physical, although here are the leading edge of physics there are very difficult questions about whether and in what sense fields are physical. I suppose the answer is, we know they're physical because we have instruments that measure their effects on mattter. (But a question I sometimes ask is, what if there are fields other than electromagnetic, like Sheldrake's Morphic Fields? Many unanswered questions lurk.)

From Wiki:

Conceptually, the Schrödinger equation is the quantum counterpart of Newton's second law in classical mechanics. Given a set of known initial conditions, Newton's second law makes a mathematical prediction as to what path a given physical system will take over time. The Schrödinger equation gives the evolution over time of the wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system.

I have mentioned before that fundamentally the S. equation reduces to a simple calculus concept: the instantaneous change in a thing is proportional to the amount of that thing at that time. Think of continuous compounding of interest in the financial realm. Nothing magical.

I have mentioned before that fundamentally the S. equation reduces to a simple calculus concept: the instantaneous change in a thing is proportional to the amount of that thing at that time. Think of continuous compounding of interest in the financial realm. Nothing magical. — jgill

The challenge for scientific realism is the concept of superposition, what exactly is involved in measurement and why the act of measurement appears to change the super-posed wave/object into a definite thing. That was why Schrodinger came up with his infamous cat thought-experiment, so as to try to drive home the apparent absurdity. It might not be magic, but it ain't billiards either.

The challenge for scientific realism is the concept of superposition — Wayfarer

Wiki:

Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that states that linear combinations of solutions to the Schrödinger equation are also solutions of the Schrödinger equation. This follows from the fact that the Schrödinger equation is a linear differential equation in time and position. More precisely, the state of a system is given by a linear combination of all the eigenfunctions of the Schrödinger equation governing that system.

I'm not a physicist, merely an old mathematician who prefers this definition. So I don't see the magic.

I'm not a physicist, I merely have an interest in philosophy, but it's common knowledge that 'the measurement problem' and the ontological status of the wavefunction are philosophical conundrums posed by the physics. Of course it is true you're not obliged to find that interesting.

Of course it is true you're not obliged to find that interesting. — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, I will be long gone when they sort this out. You may be around :cool:

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Yes. The calculation is intentionally deterministic, but when scientists observe (measure) what actually happens, it doesn't make sense*1. Measurement is an attempt to make observations consistent with our expectations. Schrodinger's half-dead Cat is an illustration of the problem of how to interpret the results of calculations that don't conform to our deterministic prejudices.

Newtonian mechanics presumed a divinely-designed deterministic world. But Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix". So the question arises : is that exception to the deterministic rules due to the vagaries of Nature, or to deficiencies in the Observer, or to whims of the Designer/Programmer? Schrodinger inferred that the "deficiency"*2 was in the Materialistic/Deterministic presumptions of their scientific methods. :smile:


*1."In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic."
___Google AI overview

*2. "I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity."
___Erwin Schrodinger

Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix" — Gnomon

Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix" — Gnomon

Did scientists "catch god with his pants down", or are they too far from the measured "forest" (quantum field) to clearly see the statistical "trees" (fluid/solid wavicles)? Unlike yes/no mathematics, probabilistic Statistics must be interpreted in a specific context, and from a personal perspective. Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science. :smile:


"Statistics topics are often discussed in math classes or taught within a math department. However, statistics arguably is not a branch of mathematics. It is a mathematical science, built upon the mathematical discipline of probability. . . . . Statistics is not meaningful without context though mathematics generally is."
https://www.usu.edu/math/schneit/StatsStuff/Home/isStatsMath.html

"A philosophical interpretation is the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(philosophy)

"Does probability measure the real, physical, tendency of something to occur, or is it a measure of how strongly one believes it will occur, or does it draw on both these elements?" ___Wikipedia
Note --- Probability is not deterministic computation, but stochastic guessing. Not true/false, but 50/50.

Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science. — Gnomon

It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer. Understanding what the mathematical concepts mean at root takes quite a lot of effort and study, and I fear most philosophers want to give their philosophical take on quantum physics without having done the prerequisite work of actually understanding the physics.

It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer.

It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer — flannel jesus

:up:

"Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science." — Gnomon

It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer. Understanding what the mathematical concepts mean at root takes quite a lot of effort and study, and I fear most philosophers want to give their philosophical take on quantum physics without having done the prerequisite work of actually understanding the physics.
It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer. — flannel jesus

Who, then, do you trust to answer "philosophical questions" of meaning? Feynman gave-up on trying to understand quantum reality in non-mathematical terms : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, unlike most American scientists, the European pioneers of quantum physics were trained in both Science and Philosophy*1.

So, many philosophers today yield to the published opinions of the pioneers on the interpretation of quantum math into human meaning. Unfortunately, we Ordinary Language amateurs have to accept some ambiguity of understanding. Does Schrodinger's equation*2 mean anything to you? Fortunately, there are a few philosophically inclined physicists today, such as Paul Davies, that we can trust to interpret the math into words that forum posters can understand.

Materialistic philosophers typically have trust issues on metaphysical questions. So perhaps they shouldn't get involved in philosophy forum discussions of Quantum Physics, which is inherently immaterial and metaphysical*3. It's true that most philosophers, especially forum amateurs, are not equipped to answer . . . . in mathematical terms. Fortunately few do. So what's your point? :smile:


*1. Heisenberg later stated that "My mind was formed by studying philosophy, Plato and that sort of thing" and that "Modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Note --- Is his "prerequisite work" good enough for you?
The interpretations of Ordinary Language philosophers may be somewhat less ambiguous than those of laymen; but they are always debatable, especially on internet forums.

*2. Schrödinger's equation in mathematical symbols is written as: "Hψ = iħ ∂ψ/∂t"
Note --- Does that foreign expression mean anything to you? Would you like a translation into English?

*3. Quantum physics can be considered metaphysical in a few ways:
# Quantum physics can force a rethinking of metaphysics :
The radical nature of quantum physics can lead to a rethinking of metaphysics. For example, quantum physics can imply that the world is fundamentally indeterministic, or that causes aren't always local to their effects.
# Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities :
Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities that pure rational reflection can't. For example, quantum mechanics can reveal that things can be fuzzy at the quantum level, or that space-time can be curved.
# Quantum entanglement has metaphysical consequences :
Quantum entanglement has been thought to have deep metaphysical consequences. For example, it has been claimed to show that Humean supervenience is false.
___Google AI overview

Did scientists "catch god with his pants down", or are they too far from the measured "forest" (quantum field) to clearly see the statistical "trees" (fluid/solid wavicles)? — Gnomon

I loved Zizek's whimsical analogy. Obviously to be taken with a large grain of salt, but still....

It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer. — flannel jesus

Don't know if I agree. In our culture, since the Enlightenment, we've been told time and again that Science is the Arbiter of Truth, that scientists will provide answers that you can't find in the hazy fog of metaphysics, etc. People were willing to shout about LaPlace's Daemon from the rooftops, you'll still find many here today who believe in physical determinism. But when Heisenberg came along and basically torpedoes that idea, well, let's not venture there, you can't do the math!

I've frequently mentioned several excellent books on meaning of modern physics (see this post.) Yes, they're difficult reads in places, and there are definitely some aspects that are beyond the skills of those without mathematical physics training. But that doesn't kick the whole debate into the long grass.

*1. Heisenberg later stated that "My mind was formed by studying philosophy, Plato and that sort of thing" and that "Modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Note --- Is his "prerequisite work" good enough for you? — Gnomon

To me, he's the most congenial of the Copenhagen scientists, and yes, he was a lifelong Platonist (in fact, a Christian Platonist, unlike Neils Bohr, who professed no religion.) Heiseberg was philosophically both deep and adept, and I think his Physics and Philosophy is still well-regarded. Here's an excerpt from a public lecture of his delivered in the 1950's:

...the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory...has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically-formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts (such as 'it exists' - wf) cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use them of elementary particles. I cannot enter here into the details of this problem, which has been discussed so frequently in recent years. But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.

During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?

I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or — in Plato's sense — Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. — Werner Heisenberg, The Debate between Plato and Democritus

Regardless, it is a sad but unavoidable fact that Heisenberg's association with Hitler's nuclear program has tarnished his name. I did read an OP many years ago, which I can't re-locate, to the effect that he was less than a willing participant in this effort, and may even have surreptitiously stalled the program by directing it in ways that he knew would prolong the amount of time necessary to develop it. But the fact still remains.

The field is not an ontological concept, but a phenomenological one. If we were as small as a photon, we could formulate an ontology of the very smallest. And only then would there be a unified physical theory. — Wolfgang

Quantum fields can be considered ontological, although you aren't compelled to do so.

it makes no sense to try to apply quantum mechanics to the macroscopic world — and this also applies to philosophical conclusions. — Wolfgang

Quantum effects have an impact on the macroscopic world, so it can't be ignored.

Why don’t classical and quantum physics go together? Are we dealing with two different worlds or are they just two different descriptions? — Wolfgang

There's only one world, and it seems to be fundamentally quantum mechanical (subatomic particles do not behave like classical objects). But there is clearly a disconnect in our ability to describe the macro world in quantum terms. That doesn't disprove reductive physicalism, but it does leave room for one to deny it-perhaps there is ontological emergence.

Whether it is an ontological emergence depends on us, because it is we who epistemically construct the world.
But regardless of that, it seems that this fine carpet of matter is fundamental at the smallest level and everything macroscopic 'unravels', but then evolves according to its own rules and acts deterministically (gravity through planets).
In any case, we will not be able to describe classical and quantum physics with the same terms and theories.

God, pull up your pants please. We don't need to see that.

:rofl: