Aristotle is probably not the best source, regarding the nature of batteries. Also the subject was potential energy. Voltage is not energy. — wonderer1

You missed the point. I didn't refer to Aristotle as an authority on storage batteries, but as the guy who originally defined the terms "Potential" & "Actual"*1. Of course, Voltage is a measure of Energy, not energy per se. And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. A battery contains no Actual Energy, only Potential Energy*2. That's why you can touch both poles and not get shocked. Aristotle's definition, in terms of existence, is pertinent to the OP topic of Reality. :smile:


*1. Actuality and Potentiality in Aristotle's Philosophy :
Aristotle described potentiality and actuality as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist.
https://www.iasexpress.net/modules/1-7-actuality-and-potentiality-in-aristotles-philosophy/

*2. Voltage is a measurement of potential electric energy between two points.
https://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Voltage

Well, I find it to be a matter of skill in considering things, to be able to look at things from different perspectives, so I'm apt to apply the sort of modeling that seems most usefully accurate for what I am considering, whether that be particles, or fields, or whatever. It doesn't make much sense to call a model "Real" though. It makes more sense to me to consider the degree to which a model is accurate, and not confuse the model for that which is being modeled — wonderer1

Sounds good to me. But how do you determine the accuracy of fit for a world model? Since many of the controversies on this forum revolve around the physical foundations of the world (e.g. matter particles vs mathematical fields) , I tend to rely on Quantum Physics as the most appropriate resource.

But some posters seem to prefer the 17th century Classical model of physics*1, probably because it is more fitting to Common Sense. Yet, quantum physics has revealed that common sense is the view of superficial Appearances (per Kant)*2 rather than Ultimate Reality.

Besides, since my skillfully-selected Quantum Model varies, in certain aspects, from the Common Sense model, my interpretations are sometimes dismissed as "Woo", they are literally labelled as "non-sense", because quantum physics explores reality beyond the scope of un-aided human senses. So, the choice of model itself may be unacceptable for some posters. What can you do when your "most accurate" model is rejected by your interlocutors, and they don't acknowledge your analytical "skill"? :smile:


*1. Classical physics :
Classical physics is a group of physics theories that predate modern, more complete, or more widely applicable theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Classical_physics

*2. Kant's Appearances :
Kantian appearances are not the objects of ordinary sense perception, for Kant holds that appearances in themselves (things in themselves, in the empirical sense) lack sensory qualities like color, taste, texture, etc.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

So potential energy is not real? — Banno

Yes. Although my post contrasted Potential with Actual, and Real with Ideal, not Potential Energy with Reality, as you mis-construed it. For example, a AAA battery has a potential voltage of 1.5V, but until it's plugged into a complete circuit, that potential is not realized. Any potential thing or action is not yet real (i.e. not materialized), until actualized*1 in a system. Do you disagree with my list of opposites in this context? If so, in what sense is Potential real?*2.

Our worldviews seem to be different in some ways that lead us to mis-communicate. But worldviews are ideas (opinions) about Reality, not Reality itself. Worldviews are beliefs about Reality, not necessarily the Truth. So, I'm not trying to convert you to my belief system, but merely trying to share ideas that may be controversial. :smile:

*1. Potentiality and actuality
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist; but, the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note --- Do you equate "does not exist" with "not real"? If so, what was wrong with my equation of "potential" with "not yet real"?

*2. Real : actually existing as a {physical} thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- I added the bracket to indicate the common-sense definition of "real". But the philosophical definition is more subtle. As indicated in *1 above : "potential does exist", even though it has no physical form.

But of course, you did not mean that. It would be crass for someone to suggest that we ought dismantle the apparatus of physics because it does not meet your exhortation. — Banno

Are you accusing me of "dismantling the apparatus of physics"? Or merely of being "crass" enough to mention an alternative (non-mechanical) mechanism? Could you be more specific? Which "apparatus" am I tearing down? Newtonian Mechanics?*3 Actually, it was the pioneers of Quantum Theory who crassly deconstructed Newton's machine with "spooky action at a distance".

Do you think Physics is concerned with ontological Reality?*4 Classical Physics typically took the material substance of Reality for granted. But Quantum Physics undermined that confidence with the Uncertainty Principle and wave/particle duality. Apparently, you mis-interpret my references to Quantum Physics as anti-scientific*5. Some posters seem to think any philosophy prior to the 19th century is anti-science. Even 20th century Quantum Theory is considered part science (technology), and part anti-science (mysticsm). So my emphasis on Quantum philosophy seems to them as undermining the ground of reality.

What "exhortation" are you referring to?*6 Are you accusing me of propagandizing anti-science? If so, show me the quote. Are you equating non-Classical Quantum Physics with Anti-science? QP didn't replace Physics with Metaphysics, but it did re-introduce philosophical reasoning into scientific methods, that had been absent for several centuries*7. :smile:

*3. Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics? :
In the Newtonian mechanics, particles and waves are two different entities, while in quantum mechanics these two are two sides of the same coin. Quantum mechanics associate wave function with every object. However, it must be noted that these quantum effects are diminished in the real world.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-the-difference-between-newtonian-mechanics-and-quantum-mechanics.html
Note --- In this quote, "real world" seems refer to the common-sense macro level that our 5 senses report. If so, is the quantum foundation of our world "unreal"?

*4. "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." is a quote by German Physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) that can be used in discussing the validity of measurements.
https://www.causeweb.org/cause/resources/library/r2533
Note --- By "nature" Heisenberg was referring to what Kant called "ding an sich" as opposed to "appearances". In the context of this thread, one could equate "Nature" with "Real", and "Super-nature" with un-real, yes? Personally, I am not aware of anything supernatural in this world. But some people equate "Ideal" with "supernatural". Do you?

*5. Quantum mechanics is the most successful quantitative theory ever produced. Not a single one of the untold thousands of experiments done to test it has ever found the basic principles to be in error, and the agreement can sometimes go to ten significant figures (as in some predictions of quantum electrodynamics).
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr320/lecture21.pdf
Note --- The math of QM is unquestioned. But the meaning continues to spark philosophical debate.

*6. Exhortation : an address or communication emphatically urging someone to do something.
___ Oxford Dictionary
Note --- In this case, to do what?

*7. Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory :
Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world. This gives rise to the collection of philosophical issues known as “the interpretation of quantum mechanics”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

Time is a special dimension that only occurs in relation to change happening in space. If we take space away (all three dimensions) would time exist or would it be meaningless to talk of time in such a hypothetical situation? — simplyG

Just as Space would not exist without Matter, Time would not exist without Change. They are two sides of the same coin. Which Einstein curiously labelled "space-time", as a four-dimensional continuum, not of Being, but of Potential. :smile:

Time is the currency of Physics :
In april/may 2023 Philosophy Now magazine, the question of the month is "what is time?" And the very first reply gave me food for thought along Enformationism lines : "Time needs to exist for change to happen. This means time must have existed before the Big Bang." Since the same can be said for Primordial Energy, could we say that Cosmic Energy is the cause of Causation?¹ In the Big Bang theory, “The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known”². [my bold] You’ve heard that “time is money”, but did you know that Time is Energy?
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

J. L. Austin, you mean. Not to be confused with John Austin, the esteemed (by me) legal positivist. — Ciceronianus

Thanks for the correction. I had never heard of Austin, before reading the Philosophy Now article. And my comments are based on the article, not from personal familiarity.

It strikes me that if we're going to accuse philosophers of conceit, that accusation is more properly brought against those who disregard the meaning of a word, creating their own meaning for self-serving purposes. — Ciceronianus

Unfortunately, such a bureaucratic conceit would stifle the most creative philosophers. For example, I tried to read Whitehead's Process and Reality --- in which he conceived of a new school of Process Philosophy --- but found its novel technical terminology hard to follow. That's one reason I provide an extensive glossary & footnotes in my thesis and blog*1.

I'm a free-wheeling amateur, not a stodgy academic philosopher, so -- on an open forum -- I don't feel bound to accept the "authorized or received" meanings of outdated terminology. That unconventional "conceit" (i.e. freedom) drives up the wall. But he can't have me de-tenured (did I just make-up another word?), so I ignore his smirky*2 smarguments. Since you seem to be more sincere, I'll take your comments under advisement. :smile:

PS___ I know nothing about the Linguistic Turn in modern philosophy, other than "what I read in the papers". But I would assume that one focus would be on discovering mis-use, or unauthorized use, of old conventional*3 terminology. Yet again, such pedantry*4 would tend to suppress creativity of conceits (concepts)*5 in philosophy. I have no formal training in philosophical ideology, which leaves me naive, but also unprejudiced with prevailing dogma.

*1. Why Coin Tech Terms? :
In the Enformationism thesis, and in the BothAnd Blog, I have coined a lot of new words (neologisms) as short-cuts to complex or unfamiliar concepts. The practice of using words that can't be found in a dictionary makes reading more of a challenge, and may seem pretentious. But, such coining is common for scientific and philosophical writings that explore uncharted territory off the current maps. One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases. Well-known words usually have collected a lot of baggage over the years. And some-times, the meaning of common words has evolved into a sense far from the original context & connotation. But the primary purpose for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html

*2. Smirky : characterized by or having a smirk, especially so as to seem irritatingly smug or conceited. (his favorite smilicon :smirk: )

*3. Conventional : marked by attention to or adhering strictly to prescribed forms.

*4. Pedantry : excessive concern with minor details and rules

*5. What is a conceit in Latin? :
From the Latin term for “concept,” a poetic conceit is an often unconventional, logically complex, or surprising metaphor whose delights are more intellectual than sensual.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/glossary-terms/conceit

But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. — Gnomon
You don't think we're part of nature? Or you think we're not real? — Ciceronianus

To the contrary, I was distinguishing between Nature and Culture, not Nature and Reality. Nature got along for eons without Culture or Language, until artificial "human nature" -- in the last few ticks of Time -- began dominating natural Nature. Do you think humans are nothing-but Nature? In what sense is Culture or Language Real? Certainly not in the sense of this thread's topic, implying that Real is the opposite of Ideal, which is the exclusive purview of human thought, language & philosophy. :smile:

T.L. Austin — Gnomon
Hmm. — Banno

Thanks. I suspect that will applaud your succinct appraisal of my Synthetic assessment of Austin's Linguistic analysis of Philosophy's verbal non-sense about what's real & what's not. :smile:

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? — Gnomon
You seem to be confusing evidence with ways of modeling things. Your question doesn't make much sense to me. — wonderer1

OK. What kind of philosophical world model, based on what kind of scientific evidence, are you willing to accept as Real? Is that less confusing --- or more? :smile:

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

It seems the word real has many meanings depending on which subset of philosophy you wish to answer it from. The empirical or the speculative metaphysical are equally correct and the issue only arises in under certain dualities for example is light a wave or a particle? The duality of light challenges the notion of reality by having the observer involved whereas in actuality light is both a wave and and a particle by behaving as such. — simplyG

Yes. That was the point of my introductory remarks in the post. Since each "subset" is based on different axioms & assumptions, we need to specify which world-model of Reality we are arguing from. Failure to do that leads to fruitless talking-past-each-other on such general topics as Reality. Unfortunately, the tinted lenses of our partial worldviews are often taken to reveal the world as it really is. So, we are surprised when others don't see it as we do.

My personal worldview is intended to unify the Dualism of fundamental physics into a philosophical Monism. It does so by "involving" the observer in the observation. As quantum physicist John A. Wheeler concluded, "this is a participatory universe" and that "everything is information" --- including the observing mind. :smile:


Participatory Universe :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

What is real?
Depends.
A> What do you mean by "real"?
B> Do you want an Analytical answer, or a Synthetic solution, or a Technological test, or a Copenhagen compromise?

Austin & ‘Reality’ philosophy magazine article :
“Austin's view is that if they use the word 'real', it has the meaning it's found with, and not some special philosophical sense. So, we must pay careful attention to the usage of words if we are to avoid saying things that are confused or silly.”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality

T.L. Austin has decreed that “a philosopher doesn't get to decide the meaning of a word”. Instead, he insists that we must deal with words as they are found in the wild, so to speak -- uncontaminated by philosophical sophistry. Since when does he have that authority? I suppose it was when the Linguistic Turn*1 began to transform Philosophy into a passive observer of the world as it seems to be, instead of an active participant in interpreting the world of “appearances”, that Kant said was a mask over the unknowable ideal “ding an sich”.

Austin seems to be a proponent of Analytical Philosophy, which was intended to emulate reductive Empirical science, by substituting metaphysical Words for physical Things under the microscope. Are Linguistic analysts fooling themselves that they are doing empirical Science ; when in fact it's just another application of philosophical reasoning, not to Reality but to our Ideas about reality (i.e. words)? What is language but conventionalized Metaphysics?*2A Is the study of language really analyzing reality? Or is it the layering of opinions upon opinions, ideas about ideas, not about reality itself?*2B

So, which authority can we rely on to tell us what philosophers can and cannot do? Austin seems to have a low opinion of his fellow philosophers, comparing them to deceptive magicians, who through sleight-of-word “gives the appearance of solidity to pure wind”.(Orwell on political propaganda). Is that all philosophy is : fake news & disinformation? Since Austin was himself a professional philosopher, how can you trust anything he says?

Analysis of human languages is indeed a valid approach to philosophical knowledge. But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. Moreover, conventional Meanings are second or third hand truths that have passed through millions of minds. By contrast, Empirical science aimed to study raw reality directly. But that 17th century aspiration was brought down to Earth by the damper of 20th century Quantum Uncertainty. Which revealed that Reality was not as cut-&-dried as previously assumed. It re-opened reality to interpretation from a variety of perspectives*4.

On TPF, quite a few posters seem to assume that Reductive Analytic Philosophy is the only legitimate form of thinking about ideas*5*6*7. Any other approach is dismissed as "irrational". But Quantum Physics pioneers were forced by the uncertainty & relativity of the foundations of Reality, to turn to Eastern philosophies for a more Holistic Systems approach. Ironically, the Copenhagen compromise re-introduced systematic (holistic) philosophical methods to fill the gaps where reductive Empirical methods no longer worked*8.

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? *9. Traditional philosophical answers were mostly meta-physical, since physical science was primitive in ancient times. 17th century Classical scientific answers were expressed in deterministic & mechanical imagery, which agreed with common-sense for most people in the Industrial Age. Then 20th century science discovered that the foundations of physics are uncertain (statistical) & non-mechanical (fields). Nevertheless, many 21st century philosophers seem to prefer the familiar "appearances" of Classical models, to the weird, but workable, mysteries of Quantum theories of Reality. Now, in the Information Age, Which world-model would you bet on, to accurately describe Reality? :smile:


*1. The Linguistic Turn :
Traditionally, the linguistic turn is taken to also mean the birth of analytic philosophy. One of the results of the linguistic turn was an increasing focus on logic and philosophy of language, and the cleavage between ideal language philosophy and ordinary language philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

*2A. Real is Being, and Language is Seeming :
Why didn't Austin's argument deter them? One reason might be that many postwar metaphysicians use the words 'there is" rather than the word 'real' . . . . Here the question becomes : there seem to be tables, but are there any?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality
*2B. “The ontology of a natural language is thus best characterized as the ontology competent speakers implicitly accept by way of using the language.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-language-ontology/

*3. According to one critique, “The linguistic turn aims to discover the truth through the analysis of language” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn
Note --- To me that aim misses the hard target of objective Truth, and instead hits only various soft subjective opinions about Truth, as embedded in conventional words. That sounds like sieving muddy water to find-out what's solid reality.
Another critic says “Linguistic criticism certainly undercuts the spiritual world of ideas; but "language," when divorced from the particularities of different linguistic traditions, can also be "reified" and made into a philosophical fetish.“ https://science.jrank.org/pages/7827/Linguistic-Turn.html

*4. Interpretations of quantum mechanics :
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics might correspond to experienced reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

*5. Aristotle and Understanding Reality :
In his view, colours and shapes are real, as real as trees, desks, people, and other objects that are members of a totality that can be called “reality” or “the universe.” However, reality is not exhausted by material objects that can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, for Aristotle thought that there are also immaterial objects, objects that cannot be known by perception but only by a special cognitive capacity that he called “intellect.”
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004506077/BP000011.xml?language=en

*6. “Synonyms for ANALYTIC: reasonable, logical, valid, coherent, rational, sensible, good, sound; Antonyms of ANALYTIC: irrational, weak, unreasonable” https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/analytic

*7. Analytic vs Synthetic Philosophy :
So analytic philosophy is concerned with analysis – analysis of thought, language, logic, knowledge, mind, etc; whereas continental philosophy is concerned with synthesis – synthesis of modernity with history, individuals with society, and speculation with application.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Analytic_versus_Continental_Philosophy

*8. Copenhagen Metaphysics :
As the theory of the atom, quantum mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory in the history of science. It enables physicists, chemists, and technicians to calculate and predict the outcome of a vast number of experiments and to create new and advanced technology based on the insight into the behavior of atomic objects. But it is also a theory that challenges our imagination. It seems to violate some fundamental principles of classical physics, principles that eventually have become a part of western common sense since the rise of the modern worldview in the Renaissance. The aim of any metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics is to account for these violations.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

*9. What is metaphysics in relation to language? :
Is language a subset of metaphysics, or is metaphysics a subset of language, and if not what is language or metaphysics in relation to the other, and why is it difficult to represent those two in a sort of Venn diagram?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/93225/what-is-metaphysics-in-relation-to-language

But I assume that no one would object to the "is," that everyone would agree that an electron is, at least, a something. Yes? No? — tim wood

Is it? I've never seen, tasted, or touched an electron. All I know about those invisible entities is the published interpretations of quantum physicists*1. 17th century physicists had no concept of an electron, but they imagined fundamental particles of matter, that everyone had agreed on since the 5th century BC*2. Besides, its properties depend on how you look at it*3. Is that a "literary" interpretation? Unlike the simple atoms of Classical Physics, quantum-scale particles are subject to various interpretations*4. Is that still "hard" Science, or is it "literary" Philosophy, or both? :smile:


*1. Interpretations of quantum mechanics :
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics might correspond to experienced reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

*2. Dalton's atomic theory :
He proposed that all matter is made of tiny indivisible particles called atoms, which he imagined as "solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particle(s)".
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/electronic-structure-of-atoms/history-of-atomic-structure/a/daltons-atomic-theory-version-2

*3. Electron mass is sometimes termed as rest mass because according to the special theory of relativity, mass of the object is said to vary according to the frame of reference.
https://byjus.com/physics/electron-mass/

*4. Subatomic Particles :
There are more than 12 subatomic particles, but the 12 main ones include six quarks (up, charm, top, Down, Strange, Bottom), three electrons (electron, muon, tau), and three neutrinos (e, muon, tau).
https://www.wondriumdaily.com/subatomic-particles-the-quantum-realm/#:~:text=There%20are%20more%20than%2012,e%2C%20muon%2C%20tau).

What is Real and what is not?

And how can you know that for real? — A Realist

In Science, what is Real & Physical & Actual is what is not Ideal or Imaginary or merely Potential. Yet in Philosophy, we don't concern ourselves with real things, but with imaginary ideas about things : i.e. hypotheses & theories & possibilities. Unfortunately, Quantum Science opened a worm-ridden can of rotten peaches, when it realized (pun) that the foundations of Reality are literally & physically Uncertain*1. That's what the Copenhagen interpretation asked sub-atomic scientists to believe, or else "just shut-up and calculate"*2.

That nonlocal-neither-here-nor-there state of affairs directly contradicted a basic principle of Classical Physics, which was based on eliminating ambiguity. Ironically, it's that inherent duality that makes Quantum Theory so interesting for open-minded philosophers, and so annoying for pragmatic scientists and cocksure materialists*3. Ironically, we can never know for sure what's-what on the squishy foundation of reality that we take for granted. That's a quantum fact jack! :smile:


*1. Uncertainty Principle :
The term “uncertainty principle” suggests some grand philosophical idea, like “you can never be sure of anything”, or “there are some things you can never be sure of” and sometimes people use it as if this is what is meant. . . . While the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) does not mean “there are some things you can never be sure of”, it does imply “you can never be sure of everything.”
https://theconversation.com/explainer-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-7512
Note --- If you know one side of a quantum duality, you cannot know the other. Like a coin-flip, that knowledge is mutually exclusive.

*2. Quantum Ambiguity :
The uncertainty of position and momentum is another duality in the behavior of quantum particles, commonly known as entropy in quantum terms, which is known in design as the term ambiguity.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3527927.3535217
Note --- The Copenhagen compromise asked physicists to accept as a fundamental fact of reality, that the substance of the material world is both particular (quantized) and continuous (holistic). It's that inherent ambiguity of Nature that I call the BothAnd Principle. Pragmatic Chemists & Atom Smashers can ignore that "vagueness", But Theoretical Physicists and Philosophers must take the essential Uncertainty of Reality into account. The statistical status of entangled particles is Potential (many possibilities) instead of Actual.

*3. The Philosophy of 'Ambiguity' :
Ambiguity is tantamount to uncertainty and vagueness, making many interpretations plausible. This has been explored through various philosophical paintbrushes: logical, analytical, existentialist, postmodernist and contemporary.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-are-examples-of-ambiguity-in-philosophy.html
The philosophical "paintbrush" of Scientism -- a murky mixture of Materialism and anti-Idealism -- is based on faith in the rock-solid reality of the world. Hence, it must ignore or deny the ambiguous aspects of Quantum science, which says that rock underfoot is 99% empty space, and the remaining 1% is both wispy particles and wavey energy.

I do not know what an idea is, but I account them as existing and in a sense real. — tim wood

For the purposes of this forum, Ideas are the non-things (non-stuff) that we argue about in threads such as this. And for the most part, Ideas are limited to a tiny clique in the universe, consisting mostly of the upright animals we label as homo sapiens ; implying that other animals are not wise enough to debate about the meaning of ideas. Hence, in the Real world, no questioning humans, no ideas, no philosophy ; just atoms whirling in the void. What makes ideas moot is their immaterial "substance". Material objects are seldom the topic of TPF threads. :smile:

Or the challenge: to exhibit as "stuff" any idea that requires a mind to have it - no mind, no idea. Or for anything, to exhibit conclusive evidence as to its existence as a thing. — tim wood

It's also the lack of material evidence for thingness, that limits Ideas to the central focus of philosophical forums, and only peripherally for scientific forums. The latter are supposedly reserved for those who "shut-up and calculate". And feckless philosophers are not welcome to blab on & on about Qualia which cannot be Quantified. :wink:

Your use of "quantum" I could use some clarification on. That is, I think things happen, and of things that happen, they happen either for a reason (as caused in some way) or for no reason or because of magic. — tim wood

Gladly! The term "quantum" was introduced into the vocabulary of science to represent the aspects of reality that were assumed, by Classical Physics, to be continuous, but in sub-atomic experiments returned dis-continuous results. The quantum pioneers didn't describe those results in terms of Magic, but of "Nature exposed to our methods of questioning" (Heisenberg). In order to deal with both the continuous and the discrete nature of sub-atomic Nature, the pioneers re-introduced philosophical methods into empirical numerical science. That qualitative method of interpretation*1 had been banished centuries ago as too entangled with Religion & Magic. Quantum physics is unavoidably statistical, returning not absolute either/or answers but relative BothAnd percentages, :cool:

*1. Measurement problem :
In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is the problem of how, or whether, wave function collapse occurs. The inability to observe such a collapse directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
Note --- In classical physics, light was assumed to flow like water. But the quantum measurements came back in discrete bits, now called Photons, that seem to be both discrete particles and continuous waves. It's the introduction into physics of the necessity for philosophical (statistical) interpretation, that caused 20th century physics to seem weird, and even magical. :joke:

That is, imho, the correct response to quantum weirdness is not to super-impose great edifices of additional weirdness as account, but rather instead to say, as with Feynman, it works but we don't know how. — tim wood

Feynman "did not know" what quantum duality meant, because he was looking for absolute Either/Or answers, not Einsteinian BothAnd relative approximations. His attitude of "shut-up and calculate" --- while avoiding the philosophical problem --- is what has allowed modern science to produce the 21st century technology, such as atomic bombs, cell phones, and Twitter gossip, that we enjoy today --- but would have seemed magical in the 17th century.

Presumably the "quants" (number-crunchers) who process the data (unambiguous numerical information) of technology, are not distracted by "additional weirdness" (ambiguous philosophical questions). That wordy waste of time is reserved for a few philosophical forums, such as TPF. If you are mainly interested in Material Science, a pertinent question might be, what are you doing posting on an un-scientific forum? Trying to show the weirdos the error of their way? :nerd:

PS___My interest in quantum physics is mostly due to its discovery of the multiple roles of meaningful & causal Information (e.g. Ideas) in the real world*2. Quantum theory is not about Matter, but about Math. And Math is about Mind : knowable relationships, not sensible objects.

*2. Beyond Weird by Philip Ball wins Physics World Book of the Year 2018 :
Rife with science, Beyond Weird also contains a hefty helping of philosophy, as Ball attempts to reconcile quantum reality with seemingly confounding experimental results. Quantum theory may actually be a theory about information, and how we gain it. As Ball writes, a more “if this, then that” approach to understanding the outcome of an experiment may be what we need to meaningfully understand the quantum world.
https://physicsworld.com/a/beyond-weird-by-philip-ball-wins-physics-world-book-of-the-year-2018/

Or is maths completely independent of the physical universe and it just so happens that some mathematics is good at describing some aspects of the physical universe and in fact supersedes it? — simplyG

I view Mathematics as the meta-physical structure (inter-relationships, ratios, proportions) of the physical universe (objects, things). In other words, Mathematics is the Logic of Reality. In that case, the math (logic, design) is prior to the material implementation (stars, planets, plants, animals). Math doesn't "supersede" the matter, but it necessarily preceded the Big Bang execution of the program of Evolution that produces the Reality we see around us. Hence Math/Logic may be the abstract invisible essential ding an sich that makes concrete substantial things what they appear to be to our senses. :smile:

In Harman, the "essence" of an object is always "withdrawn" or "hidden" such that it cannot be interacted with. Therefore, it cannot be defined, but its influence is felt through its causative interactions with other objects, so we know there is an echo of "something" within the object that "Makes it that object" — schopenhauer1

Since I have no formal training in Philosophy, I won't presume to comment on the arcane discussion in the video, as it's mostly over my pointy little head. Instead, I'll merely note that the opposing worldviews, classified under relatively new labels of OOO or Speculative Realism versus Subjective Idealism, are extant on this forum under the more general & traditional categories of Materialism/Physicalism/Realism versus Metaphysicalism/Idealism.

Harman seems to be echoing Kant with his "hidden essence" referring to the Ideal unknowable ding an sich. Whereas traditional Realism was intended to be Objective, quantum physics has re-introduced Subjectivity -- and philosophy -- into modern Science. In his Nobel lectures, Heisenberg noted that the "central concept of materialism . . . . has little resemblance to genuine materialistic philosophy". That assessment followed from his previous discussion of objectivity in sub-atomic physics. "In classical physics science started from the belief --- or should one say from the illusion? --- that we could describe the world or at least part of the world without reference to ourselves."

So, this philosophical debate seems to be centered on your question about the "something" within the object that "makes it that object". I have my own answer, but won't go into the off-topic details in this post. I'll just mention that the essential something is Generic Information (more inclusive than Shannon), which influences the world through its "causative interaction". :smile:

And that seems to me pretty clear in itself - is there something about it you did not understand that I could clarify? Why would you need a superfluous label, or template, to consider it? Or more simply, what's your point? — tim wood

My point was just to see if you were arguing from a well-thought-out personal worldview, or just parroting a party line (or template). For example, for all practical purposes (e.g. science & technology) I could be placed under the heading of "Materialist". But, for theoretical purposes (e.g. philosophy & ethics) I might fit better into the category of "Idealist". That's because the non-human material aspects of the world have no Ideas (words, concepts) for us to argue about : either it is, or it ain't.

Since my personal worldview is multi-faceted & complementary, I have labeled it a "BothAnd" philosophy. Yet, for Either-Or One-Siders, that broad-mindedness is confusing. Another way to look at it is : my scientific worldview is both Classical (matter/energy/objective) and Quantum (mind/observer/subjective). Since the topic of this thread is a Quantum physics question, my comments will be primarily focused on the mental interpretation. Which I suspected might clash with your views. Hence, the request for clarification. So yes, my intuition has been confirmed. But there is still room for further philosophizing. :smile:

Would you characterize the world model described above as "Materialism", or "Physicalism", or merely "Atheism"? No information, no patterns, no interrelationships, just atoms whirling in the void? — Gnomon
I wouldn't characterize it. I have a memory of something read that I think came from Wittgenstein, that all theories are templates placed over the world, and not to be mistaken for the world itself or how it works. And buying that, I have no urge to resort to templates - except of course when my human business requires me to. — tim wood

Are you using Wittgenstein as an authority to justify an evasive non-position on a philosophical question? Does that side-step imply that you have no philosophical worldview, or just that you don't want to expose your subjective personal "template" to objective critical analysis? I too, am wary of being dismissively labeled, but it's a risk I'm willing to take, in the interest of refining my beliefs in the give & take of philosophy. Perhaps you would be willing to deny the labels that don't apply to you?

By "template" you may mean Wittgenstein's "explanatory pictures" or merely "arbitrary belief systems". But humans seem to be born with a crude template to overlay on the outside world*1. That elementary world model is neither true nor false, but merely necessary to begin learning how to live in the real world. Immanuel Kant called the elements of knowledge "Categories of Understanding"*2. They are "pure" in the sense of not yet adulterated with conventional cultural belief systems.

For him that list of semantic compartments was merely a philosophical hypothesis, but modern Neuroscientists also assume that the brain stores experiences in a few pre-set categories. But, even with current technology, it's hard to locate them in the neuronal network, except in the most basic senses : taste, touch, etc. The inborn categories are general & imprecise, but become more specific with experience. Some brain scientists have even postulated a specialized "grandmother" or "Jennifer Anniston" cell {see image}. But the brain-maps are not likely to be single cells, or even that particular. Instead, they are organized into broad "meanings" or "semantic categories"*3.

Since these primitive templates (world maps) are inborn, you don't have to be "urged" to apply them to the non-self world. They automatically divide incoming sensory information into something like Kant's four categories and twelve classes. Over time, these general templates are refined into the specific concepts and comprehensive worldviews that philosophers argue over interminably. :smile:


*1. Category Learning :
We have instead evolved the ability to detect the higher-level structure of experiences, the commonalities across them that allow us to group experiences into meaningful categories and concepts. This process imbues the world with meaning. . . . . Categories represent our knowledge of groupings and patterns that are not explicit in the bottom-up sensory inputs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709834/

*2. Immanuel Kant's Categories of Understanding :
Kant ultimately distinguishes twelve pure concepts of the understanding, divided into four classes of three: 1. Quantity (Unity, Plurality, Totality), 2. Quality (Reality, Negation, Limitation), 3. Relation (Inherence and Subsistence (substance and accident), Causality and Dependence (cause and effect), Community (reciprocity)), and 4. Modality (Possibility, Existence, Necessity).
https://www.thephilosophyproject.in/post/immanuel-kant-s-categories-of-understanding

*3. New Map of Meaning in the Brain :
“Our understanding, our knowledge about things, is actually somewhat embedded in the perceptual systems,”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-map-of-meaning-in-the-brain-changes-ideas-about-memory-20220208/

BRAIN CATEGORIES including questionable Jennifer Anniston cells

I’ve recently discovered this term “apolitical” and since political opinions are tied to values most of the time, I was wondering what an “apolitical” person without values would be like. It's obviously impossible for a human to completely lack values and political opinions, but what I mean is someone who would actively try to minimize/ignore them. — Skalidris

One interpretation of "politics" is "polarized people" : Lords vs Commons, Republican vs Democrat, us vs them ; friends vs enemies ; Good vs Evil ; our people (NAZI volk) vs aliens (Jews, etc). That rational (non-emotional) assessment sums up why I am literally apolitical. It's not that I have no interest in the issues being argued, but simply that I'm not prepared to choose-up sides and fight for my values. My personal values are multivalent, and are found on both sides of most either/or, two-value party lines.

For example, I can see both pro & con & non of Abortion : A> murder of innocent, or B> personal reproductive choice vs government mandate, or C> population control in an over-peopled world. Besides, in democratic politics, it's not always the majority that rules, but the most powerful minority. So, I stand on the sidelines, hopefully out of the line of fire, and watch the predators & prey engage in the eternal struggle for survival : as groups, they can't survive without each other. But I (alone) can survive here on my little apolitical philosophical perch on the un-peopled mountaintop. :smile:

APOLITICAL PHILOSOPHER

Do laws govern the universe? Of course not; how could they, the universe primordial to any law? — tim wood

My two bits worth :
I assume you meant that the universe is lawless, and completely random. Of course, the "Laws of Physics" are human interpretations of how the world works, as experienced by highly-evolved creatures with both senses and reasons. But our sensory experience of those lawful behaviors has occurred only in the last few million years of evolution. And modern scientists have picked-out the law-like Order within a background of Randomness. Do you view the universe as a Big Accident that just happened to haphazardly produce highly-organized creatures who ask question about the origins of Order?

Since the Big Bang, Nature has been coasting along on the angular momentum (vector) from a primordial burst of Energy of unknown etiology. The "angle" Nature takes over Time, seems to be regulated by primordial limits on the path of causal Energy. Which we know in retrospect as The Arrow of Time. Evolution is autonomous only in the details, due to random mutations (rearrangement of structure). Other than those details, the general direction was set in the initial conditions. Which included a trigger and the power to evolve, to change.

The unfolding of evolution is not impelled & guided by internal "laws". Instead, we infer the primordial "Laws" from observation of natural behavior. And some of us attribute such lawful behavior to a preternatural Lawmaker, imagined as a human king. As far as Cosmologists know though, Space & Time did not exist before the Bang. But how could nothingness "bang" without available Energy, or produce angular momentum without some input of direction? :smile:

My view is that the world knows nothing of information, knows nothing of anything. It exists as the stuff in it that constitutes it. These things interact in certain ways and not in others. And thus the world goes from this moment to the next. No information, no patterns, just immediate continuous evolution. — tim wood

Would you characterize the world model described above as "Materialism", or "Physicalism", or merely "Atheism"? No information, no patterns, no interrelationships, just atoms whirling in the void? The missing element is Meaning, which is significant only to evolved creatures capable of knowing, and knowing that they know, hence possessing a Self Concept, and the concept of Other Minds.

Before Shannon defined it in terms of abstract mathematical values, the original definition of Information was "knowledge in a mind"*1. The "form" part of Information simply refers to an Idea (a mental concept), rather than a material thing. For example, "uncertainty" is a state of mind, and Information Theory is intended to reduce the uncertainty of a communication*2. A world of mindless "stuff" would not know the feeling of uncertainty, only a world of persons can feel & know. Are you a thing, or a person?

A world that "knows nothing of information" is a world without Ideas, a world without Meaning, just Things doing whatever Energy forces them to do. If that is the case, what is the purpose of Philosophy? Does it put food on the table for "things that interact"? Are you saying that the only form of information you are interested in is in the form of "stuff"? What kind of "stuff" do you get from this forum? :smile:

*1. Information Etymology :
late 14c., informacion, "act of informing, communication of news," from Old French informacion, enformacion "advice, instruction," from Latin informationem (nominative informatio) "outline, concept, idea," noun of action from past participle stem of informare "to train, instruct, educate; shape, give form to"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/information

*2. Information theory :
Information theory studies the transmission, processing, extraction, and utilization of information. Abstractly, information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

a whole cottage industry arises that replies to the world and insists that it must work on models we create, on the basis of information, even to the extent of saying that the world itself just is information!
And the only way that makes any sense is by defining "information" in very peculiar ways, such that "information" and information no longer share meaning. — tim wood

Another term for that "cottage industry" you mentioned is Philosophy. And yes, Philosophers & Scientists do indeed "define information in peculiar ways". One of those ways is to create imaginary "models" of reality, that are not in themselves real, but ideal*3. Another term for a mental model of reality is Theory. Do you know the real world directly, or only by means of models & theories (a la Kant)?*4

Gregory Bateson was a people-watcher, and defined Information in a strange", but human-oriented way *5. Claude Shannon was an engineer, not a philosopher, and he redefined Information in an odd way : as a degree of uncertainty (i.e. entropy). But what is Uncertainty to a bit of stuff? What difference does Entropy make to a rock?

On this forum, do you communicate information to mindless things, or to the minds of unseen persons, for whom that knowledge might make a difference in their understanding of the world? A world with "no pattern" is a world of Random Noise. Do you hear the static, and miss the signal?*6 :cool:


*3. It from Bit :
It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
Note --- John Archibald Wheeler was a quantum physicist, not a philosopher. But this theory is philosophical, not scientific. The metaphysical philosophy of Materialism accepts his physical science, but rejects his metaphysical philosophy.

*4. On Reality :
"Uncertainty" is NOT "I don't know." It is "I can't know." "I am uncertain" does not mean "I could be certain." ____Werner Heisenberg
Real Things vs Appearances :
The world as it is before mediation Kant calls the noumenal world, or, in a memorable phrase, Das Ding an sich, a phrase which literally means “The thing in itself”, but whose sense would be more accurately caught by translating it as “the thing (or world) as it really is”(as distinct from how it appears to us).
https://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Kant_and_the_Thing_in_Itself
Note --- Empirical Science aspires to reality, but due to the "mediation" of the imperfect senses, must be content with "appearances" :
Appearance vs. Reality in the Sciences : https://academic.oup.com/book/7392/chapter-abstract/152237212?redirectedFrom=fulltext

*5. A bit of Information :
"What we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continuously transformed are themselves provided with energy."
https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/information-difference.html
Note --- During the early period of Quantum science, Gregory Bateson was an English anthropologist, social scientist, linguist, visual anthropologist, semiotician, and cyberneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields. His first "difference" is physical, but the second "difference" is metaphysical (i.e. meaning), hence philosophical.

*6. "Call it the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Error : we can be wrong, or we can know it, but we can't do both at the same time"
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/uncertainty-principle

My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. — Gnomon
:lol: That is preposterous that an evolved species would think itself the ultimate ruler of the universe and so they make a god in their own image. — Athena

To be clear, the "immaterial power" I was referring to is Logical Reasoning (including mathematics), which seems to have reached its pinnacle of evolution (to date) in the homo species. When we begin to allow non-human posters on this forum, I might need to be more circumspect in my language. :smile:

Exactly, however, it might help if we resist using human pronouns when referring to logos or a prime mover. — Athena

Plato & Aristotle apparently used abstract non-anthro-morphic notions of "Logos & Prime Mover" intentionally, to avoid implications of the humanoid deities of their day. Similarly, when I occasionally use the term "G*D" when referring to an unknown & unknowable creative/causal power behind the Big Bang, I often use un-gendered pronouns, such as "he/r" and "s/he". But I do so with tongue in cheek, imagining the "huh?" question mark above the head of the reader. :joke:

↪Gnomon
Thank you for the references. I think if you read/listen to them critically, they omit just exactly the detail needed. For example, on the assumption that information is an efficient cause, then how can that work? — tim wood

If the "detail" you're looking for is empirical evidence, it's probably not forthcoming. Mathematics is a language for science, not an object to be studied under a microscope. Likewise, Energy is an intangible invisible force that is observed only in its physical effects, not as a ding an sich. Both Math & Energy are now regarded, by scientists & philosophers, as forms of Generic Information. Basically most of the referenced links in my posts are philosophical/theoretical generalizations & opinions, not empirical evidence. So, the bottom line is : do you trust these theoretical scientists to know what they are talking about?

Since the advent of Quantum Theory, there has been a divergence between Theory & Practice. Classical physics, beginning around the 16th & 17th centuries, replaced the traditional philosophical observations & interpretations of Aristotle & such, with repeatable, recorded experimental evidence. But, on the quantum scale of reality, things are not that simple. Heisenberg defined the distinction between classical and quantum as "Uncertainty". For example, statistical observations cannot be just recorded as fundamental facts, they must be interpreted in the light of personal or conventional beliefs about their indirect observations. That's why Quantum Bayesianism*1*2 begins with subjective interpretations (beliefs) and adjusts the percentage of Certainty as more evidence comes in. Some empirical Quantum scientists, such as Feynman, objected to the Copenhagen incursion of philosophy into physics. Yet today, many quantum physicists are mathematical theorists (i.e. philosophers), who do no empirical work at all.

Regarding "how can that work?", I have my own personal theory, but I also post links to sites where professional scientists publish their own philosophical opinions on the "how" question*3*4. The empirical and philosophical research is ongoing on many fronts. For example, the Santa Fe Institute for the Study of Complex Systems is at the cutting edge of Quantum Information knowledge. But it also looks for enforming & causal effects in Biology & Chemistry*5. Little of this ongoing research is textbook stuff at the moment, but the direction is obvious : everything in the world is a form of Information, including Mathematics, Mind, & Matter*6. :smile:


*1. Quantum Philosophy :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the most prominent of which is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

*2. Unraveling QBism :
In QBism, the wave function represents an observer's subjective beliefs about the possible outcomes of a measurement rather than an objective description of reality.
https://medium.com/physics-philosophy-more/qbism-a-technical-discourse-34109e2b3c16

*3. Information causality :
Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009. . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality#cite_note-1

*4. Information converted to energy :
Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*5. New paper answers causation conundrum :
Called downward causation . . . . However, as soon as one spends a little time considering how this causality works, trouble arises.
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/new-paper-answers-causation-conundrum

*6. Information and the Nature of Reality :
Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/information-and-the-nature-of-reality/811A28839BB7B63AAB63DC355FBE8C81
Note --- several of the authors of this anthology are associated with Santa Fe Institute

*7. From Matter to Life, Information and Causality :
If information makes a difference in the physical world, which it surely does, then should we not attribute to it causal powers?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/from-matter-to-life/4DA89C33D0FF29E749E6B415739F8E5A
Note --- several of the authors of this anthology are associated with Santa Fe Institute

Would life as an immortal real be with less meaning? Can't we just invent it as we go in any event? — TiredThinker

Yes. The meaning of immortality would be just the sum of meaningful experiences of the observer. Yet the perspective of infinite experiences might eventually merge into a single undifferentiated blob of memory. But, is the whole more than the sum of its parts? Wait and see. :smile:

PS___ Meanings are mental, not physical ; internal, not external. The Meaning of Life is what you read into it.

In her Marginalian essay on Borges, The Mirror of Enigma, Maria Popova quotes :
"Borges recognized this, closing the essay by acknowledging “it is doubtful that the world has a meaning… even more doubtful that it has a double or triple meaning.” " . . . . or infinite meaning.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-mirror-of-enigmas-chance-the-universe-and-the-fragile-loveliness-of-knowing-who-we-are?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

but I think math is the reality, — flannel jesus
I invite you to think about your own remark and the difficulties of it. What if anything can you imagine that would make math more than, other than, just descriptive and give it causal efficacy? — tim wood

Slightly off-topic : If you will think of Mathematical relationships as A> a form of Information, and B> Information as "the power to enform a mind", plus C> Energy as the power to enform matter (as in E=MC^2), then the notion of a Real universe consisting of mathematical (structural) & informational (meaningful) relationships might begin to make sense. Of course, it's a great leap from Atomism & Materialism.

Some of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe conjectures are preternatural & transcendent, but the notion that reality is fundamentally Mathematical & Informational is compatible with our modern knowledge of Nature via Physics. Below are a few other thoughts on Math (information) as the fundamental element of Reality. To answer your question, the Abstract Math form of Information may-or-may-not-be inert (depending), but the Energy form of Generic Information "gives it causal efficacy". :smile:

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/9/9/095206/1076232/The-mass-energy-information-equivalence-principle

Mathematics : Greek máthēma (μάθημα), meaning "that which is learnt",[11] "what one gets to know",
Note : Knowledge is Information ; hence Math is information.

Is Information Theory Mathematics? :
Yes, Information Theory is a branch of mathematics
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1083862/is-information-theory-mathematics

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

What is Information? :
Abstract Information : the 1s & 0s of computer language. Existence = 1, Non-existence = 0

Causal Information : Energy - e.g. the ratio between Hot & Cold. Energy is the causal power of Information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Material Information : E=MC^2. Mass is Enformed Energy, and is an essential property of Matter. "the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ ... 2expl.html

Shannon Information : The abstract ratio of One to Zero. It yields accuracy in computation, but omits any meaning or significance. Quantity without Quality. Like language, its utility is in its ability to mean anything you want to convey.
https://informationphilosopher.com/index.30.en.html

Organic Information : Living organisms are defined and organized by their "Information Molecule", which we call DNA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Semantic Information : Meaning in a conscious mind; for example the relationship between Self and Other. It can be expressed mathematically as a numerical ratio, or emotionally as a positive/negative feeling.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/info ... -Semantic/
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

The interplay is certainly interesting. — jgill

JG, I'm not picking on you by posting long dissertations to your name. It's just that I'm on a roll here, expanding the topic of Quantum Entanglement is Holistic. And your math background may allow you to hold apparent paradoxes (counterintuitive results) in your mind, while keeping an open mind --- pax . For example, math has Paradoxes of infinity‎ ; of set theory‎ ; Probability theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mathematical_paradoxes . But those "non-commutative" sub-sets don't invalidate the consistency of mathematics in general. Note --- I'm using that term in an unconventional way.

A new forum post on the topic of Explaining Bell violations from a statistical / stochastic quantum interpretation seems to be parallel to this thread, although the lines may never meet :
says, "even though realism is given up in a way compatible with the requirements of Bell's theorem*1, particles can still retain their definite properties as individuals in a realist way". responded with the "conclusion that the violation is strictly an artifact of the statistics. That is, it occurs in the aggregate but not identifiably for any individual". Taken together, these statements seem to be talking about an apparent BothAnd paradox of Statistical Holism and Sensory Particularism as complementary truths of both Ideality and Reality. In Quantum theory the "aggregate" is a statistical (holistic) value, while an "individual" property is the value of a single particle of matter/energy.

Fortunately, as philosophers and mathematicians, we can hold Holistic notions (Fields) & Reductive concepts (Particles) as aspects of a complete / comprehensive set : the Logical / Physical Universe. I can imagine Quantum Entanglement as a Holistic-Statistical (non-local) state of being -- with unknowable properties --- which is also compatible with the Classical Mechanics concept of interacting (local) individuals -- with properties of position & momentum. One way to interpret that paradox is to define "Statistics" as an Ideal (Potential ; future) state, and Particles as Real (Actual ; now) states*2.

All of this is just a long way to say, in philosophical terminology, that "quantum entanglement is holistic". Therefore, using the Yin/Yang symbol --- as a graphic illustration (not an actual photograph) of entangled photons --- is appropriate. Note that your term "interplay" occurs in the dictionary definition below*3. :smile:



*1. Bell's theorem shows that no theory that satisfies the conditions imposed can reproduce the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics under all circumstances.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/

*2. Is statistics "real" math? :
The way I see it statistics is a practice of expressing data recorded from observations of some kinds of events, so that one may be able to potentially use these expressions to make inferences about future events, or probability statements. Whereas other math, calculus for instance, deals with measurable parameters which can be used to find definite answers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/46tulr/is_statistics_real_math/
Note --- Another way to answer that question is to say that "Statistics is Philosophy with numbers". It doesn't produce here & now hard facts, but projections into the future.

*3. Yin Yang : philosophical meaning
the two complementary forces that make up all aspects and phenomena of life. . . .
The two are both said to proceed from the Great Ultimate (taiji), their interplay on one another (as one increases the other decreases) being a description of the actual process of the universe and all that is in it. In harmony, the two are depicted as the light and dark halves of a circle.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/yinyang

SIDE NOTE : Reality is a whole System ; Ideality is particular Categories
Pinter begins by noting that the categories by which we parse the world are projected onto the field of view, not detected out there in the world. “Contrary to commonsense realism, the physical world has no pre-existing segmentation”. So, A> the Spaces separating things, and B> the Connections binding things together, and C>the Borders defining composite objects are drawn by the brain in order to make sense of random energy inputs.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

"this is the idea that mathematical truths are a byproduct of our linguistic conventions". — Gnomon
The interplay is certainly interesting. — jgill

Yes. I think you could safely say that Mathematics is a mental philosophical language that is used by Science to describe it's sensory observations precisely. Ancient math concepts were originally devised by desert civilizations -- Egyptians & Mesopotamians -- in order to understand why the stars (gods?) formed patterns that reminded men of terrestrial things & events : Astrology. Later, Greek logicians (e.g Euclid), with cloudier skies, refined geometry to make it more abstract and less subject to variable interpretations : Astronomy.

Ironically, modern Physics has been transformed from a Classical Empirical science into a more Philosophical Interpretive science. I continue to read Heisenberg's book, as he describes the "history of quantum theory". After noting some of the complexities & contradictions & paradoxes that the Q pioneers had to deal with, he noted : "Bohr was well aware of the fact that the quantum conditions spoil in some way the consistency of Newtonian mechanics". He went on to suggest that "asking the right questions is frequently more than halfway to a solution of the problem". Then he addressed some of those philosophical "how" & "why" questions : "How could it be that the same radiation that produces interference patterns, and therefore must consist of waves, also produces the photoelectric effect, and therefore must consist of moving particles?" Their compromise solution was not to choose True/False or Either/Or, but to accept that both of those logically incompatible observations must be true, depending on the context. And that productive Quantum holism led me to my BothAnd search for a middle ground on contentious questions.

The quantum pioneers in Europe were forced by the paradoxical evidence to engage in a series of philosophical arguments over many years. Heisenberg noted that they gradually became "accustomed to these difficulties". Then he summed it up as "this was not sufficient to form a consistent general picture of what happens in a quantum process, but it changed the minds of the physicists in such a way that they somehow got into the spirit of quantum theory". The "spirit of quantum theory" is an attitude of compromise : to meet in the middle. That's why the Copenhagen Interpretation was called a "compromise" or "accord", to allow squabbling practitioners with different inter-pretations to "shut-up and calculate"*1. Perhaps that's what you meant by inter-play.

Heisenberg also offered his "impression that Bohr's theory gave a qualitative but not a quantitative description of what happens inside the atom"*2. Such a BothAnd compromise between flakey Philosophy and factual Physics did not go down smoothly for those with strong opposing beliefs. But it did allow all parties to "shut-up" about their incompatible opinions, and get-on with their calculations. Ironically, I get the strong impression that some posters on The Philosophy Forum are not willing to compromise their Black/White & True/False beliefs for the sake of philosophical accord. They won't accept that New Age interpretations of Quantum Physics are philosophical, and not subject to the same numerical criteria as Classical Mechanics. For example, Holistic Philosophical opinions are not in the same game as Reductive Scientific facts. So, instead of annihilating each other, they can offset each other's weaknesses, to form a complete system of knowledge, as the Yin/Yang symbol suggests. :smile:

PS__Absolute uncompromising Rules require perfect knowledge. For the rest of us, accommodation & adaptation is necessary for survival of a still-evolving species.

*1. Philosophical Physics :
The Copenhagen interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

*2. Qualia vs Quanta :
A Quantitative (mathematical) description provides abstract numerical values.
A Qualitative (philosophical) interpretation produces meaningful human values.

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*4. BothAnd Dilemma :
Binary human nature – animal motives & rational choices – allows us to navigate a course between the Sirens of Good and the rocky shoals of Evil. But long experience indicates that the least bad solution and the safest good option are usually in the middle range of moderation between extremes.
Fixed Rules for Life can never fit all situations. But Wise Character adapts to changing conditions.
There is no perfect answer to these common dilemmas :

When to be . . .
• General vs Specific
• Figurative vs Literal
• Typical vs Targeted
• Synthetical vs Analytical
• Holistic vs Particular

When to prefer . . .
• Ideal vs Real
• Left vs Right
• Liberal vs Conservative
• Individualism vs Tribalism
• Reasons vs Feelings
• Self vs Others

The BothAnd principle endorses general Wisdom instead of specific Rules.

That's nicely done. I suppose my point is that QM is all sophisticated mathematics and equally sophisticated experimental processes. — jgill

Yes. That seems to be the point that Heisenberg was making when he said " . . . . it's a question of translation : the conventional language of physics is fashioned according to the world we experience". But most of us don't directly experience the world on the subatomic level. So, it's an abstruse language for sophisticated initiates into the mysteries of the foundations of Reality. And easily misconstrued*1. The current issue (157) of Philosophy Now magazine has an article about Solving The Mystery of Mathematics. For the purposes of this article, the author -- Jared Warren -- rejects the Ideal definition of math as presented by Plato, and also the Real definition of math as "like the physics of this reality". Instead, he prefers a linguistic definition : "this is the idea that mathematical truths are a byproduct of our linguistic conventions".

I like to think that pure & embodied & semantic notions of Math are all true in some contexts. Yet, like some of the Quantum scale objects of Physics, he notes that "mathematical objects : numbers, points, sets, functions, groups . . . These are non-physical". Which, for philosophical purposes, makes them Meta-physical*2 (mental concepts). He adds "Mathematical objects are not out there in any sense of the term". Moreover, "clearly, our mathematical knowledge comes to us in special ways. No experiments are performed . . . . no data catalogued, no observations made." We know math by reason (inference), not by sensory experience. By the same token, current theoretical Physics experiments are not done in a laboratory, but in a mind. For example, Einstein was once asked where his laboratory was, and he simply held up a pencil.

Modern quantum-scale Physics, unlike Classical Physics, is not mechanical, with direct transfer of force from cog to cog. It is instead, non-local, and involves "spooky action at a distance". In place of hard, massy Atoms, it describes the fundamental object as a Quantum Field*3, not a cloud of physical particles, but intangible mathematical Points, which are imaginary objects in hypothetical space. And it's these spooky improvised definitions that the quantum pioneers found to be weird.

So, Warren focuses, not on the physical substance of physics, but on the language of Math that tends to enshroud its Ontological & Epistemology essence in abstruse technical dialects. He refers to his approach to physics as Conventionalism (based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed). He notes that "our conventional rules for using mathematical terms like "number', 'zero', 'plus', "set" 'functions", etc, determine our mathematical concepts. Conventional rules are also the source of mathematical truth." Therefore, he concludes : "Mathematics is mysterious. To solve the mystery we must fit mathematical practices into a reasonable picture of the world." {my bold}

That's what the quantum pioneers, like Heisenberg & Schrödinger, tried to do, when they adopted some Eastern cultural concepts --- like "holism", non-separability", "interconnection" --- to describe the strange entangled behavior of subatomic particles. Some of them transferred such other-worldly concepts into their social world to support religious & mystical intuitions. Therefore, as Heisenberg warned : "it's a question of translation". Some translate quantum reality as Fields of non-spatial mathematical points, while others prefer ghosts of spiritual ectoplasm. Who's to say which conventional translation is True or False? Show me the evidence! :smile:

PS___ This post is not trying to prove anything. Just something to think about, when one man's conventional language & beliefs conflicts with another's. It's not Physics, just Philosophy.


*1. Quantum Mysticism :
"A signature feature of quantum mysticism is its misappropriation of physics terminology in a wider, every-day context"
"it draws upon "coincidental similarities of language rather than genuine connections" to quantum mechanics."
Note --- Mystical entities (ghosts) are just as "reasonable" to some people, as Mathematical entities (quarks) are to others. Each community has its own conventional words & ideas.

*2. Meta-Physical : not supernatural, but merely non-physical, i.e. mental phenomena
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the notes about nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/engloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- In modern Western culture, we are comfortable with the concept of invisible Photons & Electrons causing things to appear and to move, but even with sophisticated technology, we never directly sense the entities referred to by those words.

*3. Quantum Field :
According to our best laws of physics, the fundamental building blocks of Nature are not discrete particles at all. Instead they are continuous fluid-like substances, spread throughout all of space. We call these objects fields. The most familiar examples of fields are the electric and magnetic field.
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html
Note --- Doesn't that sound ghostly?

Here's a quick look at ground zero in quantum studies by Mark John Fernee for Quora: — jgill

Thanks for that quickie quantum update. I assume the article is interesting to Theoretical/Mathematical Physicists. But, can you tell me, in a few jargon-free words, what that account means -- in the real world -- to a non-mathematical layman, or to an atom-smashing CERN physicist, or to a matter-molding Chemist?

The Quora excerpt refers to "an abstract space, called a Hilbert space". In the Medium Blog*1, the author says : "Space in “Hilbert Space”, is a mathematical construct and not the “space” which we normally understand". Not the factual “space” which we normally know as a place for real things. Am I correct to say that as a "mathematical construct" it's not a Real physical space -- housing material objects -- but an Imaginary metaphysical space -- containing non-euclidean "inner products" (mathematical objects)? If so, what significance does it have for a pragmatic non-mathematician? Or for an empirical physicist?

In Werner Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy, he describes the revolutionary transition from 17th century Classical physics, to 20th century Quantum physics. He labels the before & after as "old physics" and "new physics". In David Lindley's Introduction, he says "in the early 1920s, the old quantum theory . . . . had become over-elaborate and unwieldy". Which sounds like descriptions of a previous epochal change in philosophical worldview, from Ptolemaic epicycles to Copernican models of the universe.

Ironically, it was pragmatic Heisenberg, who proposed "that one should write down the mechanical laws not as equations for the positions and velocities of the electrons, but as equations for the frequencies and amplitudes of the Fourier expansion". Thus began the transformation of physics from manipulating Matter to imagining Mathematical constructs. And that change of attitude marked the transition of "Physics" from observable Aristotelian phusis (corporal Nature) to imaginary Quantum mathematos (abstract knowledge).

Heisenberg said it's a question of translation : "the conventional language of physics is fashioned according to the world we experience . . . . the quantum world is not a world of waves and particles . . . . the thing measured and the thing doing the measurement are inextricably intertwined". Thus, in the New Physics, Real and Ideal have become entangled, just as illustrated in the Yin Yang symbol. :smile:


*1. What is a Hilbert Space? :
In this blog, I aim to develop a comprehensive understanding of hilbert spaces cutting through the mathematical jargon.
https://medium.com/@brcsomnath/hilbert-space-7a36e3badac2

↪Gnomon
My best friend, who passed away seven years ago, was a physics major up until the required introductory senior level course in quantum theory. He switched to mathematics and retired a fellow professor. A very bright guy - certainly smarter than me - but math made more sense at the time, easier to understand.

I think dropping a physics major at this crucial point of transition in thinking happens fairly frequently. Some become engineers, a profession using physics that moves along Newtonian lines. Well, maybe not so much electrical engineers.

It's a shame the forum doesn't have quantum physicists who might elucidate better than philosophical minded novices. But this is not a physics forum. Our best is not good enough. — jgill

After Quantum Physics introduced Uncertainty into Science, and substituted Virtual Particles for Real Atoms, I suspect that quite a few disillusioned undergrads dropped-out of their physics programs. The most famous expression of the "switch" you noted is Feyman's "shut-up and calculate" quip*1. Since then, physics divided into large teams of experimental scientists (atom smashers) and a few individual philosophical (theoretical) scientists. But both groups are "chasing rainbows" that are more & more elusive. Also, the empiricists are typically distrustful of un-tethered Philosophical Reasoning for epistemological knowledge of Material Reality.

Theoretical Physicists are mostly mathematicians*2 instead of empiricists. And what they are exploring is the Logical Structure of Reality, not the Material Stuff of classical physics. But the pioneers of Quantum Theory were primarily classically-trained empirical-lab-laboring scientists, who were baffled when their real-world experiments returned weird results. Instead of just shaking their heads, and "doing the math", several turned to Eastern philosophy for clues to the mysteries of Reality's foundation. Perhaps they concluded, as I have, that a material world with mental observers is both Real and Ideal. Moreover, Quantum Superposition is not just Uncertain, it is inconceivably Complex*3.

Since I am neither a Physicist nor a Mathematician, I turn to the experts for information about the non-classical under-pinnings of Reality. But, although I think it's a Holistic/Statistical state, I don't rely on New Age gurus to explain the nuts & bolts & symbolism of Quantum Superposition. Speaking of quantum experts, I just ordered a copy of Heisenberg's 1958 book : Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. He was already doing the math, but saw a need for philosophical generalizations to make sense of Quantum non-sensical specifications. What do you think he would make of the juxtaposition of Photon photography and Yin Yang symbol? :smile:


*1. Shut-up and Calculate :
N. David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying often misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin later found insufficiently nuanced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

*2. Theoretical Physicists today :
Hawking, Higgs, Guth, Smolin, Weinberg, Penrose, Greene
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=theoretical+physicists+today

*3. Superposition Complexity :
The principle of quantum superposition states that if a physical system may be in one of many configurations—arrangements of particles or fields—then the most general state is a combination of all of these possibilities, where the amount in each configuration is specified by a complex number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

HOLISTIC SCIENCE : Holism in science, holistic science, or methodological holism is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

SYSTEMS THEORY : Systems theory is the transdisciplinary study of complex systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent components that can be natural or human-made ___Wiki

You wouldn't. By the time you can take a picture of something, the quantum superposition has already decohered.
It's good to see you've accepted the arbitrariness of the yin yang symbol in the context of this experiment. — flannel jesus

I agree : picture-taking is an observation/intervention, that -- like silver & vampire -- is incompatible with mystery-shrouded superposition. And the irrational "arbitrariness" of the symbol/article juxtaposition is exactly why I started this thread. I was not trying to assert --- as some posters have assumed, and the quoted article seems to imply --- that Yin Yang is a "hard" scientific concept, instead of a "soft" philosophical conjecture.

Instead, I was using this "arbitrary" association of symbol & science to ferret-out some diametrically-opposed worldviews on this forum. One way to define those clashing perspectives on reality is by labeling them as A> Classical/Deterministic or B> Quantum/Statistical. Ironically, my BothAnd philosophy straddles those opposite shores : Objective Realism & Subjective Idealism. The latter takes the idealizing Observer as an active component of Reality.

I've recently been looking into Quantum Bayesianism (QBism)*1 as a way to make sense of these antagonistic views of what is Real, as opposed to Ideal. Just today, I found an article online that deals with QBism. On the question whether Quantum Superposition is real & objective (Classical Physics) or ideal & subjective (Statistical Physics), the author says: "Objective states . . . . are what classical physics is all about . . . . However, things are very different in quantum mechanics. Quantum states can be “superposed, meaning a particle can have many values of position and momentum at the same time." Hence, superposition of entangled photons is a statistical state, not a deterministic state. Quantum mechanics is unavoidably uncertain. And the interpretation of statistical averages is inherently subjective. Thus, the need for QB probabilities.

The author proposes, what he calls a "radical conclusion", which agrees with my own understanding of the quantum scale foundation of Reality*2."Instead, quantum states are about our knowledge of the world. They are descriptions encoding our interactions with particles. QBism would say it’s not the particle’s state — it’s your state about the particle .QBism leads not with ontology — a story about what fundamentally exists independent of us — but with epistemology: a story about our information about the world. That change makes all the difference." {my bold} By "your state" he means a belief or conjecture about the future deposed state of the currently superposed particle.

Classical Physics was fatalistic, in that its progress was rigidly determined --- according to Newton by God --- from the beginning of creation. But the QB author has a different idea : "The answer QBism produces is as radical as it is mundane. By turning away from an impossible (and paradoxical) God’s-eye view of the Universe, QBism puts human beings squarely in the middle of the scientific enterprise". So, our universe is determined by stable Laws of Nature, but it is indeterminate in the degrees of freedom allowed by the uncertain/statistical nature of Quantum Nature. Both top-down determined by law, and bottom-up arbitrary & unrestrained by selfish & willful agents. :smile:

PS___This may sound off-topic, but since it's my topic, it's right on course. Do you find human arbitrariness compatible with lawful Science?


*1. QBism : The most radical interpretation of quantum mechanics ever :
"offers a radical interpretation of quantum physics, suggesting that quantum states are not objective realities."
https://bigthink.com/13-8/qbism-quantum-physics/
Note --- The author, "Adam Frank, is an American physicist, astronomer, and writer. His scientific research has focused on computational astrophysics with an emphasis on star formation and late stages of stellar evolution. His work includes studies of exoplanet atmospheres and astrobiology". ___Wikipedia

*2. Foundation of Reality :
The ancient fundamental particle was the Atom : "hard, massy & solid". But the classical search for that particular Holy Grail has passed through several soft bottoms : aggregate molecules, Rutherford/Bohr atom, Electrons, Photons, Quarks. Yet, even ghostly mathematical quarks are defined in six delicious flavors, which seem to indicate that even the Quark is not the essential particle of reality. At the moment the physical foundation of physics is open to question.

Do not assume that just because you managed to misinterpret the meaning of it, that it was MEANT to be misinterpreted. You said yourself that you're not qualified to interpret the paper. — flannel jesus

I didn't "misinterpret the paper", and I didn't "interpret the paper", because I didn't read the technical paper. I did request that others, more qualified, would interpret the significance of the symbol relative to the experiment.

The OP was based on the linked article that was reproduced by several other science publications. All have a big colorful Yin Yang image next to a brief description of a technique that was supposed to produce a "visualization of the wave function". And there was no indication that the YY image had nothing to do with photons or functions. I hope the articles were not "meant" to be misinterpreted. But the fact that they are misleading, led me to post the OP. What would you "interpret" if you saw the symbol and the quote below? :smile:

PS___TC has portrayed me as a "gullible New Ager", who could, presumably due to hippie-flower-child beliefs, "manage" to misinterpret the juxtaposition of an apple & orange as symbols of Peace & Love. For the record : I am not now, nor have I ever been a hippie, or "New Ager". I will admit to being an amateur philosopher. And I do think the Yin Yang symbol represents a valid philosophical concept : Holism. I also think -- along with Schrödinger & Heisenberg -- that entanglement is literally Holistic (i.e. an integral System), in the sense that the parts (e.g. photons) are not particular until the system "collapses". But I don't interpret that scientific notion with any idealistic metaphysical moral. Anyway, it's all irrelevant to this thread about a misleading science article. Which has devolved into smarter-than-you condescension. :cool:


Researchers at the University of Ottawa, . . . . recently demonstrated a novel technique that allows the visualization of the wave function of two entangled photons, the elementary particles that constitute light, in real-time.
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-visualizing-mysterious-quantum-entanglement-photons.html

Note --- Speaking of "collapse of wave function", how would you take a picture of Schrödinger's Cat when it's both dead and alive?

You posted your opinion implying that the common Yin Yang symbol was used as input... — Gnomon
Have you looked at the original paper? (Which T Clark linked early in the thread.)
I just took a look and the caption under the only picture of the Yin-Yang symbol says:
a, Coincidence image of interference between a reference SPDC state and a state obtained by a pump beam with the shape of a Ying and Yang symbol (shown in the inset). The inset scale is the same as in the main plot. b, Reconstructed amplitude and phase structure of the image imprinted on the unknown pump. — wonderer1

Thanks for that information. I asked TC where he got the information to support his assertion that the Yin Yang image was both input & output, and he did not respond. I guess I was supposed to take his word for it. But he didn't state his qualifications as an expert on the subject.

No, I didn't look at the original paper. I'm not qualified to interpret such technical data. For example, what is a "pump beam"? So, I was hoping someone else would. This confirms my suspicion that the Yin Yang symbol had nothing to do with the shape of entangled photons. There are lots of other images in the paper that also don't mean anything to me. So the published Yin Yang image seems to be a Red Herring*1. What does it reveal about entanglement? In what sense is the published image a "visualization of the wave function"? Can you enlighten me?

seems to be accusing me of being a "gullible New Ager". But I expressed my skepticism in the OP. "The relevant question here : is the image a mere coincidence or a consonance?" Apparently, it's neither. Just an irrelevance. But it served the purpose of the OP : "A secondary question that might be illuminated : is this forum polarized along physics vs metaphysics, eastern vs western, science vs philosophy lines on an evocative topic like this?" TC seems to have established his polarized position on that question. :smile:


*1. u]Red Herring[/u] : "a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting." ___Oxford

I did not say that. Ignore my evidence if you want, make up your own fantasies about little fairies dancing on the taiji, but don't misrepresent what I wrote. I always thought you were a little goofy, but I didn't think you were dishonest too. — T Clark

What evidence? You posted your opinion implying that the common Yin Yang symbol was used as input for the process of photographing entangled photons (not your literal words). I asked, "for what scientific purpose?" and you gave no response. I asked you to post a quote to support your nonsensical opinion, but you gave no response. Am I supposed to accept your non-expert opinion as evidence to support your own opinion? Talk about "dishonest". Show me the money (er, photon)! :smile:

GOOFY SCIENTISTS TAKE A PICTURE OF A PICTURE AND CALL IT A PHOTON

Did you interpret the symbolic image as an error of judgment, or a deliberate hoax? — Gnomon
Isn't that a false dichotomy?
Maybe a stunt to get a lot of attention to their paper? Maybe one of the researchers is into Taoism? Maybe a target that was handy and interesting enough? — wonderer1

My question was not a dichotomy. Merely an incomplete list of unknown possibilities. Maybe they are Alien beings trying to sow discord among PF posters . . . :smile:

Thank you so much! I think our discussions would be much improved the the notions of logos and prime mover. And from there, even the gods were subject to logos. — Athena

Unfortunately, Logos and Prime Mover might be rejected by Materialists*1 as unprovable Transcendent beings or forces. For me that's not a problem, because they are merely hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2, with no need for empirical proof, only logical consistency. And, since they have no "favorite people", they provide no reason for slavish religious worship. They also have no need to "violate" natural laws, since they are essentially the LawMakers. :smile:


*1. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Note --- My disagreement with classical mechanical Materialism (Newton) is that Quantum physics has undermined its basic assumption of Atomism. My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. Their rejection of any Transcendent forces, forces them to postulate such unprovable conjectures as infinite Multiverses or Many Worlds, which are themselves transcendent of the only knowable Real world. I don't necessarily disagree with Materialism in its rejection of ancient Spiritualism (ghosts, angels, body-hopping souls, etc).

*2. Is materialism an axiom or a metaphysical belief? :
https://www.quora.com/Is-materialism-an-axiom-or-a-metaphysical-belief

Frankly, I don't know what's going on here. But at the beginning of the paper
: Here we introduce biphoton digital holography, in analogy to off-axis digital holography, where coincidence imaging of the superposition of an unknown state with a reference state is used to perform quantum state tomography.
This stuff is way beyond me. — jgill

Thanks for the reference. The technical stuff is beyond me too. But the references to three different "states" provides fodder for speculation. The "unknown state" must be the entangled photons, and the "quantum state" might be the mathematical wavefunction. But the "reference state" is a mystery.

seemed to be certain that the researchers took a picture of a YinYang symbol and passed it off as a picture of entangled photons. Perhaps he saw "reference state" and inferred that it was the Taoist symbol. The implication seems to be A> they are hoaxing gullible New Agers, or B> the scientists did not realize that combining a Holistic symbol with a Reductive science project might cause a philosophical commotion. And the latter is what prompted me to start this thread.

The input to the experiment was the image of the yin/yang symbol — T Clark
Seems to be the case as far as I can determine. Difficult reading. — jgill

didn't respond to my request for the source of his information/opinion about the intentional use of the YY symbol as input instead of as output of the holographic method. Will you post where & how you determined that is the case? Did you interpret the symbolic image as an error of judgment, or a deliberate hoax?

Some posters are asserting that it's just another "Jesus image on toast", but the Yin/Yang symbol is not so subtle, even to skeptics & unbelievers. And the contentious Holistic implication*1 is obvious in the spurious arguments against its legitimacy. Yet, the article says that this provocative image was produced by named Phototonic researchers, not by anonymous bong-smoking hippies. Anyway, my reason for posting is to see if religious or anti-religious prejudices would clearly divide the responses on a philosophical forum. So far, it seems to bring out defensive or ridiculing arguments from one side, and approving or so-what's-new comments from the other.

But a key issue is the intent of the researchers. If it was a deliberate hoax, then shame on them. If it was an unanticipated result, then shame on the accusers. I assume the "truth will out" eventually. But another example may be instructive. Since the general "scientific" consensus in the early 20th century was that the universe had existed eternally, or at least continually-self-creating ; I suspect that Edwin Hubble did not anticipate that his astronomical evidence of an expanding universe would eventually lead to a generally accepted theory of a "creation event" or even an "origin point of space-time" --- leaving it vulnerable to preternatural arguments.

And that divide among scientists & philosophers continues to this day. I don't expect this minor Yin Yang Bang will go down in history next to the cosmic Big Bang. But as I implied in the OP, it does provide a see-saw point for polarized forum arguments. :smile:


*1. Yin Yang Holism : not anti-science, but alternative to comprehensive Reductionism

Maybe, maybe not. The 4mm may be measuring the object under scrutiny, or the photographic image produced by the equipment. Some labels would help. — Gnomon
No sense going on any further. You should be ashamed of yourself. — T Clark

Since you are reading-into the "4mm", a prejudiced meaning which is not expressed in the image, who should be ashamed? If you can produce evidence to support your "reading", I will retract my attribution of "prejudice". :smile:


PS__What is it about Yin/Yang concept that puts you on the offensive? Does Holism somehow contradict your faith in Reductive Science?

Great question. Because that's not what the measurements indicate. Good science shows that these phenomena are part of the material world, but energetic in nature; immaterial.
What's really exciting about all of this, is that the immaterial aspects of this world are present, just waiting to be rediscovered. That is what entices me, as an individual. — Bret Bernhoft

Yes. Materialists, for doctrinal reasons, typically lump Energy into the same ontological category as Matter. Admittedly, Energy is essential to Physics & Chemistry --- and I mean that literally. The common definition of Energy is "ability", but I think "potential" is more accurate : Energy is the potential to cause change in matter. And Potential (not-yet-actual) is by definition, immaterial and unreal --- although its effects on matter are immanent. Energy is indeed a Phenomenon, in the sense of an interpretation of sensory impressions. But the thing being interpreted is itself a Noumenon.

is offended by the notion of anything transcendent of temporal reality, or Immaterial, in the sense of unreal (or not yet actual). He points to Spinoza as an authority on the immanence of all substance. Yet Baruch imagined God or Nature as eternal. And that was centuries before modern science discovered --- to the surprise of Einstein --- that the material universe had a beginning --- not in time, but of Time. Spinoza's active "Natura naturans" would be what we now call Energy, and passive "natura naturata" would be Matter*1. Hence, assuming the Big Bang theory is as close to an accurate description of a scientific creation act as possible, then Energy would necessarily "transcend" the existence of the material world*2. However, since immaterial Energy is an attribute of Spinoza's Nature/God, it is not super-natural. :smile:

*1. Spinoza on Substance :
There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active, productive aspect of the universe—God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, “naturing Nature”. Strictly speaking, this is identical with God. The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, “natured Nature”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Note --- You could interpret "the productive aspect of the universe" as Energy. And "that which is produced and sustained" as Matter. In that case, Energy is the eternal power of "God/Nature" to produce & sustain the temporal stuff of the universe ("things which are in God").

*2. What is natura naturans and natura naturata for spinoza? :
Before going any further, I wish here to explain, what we should understand by nature viewed as active (natura natarans), and nature viewed as passive (natura naturata). I say to explain, or rather call attention to it, for I think that, from what has been said, it is sufficiently clear, that by nature viewed as active we should understand that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself, or those attributes of substance, which express eternal and infinite essence, in other words (Prop. xiv., Coroll. i., and Prop. xvii., Coroll. ii.) God, in so far as he is considered as a free cause.
By nature viewed as passive I understand all that which follows from the necessity of the nature of God, or of any of the attributes of God, that is, all the modes of the attributes of God, in so far as they are considered as things which are in God, and which without God cannot exist or be conceived.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10arl5f/what_is_natura_naturans_and_natura_naturata_for/
Note --- Nature in the modern, non-Spinozan, sense is a "mode" of God. Likewise, Matter is a "mode" of Energy, in the sense of E=MC^2.

Yet, this is not the point. We are talking about just a visualization. Nothing more. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I had imagined quantum entanglement as random noise, and the dis-entangled particle as a recognizable image. It never occurred to me that a tangle of photons would look like a Taoist symbol. :smile:

OBJECT EMERGING FROM NOISY BACKGROUND

Here's a figure from the article from which you've clipped your yin/yang symbol. It shows the black and white input image and the colored output. Note the size, measured as 4mm, or about 1/4 inch. This does not show entangled photons, it shows the recreation of an image. — T Clark

Maybe, maybe not. The 4mm may be measuring the object under scrutiny, or the photographic image produced by the equipment. Some labels would help.

I'm still more interested in why a legitimate scientist would take a picture of a common symbol and try to pass it off as a picture of a mathematical wavefunction. Are you accusing them of falsification of scientific results, or of proffering a hoax as a joke?

I'd like to think the image is truly what the scientists claim. But now I'm more inclined to think it's a joke, in poor taste. Maybe time will tell. It could prove to be just another example of quantum weirdness, or of human ridiculousness. :smile: