Quantum reality

[computerphys]

Just trying to explore the ontological possibilities that Quantum Mechanics have created, I would like to make a list that covers the variety of ways of thinking about reality, using this question as a starting point:

QUESTION: What is there when we do not observe?

1.- We don't know (Feymann, Shut up and calculate), but QM is a good theory of measurement.

2.- We cannot know (Positivism), but QM is a good theory of measurement.

3.- There is nothing (Bohr, Copenhagen interpretation) until we measure.

4.- There is nothing, except our minds and QM is a mind theory.

5.- There is a particle with classical properties (Einstein, Hidden variable theories) and QM is a statistical theory.

6.- There are infinite particles with every possible classical property (Everett, Many-worlds).

7.- There is a particle with quantum properties (Reality of wavefunction) and QM is a theory about reality.

8.- The particle is there and is not there at the same time (this defies logic and meaning?).

9.- The question does not make sense because science cannot give an answer to it. There is not knowledge out of science.

10.- Reality is a misconception. Descartes was wrong when saying we exists just because we think. Nothing exists actually (defies logic?).

11.- Logic is a luxury we cannot afford at quantum levels (obviously defies logic).


Probably I have missed some alternative points of view, or made mistakes when describing some of them. This is the kind of help I am looking for, so thanks in advance for posting any corrections or additional views. I am not trying to debate the interpretations of QM, but just exploring which are the possible answers (more or less valid/popular) to the question proposed. I hope this post is in accordance with guidelines, otherwise I will try to fix it.

Thanks

[apeiron]

8.- The particle is there and is not there at the same time (this defies logic and meaning?).

This is the closest to the option I prefer - all that exists is unbounded potential. Or what philosophers today would call ontic vagueness.

A potential is as much an everything as a nothing. It could become anything, and as yet has become nothing.

It needs to be "observed" to exist. It must be bounded by some set of limits or constraints to become anything actually definite (definite in regards to both what it is, and what it isn't - the path it takes, and thus all the paths it can be seen now not to have taken).

So there is a further ontic category to add to your list for the sake of completeness. And in philosophy, it is a very ancient and well-established idea.

[PhizzicsPhan]

I would add:

11) Bohmian interpretation ("ontological"): there is a particle and a guiding wave, that is the quantum potential of each particle. See Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

12) A more Whiteheadian variation on Bohm: there is a particle and a wave but they are two aspects of the same thing that oscillate over time. So it's not particle and wave at the 'same time,' but particle and wave at different times. This is entirely logical if we accept that time is best viewed as quantized, just as matter is best viewed as quantized.

[computerphys]

Ok, then,

QUESTION: What is there when we do not observe?

1.- We don't know (Feynman, Shut up and calculate), but QM is a good theory of measurement.

2.- We cannot know (Hawkings, Positivism), but QM is a good theory of measurement.

3.- There is nothing (Bohr, Copenhagen interpretation) until we measure.

4.- There is nothing, except our minds and QM is a mind theory.

5.- There is a particle with classical properties (Einstein, Hidden variable theories) and QM is a statistical theory.

6.- There are infinite particles with every possible classical property (Everett, Many-worlds).

7.- There is a particle with quantum properties (Reality of wavefunction) and QM is a theory about reality.

8.- The particle is there and is not there at the same time (Ontic Vagueness, Fuzzy Logic. Defies logic?).

9.- The question does not make sense because science cannot give an answer to it. There is not knowledge out of science.

10.- Reality is a misconception. Descartes was wrong when saying we exists just because we think. Nothing exists actually (defies logic?).

11.- Logic is a luxury we cannot afford at quantum levels (obviously defies logic).

12.- There is a particle and a guiding wave with classical properties (Bohm + de Broglie).

13.- There is a particle and a wave with classical properties interchanging over time (Whitehead + Bohm).

[bonker]

Just trying to explore the ontological possibilities that Quantum Mechanics have created, I would like to make a list that covers the variety of ways of thinking about reality, using this question as a starting point:

QUESTION: What is there when we do not observe?

1.- We don't know (Feymann, Shut up and calculate), but QM is a good theory of measurement.

2.- We cannot know (Positivism), but QM is a good theory of measurement.

3.- There is nothing (Bohr, Copenhagen interpretation) until we measure.

4.- There is nothing, except our minds and QM is a mind theory.

5.- There is a particle with classical properties (Einstein, Hidden variable theories) and QM is a statistical theory.

6.- There are infinite particles with every possible classical property (Everett, Many-worlds).

7.- There is a particle with quantum properties (Reality of wavefunction) and QM is a theory about reality.

8.- The particle is there and is not there at the same time (this defies logic and meaning?).

9.- The question does not make sense because science cannot give an answer to it. There is not knowledge out of science.

10.- Reality is a misconception. Descartes was wrong when saying we exists just because we think. Nothing exists actually (defies logic?).

11.- Logic is a luxury we cannot afford at quantum levels (obviously defies logic).


Probably I have missed some alternative points of view, or made mistakes when describing some of them. This is the kind of help I am looking for, so thanks in advance for posting any corrections or additional views. I am not trying to debate the interpretations of QM, but just exploring which are the possible answers (more or less valid/popular) to the question proposed. I hope this post is in accordance with guidelines, otherwise I will try to fix it.

Thanks

WHat's wrong with plain old-fashioned determinisim? All this above mumbo-jumbo is unjustified

[computerphys]

WHat's wrong with plain old-fashioned determinisim?

Determinism is a behavioral aspect (how it works) meanwhile here we just try to analyze different ontologies (what is it). Nevertheless, determinism can be associated to some of the listed ontologies, for example #5 (Einstein's).

All this above mumbo-jumbo is unjustified

This mumbo-jumbo is expressing the wide variety of views of the reality compatible with Quantum Mechanics. It is interesting to realize that there is no consensus at all in this matters and also would be interesting to analyze how can it be that serious philosophers and scientists are proposing such extreme ideas ...

[Energystrom]

This is the closest to the option I prefer - all that exists is unbounded potential. Or what philosophers today would call ontic vagueness.

A potential is as much an everything as a nothing. It could become anything, and as yet has become nothing.

It needs to be "observed" to exist. It must be bounded by some set of limits or constraints to become anything actually definite (definite in regards to both what it is, and what it isn't - the path it takes, and thus all the paths it can be seen now not to have taken).

So there is a further ontic category to add to your list for the sake of completeness. And in philosophy, it is a very ancient and well-established idea.

Apeiron, as regards ontic vagueness: I understand how indefinitely bounded aggregations, like a cloud, could be considered ontically vague. The "cloud" does not necessarily come into being until some such individual observes it and delineates which particles aggregate to form the bounds, i.e. which particulars are considered the bounds of the cloud. The cloud lends itself to this example, however, because of its fairly loose composition. How would one account for a highly polished cube of say, titanium? Would not, by virtue of the cube's highly substantial and formed nature, some boundaries instantiate within the cube regardless of there being an observer?

I can see how, in some respects, the cloud logic might be stretched to apply, but as this seems so highly counterintuitive, it leaves me guessing. Could you elucidate for me? Ontic vagueness is not something on which I've read much.

[Evo]

Sorry, but I can't tell one member to follow the rules and let another slide. If you wish to restart this thread you must follow the guidelines in both of these links.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294