Do superpositions violate conventional logic (philosophy)?

In summary: Philosophically speaking, there may be an unrealized but more descriptive "logic" beyond human comprehension due to the modern non-necessity (or intellectual limitations) of thinking about certain abstracted concepts.This is a profound and thoughtful statement. I'm curious to know more about what you mean by "abstracted concepts".
  • #1
amblerise
3
0
I recently read a research summary about using magnetic fields to briefly maintain quantum states in relation to quantum computing. The article makes reference to "a" simultaneously being "a" and "not 'a'".

I'm left wondering how the concept of superposition is reconciled with conventional notions of logic in philosophy. Also, does the standard notion of logic collapse if there is no clear reconciliation (i.e. are we then forced to admit to the fallibility of conventional logic)?

My only thought thus far is found in browsing the Copenhagen interpretation (which I admittedly don't clearly understand the mechanics of). The Copenhagen interpretation inspires the thought that particles have at least two states and can therefore be two things simultaneously. Additionally, there is no recognizable logical violation if our measuring apparatuses are not specific/sensitive enough to accurately perceive logic in the quantum universe.

Forgive my ignorance if this question has already been addressed,

Ambler

*Edit: In retrospect, logic is dependent on current paradigms. If logic does fail to predict real world circumstances, one changes the definition of "logic" rather than collapsing the concept. To allow the concept of logic to collapse would essentially allow for deductions to be considered uncritically "true".
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Classical thinking applies to quantum theory as low speed experience applies to special relativity.
 
  • #3
There are two approaches to this issue.

One opts for 'quantum logic' or 'fuzzy logic', or other logics different than standard one (wiki on them!).

Second approach (definitely dominating) is to use standard boolean logic to describe quantum phenomena in the way similar to that as this logic is used in mathematics operating on real numbers, or as boolean logic is a foundation of probability theory.
 
  • #4
amblerise said:
The Copenhagen interpretation inspires the thought that particles have at least two states and can therefore be two things simultaneously.
Really? I always took Copenhagen interpretation as: "Don't think about particles except of very moment of measurement", so there are not even a single thing until measured.

In retrospect, logic is dependent on current paradigms. If logic does fail to predict real world circumstances, one changes the definition of "logic" rather than collapsing the concept.
Could you elaborate this thought a bit? Esp. in historical view, how 'paradigms' was influencing the logic?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Xts, I cannot sensibly refute your understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. My comments and questions clearly reflect my limited knowledge of physics (and philosophy). That being said, I must introduce this reply by admitting that even after a bit of research, I can't comprehend how quantum computers can use two state (boolean) logic to conduct more operations per cycle than a transistor based chip (although I can see how QC could conduct more operations per unit of energy). Why doesn't applying Boolean algebra to quantum computing necessarily discard the third bit as a processing unit?

My claim that logic is based on current paradigms is a reference to the notion that reality is limited by the perceptive abilities of the observer. Based on an article I've skimmed in Skeptic Magazine, I believe that various physicists are referring to this philosophical concept as MDR. A new understanding of a concept can change the nature of human thinking and ultimately expand the scope of human thinking (for example, the formal understanding of abstract language). Logical contradictions in quantum physics can force such a redefinition of the deductive capacity of logic (because conventional logic dictates that something is either "a" or "not a"). Philosophically speaking, there may be an unrealized but more descriptive "logic" beyond human comprehension due to the modern non-necessity (or intellectual limitations) of thinking about certain abstracted concepts.

Again I speak as an untrained logician when I say that "fuzzy logic" doesn't strike me as applicable to logic in quantum computing. In my understanding of Quantum superposition logical paradoxes can exist in physical reality. Fuzzy logic does not appear to me as capable of producing logically contradictory results - instead fuzzy logic takes into account partial values and mistakenly refers to these partial values as distinct states. Alternately, superposition does create a distinct third state in apparent contradiction to conventional logic.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Why is it so illogical to say that an experiment has a statistical probability associated with each outcome before measurement?
 
  • #7
LostConjugate said:
Why is it so illogical to say that an experiment has a statistical probability associated with each outcome before measurement?

Lost, thank you for reminding me of the concept of probabilities in logic. I believe I see your point: all things are possible however unlikely an outcome may be. I'll need a bit of time to consider the ramifications of this in relation to my initial posting. However, for the time being I'm going to occupy my mind with something other than mathematics and its retarded little brother; philosophy.
 
  • #8
I see you took seriously Kuhn's ideas about 'paradigms' and 'concepts' and revolutions in thinking. Nothing more wrong!

There are no logical contradictions in QM. QM is built upon classical mathematics, whose very foundation is classical logic. What may seem to contradict logic are some narrations used when speaking about QM phenomena. But if those narrations contradict logic it means that narrations are erroneous, not the logic. You may describe the phonomena using different narration, staying consistent with old good binary logic. The same as you may enjoy half filled glass of wine without falling into any contradiction with logic (either empty or not empty?) You must just have some intuitions about real numbers, formalized by Cantor on the basis of ordinary binary logic.

"fuzzy logic" doesn't strike me as applicable to logic in quantum computing
Right. But 'Quantum logic' may be probably used. Anyway - my Occamian soul tells me not to play with logic - it is much easier and simpler to express QM in classical mathematics.
Logic is abstract, deductive, mathematical knowledge, independent from the Universe. Logic originates not in the external world, but rather in our language and rules how can we transform sentences.

In my understanding of Quantum superposition logical paradoxes can exist in physical reality.
Ouch! You dug out the stinking cadaver of scholastic disputes: 'what the reality is?'
If you adopt minimalistic empirical approach ('reality' is what you may touch) - in QM: 'reality' is an experiment outcome, while everything else (wavefunctions, etc.) are just mathematical tools useful to predict those outcomes, then you never fail in logical paradoxes.
 
  • #9
xts said:
There are no logical contradictions in QM.

There are some contradictions. For example how can the definite quanta of the energy in a wave (a photon for example), the smallest measurable energy, so discrete as to never be found in two places at once and never be half measured, demonstrate interference with itself?
 
  • #10
LostConjugate said:
There are some contradictions. For example how can the definite quanta of the energy in a wave (a photon for example), the smallest measurable energy, so discrete as to never be found in two places at once and never be half measured, demonstrate interference with itself?
Yeah? May you demonstrate self-contradiction in this sentence without using preassumption about real existence of the particle along its path?

QM says nothing about 'interference with itself'. It says, that as particles are emitted at one point, and detected on a screen, they form a fringe pattern if we put double slit in between source and screen. QM allows to predict that pattern. That's all.
Where is a self-contradiction or contradiction to logic?

Maybe rather your narration about 'interfering with itself' (although common when talking about QM) contradicts your other intuitions you put under terms such as 'particle', 'interference', etc?

What is more non-logical in pattern formed by electrons than in pattern of waves on a pond? The mathematics behind those two is almost the same.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
xts said:
Yeah? May you demonstrate self-contradiction in this sentence without using preassumption about real existence of the particle along its path?

QM says nothing about 'interference with itself'. It says, that as particles are emitted at one point, and detected on a screen, they form a fringe pattern if we put double slit in between source and screen. QM allows to predict that pattern. That's all.
Where is a self-contradiction or contradiction to logic?

Maybe rather your narration about 'interfering with itself' (although common when talking about QM) contradicts your other intuitions you put under terms such as 'particle', 'interference', etc?

What is more non-logical in pattern formed by electrons than in pattern of waves on a pond? The mathematics behind those two is almost the same.

An electron is not described as a wave at all. It's motion may be described by a non-physical wave function. A wave in a pond is a physical wave.

The logical conclusion to the pattern is that there was interference. The logical conclusion to discreetness is that it can't interfere with itself.

Agreed, our logic should be found to be wrong when these things are better understood. But currently certain QM experiments defy common logic.
 
  • #12
xts said:
Yeah? May you demonstrate self-contradiction in this sentence without using preassumption about real existence of the particle along its path?




If that is true, the level of detail and consistency of experience are really exemplary.
 
  • #13
LostConjugate said:
Why is it so illogical to say that an experiment has a statistical probability associated with each outcome before measurement?



So probability is more fundamental than anything else(e.g. forces, interactions, etc.)? As in the statement - "probability holds everything together"
 
  • #14
LostConjugate said:
The logical conclusion to discreetness is that it can't interfere with itself.
May you show some reasoning behind that?
Better than induction from common experience that pebbles, rabbits and especially large mammooths never form interference fringes? (Forget for a moment about sand on a beach, which actually form them...)
Is logic wrong, or maybe rather your understanding of the word 'discrete'?

Maui said:
So probability is more fundamental than anything else(e.g. forces, interactions, etc.)?
I don't like such sentences, as no one ever defined precisely what 'being more fundamental' means.
 
  • #15
xts said:
I don't like such sentences, as no one ever defined precisely what 'being more fundamental' means.



In a number of interpretations observables are resultant from measurement/observation. Hence, forces/interactions would be defined as secondary concepts, i.e. not fundamental.




xts said:
Is logic wrong, or maybe rather your understanding of the word 'discrete'?


Is your understanding of the term 'discrete' much different than everybody else's?
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Maui said:
In a number of interpretations observables are resultant from measurement/observation. Hence, forces/interactions would be defined as secondary concepts, i.e. not fundamental.
That's a slippery way, because that is not probability which is fundamental, but rather act of observation. Probability is not much more fundamental for my taste than wave function itself or forces. Which of them are more and which are less fundamental?
Is your understanding of the term 'discrete' much different than everybody else's?
Mine? I think it is pretty consistent with Oxford dictionary ('individually distinct, discontinuous'). There in nothing in it which could prohibit forming fringe patterns.
 
  • #17
xts said:
That's a slippery way, because that is not probability which is fundamental, but rather act of observation.



Sure, but i said "more fundamental", not fundamental. A statement like "observation is fundamental" is a step further than my statement "probability is more fundamental than forces/interactions".


Probability is not much more fundamental for my taste than wave function itself or forces. Which of them are more and which are less fundamental?


Momentum is an observable of the wavefunction, hence wavefunction and probability must be more fundamental than force. That is unless you are insisting on a kind of quantum realism that is unassailable.



Mine? I think it is pretty consistent with Oxford dictionary ('individually distinct, discontinuous'). There in nothing in it which could prohibit forming fringe patterns.


Fringle patterns to infinity are not consistent with Oxford's definition of "discrete". Unless you are thinking of discrete quantities and infinity as being one and the same at a deeper level of reality
 
Last edited:
  • #18
amblerise said:
I'm left wondering how the concept of superposition is reconciled with conventional notions of logic in philosophy. Also, does the standard notion of logic collapse if there is no clear reconciliation (i.e. are we then forced to admit to the fallibility of conventional logic)?



This is not just a problem of conventional logic, it's more like a deep epistemological abyss, as conveyed by the inability of physicists to understand what things(objects) are. It could either be a limit to knowledge or a deeply rooted misunderstanding that we carried on through the centuries.
 
  • #19
Maui said:
Fringle patterns to infinity are not consistent with Oxford's definition of "discrete".
1. Have you ever seen any pattern extending to infinity?
2. Even if so - where is inconsistency?
Natural numbers extend to infinity and they are "discrete" if you look at them with real numbers in a background.
Of course, infinite pattern must be composed of infinite number of "discrete" elements, the same way as finite pattern is composed of finite number of discrete photons.
But "infinite number of distinct elements" is not an oxymoron.
 
  • #20
xts said:
1. Have you ever seen any pattern extending to infinity?


I don't have to. You have never seen an electron, yet you can measure and deduce its properties. The probability amplitude peaks at a definite point in space and becomes zero everywhere else only after a measurement is done. This has been experimentally verified and implemented in a number of applications.


2. Even if so - where is inconsistency?
Natural numbers extend to infinity and they are "discrete" if you look at them with real numbers in a background.


There is clearly the contradiction that LostConjugate spoke about - it's a problem of classical realism and lots of human baggage. But to say that there is no contradiction with our everyday concepts when an electron interferes with itself, is an exaggeration.


Of course, infinite pattern must be composed of infinite number of "discrete" elements, the same way as finite pattern is composed of finite number of discrete photons.
But "infinite number of distinct elements" is not an oxymoron.


Thinking of an electron in motion towards the detector plate as an "infinite pattern" and then interfering with itself gives everyone a headache. If you think you understand how a single electron can pass through both slits at the same time, that's a solid indication that you don't understand it.
 
  • #21
Maui said:
But to say that there is no contradiction with our everyday concepts when an electron interferes with itself, is an exaggeration.
Really? Isn't all that contradiction contained in intuition baggage depicting an electron as an electrically charged snooker ball?
If you think you understand how a single electron can pass through both slits at the same time, that's a solid indication that you don't understand it.
I just don't think about "single electrons passing through anything".
I think about electron existence only at the very beginning (as it is emitted) and at the very end - as it is detected. So it is not electron, which interferes with itself, but wave function. Wave function or whatever else you like to use in calculations - are artificial concepts, useful to predict experimental results. Like a "gravity force" is an artificial concept helping to predict Moon eclipses.
 
  • #22
xts said:
Really? Isn't all that contradiction contained in intuition baggage depicting an electron as an electrically charged snooker ball?



Most certainly.


I just don't think about "single electrons passing through anything".
I think about electron existence only at the very beginning (as it is emitted) and at the very end - as it is detected. So it is not electron, which interferes with itself, but wave function. Wave function or whatever else you like to use in calculations - are artificial concepts, useful to predict experimental results. Like a "gravity force" is an artificial concept helping to predict Moon eclipses.


This works for removing contradictions, but if we can't understand what matter is, we are in no better position to know the world than we were in the Stone Age.
It seems to me that most physicists have now tacitly accepted that reality happens(essentially giving up realism) as opposed to reality exists, without going deeper what it all means(or they simply don't like the implications or are too shallow to follow the ramifications through till the end).
 
  • #23
Indeterminacy is at the heart of superposition and what Indeterminacy does is challenge the law of identity. More recent evidence that even entanglement is subject to Indeterminacy again places the focus squarely on the law of identity suggesting that either our definitions of quanta require revision, the law of identity requires revision, or both. Which it might be is anyone's guess at this point.

I'd compare it to the discovery of the constancy of the speed of light which seemed to defy conventional logic and the known laws of physics. At the time nobody knew if logic required revision, the laws of physics, and or their definitions. We could speculate endlessly, but there is no clear evidence yet that supports anyone view.
 
  • #24
Maui said:
There is clearly the contradiction that LostConjugate spoke about - it's a problem of classical realism and lots of human baggage. But to say that there is no contradiction with our everyday concepts when an electron interferes with itself, is an exaggeration.

Thinking of an electron in motion towards the detector plate as an "infinite pattern" and then interfering with itself gives everyone a headache. If you think you understand how a single electron can pass through both slits at the same time, that's a solid indication that you don't understand it.

It is not impossible to imagine that we extend QM with various unnecessary ideas and concepts and thereby achieves a local 'realistic' description of the double-slit problem.

First postulate: the space is not empty - with dark matter and dark energy it is not so unlikely - but then we have the ether back.

Second postulate: particles creates waves in the ether corresponding to QM's descriptions.

These waves create possible interference.

These wave guides the particle.

I think De Broglie thought something like that - But Bohm build a deterministic theory upstairs?

Most physicists would say that these decisions are ugly and unnecessary when they do not make any measurable difference.
 
  • #25
UChr said:
It is not impossible to imagine that we extend QM with various unnecessary ideas and concepts and thereby achieves a local 'realistic' description of the double-slit problem.




Local realism lives in the classical world, and usually it's a shock the first time people hear of there being no classical substance in this reality at all. It's an incomprehenisble quantum "substance" that strains towards classicality via processes like decoherence, collapse, symmetry breaking, etc. Observed local realism is the end result of fields acting in a classical-like way.



First postulate: the space is not empty - with dark matter and dark energy it is not so unlikely - but then we have the ether back.

Second postulate: particles creates waves in the ether corresponding to QM's descriptions.

These waves create possible interference.

These wave guides the particle.

I think De Broglie thought something like that - But Bohm build a deterministic theory upstairs?

Most physicists would say that these decisions are ugly and unnecessary when they do not make any measurable difference.



Yes, they are the crutch on which realism as we know it, is supposed to hold. But I'd say that the BI adds more mystery than it removes. Classicality is deceptive, there's many a wrong path to take. No wonder physicists need an infinite number of worlds to explain ours(or rather explain it away).
 
Last edited:
  • #26
amblerise,

The article's phrasing of " ... simultaneously being 'a' and 'not a'..." is very bad poetic license attempting to describe quantum superposition in classical vernacular.

It is important understand that the term superposition is first applied, not to the quantum system, but rather to the measuring devices. Consider photon polarization for a moment. You can have a Polaroid film in front of a photon detector so that it will only click for vertically polarized photons and never click for horizontally polarized photons. By "vert. photons" etc we mean photons which have already passed through a vertical polarizer and likewise with all other "states". Note that we cannot know anything about the photons except in how they behave with respect to measuring devices. But what we see is that all photons will either pass through a vertical polarizer or through a horizontal polarizer. So it would seem that photons only come in two states, horizontal and vertical.

Then we look at them all again 45deg turned and notice that all photons are either left-oblique or right oblique. The oblique polarizers, as measuring devices, are superpositions of the vert/horiz. polarizers. A photon measured with vertical polarization will sometimes pass through the left-oblique and sometime through the right oblique. (Note we can non-destructively determine which with a birefringent crystal such as calcite.)

This lead us to abandon (at first) thinking in terms of the photons as having an objective state independent of our choice of measurement. We simply identify photons as phenomena (not objects) which behave in a probabilistically predictable way.

That plus some other points is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Now other interpretations try to build a more involved "reality" of the photon below what is observable, e.g. many worlds and pilot waves.

To avoid confusion about the logic of quantum mechanics it is important to stick to only statements about what has been or will be observed and forget about statements about the state of the system excepting as they translate to what has been/will be observed.
 
  • #27
amblerise said:
I'm left wondering how the concept of superposition is reconciled with conventional notions of logic in philosophy. Also, does the standard notion of logic collapse if there is no clear reconciliation (i.e. are we then forced to admit to the fallibility of conventional logic)?
superpositions can be break if nature is nonlinear, nonlinearity break the linearity of the superposition. .
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Maui said:
No wonder physicists need an infinite number of worlds to explain ours(or rather explain it away).

I think that 'many worlds' is a relatively funny science fiction idea.

I do not understand how it can be taken seriously.
 
  • #29
UChr said:
I think that 'many worlds' is a relatively funny science fiction idea.

I do not understand how it can be taken seriously.

Yea, the one thing that grates on my nerves when I watch SciFi programs is when the "science expert" inevitably says... "yes, quantum mechanics predicts an infinity of parallel universes...". I go AHHHHRRRRRGGGG! NO IT DOESN'T and throw pillows at the TV. Too many people grow up hearing this because it makes the best premise for the "magic" in these fantasies.

The writers could at least change it to "... one interpretation of QM predicts...".

In Everett's defense, there is some virtue in his "relative state" approach and I want to spend more time looking at his original thesis rather than the MW into which it evolved.
 
  • #30
jambaugh said:
To avoid confusion about the logic of quantum mechanics it is important to stick to only statements about what has been or will be observed and forget about statements about the state of the system excepting as they translate to what has been/will be observed.
A superposition is a transition phase, with a probability of 50 percent, which results in either a positive or a negative observation. It's not really an end state like the probability of a tossed coin sitting on its edge but more like an intermediate phase between one outcome and another.

If you look any closer at the transition phase it implies an initial state, a transition phase, and an observed state with a range of change from its initial state of 0 or 1 (i.e. True, transition, True and False, transition, False have no state change while True, transition, False and False, transition, True have a total state change).

Could a quantum superposition be considered a start state?
 
Last edited:
  • #31
jambaugh said:
Yea, the one thing that grates on my nerves when I watch SciFi programs is when the "science expert" inevitably says... "yes, quantum mechanics predicts an infinity of parallel universes...". I go AHHHHRRRRRGGGG! NO IT DOESN'T and throw pillows at the TV. Too many people grow up hearing this because it makes the best premise for the "magic" in these fantasies.

The following is a good example of ambiguity :wink: "while some people think that black holes are portals to other universes, in reality they are just exceedingly dense pricks".
 
  • #32
amblerise said:
I recently read a research summary about using magnetic fields to briefly maintain quantum states in relation to quantum computing. The article makes reference to "a" simultaneously being "a" and "not 'a'".
This is, imo, just a bad way of talking about the formalism.

amblerise said:
I'm left wondering how the concept of superposition is reconciled with conventional notions of logic in philosophy. Also, does the standard notion of logic collapse if there is no clear reconciliation (i.e. are we then forced to admit to the fallibility of conventional logic)?
Conventional logic still holds. Just don't make the mistake of thinking of mathematical quantum states or superpositions as real states, ie., of descriptions of what's actually happening in the underlying reality.

amblerise said:
My only thought thus far is found in browsing the Copenhagen interpretation (which I admittedly don't clearly understand the mechanics of). The Copenhagen interpretation inspires the thought that particles have at least two states and can therefore be two things simultaneously.
Then you've just misunderstood the essence of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The quantum theory is a probability calculus. Quantum superpositions are expressions of experimental possibilities. There's no implication that "the particle is in two places simultaneously", or that "the particle exists and doesn't exist simultaneously", or whatever.
 
  • #33
ThomasT said:
Conventional logic still holds. Just don't make the mistake of thinking of mathematical quantum states or superpositions as real states, ie., of descriptions of what's actually happening in the underlying reality.


...because your obviously classical mindset can explain the quantum? You know what they say - "If i haven't seen it, it doesn't exist!". If it doesn't behave according to my predjucies it's not real(even though the registered pattern on the screen of the double slit experiment is obviously a result of a something passing through both slits simultaneously). As far as i know, for very good reasons, the whole 'particle' way of thinking was found to be a misconception more than half a century ago.



The quantum theory is a probability calculus. Quantum superpositions are expressions of experimental possibilities. There's no implication that "the particle is in two places simultaneously", or that "the particle exists and doesn't exist simultaneously", or whatever.



That's your philosophy and it's acceptable and it's right where it belongs. But if you come to really think about it, the classical mindset is not a gift from god, it's likely a misconception(as evidenced by the philosophical implications of SR too)

PS. If superpositional states aren't real, what is this underlying reality you speak of? It sure can't be real as far as a classical mindset can grasp it. An equation?
 
  • #34
Maui said:
...because your obviously classical mindset can explain the quantum? You know what they say - "If i haven't seen it, it doesn't exist!". If it doesn't behave according to my predjucies it's not real(even though the registered pattern on the screen of the double slit experiment is obviously a result of a something passing through both slits simultaneously). As far as i know, for very good reasons, the whole 'particle' way of thinking was found to be a misconception more than half a century ago.
What I'm saying is that quantum superpositions don't violate conventional logic in the sense that it was conventional logic that led to their formulation, and that they also don't (in and of themselves wrt their form and content) violate conventional logic as long as one takes them as what they are (expressions of relationships between and among instrumental possibilities) as part of a mathematical formalism designed to generate statistical probabilities wrt instrumental behavior, and doesn't attribute any deeper significance to them.

Maui said:
That's your philosophy and it's acceptable and it's right where it belongs. But if you come to really think about it, the classical mindset is not a gift from god, it's likely a misconception (as evidenced by the philosophical implications of SR too).
Our mindset is necessitated and constrained by our sensory capabilities. So is our capacity for explanation, understanding, and unambiguous communication.

But given those limitations, it doesn't necessarily follow that the deep reality must be essentially different from the reality of our sensory experience. That is, I like the assumption that there are fundamental dynamical laws governing all physical realms, and that apparently scale and realm specific organizing principles have emerged from those fundamental laws.

What misconceptions do you think are "evidenced by the philosophical implications of SR"?

Maui said:
If superpositional states aren't real, what is this underlying reality you speak of?
Nobody knows what the underlying reality is. Nobody can know. Which is precisely why quantum superpositions shouldn't be taken as referring to the underlying reality.
 
  • #35
ThomasT said:
What I'm saying is that quantum superpositions don't violate conventional logic in the sense that it was conventional logic that led to their formulation, and that they also don't (in and of themselves wrt their form and content) violate conventional logic as long as one takes them as what they are (expressions of relationships between and among instrumental possibilities) as part of a mathematical formalism designed to generate statistical probabilities wrt instrumental behavior, and doesn't attribute any deeper significance to them.



It's not known to me how the interference pattern on the screen of the double slit experiment can arise out of a mathematical formalism. If your theory doesn't match reality, you change the theory, not the reality.



Our mindset is necessitated and constrained by our sensory capabilities. So is our capacity for explanation, understanding, and unambiguous communication.

But given those limitations, it doesn't necessarily follow that the deep reality must be essentially different from the reality of our sensory experience. That is, I like the assumption that there are fundamental dynamical laws governing all physical realms, and that apparently scale and realm specific organizing principles have emerged from those fundamental laws.



Sure, but i was objecting to using the classical mindset and its baggage for defining quantum realism, which by all means seems to best described as an interaction of fields(with real and unreal components at the same time, as evidenced by a multitude of experiemnts). The classical mindset is a deadend(this is not an opinion, we need to move on, though admittedly i will be the last person to usher the new one).

What misconceptions do you think are "evidenced by the philosophical implications of SR"?


In case you have forgotten(I doubt that), SR changed drastically our understanding of the structure of the universe with its previously fixed properties(mass, length, time, speed, energy, simultaneity, etc.). This is a side point and a quick google search will bring up quite a number of relevant points on how the classical mindset is a misconception for explaining reality(as supported by SR).


Nobody knows what the underlying reality is. Nobody can know. Which is precisely why quantum superpositions shouldn't be taken as referring to the underlying reality.


Nobody knows what this reality is and at this point, it appears that nobody can know. You probably won't like an argument based on it alone that argues that it's not real. Also, i don't see where anyone referred the existence of superpositions to a supposed underlying reality(i thought they referred to our reality - they can be observed as interference patterns).

The bottom line, imo(i think even the staunchest of realists would agree), is that we are far far away from the idea of a classical universe with definite properties that takes up a definite volume and dimensions in time. You probably don't like the direction physics appears to be going, but if 'matter' is a something that exists out there, we'll need a something akin to a probabalistic field 'universe' to explain it in a consistent manner. Or it could be that physics cannot say anything meaningful about reality(the universe, heh) and its ontology and whatever seems to be happening and existing will forever remain unexplained in a self-consistent manner, as some scientists assert(it never was, anyway).
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. Do superpositions violate the law of non-contradiction?</h2><p>No, superpositions do not violate the law of non-contradiction. This law states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time. In the case of superpositions, the object or particle exists in a state of multiple possibilities simultaneously, but it is not both possibilities at the same time. It is only when the state is observed that it collapses into one possibility, thus adhering to the law of non-contradiction.</p><h2>2. Can superpositions coexist with the principle of identity?</h2><p>Yes, superpositions can coexist with the principle of identity. This principle states that an object is the same as itself, and it cannot be anything else. In the case of superpositions, the object remains the same object, even though it may exist in multiple states simultaneously. The principle of identity is not violated because the object is still the same object, regardless of the state it is in.</p><h2>3. Do superpositions challenge the principle of excluded middle?</h2><p>No, superpositions do not challenge the principle of excluded middle. This principle states that a statement is either true or false, and there is no middle ground. In the case of superpositions, the statement may be true or false depending on the state of the object, but it is not both at the same time. The principle of excluded middle is not violated because the statement is still either true or false.</p><h2>4. Can superpositions be explained by conventional logic?</h2><p>Yes, superpositions can be explained by conventional logic. While they may seem counterintuitive, superpositions can be described and predicted using mathematical equations and conventional logic. The principles of logic and reasoning still apply to the study of superpositions, even though they may challenge our everyday understanding of the world.</p><h2>5. Are superpositions a violation of causality?</h2><p>No, superpositions are not a violation of causality. Causality is the relationship between cause and effect, and superpositions do not change this relationship. The object or particle in a superposition state still follows the same laws of cause and effect, but its state may be uncertain until it is observed. Superpositions do not violate causality, but they may challenge our understanding of it.</p>

1. Do superpositions violate the law of non-contradiction?

No, superpositions do not violate the law of non-contradiction. This law states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time. In the case of superpositions, the object or particle exists in a state of multiple possibilities simultaneously, but it is not both possibilities at the same time. It is only when the state is observed that it collapses into one possibility, thus adhering to the law of non-contradiction.

2. Can superpositions coexist with the principle of identity?

Yes, superpositions can coexist with the principle of identity. This principle states that an object is the same as itself, and it cannot be anything else. In the case of superpositions, the object remains the same object, even though it may exist in multiple states simultaneously. The principle of identity is not violated because the object is still the same object, regardless of the state it is in.

3. Do superpositions challenge the principle of excluded middle?

No, superpositions do not challenge the principle of excluded middle. This principle states that a statement is either true or false, and there is no middle ground. In the case of superpositions, the statement may be true or false depending on the state of the object, but it is not both at the same time. The principle of excluded middle is not violated because the statement is still either true or false.

4. Can superpositions be explained by conventional logic?

Yes, superpositions can be explained by conventional logic. While they may seem counterintuitive, superpositions can be described and predicted using mathematical equations and conventional logic. The principles of logic and reasoning still apply to the study of superpositions, even though they may challenge our everyday understanding of the world.

5. Are superpositions a violation of causality?

No, superpositions are not a violation of causality. Causality is the relationship between cause and effect, and superpositions do not change this relationship. The object or particle in a superposition state still follows the same laws of cause and effect, but its state may be uncertain until it is observed. Superpositions do not violate causality, but they may challenge our understanding of it.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
607
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
135
Views
8K
Back
Top