Against Realism: Examining the Meaning of Local Realism

[AnssiH]

**
I think one of the more meaningful definitions is that there exists a singular experience over some system consisting of many parts. Like, panpsychisms assert that everything is conscious, that there is consciousness simply because reality "hits the brain", and every physical reaction is a case of conscious experience to the object that is doing the reacting. **

Ok, a coarse grained thing. Fine, why don't you just put in some central information processing system in, like in a computer ?

Because even if we have labeled something as "central system", it doesn't mean this system experiences whatever occurs to one of its parts. Calling something central is literelly just a label we put on an object, it doesn't mean it is an object in a metaphysical sense any more than any 1000 randomly selected atoms are. It is just a collection of logic gates, which are collections of other things, etc... It's not different from a sewer system then. This whole idea about a "CPU" knowing what happens to one of its ports is just as non-sensical as saying a city knows what is happening in one of its parking lots. We are just tossing around semantical concepts, and in particular our way of seeing world as objects is the problem here.

**
The obvious problem with this is that we cannot define what is an object. Naive realist could say that a neuron too, has a subjective experience, but that would just mean a colony of molecules is having a subjective experience. A brain having a subjective experience is not trivial to explain because here too an arbitrary collection of atoms is having the experience. Why? **

Euh, I am not sure wheter each part of the brain or the colony has the *same* experience.

Yeah they don't, but there is a singular experience that the whole colony is having, which is not the experience of any single part of the colony. Plainly put, stimulating one part of the brain causes us a conscious experience of something, and stimulating a completely different part of the same brain also causes a conscious experience of something. Neither of the parts need to know about each others, yet there is a subjective experience of both stimulations.

Obviously there is connection between these areas, but it doesn't mean we are some sort of special neuron somewhere where everything is ultimately focused (and even if you supposed we are, neuron too has many parts, and in the end you start thinking we are some sort of special atom or some infinitely small area inside the atom or something). It just means it is wrong to understand the reality of consciousness in the form of something happening to some "object", for the whole idea about objects is arbitrary. I.e. there is a phenomenal self. There is no object that is conscious, but more properly conscious experience is occurring as a process or interaction between the so-called objects.

And conscious experience is really the only case where we could say there is a singular experience about the activity happening to a large collection of so-called "things".

It can be hard to see this at first because we are so used to seeing the world as objects. We use that language every day, "my car broke down" when something goes loose in the engine. The engine doesn't have a singular expeirence about something going loose in it, just like the car doesn't have a singular experience about something going wrong in the engine, just like the traffic system doesn't have a singular experience about one car breaking down. A logic gate doesn't have a singular experience of the neurons flowing around it, and the CPU doesn't have such experience of one of its gates going up, a computer doesn't experience what the CPU is doing, and the internet doesn't experience what your computer is doing. This whole business of classifying "objects" into a hierarchical structure is just not getting us anywhere with consciousness, it's just panpsychism. Incoherent and meaningless.

Panpsychism gets into immediate trouble in defining what is the granularity in what sense "objects" metaphysically exist, for you do not have a conscious experience of what is happening to an individual neuron in your brain.

**So that's why consciousness could be defined as a "singular experience that occurs to a colony of things", and for that reason it should be seen as the emergent function of the colony; a function that the whole system has while none of its parts have it. Just like ice is not slippery because it is made of slippery atoms, but because friction is an emergent function of colonies of atoms. (IF that's the way your semantical mind chooses to see it)**

But I am sure that ice has not the experience of slipperyness.

Certainly not. Consciousness is just one instance of "emergent functions". Not all emergent functions are consciousness. Emergent function too is not something that metaphysically exists, but merely a method to classify/comprehend reality.

The important thing to understand is that world is full of systems that have a function which none of its parts have. The problem that especially panpsychists have is that they suppose if the brain is conscious, so then must all of its parts be. It is just like thinking atoms are metaphysically made of "matter" instead of understanding what we call matter is an emergent function of the elements of an atom. A large pile of electrons is not like sand, and fire is not made out of fire (contrary to the old belief :)

 

[Careful]

** Because even if we have labeled something as "central system", it doesn't mean this system experiences whatever occurs to one of its parts.**

Of course, but now you reason from your wish about what consciousness should be without showing that any reasonable theory explaining conscious experience needs to satisfy this criterion.

***
Calling something central is literelly just a label we put on an object, it doesn't mean it is an object in a metaphysical sense any more than any 1000 randomly selected atoms are. It is just a collection of logic gates, which are collections of other things, etc... It's not different from a sewer system then. This whole idea about a "CPU" knowing what happens to one of its ports is just as non-sensical as saying a city knows what is happening in one of its parking lots. We are just tossing around semantical concepts, and in particular our way of seeing world as objects is the problem here. ***

There is no problem for me as far as I am aware of. Why would a self learning machine (and such things are being developped) not be an adequate substitute for a human being in a physical theory ? Pay attention: I am not saying a human being is a self learning machine, I just say that the difference (if any) is not important for physics.

***
Yeah they don't, but there is a singular experience that the whole colony is having, which is not the experience of any single part of the colony. Plainly put, stimulating one part of the brain causes us a conscious experience of something, and stimulating a completely different part of the same brain also causes a conscious experience of something. Neither of the parts need to know about each others, yet there is a subjective experience of both stimulations. ***

Right, because the central unit = our awareness process here.

*** Obviously there is connection between these areas, but it doesn't mean we are some sort of special neuron somewhere where everything is ultimately focused (and even if you supposed we are, neuron too has many parts, and in the end you start thinking we are some sort of special atom or some infinitely small area inside the atom or something). ***

Well, you know, nobody has ever *tested* that right ?! It is the same with quantum mechanics, since as far as we know, it works on such and such scale for a collection of particles, it suddenly needs to hold for all individual entities separately at all scales. And if I am allowed to guess, yes I think that the ultimate central unit is going to be very, very small.

This conversation is going the wrong way : I guess you should define what consciousness *is*.

Careful

 

[DrChinese]

I don't see why, an observable could just be a coarse grained property and those are not necessarily all well defined at each moment in time (like temperature in a non equilibrium situation). But that is not the point I guess, you basically refuse to accept an extension of reality (way less crazier than string theory) to solve the paradox.

Careful

What extension are you proposing? Bell gave a specific definition, and it seems pretty reasonable to me. His definition seems like it could be a "course" grained property, at least the way I see it. For example: spin could be an emergent property rather than an intrinsic property, and still have a specific measurable value.

 

[Careful]

What extension are you proposing? Bell gave a specific definition, and it seems pretty reasonable to me. His definition seems like it could be a "course" grained property, at least the way I see it. For example: spin could be an emergent property rather than an intrinsic property, and still have a specific measurable value.

Yes, that was the first part of my previous message (which was a reaction to your post 47), the second part of my message said that you might want to conceive that reality is more than what we straightforwardly deduce from measurement. I have given at least four examples how to do this on this thread, in post number 2 to be precise and there I still did not include the possibility that the future might influence the present (since it is not a strictly local theory).

Careful

 

[AnssiH]

** Because even if we have labeled something as "central system", it doesn't mean this system experiences whatever occurs to one of its parts.**

Of course, but now you reason from your wish about what consciousness should be without showing that any reasonable theory explaining conscious experience needs to satisfy this criterion.

Satisfy the criterion of there existing a singular subjective experience over some system?

Only thing we know about consciousness is that we are experiencing something subjectively. Is it not completely incoherent to point to an arbitrary direction and say "surely that object is also experiencing whatever it is experiencing", already for the simple reason that every person will see a different object there. One will see a car, another one a tire, and yet another one a scratch on the side of the car.

To make it clearer how this object-oriented thinking is completely arbitrary is that we are only pointing at stable patterns. If you assert that a doughnut is conscious, you must understand that the hole of the doughnut is just as much a stable pattern and one might simply choose to see it as an object. Is the hole experiencing too just by the virtue of naming this stable pattern as a hole?

Is a wave of the ocean experiencing something, or is it the water-molecules that are bouncing up and down that are experiencing something? Or rather is a lake experiencing something, or is the north-end of the lake having a different experience from the south-end? What about the rivers connected to the lakes, or the whole lake-river system?

How can we every say that some object is metaphysically experiencing something? Is it not more proper to say there are only stable patterns, instead of metaphysical objects? Bear in mind, when I say it is wrong to see the world as if there are objects, I am not saying that the apple you are throwing up and down in your hand does not actually exist, I am merely saying that to comprehend the situation in form of "apple", "hand", "matter" and space", and their associated behaviours, is just the way we understand reality, but not actually the way the structure of the reality exists.

Object-oriented thinking has led us astray so many times before btw. Like the idea that space is something with identity where objects move and electromagnetism proagates (=aether). Right now spacetime too is an idea about something where every location has an identity and objects move from one location to next. But as long as we talk about, say, matter and space, how can we really say where the matter ends and space begins? There is no wall to an atom, there are only physical functions which keep herds of atoms stable. We could just as well choose to see it as if atoms are extended, and as such the size of their whole influence, not the size as derived from, say, the observed distance between two atoms of certain type, or the distance from where other particles seem to be deflected (for the deflection is caused by an emergent function of an atom). The matter of the fact is that atomic models are just arbitrary ways to understand how things work at that scale, they don't necessarily say what exists metaphysically.

(Apologies for my posts tending to be a bit long... Things keep coming into my mind at increasing pace... Like I said, I've thought about these things for quite a while now... I hope I can at least raise interesting thoughts on the issue :P )

There is no problem for me as far as I am aware of. Why would a self learning machine (and such things are being developped) not be an adequate substitute for a human being in a physical theory ? Pay attention: I am not saying a human being is a self learning machine, I just say that the difference (if any) is not important for physics.

Well I am saying a human being is a self-learning machine, or at least I approve of using that label completely (which doesn't mean all learning machines are conscious).

I haven't asserted at any point that we couldn't build a conscious machine, I've merely said we cannot understand the reason why it is conscious while we can tell what are the appropriate parts that need to be to put together. Like cavemen could create fire without understand what it was. I have outlined myself a broad outline of what to pay attention to when building a conscious machine, and I believe "On Intelligence" describes completely valid framework for conscious machine as well.

Well, you know, nobody has ever *tested* that right ?! It is the same with quantum mechanics, since as far as we know, it works on such and such scale for a collection of particles, it suddenly needs to hold for all individual entities separately at all scales. And if I am allowed to guess, yes I think that the ultimate central unit is going to be very, very small.

The problem with asserting that the ultimate central unit is very very small (and incidentally very very simple) is that it would just mean we'd find a tiny dot inside the brain and by stimulating ONLY that we could cause all the sensations that we currently cause by stimulating some other parts of the brain. Basically it makes the whole complexity of the brain moot, as all the parts that seem to actually do the object recognition wouldn't actually do **** :) Maybe just modulate some signal at most, for some completely arbitrary reason.

Sure, it is possible that we will find it to be this way, but it is very very unlikely. Consciousness does not reside in the simplest of elements of the universe I don't think, it must be a product of cumulated complexity.

Plus, it seems apparent that to learn enough to become consciously aware (to assume such concepts as existence and self), it needs relatively large learning network. There just needs to be enough "storage space". Human neo-cortex is this kind of space, and we need large portions of it to store such a huge worldview as all of us do.

This conversation is going the wrong way : I guess you should define what consciousness *is*.

Well, I could probably think of tens of definitions, but all of them would be bound to be strongly colored by some particular way to view the world. I think the definition of singular experience over collection of "things" is still valid. I'm not the only one defining it this way btw, for example at "Being No One":
"...It is a wonderfully efficient two-way window that allows an organism to conceive of itself as a whole, and thereby to causally interact with its inner and outer environment in an entirely new, integrated and intelligent manner..."

What this means is basically that a colony becomes to behave as a coherent whole, and in doing so there is a new kind of evolutionary stability found for this colony (and we call such colonies "organisms" or "animals". Richard Dawkins talks a lot about how organisms actually are colonies having "come together" at some point during the evolution in Selfish Gene")

Of course this also has to be understood in completely darwinistic way. It doesn't mean that evolution has stroke some magic structure which suddenly made "free will" or something like that possible. It just means that things fell into such stable structures where the whole structure behaves for the stability of the whole structure (and in doing so finds itself from the future "gene pool"), instead of all of its parts behaving for the stability of themselves.

It is not in any way "given" that you experience everything that comes in from your senses, and that you experiencing making the decisions of moving your limbs and whatnot. This occurs only if there really exists a learning/prediction mechanism that sorts the reality out into semantical concepts in some sense.

As an interesting side note, by severing the corpus callum we can create a situation where each hemisphere of the brain is conceiving itself as one, basically creating two conscious experiences inside one person. That is why these person complain about their other half doing things on its own(Alien hand syndrome). It is the "linguistic hemisphere" of course that is doing the complaining. There are many interesting experiments related to this, such as the person being able to make simple logical decision, but not being able to *say* why he did the decision. :)

 

[DrChinese]

Yes, that was the first part of my previous message (which was a reaction to your post 47), the second part of my message said that you might want to conceive that reality is more than what we straightforwardly deduce from measurement. I have given at least four examples how to do this on this thread, in post number 2 to be precise and there I still did not include the possibility that the future might influence the present (since it is not a strictly local theory).

Careful

You said in #2: "There are at least four well known local mechanisms which violate the ``logic'' in this paper : holography, polarizable media, negative ``probabilities'', predeterminsim. "

I am not sure what you mean about the others, but I think I understand your point about negative probabilities. I.e. that if one does not rule out negative probabilities, then realism is not violated. Is that an accurate summary of your comment?

If so, I would still say that most folks would not agree with that position... even if it is technically accurate. (Because that would be equivalent to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.) The point of the exercise was to exclude all of the local realistic scenarios - the local hidden variable scenarios anyway - in which a more complete "classical" specification of the system is possible. Clearly, a negative probability scenario wouldn't meet that criterion; nor would a scenario in which the future influences the past. Don't get me wrong: These may be viable scenarios, but they are not "realistic" per Bell.

 

[AnssiH]

Hope I'm not boring anyone but...

...another lethal objection against panpsychism is that the only case of subjective experience that we know of - our own - is not a case of us experiencing "the reality hitting our brain" at all. We are not aware of the electro-chemical activity inside the brain or nothing of that sort. We are merely aware of some pattern having been recognized as "X". In other words, we are not aware of the physical activity inside the brain, but rather of the "logical" conclusions that are made about reality (by to that physical activity in some logical sense).

When you are reading this, you are recognizing patterns as letters or full words or even multiple words at once. To the brain these are just electric patterns hitting different parts of the cortex as you move your eyes. When you listen someone talk, you become aware of what word was said, but not necessarily of the actual wave patterns that hit your ears or the pitch (unless you concentrate on these), or the electric patterns that hit your cortex. We have found single cells to fire in the brain when a person sees the face of Bill Clinton or Halle Berry, which just means that the high levels of cortical hierarchy has recognized some pattern as such and such object. This object is what we are conscious of, we are never conscious of the electric activity.

And when I talked about semantical worldview, that talk is all about how the concept of grandmother cells has to be understood not as if there are cells that metaphysically have some meaning when they are fired, but as the brain itself assuming the meanings of everything into a logical structure that is completely self-supporting.

Now if a panpsychists starts claiming that any case of any reaction of anything is a case of the object in question having a subjective experience, they should also explain why is it that we are not aware of the reality hitting our brain, but only of the semantical concepts that exist due to specific learning processes our brain goes through? (here you can also see justification to my claim that no learning system has a conscious experience unless it has made certain assumptions about its own existence)

"But when I'm just looking at the room around me, am I not aware of reality as it is?". Of course you are not. Things, or different waves of light don't have colour to themselves metaphysically. This is naive realism. When you are looking at the room around you, you are still only aware of the semantical concepts that you recognize, such as various shapes or objects like shadows or spots of light or whatnot. Even the sensation of colour is, as I explained earlier, a fully semantical concept. Recognizing your room visually is not different from recognizing a melody from a sound pressure pattern. In fact the cortex is largely plastic in that all the spatial/temporal patterns from all the senses are processed in similar fashion. The only reason they are subjectively experienced so differently is because of certain assumptions that exist in the worldview.

Now, a dualist or idealist would object at this point saying that I am still describing something that is basically an arbitrary physical process, albeit we could call it "learning process", so why should we expect a subjective experience to exist on such type of physical process all of a sudden? As a materialist I make the assumption that when there exists such logical recognition system which interprets sensory data with its open-ended worldview where the concept of "self" exists in certain logical sense (but to an extent in arbitrary physical sense), a conscious experience exists. Otherwise we could indeed imagine a society of zombies who don't have a conscious experience but who would nevertheless spend countless hours at messageboards arguing about consciousness and how their "selves" exists. Is this possible? I don't think so. At least it would be completely absurd. But funny.

I still cannot really pin down WHY is it that recognizing certain patterns as such and such logical concepts, and consequently recognizing some experience logically as "I experienced this and that" causes a subjective experience. And I assume this is because of what I said about our comprehension always being just an artificial expression of reality. And by comprehension I mean anything you can have an experience of. ANYTHING.

 

[setAI]

from hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy- on replacing Arthur Dent's biological brain with an electronic one:

Zaphod Beeblebrox: "you'd just have to program it to say What? and I don't understand and Where's the tea? — who'd know the difference?"

Arthur Dent: "I'd notice the difference!"

Frankie Mouse: "No you wouldn't, you'd be programmed not to."

 

[Careful]

***
I am not sure what you mean about the others, but I think I understand your point about negative probabilities. I.e. that if one does not rule out negative probabilities, then realism is not violated. Is that an accurate summary of your comment? ***

Read F SELLERI, chapter 5 ! How many times do I have to repeat that.

**
If so, I would still say that most folks would not agree with that position... even if it is technically accurate. (Because that would be equivalent to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.) ***

No, it is not, there is no baby. The only thing Bell is useful for, is to point out to local realists that they will have to come up with a nontrivial notion of reality.

**
The point of the exercise was to exclude all of the local realistic scenarios - the local hidden variable scenarios anyway - in which a more complete "classical" specification of the system is possible. **

Right, in that sense Bell's exercise was very limited and has no severe implications whatsoever for local realism as pointed out before.

Careful

 

[DrChinese]

Read F SELLERI, chapter 5 ! How many times do I have to repeat that.

Do you mean:

Selleri, F., Quantum Mechanics Versus Local Realism: The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox (Plenum Press, New York, 1998).

If something he said is identical to your opinion, I might be interested in the quote if it relevant. (I do not have this particular material.)

As best I can determine, you are saying that Bell's realism is not meaningful; and therefore his theorem is of limited applicability.

P.S. Might I kindly suggest that you consider using the quote function when replying? It would make it easier to distinguish your comments...

 

[wm]

So again, I return to the mathematical formalism of Bell to serve as a specific definition.

In my view: The cited ''mathematical formalism'' provides a specific definition of the realism assumption used by Bell.

Therefore: Experiments which breach Bell's formalism involve realistic entities which are outside Bell's purview.

Then: In that many experiments breach Bell's inequality, Bell's ''realism'' is of a limited kind [... one that might be termed ''naive realism'' ... one commonly associated with the ''doctrine of faithful measurement'' ... ie, the doctrine that a ''measurement'' always reveals a ''pre-existing pre-measurement property''].

Conclusion: Many real objects (eg, photons and electrons) breach Bell's realism assumption. That is: Bellian inequalities are breached by both classical and quantum experiments because these objects lie outside the set of objects embraced by the limited realism in the cited formalism. wm

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

'It is pretty obvious that when we have a conscious experience of anything (or rather "when there exists a conscious experience)", we don't actually experience reality itself, but we experience the artificial model of reality built by our brain. We can literally only understand an artificial model about these artificial models; this understanding too is based on huge amount of completely semantical concepts and arbitrary assumptions.'


This 'artificial reality' as you call it, is not really artificial at all. Its the tiny slice of the Universe than we can biologically sense. As our senses improve over time due to technological advancements, we start to see a larger and larger piece of the pie you may call the Universe or 'reality' if you prefer. If an alien civilization exists that has 8 senses, our 5 and 3 additional exotic senses, would its perception of reality also be called 'artificial' simply because its viewing reality through consciousness? Or perhaps you would call it less artificial because it sees a bigger slice of reality with its extra 3 exotic senses.

I suspect your view may be that consciousness is some kind of filter that disallows the true reality to be perceived. If this is the case, I think it is a good idea to ponder about where the disconnect between 'the true reality' and 'artificial reality' lies. To my mind the pathway between the true reality and artificial reality has 3 components, the senses, the consciousness and the 'true reality particles', for lack of a better word. So then, is the problem that our senses don't take a correct snapshot of the 'true reality particles', or is it that our consciousness cannot correctly grasp the information that our senses gather from the 'true reality particles'? Perhaps both right, who knows.

In a nutshell my view is that no description of 'true reality' is 'artificial' because no lifeform with the gift of consciousness has a preferred frame of referrence with which to act as the de facto standard. So sure, our description of the 'true reality' is incomplete (and thank god or else we'd have nothing else to learn!), yet I think the slice of reality pie that we have managed to cleave off so far is 100% natural, with no 'artificial' ingredients. And quite frankly it is delicious.

 

[AnssiH]

This 'artificial reality' as you call it, is not really artificial at all. Its the tiny slice of the Universe than we can biologically sense. As our senses improve over time due to technological advancements, we start to see a larger and larger piece of the pie you may call the Universe or 'reality' if you prefer. If an alien civilization exists that has 8 senses, our 5 and 3 additional exotic senses, would its perception of reality also be called 'artificial' simply because its viewing reality through consciousness? Or perhaps you would call it less artificial because it sees a bigger slice of reality with its extra 3 exotic senses.

I suspect your view may be that consciousness is some kind of filter that disallows the true reality to be perceived. If this is the case, I think it is a good idea to ponder about where the disconnect between 'the true reality' and 'artificial reality' lies.

No it's not the case :)
It's not about what we can sense with our natural senses, but about how we classify/understand the sensory data. We could plug any arbitrary number of artificial sensory systems into the cortex and so have a qualia experience of, say, X-rays or thermal camera or anything like that, and yet the comprehension of any sensory data would not be the metaphysical reality of that data, but some logical conclusions about what "objects" exists and how they behave with each others.

Let's say you are feeling a coin in your hand (and you actually have to move it around in your hand to recognize it; brain needs not only spatial but also the temporal aspect of a pattern to recognize anything) . The sensory data pouring into your brain is in constant flux in the cortex. As the coin moves in your hand it causes different nerve cells of your hand to fire, and they connect to different parts of cortex. Yet there is at all the times a subjective sense of "you" experiencing the coin, not a sense of electricity rushing around in the cortex.

The pattern recognition that occurs in the cortex is able to judge all this against something you've experienced before, and assume simply that it is "a coin" in your hand (i.e. if only in your worldview there exists some assumptions about coins and such things). And not only that, there exists other concepts about reality in your worldview, such as the roundness and the flatness, and the texture, weight and temperature of the object, all semantical assumptions about "things" or "concepts" that exist.

The only difference between so-called naive realism and "accurate" realism is that the latter one breaks the world down into simpler functions or concepts, but there is no fundamental difference in how we understand things.

Note especially how at all times you can only be aware of the logical side of things, not so much about the reality of things flowing in your brain or how the coin could be in reality. Note how even classifying this experience in the form of objects and their relationships is just our method of "understanding". It is probably the only method with which subjective experience can come to exist, but it is by no means a way to understand how reality really is. I struggle to explain in detail why this is so because I can only use semantical concepts to talk about it. The understanding of why this is so comes from understanding how this method of understanding is merely an arbitrary way to predict the environment (to avoid dangers in novel situations).

Note how even the experience of just seeing your room is about understanding many many concepts about reality around you. Your brain can recognize such high-level concepts as "my room" from the sensory data, or it can recognize many many low-level concepts from within the room. But all of these are just concepts, i.e. assumptions or ideas about reality. In other words, you are merely aware of the mental model or the "simulation of reality" running in your head, which is necessarily expressed in form of certain concepts, instead of in the form of how reality is. Much like in a computer simulation a physical storm is expressed not in the form of how the real storm is, but in form of numbers or bits.

And at last, consider the reality of colours. If the whole world was red, there would be no such concept as "colours" in our understanding. It would be impossible to understand what are colours, until we saw for the first time something that is "NOT red". For the first time there would be a juxtaposition for red, so to understand what does red mean. However, to assume that red things really look "red" in reality is naive realism; they don't. Things don't have colours per se, the only difference between red and green is the difference in the electric signal that is coming into the cortex. With this difference the brain classifies red and green as different things into the worldview, and the subjective experience of how they look like can be arbitrary, as long as they are experienced differently

These logical conclusions about reality can be extrapolated to all senses and all things we have any understanding of, including "self", and if you spend some time thinking about it, I think it will blow your mind to realize how different reality really can be from how we understand it to exist.

 

[Careful]

Do you mean:

Selleri, F., Quantum Mechanics Versus Local Realism: The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox (Plenum Press, New York, 1998).

If something he said is identical to your opinion, I might be interested in the quote if it relevant. (I do not have this particular material.)

As best I can determine, you are saying that Bell's realism is not meaningful; and therefore his theorem is of limited applicability.

P.S. Might I kindly suggest that you consider using the quote function when replying? It would make it easier to distinguish your comments...

Why would I point you to an irrelevant source ? It is not that I say my opinion is identical to Selleri's, just that I see possibilities in the solutions presented in this chapter. Science is not about opinions but facts, and we don't have unfortunately enough of them, even for pretty basic things. That is why there are so many ``opinions''.

Careful

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

And at last, consider the reality of colours. If the whole world was red, there would be no such concept as "colours" in our understanding. It would be impossible to understand what are colours, until we saw for the first time something that is "NOT red". For the first time there would be a juxtaposition for red, so to understand what does red mean. However, to assume that red things really look "red" in reality is naive realism; they don't. Things don't have colours per se, the only difference between red and green is the difference in the electric signal that is coming into the cortex. With this difference the brain classifies red and green as different things into the worldview, and the subjective experience of how they look like can be arbitrary, as long as they are experienced differently

.

Well certainly I agree with this paragraph of your post. I see no reason to argue about which words we use to give semantic meaning to specific concepts such as 'red' colors. Any word will do fine, so long as it confines our observation of this 'red' color to a singular experience. By singular experience I mean that we can define a ~1eV photon as 'red' and a
~1.5eV photon as 'blue'. Of course we can change the names around, but so long as both names identify two separate experiences, they suffice perfectly. I think this sensed version of reality is identical to any observer independent reality. In both cases two photons exist, period. The properties of the photons do not change.

There is only one reality. Many perspectives. But ONE reality. Our sensory perspective is incomplete in its full detailing of this reality, yet still there is only one reality. You see, we cannot know how full our picture of reality is at any given point because history has taught us that we make new discoveries everyday. Thus our picture is constantly increasing, but never complete. Its like the observable horizon of the Universe, every day as the light cone from the region on the fringes of our Universe reaches our telescopes, new Quasars seem to 'pop' into reality. But in reality, these Quasars always existed, its just that now we can perceive them.

From your post, I gathered that you think the disconnect is between the brain and the sensory input... I really cannot be convinced of this so far, can you prove this to me somehow?

P.S. How might a creature who knew every phenomena of space and time describe the universe? Would he give an inaccurate picture of the universe simply because he defined it in words?

 

[MeJennifer]

There is only one reality. Many perspectives. But ONE reality.

I disagree that this statement must be unquestionably true.

For example in the theory of relativity we cannot determine one reality, there are only perspectives. So how can we assert there is one reality?

I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems you state something you can not possibly prove and appears to be a statement of belief.

 

[AnssiH]

Well certainly I agree with this paragraph of your post. I see no reason to argue about which words we use to give semantic meaning to specific concepts such as 'red' colors. Any word will do fine, so long as it confines our observation of this 'red' color to a singular experience. By singular experience I mean that we can define a ~1eV photon as 'red' and a
~1.5eV photon as 'blue'. Of course we can change the names around, but so long as both names identify two separate experiences, they suffice perfectly. I think this sensed version of reality is identical to any observer independent reality. In both cases two photons exist, period. The properties of the photons do not change.

Yeah, the observation of photons is caused by something that exists, but the metaphysical reality of the photons is based on certain semantical assumptions about reality, and we don't know what the metaphysical reality of photons is. So I'm not saying that when we observe photons there is in fact "nothing there and our observation is just an illusion" or anything of that sort. I'm merely saying that we can never find out what are "the things that metaphysically exist", we can only postulate certain fundamentals so to come up with a description of a system that produces everything we observe, but there are bound to be an arbitrary number of radically different postulates about what exists. There already are many such postulates, albeit we can say some of them explain much less than the others. Like fundamentally expanding spacetime or electrons as spherical standing waves and what have you. Regardless of if you find these ideas moronic or not, they are good excercises in thinking about the philosophical aspects of metaphysics. For example:
http://www.estfound.org/philosophical.htm
Einstein's commentary at the page, about the completeness of general relativity is a sign of very healthy philosophy, and it applies to any scientific model.

There is only one reality. Many perspectives. But ONE reality.

Exactly. This is the fundamental notion of materialism. And I'm a materialist too. (And that's right Jennifer, it only applies to materialistic paradigm. Which is, after all is said and done, a statement of belief. In fact it is because of the way we understand reality that we can only make statements of belief; any statement is true only in so far that certain other statements in our worldview are true, but all of them are also assumptions. A self-supporting worldview is how we work, like I said before)

From your post, I gathered that you think the disconnect is between the brain and the sensory input... I really cannot be convinced of this so far, can you prove this to me somehow?

That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm saying is referring to the way we understand, not to the way our senses measure reality.

Perhaps I better try this by asking a question; What is an object? The world seems to contain many individual things, like "apples". We recognize an apple by their familiar pattern hitting the cortex. Furthermore, apples are made of many other objects, like the peel and seeds, which are furthermore made of even simpler parts, etc... Also the apple is a part of larger objects, like an apple tree, or an apple farm.

But what really is in a metaphysical sense, an object? Is an apple a single entity? Or the apple farm? Is the water in a bowl an object? What about a shadow? What constitutes an identity of an object? What does it even mean to say that there exists objects? Is photon an object?

Thinking about these issues, it should become apparent that we classify reality into objects by the properties of some stable patterns that exist, but there is no sense in postulating that world really exists in forms of entities that have relationships between each others. What we call "identity" is more accurately just a case of "stability". World just is one big dynamic "thing" where some patterns are stable for longer periods of time than others, but this whole business of classifying such patterns into "objects" for the purpose of being able to assume certain persistent behaviour to such "objects", is simply the way reality is necessarily expressed in the brain. This is a physical necessity because this is the only way to actually predict something that has not yet happened. And this is why comprehending reality "as it is" is beyond thought.

P.S. How might a creature who knew every phenomena of space and time describe the universe? Would he give an inaccurate picture of the universe simply because he defined it in words?

Well, the whole assertion of "world is made of individual entities" is meaningless. Which doesn't mean "we are all the same" is correct either. We can probably one day make arbitrary number of arbitrarily accurate descriptions of reality, but there will be no way of choosing which one must be right, because they are necessarily descriptions of what "things" exist. So also the creature describing everything that ever happened would necessarily describe it in terms of entities and their relationships.

Even the assertion "I ate breakfast this morning" is wrong because I am asserting I am something with identity, that there is a magical "self" inside me that was there this morning and is still there now. There is no such identity to self, I am only a stable pattern and since I can be defined only by my cumulated worldview - which has changed since this morning - I am in fact a different being now than I was this morning. I could say that I am "changing into different being from every moment to the next", only this too is an assertion about what exists ("one being" and "moments"), and it is basically also incorrect assertion.

It is very important to understand these issues with QM, so to start looking at the world in form of "stable patterns" or "stable systems" instead of "objects". This is important when asking "what is a photon" or if the idea of particle-like existence of energy in the space between atoms is given at all. When someone asks "how do we know there are photons?", it is remarkably unthoughtful to say "because we have measured them". We have not measured a photon, we have just observed a stable pattern or behaviour in some system, and made certain assumptions about the metaphysical reality of that behaviour (assumed that it was caused by a photon). No one has ever seen a photon, and no one ever will. One can only make certain measurements and believe the results were caused by something we call "a photon". (And this says nothing about how accurate or inaccurate our concept of photons is, or how much it explains)

We make certain assumptions about what things exist (and how), and if our ideas about what exists are too inaccurate, we will "observe obscure behaviour". This is true for any system. I'm merely taking this one step further and saying that we can never know for sure which things "truly" exist. (I think we can make deterministic interpretations. In fact we can probably make quite a few different sorts of deterministic interpretations, just by postulating different fundamentals to exist. As a materialist I also believe world really is deterministic, btw)

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

I disagree that this statement must be unquestionably true.

For example in the theory of relativity we cannot determine one reality, there are only perspectives. So how can we assert there is one reality?

I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems you state something you can not possibly prove and appears to be a statement of belief.

Don't you see what I am getting at here in this post? There is only one underlying reality. This reality, very fortunately for us, can be objectively examined and its properties solved for by Math. Math is the universal language. Even if there were a dozen alien civilizations in the universe with a completely different set of senses from one another and their brains interpreted the underlying reality completely differently. These dozen alien civilizations could communicate what mathematical laws in the universe they have solved for so far.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Don't you see what I am getting at here in this post? There is only one underlying reality. This reality, very fortunately for us, can be objectively examined and its properties solved for by Math. Math is the universal language. Even if there were a dozen alien civilizations in the universe with a completely different set of senses from one another and their brains interpreted the underlying reality completely differently. These dozen alien civilizations could communicate what mathematical laws in the universe they have solved for so far.

Whatyou are getting at is that you ASSERT there is "one underlying reality". Where did you get this? What is your EVIDENCE for it? Is it your religion?

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Do you know of any others selfAdjoint?

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Selfadjoin

I repeat. Do you know of any other realities other than the one we live in? I think the burden of proof lies on those who claim there is an underlying reality beyond our sensory perceptions. In fact that view is unattenable and unfalsifiable and does not sound like good science to me. My view in this matter is not fixed and NO it is not my religion, nor do I have a religion, nor have I ever had a religion. I'm completely open to being convinced that there is an underlying reality beyond our sensory perceptions, but as I say, I think this impossible to prove, even in theory.
Interestingly, even the definitions of 'reality' do not agree with each other. Some seem to say reality is observer-independent (underlying reality), while others say reality is a collection of your experiences. Its no wonder we can't agree then! haha.


Dictionary.com - Reality

'all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you;'

'The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence'

Philosophy. a. 'something that exists independently of ideas concerning it. '
b. 'something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.'

 

[Hurkyl]

I think the burden of proof lies on those who claim there is

The burden of proof lies with the person doing the claiming. Since you have asserted there is "one underlying reality", you have a burden to prove your claim.

If selfAdjoint had claimed there were multiple underlying realities, he would also have a burden to prove that claim. As it is, though, he's simply prodding you for making unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

The burden of proof lies with the person doing the claiming. Since you have asserted there is "one underlying reality", you have a burden to prove your claim.

If selfAdjoint had claimed there were multiple underlying realities, he would also have a burden to prove that claim. As it is, though, he's simply prodding you for making unsubstantiated assertions.

Wrong. I am simply saying that if we agree that our sensory perceptions neccessarily bias our observations of any supposed 'underlying reality'. Then we can never know if there is an 'underlying reality' by definition. For how else can we ever observe this 'underlying reality' without our senses? We cannot. Therefore there is only the reality of sensory perception.

If you still do not understand me (and at this point I don't see how you possibly could not), try imagining this simple example:
Take a tennis ball and hide it under a box. Call your wife in the room and ask her to tell you what is inside the box. You will be amazed to see that she cannot tell you what's inside the box. Do you know why? Because none of her senses can penetrate the box, it is impossible for her to know the contents. Now call your son into the room and ask him the same question and he will also not be able to answer what is inside the box. Now you leave the room and tell your wife and son to discuss what the possible contents of the box are. Given sufficient time, they will come up with every object imaginable that could fit the dimensional constraints of the box, but all of their guesses will be equally wrong and equally correct since they have no way to falsify them. Now imagaine that this box's size is infinite. Your wife and son will exhaust every possible object they can think of and still be no further to a solution as to what the box's contents are.
To finalize my construction, I put forth to the reader that arguing whether there even is an object inside the box is futile and unknowable. But what can be agreed upon is that there is a box that can be sensed by both observers. Therefore the only reality that can be known to your wife and son and anyone else really, is that there is a box, in which there may or may not be an object inside. Barring the notion that your wife and son develop a new sense like X-ray vision, their reality-horizon can only ever be that which they can sensorily perceive, pure and simple.

Maybe you can tell me what is beyond the Universe's observable horizon please? Then you can also tell me what is beyond a human's reality-horizon as well please?

I am open to speculation, but alas, the only truth we can agree upon about reality or anything else for that matter, is what is true at this very moment.

 

[AnssiH]

Well I think the last 6 posts are a good showcase how different our semantical concepts can be. Chaos clearly is using "reality" to simply refer to "everything that exists", whatever that may be. Whereas others may consider reality to mean "things that we can have information about", i.e. things that interact one way or another with the stuff we are made of, directly or indirectly (perhaps there exists other complex structures and systems that just don't interact with what we call matter at all), and yet others may consider physical reality to be one reality and some sort of spiritual reality to be another reality. Some make distiction between "objective reality" and "subjective reality", and some think only the latter one exists.

I think this same sort of confusion is evident it all kinds of arguments about whether it was "reality" that began with "the big bang".

So here it is also visible how our sense of reality is based on certain assumptions about what meaning certain concepts have and what things may exist and in what ways. When you are making statements about just what is "reality", it becomes pretty clear how impossible it is to get the hang of it with semantical concepts. Even if we can make everybody understand these concepts in the same manner, who is to say that is metaphysically "the correct way" to understand reality?

The statement that we are all part of and sharing our experiences in one single objective universe at the same time (and so on), that's a statement of belief that belongs to materialistic paradigm. Hmmm, well a materialist usually considers spacetime to be true also, so that makes it all a bit convoluted, as then we are not in fact experiencing things "at the same time" in any sense at all... :I (And here's the reason I would like to be careful with assertions about the metaphysical existence of spacetime)

 

[RandallB]

The burden of proof lies with the person doing the claiming. Since you have asserted there is "one underlying reality", you have a burden to prove your claim.

I disagree; all logic must come from a beginning foundation and belief.
Logic tells us that there may be many views of reality QM, BM, QED, SED etc. that may all give accurate predictions as an analogy of reality. But no one can claim to be CORRECT as in COMPLETE until it can demonstrate a complete explanation of how the others produced accurate results but within there own more complete detail of the correct one reality. Thus making it clear where, when and why the other views produce the accurate results they give.

What is the foundation of the logic the can bring this conclusion. The same foundation that gives you the most fundamental basis for even asking for a proof.

Before you can ask you must "be".
If you accept the foundational logic that “you think therefore you are”
This provides sufficient fundament logic to build on to come to the conclusion there is only one reality.
If you do not agree that “you think therefore you are” then you need to offer some proof that you exist before you can even ask the question. Preferably a proof that does not lead to the rules of logic we know.

 

[setAI]

I repeat. Do you know of any other realities other than the one we live in?

not only are there other 'realities'- but we now use them to perform computations that would be impossible in just one reality


"there are indeed other, equally real, versions of you in other universes, who chose differently and are now enduring the consequences. Why do I believe this? Mainly because I believe quantum mechanics... Furthermore, the universes affect each other. Though the effects are minute, they are detectable in carefully designed experiments... When a quantum computer solves a problem by dividing it into more sub-problems than there are atoms in the universe, and then solving each sub-problem, it will PROVE to us that those sub-problems were solved somewhere - but not in our universe, for there isn't enough room here. What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist? " -David Deutsch [/color]

 

[AnssiH]

not only are there other 'realities'- but we now use them to perform computations that would be impossible in just one reality


"there are indeed other, equally real, versions of you in other universes, who chose differently and are now enduring the consequences. Why do I believe this? Mainly because I believe quantum mechanics... Furthermore, the universes affect each other. Though the effects are minute, they are detectable in carefully designed experiments... When a quantum computer solves a problem by dividing it into more sub-problems than there are atoms in the universe, and then solving each sub-problem, it will PROVE to us that those sub-problems were solved somewhere - but not in our universe, for there isn't enough room here. What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist? " -David Deutsch [/color]

...like I said, we all use the world "reality" to mean so many different things... :P
And btw, why is MWI becoming into some sort of religion all over the place? There must be something very tempting to a model of reality that implies there's more to reality than we readily perceive... After all, this is what tempts people to believe in any religion :)
Oh boy, next I'm going to hear how MWI "cannot be proven wrong" and how it's "the only possibility".

 

[Hurkyl]

I disagree; all logic must come from a beginning foundation and belief...

I'm confused -- I don't see anything in your post that talks about burdens of proof. In fact, I can't figure out what your point is at all.

 

[kvantti]

...like I said, we all use the world "reality" to mean so many different things... :P
And btw, why is MWI becoming into some sort of religion all over the place? There must be something very tempting to a model of reality that implies there's more to reality than we readily perceive... After all, this is what tempts people to believe in any religion :)
Oh boy, next I'm going to hear how MWI "cannot be proven wrong" and how it's "the only possibility".

Well, here is a challenge for you (and for everyone who doesn't believe in the MWI) from Deutsch (as presented in his book The Fabric of Reality):

Explain where the calculations made by a quantum computer are performed when it solves the sub-problems associated with a single problem. Eg. when factoring a 250-number digit using the algorithm[/url], the number of sub-problems is about 10^500 (the number of particles in the universe is about 10^80).
And yet, a quantum computer solves all the sub-problems at the same time. So how can it solve 10^500 problems during only one calculation, if we have only one computer in only one universe?

(It would take classical computer 10^500 times the time of a quantum computer to perform the same operation)

And for the question why the MWI has become "some sort of religion": it gives a coherent, local and deterministic description of reality and in my point of view, it would be illogical that there would be only one universe. Didn't you think that there are "other dimensions" when you were a kid?

 

[setAI]

A few years ago, BBC Horizon did a documentary on time travel in which you explained the parallel universes theory and suggested that there was ‘hard evidence’ for it. Well, it is a controversial theory and is accepted only by a minority of physicists, as you yourself acknowledge in your book. Why do you think there is such a strong reaction to this theory in the scientific community? And how do you reply to their criticism?

David Deutsch: I must confess that I am at a loss to understand this sociological phenomenon, the phenomenon of the slowness with which the many universes interpretation has been accepted over the years. I am aware of certain processes and events that have contributed to it. For instance Niels Bohr, who was the inventor of the Copenhagen interpretation, had a very profound influence over a generation of physicists and one must remember that physics was a much smaller field in those days. So, the influence of a single person, especially such a powerful personality as Niels Bohr, could make itself felt much more than it would be today. So that is one thing – that Niels Bohr’s influence educated two generations of physicists to make certain philosophical moves of the form "we must not ask such and such a question." Or, "a particle can be a wave and a wave can be a particle," became a sort of mantra and if one questioned it one was accused of not understanding the theory fully. Another thing is that quantum theory happened to arise in the heyday of the logical positivists. Many physicists – perplexed by the prevailing interpretations of quantum physics – realized that they could do their day-to-day job without ever addressing that issue, and then along came a philosophy which said that this day-to-day job was, as a matter of logic, all that there is in physics. This is a very dangerous and stultifying approach to science but many physicists took it and it is a very popular view within physics even to this day. Nobody will laugh at you if, in reply to the question "are there really parallel universes or not?", you answer "that is a meaningless question; all that matters is the shapes of the traces in the bubble chamber, that is all that actually exists." Whereas philosophers have slowly realized that that is absurd, physicists still adopt it as a way out. It is certainly no more than ten percent, or probably fewer, of physicists talking many universes language. But it is heartening that the ones who do tend to be the ones working in fields where that question is significant, which are quantum cosmology and quantum theory of computation. By no means all, even in those fields, but those are the strongholds of the many-worlds interpretation. Those also tend to be the physicists who have thought most about that issue. But why it has taken so long, why there is such resistance, and why people feel so strongly about this issue, I do not fully understand.

[/color]

 

[Hurkyl]

kvantti, setAI: people have already responded to your assertions many times. If you don't want to be crackpots, you would do well to stop mindlessly repeating them without any regard to the received criticism.

Explain where the calculations made by a quantum computer are performed when it solves the sub-problems associated with a single problem.

In the quantum computer: where else?


In fact, when I learned quantum computation in one of my classes, we learned it from a solidly Copenhagenist viewpoint.

 

[setAI]

kvantti, setAI: people have already responded to your assertions many times. If you don't want to be crackpots, you would do well to stop mindlessly repeating them without any regard to the received criticism.

this is the irony- the MWI IS[/size] now the mainstream/orthodox/dominant/whatever interpretation of QM- as acknowledged by virtually every major and minor professional physicist on the planet [minus a few slow-pokes in the USA and Penrose on odd-numbered-days]

it is rather shocking that even some of the moderators on this forum are actually going against what is considered the most rigorous empirically verified concept in physics- and they are mis-representing it here as something less- even crankish?!

the so-called 'received criticism" was a joke- totally refuting facts- and rejecting peer-reviewed science that is the basis for the most successful technology in human history!

you are firmly representing the crackpot view here- not us- I have 100 years of empirical QM data and the opinions of nearly every professional physicist in the world to back it up- you have a head-in-the-sand interpretation that tells you to "shut up and calculate"- how can you possibly think you represent the interests of real science here?

how do you reconcile your "crackpot" comment against the fact that the MWI [and similar interpretations] is now the only interpretation that professional physicists accept? what next? are you guys going to try and convince people that Darwinian Evolution or Plate Tectonics are crackpot pseudoscience as well? and that is not just a cheap shot- MWI has as much if not MORE experimental support than Natural Selection or PT- in fact it is the most empirically supported idea in physics at this time in history

of course the MWI is not complete- not the whole answer- but it is BY DEFINITION the only actual interpretation we have- as DD mentioned in the above interview- Copenhagen/Hidden Variable/ etc 'interpretations' are illogical and absurd- there aren't interpretations AT ALL- by definition MWI is the only version of QM that is a viable version of the theory-

ignorance is not an alternative to understanding! just becasue a handful of stick-in-the-muds haven't bothered to pick-up a physics journal for the last 6 years doesn't mean those of us who have should have to play nice and pretend that there are still other interpretations of QM worth discussing-

this is a moderated forum that discusses peer-reviewed QM- thanks to DD's work right now that is MWI and only MWI [follow the funding]

 

[setAI]

And for the question why the MWI has become "some sort of religion": it gives a coherent, local and deterministic description of reality and in my point of view, it would be illogical that there would be only one universe.

quite illogical- I never understood the 'single universe' conjecture- as it requires something like God: all empiricality shows that the world possesses causality and laws- and any such causal system has transfinite possible states and histories- for our universe to be the only one would require some process that neatly prevents/destroys/cancels out all other possibilities ins space AND time and only allows this one- this would be the grandest epicycle of all- and totally renders any theory assuming one universe as utterly moot and unphysical [or at least very limited ]

which is why as technology and theory advance more and more theories have a fundamental multiverse structure- QM/ Inflation/ M-Theory/ LQG all posit a phase space of possible structures in which the observed world is only a small region-

some form of multiverse is a self-evident fact unless you believe in a filtering deity- the MWI is the only version of QM that corroborates the physical necessity of the multiverse

 

[RandallB]

I'm confused -- I don't see anything in your post that talks about burdens of proof. In fact, I can't figure out what your point is at all.

Not meeting the Burden is stuff like:
“When a quantum computer solves a problem ………..it will PROVE
What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist?" -David Deutsch

He didn’t say it had been proven; just that when and IF they actually make a true Q-C it will, (IMO they won’t). That is way short of any reasonable logic, and provides no proof for MWI or multiple realities.

All I’m saying is well founded logic (They teach it in University) IMO is sufficient to prove there must only be one complete reality.
If not, then Logic it self is wrong! - back to the beginning where you claim “I think therefore I am”.
If logic cannot carry the burden to prove the claim of one reality,
Then no one can use Logic to claim there own existence to be able to even question the claim or demand addition proof.

Just simple logic - works for a simple kind of guy like me

 

[setAI]

Not meeting the Burden is stuff like:
“When a quantum computer solves a problem ………..it will PROVE
What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist?" -David Deutsch

He didn’t say it had been proven; just that when and IF they actually make a true Q-C it will, (IMO they won’t).

he said this will prove it to those who don't currently accept it- actual professional physicists have accepted the proof of MWI since it was demonstrated that separate computations on universal CNOT gates could be performed in parallel on BOTH possible paths of a photon in the two-slit experiment simultaneously-

All I’m saying is well founded logic (They teach it in University) IMO is sufficient to prove there must only be one complete reality.

Just simple logic - works for a simple kind of guy like me

so tell me what do you name the God/filter that murders all other possible outcomes of a physical processes in which all possible outcomes are observed?

 

[RandallB]

he said this will prove it to those who don't currently accept it- actual professional physicists have accepted the proof of MWI since it was demonstrated that separate computations on universal CNOT gates could be performed in parallel on BOTH possible paths of a photon in the two-slit experiment simultaneously-

so tell me what do you name the God/filter that murders all other possible outcomes of a physical processes in which all possible outcomes are observed?

Now there is one that " I can't figure out what your point is at all."
Care to prove you exist so I'll know you are real & not something from an unreal reality.

 

[Hurkyl]

this is the irony- the MWI IS now the mainstream/orthodox/dominant/whatever interpretation of QM- as acknowledged by virtually every major and minor professional physicist on the planet [minus a few slow-pokes in the USA and Penrose on odd-numbered-days]

It would be interesting to see the study that determined that. But this is a digression...

I have 100 years of empirical QM data

You just don't seem to understand what the criticism is. Copenhagen has the exact same 100 years of empirical QM data supporting it too. And if the Bohm interpretation ever figures out how to work in the relativistic setting, then it will too.

The whole problem is that you present a piece of evidence which is predicted by the Copenhagen interpretation (and Bohm too, I think), and somehow conclude that it proves MWI is the only tenable interpretation.

And, in your lashing out at any criticism, you seem to have missed the fact that I actually like the MWI interpretation, and find it the most natural of the "popular" interpretations. (Though I think I will change my mind once we can consider the relational interpretation popular)

which is why as technology and theory advance more and more theories have a fundamental multiverse structure- QM/ Inflation/ M-Theory/ LQG all posit a phase space of possible structures in which the observed world is only a small region-

Pretty much every scientific theory permits a very large space of configurations that will never be realized by our observed world...

some form of multiverse is a self-evident fact

Are you sure you meant "self-evident"? I thought that, even to you, it is only evident because you find it a natural consequence of QM.

IF they actually make a true Q-C it will, (IMO they won’t).

They already have. They just haven't made a "big" one.

Now there is one that " I can't figure out what your point is at all."
Care to prove you exist so I'll know you are real & not something from an unreal reality.

This is an ad hominem fallacy. The argument stands or falls on its own merit. It doesn't matter if it originated from an existing speaker.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Well, here is a challenge for you (and for everyone who doesn't believe in the MWI) from Deutsch (as presented in his book The Fabric of Reality):

Explain where the calculations made by a quantum computer are performed when it solves the sub-problems associated with a single problem. Eg. when factoring a 250-number digit using the algorithm[/url], the number of sub-problems is about 10^500 (the number of particles in the universe is about 10^80).
And yet, a quantum computer solves all the sub-problems at the same time. So how can it solve 10^500 problems during only one calculation, if we have only one computer in only one universe?

(It would take classical computer 10^500 times the time of a quantum computer to perform the same operation)

And for the question why the MWI has become "some sort of religion": it gives a coherent, local and deterministic description of reality and in my point of view, it would be illogical that there would be only one universe. Didn't you think that there are "other dimensions" when you were a kid?

Tell me then, how does the quantum computer in our Universe communicate with all the other 'virtual quantum computers' in the other Universes? Also, where is this quantum computer you speak of? This is such an abstract idea that the quantum computer calculates some of the sub-problems in other dimensions that I'm not sure it warrants a response. I'm ignorant on this subject, but what experiments have been done to confirm your quote?

 

[Careful]

** quote Hurkyl
And, in your lashing out at any criticism, you seem to have missed the fact that I actually like the MWI interpretation, and find it the most natural of the "popular" interpretations. (Though I think I will change my mind once we can consider the relational interpretation popular)
**

I must congratulate you for the ability to decide upon these fundamental matters according to the latest fashion in town. Perhaps, we should organize miss elections about these issues in the same way as this is done on some other forum - that would constitute the ultimate downfall of science.

Careful

 

[Hurkyl]

I must congratulate you for the ability to decide upon these fundamental matters according to the latest fashion in town. Perhaps, we should organize miss elections about these issues in the same way as this is done on some other forum - that would constitute the ultimate downfall of science.

Huh? I mean to say that I think RQM > MWI > Copenhagen > Bohm.

 

[kvantti]

kvantti, setAI: people have already responded to your assertions many times. If you don't want to be crackpots, you would do well to stop mindlessly repeating them without any regard to the received criticism.

Umm, sorry, I think this was my first message in this thread... I apologie if I have missed something (I don't follow these forums too often).

In the quantum computer: where else?

In fact, when I learned quantum computation in one of my classes, we learned it from a solidly Copenhagenist viewpoint.

Yes, you can always say something like "all the different calculations are performed simultanously as a superposition of every possible calculation", but that isn't exactly a physical description of what is happening in a quantum computer... it is more or less a description of the mathematics.

OK, let's assume that the MWI is false (which it, ofcourse, might be). How would you explain the physical behaviour of a quantum computer?

 

[kvantti]

Tell me then, how does the quantum computer in our Universe communicate with all the other 'virtual quantum computers' in the other Universes?

Through quantum interference. Different universes can interfere with each other if the quantum state of the system involved is coherent (as in a quantum computer).

Also, where is this quantum computer you speak of? This is such an abstract idea that the quantum computer calculates some of the sub-problems in other dimensions that I'm not sure it warrants a response. I'm ignorant on this subject, but what experiments have been done to confirm your quote?

IBM has the most advanced quantum computer nowadays with seven qubits. See this.

Oh and mathematically you can just say that "all the different calculations are in a superposition in the quantum computer during the calculation", if you don't want to think the MWI way.

 

[Careful]

Huh? I mean to say that I think RQM > MWI > Copenhagen > Bohm.

But what is YOUR idea about quantum mechanics ?! This entire discussion is about one's favorite color of spaghetti, while all the pasta tastes the same. It seems to be much more intelligent to place this question in the light of some problematic aspects of modern theoretical physics : (a) the problem of vacuum energy vis a vis the cosmological constant (b) the issue of realism (c) the problem of time (d) the validity of special relativity at all energy scales. Then, depending upon your answers on these (and other) issues you will find yourself confined to one of these religions, or you feel the logical need to dig deeper into QM itself. One question to start with for example is wheter one truly believes gravity to be necessary to even obtain a well defined theory of quantum electrodynamics.

Careful

 

[NateTG]

OK, let's assume that the MWI is false (which it, ofcourse, might be). How would you explain the physical behaviour of a quantum computer?

That's not a useful stipulation. MWI, Bohmian Mechanics, and the Plug and Chug interpretation all make identical predictions so the only way that MWI can be scientifically falsified is if all of the other interpretations also have the same problems.

Moreover, and this is something people love to ignore, physics does not and will never explain anything rather, physics is a collection of theories that make predictions. Statements like 'things fall because of gravity' are misleading - it would be better to say 'we call the tendency of things to fall gravity'.

As such, interpretations of quantum mechanics are (from a scientific point of view) really primarily interesting because they can lead to experimentally verifiable predictions. Otherwise, we might as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The fact is that (assuming the physics is correct) the quantum computer will work regardless of whether you think of it as a bunch of intereacting 'worlds', a winding maze of particle paths, or a black box.

 

[RandallB]

They said IF they actually make a true Quantum-Computer, it will, (IMO they won’t).

They already have. They just haven't made a "big" one.

What does that mean – something like a little bit pregnant but not really yet?

Plus even if they can come up with Q-C or other proof of MWI convincing to those that are not already convinced, that still only ‘proves’ one reality.

MWI is one thing but it doesn’t call for more than one reality!
The idea that one reality where say MWI is correct and BM is wrong;
and a second reality where say BM is right and there are no MW’s of MWI; ----- And Are both true ?

IMO that is beyond an ‘ad hominem fallacy’ it just logically ridiculous.
What argument would not fall on its own merit trying to support such a thing with anything like rational logic?

 

[AnssiH]

Well, here is a challenge for you (and for everyone who doesn't believe in the MWI) from Deutsch (as presented in his book The Fabric of Reality):

Explain where the calculations made by a quantum computer are performed when it solves the sub-problems associated with a single problem. Eg. when factoring a 250-number digit using the algorithm[/url], the number of sub-problems is about 10^500 (the number of particles in the universe is about 10^80).
And yet, a quantum computer solves all the sub-problems at the same time. So how can it solve 10^500 problems during only one calculation, if we have only one computer in only one universe?

(It would take classical computer 10^500 times the time of a quantum computer to perform the same operation)

And for the question why the MWI has become "some sort of religion": it gives a coherent, local and deterministic description of reality and in my point of view, it would be illogical that there would be only one universe. Didn't you think that there are "other dimensions" when you were a kid?

Like I've said in about every post to this thread, we make certain assumptions about "what exists" in reality and about how they behave to come to explain how the reality works to our selves. The above questions, about where the "calculations" happen and so on, only make sense in so far that you want to talk about "calculations" (and the related entities and concepts that you imagine is performing these "calculations", in this case in multiple universes) and MWI makes sense only in so far that you make certain assumptions about such things as the reality of a photon and interference between universes.

In fact, if you take a look at the opening post here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130623
you'll notice how one can say the "calculations" happen or rather simply "exist" in static manner in spacetime just by insisting that spacetime really exists the way Einstein believed it to exist (Of course it will be difficult to explain why there seems to exist any "moments" at all, but that's a different discussion). One way to put it would be to say that the photon moves back and forth in time so that all its possible trajectories interfere, but this is wrong vocabulary because there is no motion in spacetime.

I am confident that all interpretations have their own answers about how the phenomena happen so to come to predict the exact same observable phenomena. So after all is said and done, many-worlds interpretation is just that, an "interpretation". At this stage we cannot pick and choose any QM interpretation to be the real deal.

Also if you have followed my posts in this thread you might have noticed how I've asserted that - quite likely - the reason why QM seems so damn odd to us is that we are trying to explain a behaviour of such entities that do not exist in such manner as we imagine them to exist. It is like explaining the behaviour of a rainbow after asserting it is an object which originates from a pot of gold, and only once one realizes how rainbow is rather the interference pattern on the surface of the observer, its behaviour starts to make sense.

Likewise, if you insist on the information between atoms to travel in the form of tiny billiard balls and on top of that imagine the motion of those billiard balls to exist in Newtonian sense (only look at it from one inertial frame) you may be forced to assert that the photon exists in many worlds so to exhibit the behaviour we observe. We may have to question the nature of many things to come up with more accurate answers, like the nature of space, matter, light, motion(/time), energy... Maybe even discard these concepts to understand this system we call "reality" from a completely new angle.

(On a related note, have people formed opinions about this idea of discrepte, stepwise spacetime expansion causing quantum behaviour?
http://www.estfound.org/
Haven't had time to really look into it, does it show some obvious weaknesses right off the bat?)

So, just what NateTG is saying, physics really is quite literally a collection of theories or rather assumptions about what exists and how they behave. And like I said before, because of how our understanding works physically, we can only deal with reality by assuming there exists such and such entities and asserting they have such and such relationships between each others. Because this is the only thing we are capable of, it seems to us that reality really is like this, but little bit of philosophy can show that this is not exactly true; reality does not actually work with concepts. The mental model we have about reality in our head really is just an expression of the real thing, and it is not accurate or even "the metaphysically correct way" to express reality. (And any math you produce is also merely describing the behaviour of some "entity" you imagine to exist metaphysically in that sense)

And btw, MWI gaining ground as the "favourite way" to describe reality in some circles doesn't mean it is true, it just means it is one of the easiest ways to "imagine/visualize" QM phenomena in your mind. Think about how you try to visualize any black-box system when you are trying to back-engineer how its behaviour comes about, and you will realize how the assumptions with which you find it easiest to imagine the functions of the black box don't mean that is actually what happens inside. There are always many ways to produce some desired behaviour. Any system builder/programmer knows this very well.

And my comments about MWI becoming a religion are referring to how I find that MWI-people are continuously asserting theirs is "the only possible interpretation". Please understand that no one is saying it "cannot be true", but that it is not something that has been proven to be true in any sense. I am certainly happy to see many sensible people at this thread who still understand this, and I hope MWI won't become so standard that considering other options will be viewed as heretical or crackpot. It is important to be honest about it being just an interpretation unless you want to see everyone believe in it like a religion. And you don't want this to happen if you believe in scientific method, yes?

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Through quantum interference. Different universes can interfere with each other if the quantum state of the system involved is coherent (as in a quantum computer).
.

Are you talking about p-branes?

What defines two events in MWI anyways? I mean what is the smallest increment of information, whether it be spacial, temporal, or any other physical property you can think of, that must occur before the 'father' universe splits into two and the 'daughter' universe is birthed?

 

[Hurkyl]

This entire discussion is about one's favorite color of spaghetti, while all the pasta tastes the same.

Right -- but I was talking to someone who thinks spaghetti has to be purple, and thinks that my motivation for saying all pasta tastes the same is because I'm an idiot that doesn't like purple.

 

[AnssiH]

I believe the idea is rather, that all the possible universes exist "all the time" and interfere with each others. So the model is relying on certain ideas about how photons exist and how they interfere with other photons in other universes.

So, when someone is claiming this is the only way QM could work, I might just as well start asserting that when a rainbow seems to mimic the motion of the observer without delay, it can be explained in non-local terms only by assuming we are seeing a rainbow of a "different universe" every time we move.

Sure, this would make the phenomenon local, but in the case of rainbow we now know enough about how it exists to be able to see how its observed "motion" occurs in completely classical terms and within one universe, and yet there is a different rainbow visible for every observer, or rather that we should not assign identity to a rainbow; there is no rainbow at all without an observer. (This is a case of realism where something cannot exist without an observer, in completely classical sense)

Likewise with QM, the motion or the "apparent trajectory" of the photon really does depend on where it's going to be observed (one way or another), and to assume there really was a photon (with identity) in flight is already an assumption that is likely to be wrong to some extent, and will lead you to assert there must be multiple universes and we are merely observing photons from one.

So, what I'm saying is... dig deeper gentlemen.

 

[Careful]

Right -- but I was talking to someone who thinks spaghetti has to be purple, and thinks that my motivation for saying all pasta tastes the same is because I'm an idiot that doesn't like purple.

Hehe, I noticed that, but you also said that you might choose for the relational colored one, once this color would gain more popularity. My point being that whatever interpretation you pick, you keep on being stuck with some embarrasing shortcomings of the formalism itself. For example, I have to think hard about Bell inequality violation and spin statistics in Barut self field (although I could put them in by hand), but there is absolutely no problem with realism, time, special relativity and vacuum energy (tell that to some QG people - all their deep problems vanish in thin air).

Cheers,

Careful