Against Realism: Examining the Meaning of Local Realism

[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.