Bohr & Solipsism: Reality or Illusion?

[computerphys]

I wonder if Bohr QM point of view could be labeled as "solipsism" or even "Metaphysical solipsism". Any hint would be appreciated.

I may be wrong at some point, so I would be glad to hear other opinions or corrections.

According to Bohr (subjective Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum theory) "there is no underlying reality".

I have also heard another softer version: "we are unable to describe reality between measurements", but that would be to say that QM is unable to describe reality and that would be equivalent to say that QM is incomplete (Einstein's point of view). I would be very surprised to discover that Bohr stated such a thing!

So, I think only hard version "there is no underlying reality" could be really Bohr's world view. Right?

If that is true, can we say that Bohr was a solipsist? According to Wikipedia, Metaphysical solipsism is an idealism based on the argument that no reality exists other than one's own mind. I think that is quite the same as to say that "there is no underlying reality", isn't it?

Thanks in advance for any other point of view.

 

[kote]

Good question, but Bohr was definitely not a solipsist :tongue:. Bohr has often been misinterpreted through the various versions of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" over many years. I recommend reading http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/. From the article:

Bohr thought of the atom as real. Atoms are neither heuristic nor logical constructions. ... It makes much sense to characterize Bohr in modern terms as an entity realist who opposes theory realism (Folse 1987).

I also highly recommend reading Bohr's "Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature." Don't trust second hand sources when it comes to historic QM interpretation (But Jan Faye of the SEP article is good). Original Bohr is very readable.

To get more into your question... Bohr definitely believed that QM was complete, while also believing that we can't describe reality between measurements. But asking what happens between measurements didn't make sense for Bohr. From ATDN:

A subsequent measurement to a certain degree deprives the information given by a previous experiment of its significance for predicting the future course of phenomena. Obviously, these facts not only set a limit to the extent of the information obtainable by measurements, but they also set a limit to the meaning which we may attribute to such information. We meet here in a new light the old truth that in our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of the phenomena but only to track down, so far as it is possible, relations between the manifold and aspects of our experience.

Any underlying "real essence" for Bohr is and has always been outside of the scope of physics or descriptive language. He argues for this conclusion from relativity:

The theory of relativity reminds us of the subjective … character of all physical phenomena, a character which depends essentially upon the state of motion of the observer.

So Bohr isn't a solipsist and he isn't denying that anything exists. He's saying that we had the wrong idea all along. It was never about an objective description of things "out there." What are measurements or any events except for interactions? And how do you have interactions without your observee and observer - how do you have any events at all with no context for them to occur in?

It relates to the "If a tree falls in a forest..." question. Bohr would say that a tree falling in a forest does not make a sound if no one is there to hear it. Sound is not a thing that exists independently of ears. It takes both a falling tree and a working set of ears with a brain attached for sound to exist. It also requires proper experimental conditions - the tree cannot be in a vacuum etc. But without ears, a falling tree only creates vibrations in the air.

All phenomena, for Bohr, require a measurement context to exist. Everything, in this sense, is subjective. But this is not something new to QM. This is a simple epistemological fact. That is why Bohr can say that QM is complete. There is no way around the problem, quantum uncertainty or not, so the best thing we can do is accept it and move on.

 

[GeorgCantor]

So, I think only hard version "there is no underlying reality" could be really Bohr's world view. Right?

Yes.

If that is true, can we say that Bohr was a solipsist?

I'd say he was.


"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."

-Niels Bohr

 

[computerphys]

Bohr definitely believed that QM was complete, while also believing that we can't describe reality between measurements.

Let's apply some logic to that: if a complete theory can't describe reality between measurements then reality becomes indescribable there, right?

So, reality is indescribable. If you say something is indescribable, isn't that describing it? Reductio ad absurdum.

If you find anything wrong in this reasoning, please tell me.

Thanks again.

 

[JoeDawg]

So, reality is indescribable. If you say something is indescribable, isn't that describing it?

No, that is not a description, any more than x is a description for 3.14...

Its merely a placeholder.

The word 'nothing' is similar. Linguistically, nothing, is a noun, which as you may know, is a person, place or thing.

The word 'nothing' is really just a negation of 'thing', as in 'no-thing', but since language is abstract, and can treat concepts as things, the lack of a thing can be treated as a thing.

Langauge is flexible... and in a lot of cases it is the nature of language that has caused a lot of confusion in philosophy.

And no, Bohr is not a solipsist. But people use the word 'reality' to describe different things.

 

[apeiron]

So, reality is indescribable. If you say something is indescribable, isn't that describing it? Reductio ad absurdum.

If you know there to be actually something, then already you are describing "something", even if the details are sparse. So claiming something to be literally indescribable is simply self-contradictory here.

And as for the gaps between measurements, again you know there to be gaps that are "really there". QM gives you a description of what can fill those gaps - even if the sum over histories allows an exact degree of uncertainty.

The quantum zeno effect would be relevant here. Making the gaps between measurements smaller has an interesting result on reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

 

[skippy1729]

Solipsism can never be proved or disproved. Since Bohr never openly advocated solipsism, your question really is:

Can Bohr's theory be consistent with a rejection of solipsism.

********************

1. Assume the existence of minds other than your own; Alice and Bob.

2. Alice and Bob prepare identical classical apparatus to measure spin or something. They record and plot their results. Their individual results will be different but they will (within experimental error) both be representable by the same probability distribution.

3. That the probability distributions are the same is evidence of an underlying objective quantum reality even though the properties of individual quantum "particles" do not have pre-existing values (i.e. are not real).

Therefore rejection of solipsism is consistent with Bohr's theory.

"There is no underlying reality." does not imply that there is no reality. It means that quantum mechanics does not pretend to be any kind of theory which describes the sub-microscopic world. It is a (possibly complete and presently the best) theory of how our interactions with the sub-microscopic world will work out.

Skippy

 

[GeorgCantor]

Philosophically, what does it mean for a quantum system to have NO objective existence prior to observation/measurement, as that was Bohr's insistence? Bohr claimed that 'particles' do not possesses properties when they are not being observed.

What is the ontology that is consistent with this premise, but solipsism?

 

[GeorgCantor]

"There is no underlying reality." does not imply that there is no reality. It means that quantum mechanics does not pretend to be any kind of theory which describes the sub-microscopic world. It is a (possibly complete and presently the best) theory of how our interactions with the sub-microscopic world will work out.

Skippy

This is wrong. Bohr led a 30-year debate(possibly the longest in science) that QM was a complete theory. The completeness of QM was the central point of the debate between Einsten and Bohr.

 

[JoeDawg]

Philosophically, what does it mean for a quantum system to have NO objective existence prior to observation/measurement, as that was Bohr's insistence? Bohr claimed that 'particles' do not possesses properties when they are not being observed.

What is the ontology that is consistent with this premise, but solipsism?

Ontological solipsism denies the existense of 'other minds', but affirms the existense of the conscious self.

Observation/measurement, in terms of QM, doesn't even require one mind.
In QM, observation, is all about 'interaction'.

Consider what happens when you crumble a piece of paper, it begins interacting with itself, in a way it does not when it is flattened out. Solipsism gives primacy to one really crinkly bit of the paper and defines the rest of the piece from that perspective. QM doesn't, all crinkles are treated equally.

But flatten it out again, and the crinkles disappear. The paper is not reality, because there is no way to describe a lack of interaction. Physics only appears with the friction of paper against paper, the crinkles.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Ontological solipsism denies the existense of 'other minds', but affirms the existense of the conscious self.

Observation/measurement, in terms of QM, doesn't even require one mind.
In QM, observation, is all about 'interaction'.

This is a bold statement. The problem is that it is based on an assumption that there exists a mind-independent reality that does not require a mind. I am perfectly aware that Bohr never made such a statement and we are discussing Bohr's ontological propositions for reality.

Consider what happens when you crumble a piece of paper, it begins interacting with itself, in a way it does not when it is flattened out. Solipsism gives primacy to one really crinkly bit of the paper and defines the rest of the piece from that perspective. QM doesn't, all crinkles are treated equally.

But flatten it out again, and the crinkles disappear. The paper is not reality, because there is no way to describe a lack of interaction. Physics only appears with the friction of paper against paper, the crinkles.

Bohr explicitly said that unmeasured phenomena are not real. What he made of that ontologically is not clear to me, but it looks like solipsism. I am not even sure an ontology is even possible on the proposition that unmeasured events are not real.

Consider what happens when you crumble a piece of paper, it begins interacting with itself, in a way it does not when it is flattened out. Solipsism gives primacy to one really crinkly bit of the paper and defines the rest of the piece from that perspective. QM doesn't, all crinkles are treated equally.

But flatten it out again, and the crinkles disappear. The paper is not reality, because there is no way to describe a lack of interaction.

We are not talking of QM in general, where there is still NO agreement on what the theory means, though you very strongly imply and believe it is otherwise. We are talking of the QM of Niels Bohr. Niels Bohr assessment was that "unmeasured/unobserved entities are not real". Bohr insisted that his QM was complete which means that that is how reality is.


I contend that "unmeasured/unobserved entities are not real" is a form of solipsism. I see no reason to believe that someone who denies the objective reality of objects with fixed properties in time and space will believe in the existence of other minds. What would drive such a belief?


This discussion requires that i remind of his famous quote:

“If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.”



Or let's re-run the argument as it was in 1935:

Einstein: - Do you really believe the Moon is not there when nobody is looking?
Bohr: -Yes, it's not there when nobody is looking.


What is this if not a form of solipsism?

 

[JoeDawg]

The problem is that it is based on an assumption that there exists a mind-independent reality that does not require a mind.

Not really, if reality is defined as (observed) interaction.

Bohr explicitly said that unmeasured phenomena are not real.

Correct. I don't see a problem, unless you limit the idea of 'measurement' to 'measured by a conscious' entity, as opposed to 'measured' being equivalent to 'interaction'.

When two atoms bounce off each other, energy is converted... that would be a form of measurement... a very basic observation. Just like the detectors used in the LHC, for instance.

We are not talking of QM in general

Sure.

where there is still NO agreement on what the theory means, though you very strongly imply and believe it is otherwise.

I never said I agreed with any of this. The question was:

What is the ontology that is consistent with this premise, but solipsism?

Answer: Reality is interaction. Whether Bohr would agree with me, I don't know. Never met the man, but I see no reason to believe Bohr was ontologically solipsist. I think you're getting hung up on the word 'reality'.

We are talking of the QM of Niels Bohr. Niels Bohr assessment was that "unmeasured/unobserved entities are not real". Bohr insisted that his QM was complete which means that that is how reality is.

Still not seeing where solipsism comes in. I don't think he was implying that if Niels Bohr didn't observe something, then it doesn't exist. Is this what you mean? That would be solipsism. But QM doesn't require an conscious human 'observer'. I'm thinking Bohr knew that. Do you have a quote that contradicts this?

I contend that "unmeasured/unobserved entities are not real" is a form of solipsism.

I contend you are wrong.

I see no reason to believe that someone who denies the objective reality of objects with fixed properties in time and space

I don't think he was doing that. After all if you observe an object existing in time and space... then according to Bohr, it is real.

will believe in the existence of other minds. What would drive such a belief?

Interaction with other minds?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Not really, if reality is defined as (observed) interaction.

And how does the above statement lead to the conclusion:

Observation/measurement, in terms of QM, doesn't even require one mind.

except by assuming that reality exists even without a mind?

Correct. I don't see a problem, unless you limit the idea of 'measurement' to 'measured by a conscious' entity, as opposed to 'measured' being equivalent to 'interaction'.

Bohr's position was that unmeasured entities were not real. My position DOES NOT matter at all as that is not the subject of the thread.

Sure.

I never said I agreed with any of this.

But you did state:

Observation/measurement, in terms of QM, doesn't even require one mind.
In QM, observation, is all about 'interaction'.

This is your belief and you made it into a strong statement.

Reality is interaction. Whether Bohr would agree with me, I don't know. Never met the man, but I see no reason to believe Bohr was ontologically solipsist.

We do not know what reality is, or even how it is. The formalism of QM does not address these issues. They are philosophical and when Bohr was being philosophical he stated:

""Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."


He also states that wavefuncions are not real and unobserved entities, e.g. the Moon when nobody is looking does not exist.

Still not seeing where solipsism comes in. I don't think he was implying that if Niels Bohr didn't observe something, then it doesn't exist.

Go teach Einstein and tell he didn't understand Bohr's points correctly. You need to reread the EPR.

Is this what you mean? That would be solipsism. But QM doesn't require an conscious human 'observer'.

Who said anything about the current trends in QM? We are at QM as it was "understood" around 1935.

I'm thinking Bohr knew that. Do you have a quote that contradicts this?

Yes, according to Bohr, quantum systems do not have definite properties prior to observation/measurement. And this is very widely known as the CI of Niels Bohr(that Einstein argued against). Or are you saying it is possible to exist and be real without having definite properties? That would be absurd.

I contend you are wrong.

How did you prove that unreal(according to Bohr's view) superposition of states actually exist(according to Bohr's view)? You did not.

I don't think he was doing that. After all if you observe an object existing in time and space... then according to Bohr, it is real.

So reality is real because it is real? Ha, great way of arguing but that was not Bohr's point at all.











Let's re-run the argument as it was in 1935:

Einstein: - Do you really believe the Moon is not there when nobody is looking?
Bohr: -Yes, it's not there when nobody is looking.

What is this if not a form of solipsism?

Interaction with other minds?

If Bohr is right, i'd be cautious with that belief.


The EPR argument between Bohr and Einstein was because of Einstein's concerns for Realism after the arrival of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Niels Bohr. Einstein believed as you do, that objects have properties whether anyone chooses to measure them or not at all times. Niels Bohr was of the opposite opinion and this is closer to solipsism than any other ontology i can think of.

 

[JDStupi]

Maybe I am missing something, and it is possible that I am, but why haven't we considered Bohr's position as idealist? I believe it is consistent with all of the statements attributed to him (the ones in this thread at least, I am by no means familiar with his statements regarding reality as described by quantum theory), and for me, solipsism is too large a jump to ascribe to Bohr

 

[glengarry]

My 2 cents... the entire point of "complementarity" is to make room for the possibility of a classical spacetime theory that is capable of accounting for the essence of Nature, as she is immediately experienced (i.e. "measured"). So, Bohr's stance, in my view, was much more philosophically sympathetic towards the two competing tendencies of mankind to 1) be certain of some fact and to 2) understand how that fact is at all possible.

But the new generation of theorists (e.g. Heisenberg, Pauli, etc.) saw fit to stop trying to understand empirical reality, in its possibility--and simply held fast to varying forms of ontological skepticism or outright denial (not atheism, but aontism?). And it was for this reason that Einstein dedicated his entire post-relativity career to keeping alive the hope that a "complete" theory of physical reality could indeed, in time, be found.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Maybe I am missing something, and it is possible that I am, but why haven't we considered Bohr's position as idealist? I believe it is consistent with all of the statements attributed to him (the ones in this thread at least, I am by no means familiar with his statements regarding reality as described by quantum theory), and for me, solipsism is too large a jump to ascribe to Bohr

It could be of course. The question is how does one remain idealist for long? If someone believed that all of reality is just in the mind, wouldn't that lead him/her to doubt the existence of other minds? What justification would an idealist have for the belief of the existence of other minds(provided they didn't believe in the realness of experienced reality)?

 

[JDStupi]

True, that is a valid question that possibly the more philosophically informed could reply to. I would guess that it is all about not proceeding beyond from what is directly "empicrically" available to us through our senses, and the conception that there exists an external material reality does not follow from what we experience as "sense-data". Yet our interacting with other minds makes the existence of other minds seem more plausible. But at that point I suppose it would be right to say that denying external reality due to it not following could also be said of other minds, though that is more radical. I would be interested to see how an idealist would discuss that issue.

 

[JoeDawg]

except by assuming that reality exists even without a mind?

If physics describes interactions between things, and physics describes reality, then only things that interact with other things are part of reality. In fact, it would be nonsensical to even talk about 'something' if it didn't interact with something else. Something that doesn't interact with anything in our reality, is not part of our reality.

What Bohr actually thought, is anyone's guess. I'm not a mind reader. But Bohr's position does not imply solipsism. If Bohr was a solipsist, then the moon, and Einstein, would only exist... when Bohr was looking at it. That does not appear to be his position.

My position DOES NOT matter at all as that is not the subject of the thread.

LOL. Ok, well I guess that ends that.

This is your belief and you made it into a strong statement.

There are two aspects to QM. We have the theory, and we have the observation.
The theory, seems to work mathematically, but very few people, if any, understand what the math is doing. However, the math does allow us to predict what we will observe on the quantum scale. In fact, Einstein objected very strenuously to 'spooky action at a distance', something the theory predicted, and was then observed to occur. Einstein was wrong.

No, I don't understand quantum theory. All I know, is that it seems to work. What can be said about it, is that it describes interactions on the quantum level. These quantum interactions can occur even when 'a mind' is not directly invovled in the observation, but until some form of measurement is done, there is a serious question as to what if anything is actually there.

If quantum reality is the sum of quantum interaction, then reality can be said to equivalent to interaction. Whether this is actually true or not, I don't know, but seeing as you can't measure something you can't interact with, you'd be hard pressed to show that something is real.

Go teach Einstein...

He is not part of this reality anymore... so I can't interact with him.

We are at QM as it was "understood" around 1935.

No, we're at... how one man understood it.

Or are you saying it is possible to exist and be real without having definite properties?

You know, you don't seem the least bit interested in a discussion, you're not even arguing with me anymore... you're just throwing up straw men.

 

[GeorgCantor]

If physics describes interactions between things, and physics describes reality, then only things that interact with other things are part of reality.

This isn't a settled issue what physics is describing. And that is even a mild statement . Nor is it settled how wavefunctions become single states(e.g. the reality of our observations). Moreover, the assumption of causality is under question, as well that of realism and locality. There are interpretations that do away with causality, and there are others that do away with the whole 'particle' thing, e.g. MWI. What are we to make of this mess? Well, if Feyman is to be the authority, you should "shut up and calculate" and "do not ask these questions, if you can possibly avoid it. Nobody has...". So the above statement is more of a belief, than fact(as would be any other statement on how reality works).

In fact, it would be nonsensical to even talk about 'something' if it didn't interact with something else. Something that doesn't interact with anything in our reality, is not part of our reality.

In the standard form, QM is just a statistical theory and causality takes a secondary role. Same goes for interactions. Oly when you add up near infinite measurements can we begin to talk of causality and interactions. They do not play the fundamental role that we find at out level of existence. Why are certain outcomes favored by Nature? Hmmm, i'd like to know this too.

What Bohr actually thought, is anyone's guess. I'm not a mind reader. But Bohr's position does not imply solipsism.

Sure you are not, nor is anybody else. The point is the CI is a non realist interpretation, and back in the days when arguments between Einstein and Bohr erupted, it was thought by Bohr that quantum mechanics was a complete description of how nature is. A non realist interpretation in the physics sense(denying realism) means that objects do not have properties prior to the vague notion of 'collapse'(whatever that means). It's only after the observation has been made that we can talk about physical objects. This to me is closer to idealism and solipsism than any other ontology.

If Bohr was a solipsist, then the moon, and Einstein, would only exist... when Bohr was looking at it. That does not appear to be his position.

I am certain that Bohr didn't think Einstein was there all the time. Even when nobody was looking. Hell, he was even accused of brain-washing a whole generation of scientists that his interpretation was the only possible. This has changed but the fact remains that at that time this is how it was thought reality was.

No, I don't understand quantum theory. All I know, is that it seems to work.

Nobody understands quantum theory . This is certain.

What can be said about it, is that it describes interactions on the quantum level.
These quantum interactions can occur even when 'a mind' is not directly invovled in the observation, but until some form of measurement is done, there is a serious question as to what if anything is actually there.

There are a bunch of interpretations that don't agree with that statement - the Relational, the CI(though it's not always clear what is measurement or observer, it could be argued that without my mind - the electricity between the neurons of my brain that constitutes whatever it is i am - there is no measurement, collapse or reality). The many minds interpretations doesn't fit the above statement either. The Von Neumann interpretation wouldn't agree either. What about String theory and the attempts to do away with the concepts of time and space altogether? How does a mind fit the picture of a spacetime that emerges from more basic concepts?
It is not known yet, if we can do away with the concept of mind from physics, though it's the desire of the majority for very obvious reasons. Even Einstein who was a realist more than yourself, said:

"It is basic for physics that one assumes a real world existing independently from any act of perception. But this we do not know. We take it only as a program in our scientific endeavors."



Anyways, someone who declares there is no quantum world, everything that we call real is not made of objects that are real, if you aren't shocked by qm you haven't understood it yet, etc. appears to me to be much more an idealist/solipsist than anything else i can think of.


And then the whole ordeal about interpreting qm is over, it is going to raise even more philosophical questions when it is settled. Why do we understand reality? Where are those laws that allow such immense mathematical accuracy coming from? The platonic realm? Or are we digging deeper into the Mind of God? For sure, it's going to be a great pre-occupation for the future breed of philosophers.

 

[JoeDawg]

This isn't a settled issue what physics is describing.

Which would be why I used the word IF

So the above statement is more of a belief

Of course it is. So what? Again you seem to be having an argument with someone else.

This to me is closer to idealism and solipsism than any other ontology.

Idealism maybe, there are many forms of idealism, but IT IS NOT SOLIPSISM.

Solipsism is not about the interaction of observed and observer collapsing a wavefunction, in solipsism, all there is, is self. Nothing collapses, even statistically.

I am certain that Bohr didn't think Einstein was there all the time.

Feel free to provide a quote to support this.

Nobody understands quantum theory.

You keep saying this, like its some new toy, you got for your birthday.

Even Einstein who was a realist more than yourself

Pffft.

Anyways, someone who declares there is no quantum world,

Who has done this? Not me. And I think you have missed the point he was making because his opinion offends your sensibilities.

Do you even read what I wrote?
You realize, you just failed the Turing test.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Which would be why I used the word IF

Of course it is. So what? Again you seem to be having an argument with someone else.

You did state this in a response to me discussing Bohr's CI of qm:

"Observation/measurement, in terms of QM, doesn't even require one mind.
In QM, observation, is all about 'interaction'."

This of course wasn't how Bohr viewed the bridge between the micro and macro world. Bohr's qm isn't even deterministic, let me explain what this means so you don't introduce confused statements like the above in a statistical physics thread. Bohr's qm, which is largely intact today and taught in universities, is statistical, i.e. it leads to deterministic prdictions only when you average out many probabilities of possibilites. Why does nature seem to that way and why does the SE work? Bohr didn't know, it isn't known now either. Some consider this to be a sure sign of there being an underlying reality. I know Einstein did assume this, though his position that qm was incoplete was severely undermined after Bell in 1964.

So the above quoted statement of yours in this particular thread clearly shows your confusion and misapprehension of the topic of the thread and what is being discussed.

Feel free to provide a quote to support this.

Bohr was the strongest proponenet of his own CI(you wouldn't expect otherwise anyway), so you would expect him to believe the experimentally verified model that he built. That is generally taken for granted and expected from sane persons.

You keep saying this, like its some new toy, you got for your birthday.

That should be your toy too and you default position about how reality is - i.e. we don't know. Not statements like "interactions cause "collapse", which is just ridiculous in a thread about non real wavefunctions. How would non real wavefunctions interact? LOL

Who has done this?

Bohr did. Bohr declared there is no quantum world, he also stated there was no underlying reality, i.e. everything in reality is just happening(for no reason we could ever understand and get hold of, if there exists a reason at all).

Not me. And I think you have missed the point he was making because his opinion offends your sensibilities.

No. You misunderstand qm as being an understood theory of how the world works, you misunderstand basic models about how to make a deterministic model of existing qm, you misunderstand how indetminism leads to determinism and you certainly misunderstand how qm was interpreted back in the days.

Do you even read what I wrote?

Yes, you introduce your complete misunderstandings and force them on Bohr. Bohr never claimed qm was about interactions between objects in the quantum world. What did Bohr say about the quantum world? Oh well, he said it didn't exist... LOL

You realize, you just failed the Turing test.

So Niels Bohr failed too. It's only you who passed it.

 

[JoeDawg]

You did state this in a response to me discussing Bohr's CI of qm:

You seem to think I am making claims about what QM means. I am not.
I've been giving suggestions that could encompass how Bohr, or any NON-SOLIPSIST, could view QM.

So the above quoted statement of yours in this particular thread clearly shows your confusion and misapprehension of the topic of the thread and what is being discussed.

I have stated from the beginning what was I was addressing. You seem hell bent on trying to twist what I have said into some sort of defense of Bohr's ideas. I maintain he was not a solipsist.

How would non real wavefunctions interact? LOL

Its called an abstraction.

Bohr declared there is no quantum world

And I'm not Bohr, so now, you don't understand Bohr, and you don't understand QM, and you don't understand what I'm saying. Good job.

he also stated there was no underlying reality

Yeah, so what? Bohr is just taking a position similar to Kant, who said that the 'thinginitself' was unknowable. Still not solipsism.

No. You misunderstand qm as being an understood theory

No, I don't. No matter how many times you repeat this. I'm pretty confident no one understands QM, especially you.

you misunderstand basic models about how to make a deterministic model of existing qm, you misunderstand how indetminism leads to determinism and you certainly misunderstand how qm was interpreted back in the days.

At least I know its not solipsism.

Yes, you introduce your complete misunderstandings and force them on Bohr.

B.S. I stated very clearly, I was not speaking for Bohr.

Bohr never claimed qm was about interactions between objects in the quantum world.

You really should read... and try and understand, before you jump to conclusions.

"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."
- Niels Bohr (1934)

 

[GeorgCantor]

You seem to think I am making claims about what QM means. I am not.

Yes you are. You insisted that:

"Observation/measurement, in terms of QM, doesn't even require one mind.
In QM, observation, is all about 'interaction'."

Which goes to show how confused your understanding is of the basic concepts in quantum theory. You said this in response to:

"what does it mean for a quantum system to have NO objective existence prior to observation/measurement, as that was Bohr's insistence? Bohr claimed that 'particles' do not possesses properties when they are not being observed."[/i]

How was that assretion related to Bohr? You are now claiming it wasn't? Then what did you mean to achieve by that bare assertion? Introduce clarity on how Bohr must have viewed qm? Or hijack the thread?

I've been giving suggestions that could encompass how Bohr, or any NON-SOLIPSIST, could view QM.

Yes, you did. Through interactions between non real wavefunctions. LOL

I have stated from the beginning what was I was addressing. You seem hell bent on trying to twist what I have said into some sort of defense of Bohr's ideas. I maintain he was not a solipsist.

You maintain that through constantly repeating "he was not a solipsist", "he was not a solipsist", "he was not a solipsist"...


Maybe, but did you provide any evidence that he was a realist? Or that he implied reality was unknowable? Definitely NO. You'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who will say that.

Its called an abstraction.

I didn't ask what you'd call a non real wavefunction but how they would interact, as that was your initial statement. Let me repeat it again so you can stay on the same page with me:

"In QM, observation, is all about 'interaction'"


Do you even understand the theory you are positing or are you adjusting it on the fly?

Bohr declared there is no quantum world

And I'm not Bohr, so now, you don't understand Bohr, and you don't understand QM, and you don't understand what I'm saying. Good job.

This is a reply to the above statement of mine?? I fail to see the connection between all you said and my quoted comment. Bohr said "there is no quantum world" and you respond with:

"And I'm not Bohr, so now, you don't understand Bohr" :yuck:

Yeah, so what? Bohr is just taking a position similar to Kant, who said that the 'thinginitself' was unknowable. Still not solipsism.

It's not only unknowable, but the reality you speak of doesn't exist between measurements. This is a tenet of Bohr's CI. You are utterly confused and disoriented on Bohr's position.

Fine, he was not strictly a solipsist, i will assume as much. Bring up an ontology that's closer to Bohr's position than idealism/solipsism, based on the statement:

Reality doesn't exist between measurements(doesn't have definite properties).

No, I don't. No matter how many times you repeat this. I'm pretty confident no one understands QM, especially you.

Sure i don't but you are confusing the very basic concepts. And you are making unwarranted claims like:

In QM, observation, is all about 'interaction'

That bold statement was yours, right? You, the one who admits doesn't understand quantum theory. Now don't tell me you didn't make that statement or that you meant to say something completely different. You made a statement that shows that you think you know how reality works. You don't know, you are assuming it. And you don't know anything about qm either. Hawking, Rovelli, Smolin, etc wouldn't dare claim how qm gives rise to the reality of observations, but you with your misunderstood knowledge dared to declare this, as if it was fact. You should know better than that, but first you need to be aware of your own ignorance.

"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."
- Niels Bohr (1934)

Yes, he claimed their were not, real, material, physical objects with definied propeties prior to measurements. He explicitly said they were not real:


"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."


Your confusion stems from fundamentally misunderstanding the statistical nature of Bohr's qm(which if left uninterpreted, hasn't changed much now). That we can NOW construct a deterministic interpretation of qm doesn't affect the topic at all and you shouldn't have hijacked the thread to a new discussion of current interpretations. I really have no idea what your purpose is in this thread.

 

[JoeDawg]

Yes you are. You insisted that:

Insisted? Are you kidding? I was trying to explain the not-a-solipsist thing

But... Ok... fine... let's play it your way...

Let's look at quotes, forget about whether they are out of context, or not, quotes are what we need, and let's see what we can come up with.

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."
-Niels Bohr

This is a good one, it supports what I said about Kant very well. Before you understand it, you have to know what Bohr means by REAL. Based on what I have read, I'm willing to bet, (I'm not INSISTING, I just think it is likely.) that Bohr was not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism" .

Naïve realism claims that the world is pretty much as common sense would have it. All objects are composed of matter, they occupy space, and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour.

That doesn't mean he doesn't subscribe to realism, by the way, just that he doesn't favor a very extreme form.

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."
- Niels Bohr

Ahhh... now that is interesting, here Bohr seems to be saying that physics is epistemological reality. Its not about what is, but rather it's about human knowledge of what is.

This is actually an important distinction in philosophy. When someone, even someone like me, who isn't Bohr, says: 'There is no quantum world' in this context, they are probably, referencing the fact that 'what exists' is not how it appears.

Now my understanding of QM is miniscule, tiny, microscopic... even quantum level small, but I am aware that one or two people have said that when you make a 'quantum' level measurement it affects what you are trying to measure.

For instance, when you try and measure a particle's position and velocity.

Now, if QM describes 'a world' we can measure, but measuring changes 'what is out there', then it actually makes a certain kind of sense, even to someone as lowly and uninformed as me, that 'what is out there' is not REALLY the same as what is measured.

There is no quantum world, out there.

"There is no underlying reality"
-Niels Bohr

No, underlying reality, no quantum world... out there. There is a reality, but it only becomes what we measure, when we measure it.

“If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.”
- Niels Bohr

Now, like most people, I grew up in a Newtonian world of objects, the common sense, naive realist world, where the chair I'm sitting in is comfy, and the desk I'm sitting at is hard.

Oh, look at that, a yellow cat just walked in the room. Which brings us to an old philosophical problem. Is yellow, a property of the cat? It would seem to be, from a naive realist point of view. It certainly looks like yellow, is at least in some way, attached to the cat.

But wait, if I turn out the lights, the cat disappears. Now, I can still hear it purring. But it has lost many of the properties, which I thought it had. Is it still a yellow cat, if I live the rest of my life in darkness?

This is the problem of objects. Certainly, there is 'something' about the cat that makes me see yellow, when I turn on the lights, but yellow is really more a measurement that I am making.

This is profoundly shocking to a naive realist, who may have thought that yellow was part of the cat, instead of part of the observation of the cat.

"
Einstein: - Do you really believe the Moon is not there when nobody is looking?
Bohr: -Yes, it's not there when nobody is looking.
"

SOLIPSIST!

Oh, wait, he didn't say: 'when I'm not looking', he said 'nobody'. As in, when there is no observer. Now, I... the physics challenged retard... would extend this example... for clarity... to include the idea that any 'interaction' between two 'objects' is a kind of measurement. So while Bohr may have simply been referring to conscious minds making observations, I think one could make an argument that when a rock tumbles down a hill, both the hill and the rock are involved in an INTERACTION where they exchange information about each other.

I'm not saying this is a valid theory in physics... its just an analogy. The point of the analogy, is that when two things interact, they have an effect on each other. They change each other.

Now, some physicsts will say that a wave function collapses, and then the particle takes a position, and some will say it was always in that position, the wave function merely describes a probability.

I don't know what is true, it may be impossible to know. And I'm pretty sure my cat doesn't care either way.

Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."
- Niels Bohr (1934)

Seems to me though, based on this quote that Bohr thinks 'particles' get their 'properties' from the measurment process. This is not solipsism, its not even idealism, necessarily. And it could be realism, just not, naive realism.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Ahhh... now that is interesting, here Bohr seems to be saying that physics is epistemological reality. Its not about what is, but rather it's about human knowledge of what is.

This is a pretty good summery. So far.

But... Bohr's philosophy was that the wavefunction wasn't a real physical phenomenon, but simply the Observer's knowledge of the system. This taken together with the statements:

"There is no quantum world, but an abstract physical description..."

"What we call real is not made of objects that we can call real"

seems to me to strongly imply Bohr meant that reality is phenomenological, i.e. experienced. What we are to make of an experienced reality? Solipsism/Idealism seem to be just a very small step ahead. No wonder physics after the 50s tried so hard to remove the observer from the system.

This is actually an important distinction in philosophy. When someone, even someone like me, who isn't Bohr, says: 'There is no quantum world' in this context, they are probably, referencing the fact that 'what exists' is not how it appears.

I don't agree with this in the context of Bohr, the cat and the Moon. The prevailing attitude of that time was that those objects do not exist prior to the observation and collapse, but exist as a ghostly superposition of states. This seems to confirm the idea of an experienced reality(phenomenological), not one that exists in time and space.

No, underlying reality, no quantum world... out there. There is a reality, but it only becomes what we measure, when we measure it.

This I totally agree with. The point is what you make of it, philosophically. I take it to be closer to idealism and solipsism. I see no way to twist my mind around the idea that there is a material reality that is not material at all times. I don't understand it, and what's worse nobody seems to be either. You'd say it's unknowable, incomprehensible and that was Bohr's opinion - ok, it could be. But from a scientist's viewpoint, it would always be regarded as "knowable", as assuming otherwise leads to the end of science altogether. Definitely not something a scientist will readily accept.

Look at it from the perspective of Bohr's CI - the electron's dynamical attributes are contextual, they belong jointly to the electron and the measuring device. What "there is no underlying reality" means is that there is no hidden value of position that an electron really has when it's not being observed/measured. Since its poition is property both of the measuring device and the electron, when you take away the measuring device, you take away the electron's position too. What this says about reality is that it is an indefinite ghostly state of superpositions. Those superpositional states were not real for Bohr and i consider such premises to be leading to a reality of appearances. A reality of appearances is a good example of idealism or its further extention - solipsism.


But it seems you've set your viewpoint on reality being unknowable, and i cannot refute that Bohr didn't mean to say exactly that in some of the quotes. I am not willing to argue against that. My problem was mainly with your statement about interactions that lead to the classical world we observe and less if Bohr was strictly speaking a solipsist. The statement about interactions leading to a classical world implied strongly that the MP was settled and done with, and second it implied(if taken to be a ontopic) that that was Bohr's philosophy(i.e. real wavefunctions spread out in space interact and "collapse" to single states).

Well, if i am to address your offtopic point - I don't think the world we observe can be derived from quantum entities and their interactions. The only interpretation that seems to make sense is the MWI, all the others remain vague as to what exactly is required for the world of observations to appear as we perceive it. I am not saying that I am particularly fond of the MWI, but it does seem to render a classical world in a 'sensible' manner. The decoherence approach(when not taken together with MWI), the CI, the relational, the ensemble, etc. seem too vague as to why the world is exactly the way it is. It's no wonder the MWI is the most widely accepted, though it carries a lot of philosophical implications if you take it too seriously.



Getting back to the topic and this question is towards everyone - what is a contextual reality, if not a form of idealism/solipsism?

 

[computerphys]

But from a scientist's viewpoint, it would always be regarded as "knowable", as assuming otherwise leads to the end of science altogether

I agree with you. I think it is not possible to state scientifically that something is "unknowable". Indeed I am still not sure if that is even possible in the philosophical realm, because it may not accomplish logical rules.

So, probably, Bohr knowing of that, decided to take a scientific-compatible way and utter that it just doesn't exist. Reality doesn't exist while not observed.

This statement led to new problems: how can the Universe evolve if it doesn't exist meanwhile nobody is observing? How could the Bohr's CI of QM explain the Universe evolution near after the Big Bang? Nobody was there observing it!

I don't know if Bohr had ever the opportunity to answer this kind of questions. I don't know if anybody (contemporary to him) had the chance to ask them to him. I don't know if Bohr eventually reply to Einstein question about the existence of the Moon. I really appreciate any hint about all these subjects.

Thanks!

 

[GeorgCantor]

.

This statement led to new problems: how can the Universe evolve if it doesn't exist meanwhile nobody is observing? How could the Bohr's CI of QM explain the Universe evolution near after the Big Bang? Nobody was there observing it!

I don't know if Bohr had ever the opportunity to answer this kind of questions.

Answer? No, i don't think so. These kind of questions cause a great deal of confusion among physicists, from the PHD to the Nobel Prize winners. When you answer 1 questions, it opens up at least a hundred new ones. Bohr said:

"Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."

Further:

"There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them."
Niels Bohr



I don't even think that most physicists will even make an attempt at such questions.

 

[JoeDawg]

What we are to make of an experienced reality? Solipsism/Idealism seem to be just a very small step ahead.

I'd say your reaction is the result of the 'profound shock' that Bohr was talking about.
It is not a small step at all. Naive realism and solipsism are extremes.

I don't agree with this in the context of Bohr, the cat and the Moon. The prevailing attitude of that time was that those objects do not exist prior to the observation and collapse, but exist as a ghostly superposition of states. This seems to confirm the idea of an experienced reality(phenomenological), not one that exists in time and space.

My table is an object, a solid object. But physics tells us, that it is mostly empty space. For someone not educated in physics, this is mindbending. This is not the same as quantum superposition, but I think it is a similar knowledge problem for us. Objects don't exist prior to observation, in this sense either, because objects are distinguished in large part by their function and usefulness... or lack thereof. So the 'table' object is real, but so are the atoms its made of.

Its not that the universe has some property called 'unknowable', its that human beings are limited creatures. When we look at an opaque cube, and we can only see 3 sides at a time.

I see no way to twist my mind around the idea that there is a material reality that is not material at all times. I don't understand it, and what's worse nobody seems to be either.

No one understood Newton's action at a distance... his math worked, but it made no sense. How could an object be affected by another, hundreds of miles away? Then Einstein described gravity as the curvature of space time. Genius really, but Newton's concern was a consistent description of what gravity did, not what it was

You'd say it's unknowable, incomprehensible and that was Bohr's opinion - ok, it could be. But from a scientist's viewpoint, it would always be regarded as "knowable", as assuming otherwise leads to the end of science altogether. Definitely not something a scientist will readily accept.

You know, this is a very strange thing. I have had this converation before, and been told this exact same thing. And yet, it sounds, to me at least, completely ridiculous coming from someone who professes a scientific outlook. Science, at its most basic is about knowledge derived from empirical observation. What is knowable via science, is what can be observed, and/or what can be inferred from observation. What is unknowable to science is the 'unobserved state' of being, because science involves observation. Its true by definition.

An omniscient god would be able to know what it can't observe because it has innate knowledge, but a human scientist can't because this is the nature of human knowledge. Science is limited, because humans are limited creatures. But this is hardly the end of science, there is a huge amount of 'observables' out there we haven't seen yet. Science just has limits, very human limits.

Does this mean, no theoryofeverything? Maybe... maybe not. We can infer quite a lot.

A reality of appearances is a good example of idealism or its further extention - solipsism.

If all the ontology includes is appearances... sure, but reality is not always equal to existense.

But it seems you've set your viewpoint on reality being unknowable, and i cannot refute that Bohr didn't mean to say exactly that in some of the quotes.

You mean 'underlying reality', its an important distinction.

My problem was mainly with your statement about interactions that lead to the classical world we observe

Classical examples are all we have... whether its my yellow cat or the one that belongs to Schrödinger.

The only interpretation that seems to make sense is the MWI

I would object to that on the basis of occam's razor... it seems like a lot of unnecessary work for the universe... and its way too fanboy-sci-fi... for my taste.

Getting back to the topic and this question is towards everyone - what is a contextual reality, if not a form of idealism/solipsism?

Something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)#Empathy_and_Intersubjectivity

 

[computerphys]

Its not that the universe has some property called 'unknowable', its that human beings are limited creatures. When we look at an opaque cube, and we can only see 3 sides at a time.

I am afraid that is equivalent to the assertion that Quantum Theory is not complete. But according to Bohr, Quantum Theory is complete.

The only way out for Bohr I think it is saying that the universe has some property called 'unknowable', or saying that the universe has no existence while not observed.

Is that correct?

Thanks!

 

[GeorgCantor]

I'd say your reaction is the result of the 'profound shock' that Bohr was talking about.
It is not a small step at all. Naive realism and solipsism are extremes.

Sure they are, but it's usually reality that sets the rules, not our tastes and preferences.

My table is an object, a solid object. But physics tells us, that it is mostly empty space. For someone not educated in physics, this is mindbending. This is not the same as quantum superposition, but I think it is a similar knowledge problem for us. Objects don't exist prior to observation, in this sense either, because objects are distinguished in large part by their function and usefulness... or lack thereof. So the 'table' object is real, but so are the atoms its made of.

That's not the fundamental point Bohr was trying to get across.
What does the function and usefulness of of objects have to do with the topic? And how does it follow that 'table' and 'atoms' are real?

Its not that the universe has some property called 'unknowable', its that human beings are limited creatures.

What does it even mean to have a limit? Why isn't everything in a superposition at all times, instead of there being limits and actualities? This is a very fundamental question as superpositions are a mess of states. This is what you'd expect the universe to be like, not in a lawful orderly state governed by laws that seem just right for life and existence.
Just stating 'beings are limited creatures' doesn't mean much of anything, philosophically. Just because we seem to be limited in certain contexts doesn't mean that some questions are illogical or meaningless. If the universe has some new property as you say, we have to assume that it's knowable, right? I don't understand how something could be incomprehensible(for long). Just think about how many aspects of existence have been explained, what would make someone believe that this process will suddenly come to a stop?

No one understood Newton's action at a distance... his math worked, but it made no sense. How could an object be affected by another, hundreds of miles away? Then Einstein described gravity as the curvature of space time. Genius really, but Newton's concern was a consistent description of what gravity did, not what it was

So? How is this related to Bohr's views?

Classical examples are all we have... whether its my yellow cat or the one that belongs to Schrödinger.

We do have an awful lot of quantum examples. And a lot of cosmological ones.

I would object to that on the basis of occam's razor... it seems like a lot of unnecessary work for the universe... and its way too fanboy-sci-fi... for my taste.

I agree. But it's the only one that has the power to oppose "God did it!" and maybe even win. With the rest of the interpretations, there is too much room for "God Did It", and philosophically they all seem to come down to a sort of "God did it" in the end. I would guess the MWI is the ultimate atheist bliss.

Something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)#Empathy_and_Intersubjectivity

I don't think i understand how this is related to a reality that doesn't exist all the time(ala Bohr).

 

[JoeDawg]

I am afraid that is equivalent to the assertion that Quantum Theory is not complete. But according to Bohr, Quantum Theory is complete.

The only way out for Bohr I think it is saying that the universe has some property called 'unknowable', or saying that the universe has no existence while not observed.

Is that correct?

Thanks!

Hmmm... that may have been a bad example. The point is that 3 sides exist... in reality at any given time. The others are inferred. Obviously any example that uses classical objects is going to be problematic, but I can't see another way to explain what I mean.

 

[JoeDawg]

Sure they are, but it's usually reality that sets the rules, not our tastes and preferences.

Except this is a discussion about the very nature of reality.

That's not the fundamental point Bohr was trying to get across.
What does the function and usefulness of of objects have to do with the topic?

It goes towards showing our Newtonian prejudices about what an object actually is.

And how does it follow that 'table' and 'atoms' are real?

'Real' here, just means observed phenomena, its a bit circular, or even recursive maybe. Table is phenomenalogically more real to a human being. Atoms are less observable, more abstractions.

The 'quantum world' would be even more fully an abstraction. A model.

What does it even mean to have a limit?

Good question.

Why isn't everything in a superposition at all times, instead of there being limits and actualities?

Because god wants it that way?

Personally, I'm inclined towards something like the idea of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea" or some sort of symmetry breaking.

This is a very fundamental question as superpositions are a mess of states. This is what you'd expect the universe to be like, not in a lawful orderly state governed by laws that seem just right for life and existence.

What to expect from a universe? I haven't a clue. The entropy thing is definitely interesting, but without some knowledge of 'before the big bang', what is likely for a universe is something I don't think anyone can rightly claim.

Just stating 'beings are limited creatures' doesn't mean much of anything, philosophically.

If reality is centred around the observer/observed relationship, then the nature of the observer is quite important.

Just because we seem to be limited in certain contexts doesn't mean that some questions are illogical or meaningless.

Our logic is based on the consistency we observe in the world around us. What form a universal logic would take... assuming universal logic is not nonsensical... is hard to say.

If the universe has some new property as you say, we have to assume that it's knowable, right? I don't understand how something could be incomprehensible(for long).

This is a language problem, unknowable is not the same as not understood. The latter is more a value judgement based on a lack of knowledge, whereas the first indicates knowledge is not possible, in this case because of the logical contradiction between observing something, that is not observed.

So? How is this related to Bohr's views?

Bohr's QM position seems similar to Newton's position on Gravity. Newton wasn't really concerned with the explanation of gravity, he focused on the math that described it. Einstein wanted, and found, an explanation for gravity, but was then frustrated by QM.

I think one of the big problems with Interpretation of QM, is not just that they don't understand it, but that people don't like, even fear, the implications.

We do have an awful lot of quantum examples. And a lot of cosmological ones.

Maybe I should have said 'analogies', examples that explain, not just occurences.

I would guess the MWI is the ultimate atheist bliss.

Well, I'm an atheist, but a contrarian. Nerd-bliss, maybe.
If god did it, I want to know.
Because if she did, she's got a lot of explaining to do.

I don't think i understand how this is related to a reality that doesn't exist all the time(ala Bohr).

Its an example of a phenomenological alternative to solipsism.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I think one of the big problems with Interpretation of QM, is not just that they don't understand it, but that people don't like, even fear, the implications.

...{runs and hides}


We are all sentenced to death, one way or another. :yuck: What are we to lose in the long run? {opening beer can for fear of time running out}