Bohr & Solipsism: Reality or Illusion?

[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. What are we to lose in the long run? {opening beer can for fear of time running out}