A Criteria for a good quantum interpretation

[Fra]

Yes, as you point out, Einstein's "real external world" aka "physical reality" aka "objective reality" is modeled by POSSIBLE VIEWS aka perspectives. This model is constructed by reconciling ACTUAL VIEWS (empiricism) according to the constraints of physics, e.g., no preferred view (POSSIBLE or ACTUAL). As of now, that model strongly suggests the block universe, but that model does not in any way contradict or negate our dynamical experience of time (as I explained in this Insight).

Thanks, then it was more or less as I thought. I sort of agree that the block pictures does not per see, "negate" the experience of time (ie it is allowed yes).

(But that is not my issue with the this,but i might get back to that later(it relates the next post)

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

I don't buy the "single-user theory" idea at all. How do you obtain a theory in the first place if not by corroborated empiricism?

One idea is this:

The "single-user theory", or the "agent-specific theory" is emergent from the agents interactions with the environment which evolves the agent itself. The environement, is of course nothing but "other agents". So this process is similar to a negotiation, where all agents exert a selective pressure on other agents.

Informaly "off equilibrium", the agents have "inconsistent" laws, which implies deforming forces and causes an evolutionary pressure. At "equilibrum" or say "attractor" the idea is that only agents consistent with each other populate the universe.

So what you call "constraints" are in this picture merely a sort of condition for equiblirium or a semi-stable population of agents (which has defined interaction propertes = laws of physics).

I think the idea of the single-user idea, is that, although the laws as we know them, DO correspond to a sort fo constraint... but this is not the problem at hand. the problem is to IDENTIFY the constraints. WHICH constraints? Here the evoliontary idea at least in principle allows for explanatory power, to explain how constraints emerge from simpler pictures, and this likely can help with unification.

/Fredrik

 

[WernerQH]

Do you mean this?

https://wp.towson.edu/5dstm/introduction/

Thanks for the link. No, this is not what I'm after.
I have hope that it is possible to understand quantum theory in flat spacetime and leave out gravity for now.

 

[PeroK]

Thanks for the link. No, this is not what I'm after.
I have hope that it is possible to understand quantum theory in flat spacetime and leave out gravity for now.

I was trying to work out what you meant by "five-dimensional manifold".

 

[RUTA]

One idea is this:

The "single-user theory", or the "agent-specific theory" is emergent from the agents interactions with the environment which evolves the agent itself. The environement, is of course nothing but "other agents". So this process is similar to a negotiation, where all agents exert a selective pressure on other agents.

Informaly "off equilibrium", the agents have "inconsistent" laws, which implies deforming forces and causes an evolutionary pressure. At "equilibrum" or say "attractor" the idea is that only agents consistent with each other populate the universe.

So what you call "constraints" are in this picture merely a sort of condition for equiblirium or a semi-stable population of agents (which has defined interaction propertes = laws of physics).

I think the idea of the single-user idea, is that, although the laws as we know them, DO correspond to a sort fo constraint... but this is not the problem at hand. the problem is to IDENTIFY the constraints. WHICH constraints? Here the evoliontary idea at least in principle allows for explanatory power, to explain how constraints emerge from simpler pictures, and this likely can help with unification.

/Fredrik

Yes, finding the constraints/laws of physics is a process. But, the constraints we have per QM at this point are very stable and extremely successful. Physicists find them to conform perfectly to a model of objective reality, no subjectivism (other than the trivial fact that someONE is doing any given experiment) is needed for its empirical verification. Indeed, if you try to interpret this theory as subjective in a robust sense, you then violate the very standard of empirical verification per a model of objective reality that was used with such great success to obtain this very successful theory to begin with. See this Insight on Wigner’s Friend for an example of the absurdities that can follow from the relative-states formalism. As explained in that Insight, we don’t need to go down that route at all, so why would we?

 

[WernerQH]

I was trying to work out what you meant by "five-dimensional manifold".

Oh. A scattering of dots along a (thought) worldline would be a point process in a four-dimensional space. If each of those dots also carries a phase factor, or a U(1) group element, you would have a point process in a five-dimensional space.

If those dots also carry two alternate tags, indicating a different time sense, you would have two space-times glued to each other. I've heard that the whole standard model can be derived from non-commutative geometry. Do you happen to know a reference that is intelligible to a physicist?

 

[PeroK]

Oh. A scattering of dots along a (thought) worldline would be a point process in a four-dimensional space. If each of those dots also carries a phase factor, or a U(1) group element, you would have a point process in a five-dimensional space.

If those dots also carry two alternate tags, indicating a different time sense, you would have two space-times glued to each other. I've heard that the whole standard model can be derived from non-commutative geometry. Do you happen to know a reference that is intelligible to a physicist?

Most of my knowledge of gauge invariance comes from Griffiths' Introduction to Particle Physics and QFT for the Gifted Amateur, by Lancaster and Blundell.

That said, the symmetries associated with Isospin and LGI etc. are not symmetries in spacetime, which remains 4D in the standard model, but symmetries in the quantum fields defined on 4D spacetime.

 

[WernerQH]

Most of my knowledge of gauge invariance comes from Griffiths' Introduction to Particle Physics and QFT for the Gifted Amateur, by Lancaster and Blundell.

Thanks. "QFT for the Gifted Amateur" sounds promising. :-)

 

[PeterDonis]

A scattering of dots along a (thought) worldline would be a point process in a four-dimensional space. If each of those dots also carries a phase factor, or a U(1) group element, you would have a point process in a five-dimensional space.

This looks like Kaluza-Klein theory, which (unfortunately since it seems so simple and straightforward) doesn't work.

 

[Fra]

Trying to comment on the core points to keep the discussion at core isseus...

Yes, finding the constraints/laws of physics is a process.

Yes, but in my extended "interpretations" (not the minimal one; critical emphasis!) this is not just the scientific process, which I think is what you mean?

To me its a physical process involving the agent inferring its own constraints from its environment. It's an ambition to explain this, and this explanation is then indistinguishable from unifiying interactions.

But, the constraints we have per QM at this point are very stable and extremely successful. Physicists find them to conform perfectly to a model of objective reality, no subjectivism (other than the trivial fact that someONE is doing any given experiment) is needed for its empirical verification. Indeed, if you try to interpret this theory as subjective in a robust sense, you then violate the very standard of empirical verification per a model of objective reality that was used with such great success to obtain this very successful theory to begin with. See this Insight on Wigner’s Friend for an example of the absurdities that can follow from the relative-states formalism. As explained in that Insight, we don’t need to go down that route at all, so why would we?

As an extended wigners friend, that interpreting standard quantum theory in terms of "interacting agents", leads to issues is no surprise. I fully agree with this: Current QM framework doe NOT describe an inside view of interacting agents (in general), I have made the same conclusion.

But our further conclusions differ, either your conclusions is

1) that the interacting agent pictures fails to make sense, and consider the mathematics of QM to be unquestionable. (your view?).

2) Or you (like me) just conclude that the standard quantum theory obviously IS NOT a proper theory of an inside agent - it rather at best corresponds to the limiting case of a "classical agent" that does not have to face the backreaction from the system, and that is dominant (energywise) relative to the system. Ie. Quantum mechanics is the mathematics for a "massive classical agent" observing a small subsystem; this is also essentially what smolin characterises as the Newtonian scheme. QM is corroborates also in this assymmetric way. So my view does not disrespect how QM is corroborated empirically - on the contrary, i take it serious. And this is what as smoling also says, its a fallacy to extraplolate this math to be universal.

So from my perspective we need to revize the math of QM, to make a full interacting theory, that makes sense for a TRUE inside observer, and that makes sense for cosmology, and that may provide deeper hints in the unification of the forces (ie emergence of constraints)

/Fredrik

 

[Morbert]

"Treating quantum mechanics as a single-user theory resolves a lot of the paradoxes, like spooky action at a distance.

Yes, but in a way that a lot of people find troubling. The usual story of Bell’s theorem is that it tells us the world must be nonlocal. That there really is spooky action at a distance. So they solved one mystery by adding a pretty damn big mystery! What is this nonlocality? Give me a full theory of it. My fellow QBists and I instead think that what Bell’s theorem really indicates is that the outcomes of measurements are experiences, not revelations of something that’s already there. Of course others think that we gave up on science as a discipline, because we talk about subjective degrees of belief. But we think it solves all of the foundational conundrums. The only thing it doesn’t solve is Wheeler’s question, why the quantum?"
-- https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/

I think we can probably go one step further without offending QBism too much: Quantum mechanics is an "intersubjective-users theory". For any given observation, we can imagine a hypothetical super observer performing some measurement of an observable that doe not commute with the outcome of our measurement. But these super observers would be larger than our observable universe (See Roland Omnes "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics" chapter 7). So while measurements-as-experiences might be subjective, there is an intersubjectivity to to these experiences imposed by the irreversibility of the outcomes by any mortal observer.

 

[RUTA]

Trying to comment on the core points to keep the discussion at core isseus...

But our further conclusions differ, either your conclusions is

1) that the interacting agent pictures fails to make sense, and consider the mathematics of QM to be unquestionable. (your view?).

2) Or you (like me) just conclude that the standard quantum theory obviously IS NOT a proper theory of an inside agent - it rather at best corresponds to the limiting case of a "classical agent" that does not have to face the backreaction from the system, and that is dominant (energywise) relative to the system. Ie. Quantum mechanics is the mathematics for a "massive classical agent" observing a small subsystem; this is also essentially what smolin characterises as the Newtonian scheme. QM is corroborates also in this assymmetric way. So my view does not disrespect how QM is corroborated empirically - on the contrary, i take it serious. And this is what as smoling also says, its a fallacy to extraplolate this math to be universal.

So from my perspective we need to revize the math of QM, to make a full interacting theory, that makes sense for a TRUE inside observer, and that makes sense for cosmology, and that may provide deeper hints in the unification of the forces (ie emergence of constraints)

/Fredrik

I don't consider the perceptual origins ("POs" in this paper) to be part of their objective reality. Their disparate experiences constitute the subjective element of reality that is reconciled via their model of objective reality. That's why the block universe model of objective reality can be different than the dynamical subjective experience of time (contra Smolin). Smolin wants to keep physics as fundamental to experience, where we distinguish the subjective (experience) and objective (constraints of physics) as a particular cut of Neutral Pure Presence. So, nothing needs to be done with QM, it's fine as is.

 

[Fra]

I don't consider the perceptual origins ("POs" in this paper) to be part of their objective reality. Their disparate experiences constitute the subjective element of reality that is reconciled via their model of objective reality. That's why the block universe model of objective reality can be different than the dynamical subjective experience of time (contra Smolin). Smolin wants to keep physics as fundamental to experience, where we distinguish the subjective (experience) and objective (constraints of physics) as a particular cut of Neutral Pure Presence. So, nothing needs to be done with QM, it's fine as is.

The term PO in that papers seems to refer to humans, this is what confuses me

"Therefore I am the spatiotemporal origin of “mysense experiences”, i.e., I am just one perceptual origin (PO). I communicate with other (human) perceivers to construct a model of objective/physical reality (the“real external world”)"

If you make this distinction, the discussion changes of me. A human is what it is. A human is typically around 100kg and it's knowledge is contained inthe classical domain having access to advanced processing. Your observer is the target for human science.

I am talking about taking this idea to an arbitrary abstract observer, and to be explicit, this observer could as well be a quark or an electron, or a planet? The possible laws or constraints are bound to be "restricted" by the complexity of the observers. Ie the laws of physics or the constraints as you say would have to "scale" with the observers, and thus be "single-user", but not scale in a reductionst way in the sense of renormalisation group flow, but more in an evolutionary way.

So when i think of "empirism" I think of it abstractly (generalized beyond human empirism). Except for that fact that we are humans, human mind has no distinguished place in these abstractions in my view.

/Fredrik

 

[RUTA]

The term PO in that papers seems to refer to humans, this is what confuses me

"Therefore I am the spatiotemporal origin of “mysense experiences”, i.e., I am just one perceptual origin (PO). I communicate with other (human) perceivers to construct a model of objective/physical reality (the“real external world”)"

If you make this distinction, the discussion changes of me. A human is what it is. A human is typically around 100kg and it's knowledge is contained inthe classical domain having access to advanced processing. Your observer is the target for human science.

I am talking about taking this idea to an arbitrary abstract observer, and to be explicit, this observer could as well be a quark or an electron, or a planet? The possible laws or constraints are bound to be "restricted" by the complexity of the observers. Ie the laws of physics or the constraints as you say would have to "scale" with the observers, and thus be "single-user", but not scale in a reductionst way in the sense of renormalisation group flow, but more in an evolutionary way.

So when i think of "empirism" I think of it abstractly (generalized beyond human empirism). Except for that fact that we are humans, human mind has no distinguished place in these abstractions in my view.

/Fredrik

Physics is done by humans, but data is collected from non-human sources obviously.

 

[Fra]

Yes, we agree on that :)

I am seeing an abstration where the "scientific process" where LAW emerges on human scale, is similar to the agent inference process whereby a physical agent (not a human) via physical interactions evolves into a consistency with its environment. So the constraints are built- in in the microstructure of the agents, which is supported by relationa to the environment. So even the microstructure of the agent has no meaning detached from its environment. In this sense constraints (physical law) are not fundamental to PO. They rather back each other up even in my view. None make sense wo the other. Ie fitness of evolved life forms or agents can be underatood only in the evolutionary context and not as eternal god-given constraints. Ie. The agent is at stable law an lossy data compession opimized to predict the future(much like the human brain btw). And a possible idea is that this "code" happens to be stable(even beeing incomplete or lossy) simply because its optimally fit for stability in a given envirnoment.

/Fredril

 

[edmund cavendish]

Bishop Berkeley "to be is to be perceived" a foundation of idealist philosophy. I have always seen a connection between Berkeley and QM. Measurement resolves superpositions into a definite state. Are qbits spin or no spin? Dr Johnson kicked a rock to refute idealism, he did it didn't; in my view many worlds is no less credible than the non existence of the moon. Enjoying the discussion.

 

[Sunil]

in my view many worlds is no less credible than the non existence of the moon. Enjoying the discussion.

I couldn't resist to agree with this: Both ideas are so completely incredible that to suggest that one is more credible than whatever else would be misguided. But that would be the consequence of naming the other less credible.

 

[martinbn]

Bishop Berkeley "to be is to be perceived" a foundation of idealist philosophy. I have always seen a connection between Berkeley and QM. Measurement resolves superpositions into a definite state. Are qbits spin or no spin? Dr Johnson kicked a rock to refute idealism, he did it didn't; in my view many worlds is no less credible than the non existence of the moon. Enjoying the discussion.

Who says the moon doesn't exist!

 

[Fra]

Who says the moon doesn't exist!

The same people that categorically says it does exist?

Some of just just settle with a solid maybe and act upon that.

/Fredrik

 

[EPR]

Who says the moon doesn't exist!

We can doubt it. The fundamental constituents of the Moon are the same abstract wave vectors which live in Hilbert space. Not some classical and definite constituents like the pedestrian(common sense) logic would dictate.
Let us figure it out without the unhelping claims that there's no issue with the whole interpretational part.

 

[martinbn]

We can doubt it. The fundamental constituents of the Moon are the same abstract wave vectors which live in Hilbert space. Not some classical and definite constituents like the pedestrian(common sense) logic would dictate.
Let us figure it out without the unhelping claims that there's no issue with the whole interpretational part.

This is nonsense! The abstract wave vectors are NOT the constituents of the moon. They are part of the mathematical model of the constituents of the moon.

 

[EPR]

This is nonsense! The abstract wave vectors are NOT the constituents of the moon. They are part of the mathematical model of the constituents of the moon.

Those abstract mathematical wave vectors are the mathematical model precisely because the properties of the "constituents" of the Moon are such that they require exactly this specific model. And not any other.
If you have a better model(of constituents that can be framed independently of the setup and context), propose it and win a Nobel prize.

 

[PeterDonis]

the properties of the "constituents" of the Moon are such that they require exactly this specific model

More precisely, the "constituents" when you are dealing with systems that only have a small number of them require that specific model. Nobody has come anywhere close to either showing quantum effects experimentally for an object the size of the Moon, or writing down an explicit theoretical model using quantum constituents for an object the size of the Moon. Our actual modeling of the actual Moon uses the classical approximation. But that very fact means we do not have an actual model of the Moon that predicts any behavior that is different from the classical approximation. We only have a handwaving argument that, well, some such model should in principle exist.

 

[Demystifier]

Who says the moon doesn't exist!

Mermin.

 

[martinbn]

Mermin.

Where?

 

[martinbn]

Those abstract mathematical wave vectors are the mathematical model precisely because the properties of the "constituents" of the Moon are such that they require exactly this specific model. And not any other.
If you have a better model(of constituents that can be framed independently of the setup and context), propose it and win a Nobel prize.

I was objecting to you confusing the map for the teritory.

 

[EPR]

I was objecting to you confusing the map for the teritory.

Fair enough.
But what arguments make you so certain that there is no way the map can be the territory?
Common sense?

 

[Demystifier]

Where?

Page 50 of https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/mermin/Mermin2.pdf
"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."

Yeah, I know, now you will say that he says that it's not there, not that it doesn't exist. But then you have to explain what does it mean that it exists without being there. In particular, as I stressed several times, if the constituents of the Moon do not have the right relative positions with respect to each other, then those constituents do not form a Moon.

 

[martinbn]

Page 50 of https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/mermin/Mermin2.pdf
"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."

Yeah, I know, now you will say that he says that it's not there, not that it doesn't exist. But then you have to explain what does it mean that it exists without being there. In particular, as I stressed several times, if the constituents of the Moon do not have the right relative positions with respect to each other, then those constituents do not form a Moon.

Well, he definitely doesn't say "The moon doesn't exist."

For the rest, I don't have to explain to you anything. You are the one struggling to understand, your problem. For some reason for you something exists means that the something is or is made of classical particles. Which by itself is fine, but you deny any other possible view!

 

[Demystifier]

For the rest, I don't have to explain to you anything. You are the one struggling to understand, your problem. For some reason for you something exists means that the something is or is made of classical particles. Which by itself is fine, but you deny any other possible view!

No, I am also ready to think of other kinds of existence, as long as someone clearly defines what kind of existence it is. For instance, many-worlders give their best to define existence which is totally unlike classical particles and I am open to that possibility too. But minimalists (e.g. minimal statistical ensemblist) don't even try to define it clearly, because if they tried that would ruin their minimalism.