High School Hawking believes "God confuses us throwing dice....", why?

[Blue Scallop]

That's correct.

Its got nothing to do with science. He explains what science is.

Its people that try to 'expand' on it and come up with things like - the map is not the territory, reality is what our theories tell us etc etc. Its not science - its philosophy. I believe in some of the things - in fact both of what I mentioned, but it's philosophy, not science, and that's why you are almost guaranteed an 'argument' because in philosophy you never actually reach a conclusion - you simply dialecticaly deconstruct and discuss things. Its a legit area, but not what we discuss here and engenders long threads going nowhere that the mods correctly shut down.

Thanks
Bill

I'm not arguing it. I hate philosophy too when it gets nowhere. But I just want to know the semantics so I can understand others or convey to others. So is it right that (I need to know so know how to communicate with all kinds of people):

Map = Model = orthodox shut up and calculate Quantum Theory

Territories = Realities = Bohmian Mechanics, Many Worlds, etc.

So if someday BM trajectories can be observed or branches in MWI can be seen then it becomes or make the quantum theory become a different theory? but I don't understand the shift from map to territories. I mean. Is Map a theory too? Or are both Map and Territories considered as both Theories. Can you give an example where a Map or Model is a theory and example where territories or reality is a theory? This distinction is important to get the gist of it all. Please address my questions. Thanks.

 

[bhobba]

Map = Model = orthodox shut up and calculate Quantum Theory
Territories = Realities = Bohmian Mechanics, Many Worlds, etc.

People will ague everyone of those statements.

I do not agree 'Map = Model = orthodox shut up and calculate Quantum Theory' nor 'Territories = Realities = Bohmian Mechanics, Many Worlds, etc.'

But I won't ague it because it philosophy - not physics.

People choose different interpretations for all sorts of reasons, some philosophy, some simply gut reaction, some it's all they have read - its endless the reasons.

I you want to understand interpretations better read books about then and make up your own mind.

Here is one to start with:
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/index.html

Thanks
Bill

 

[Blue Scallop]

People will ague everyone of those statements.

I do not agree 'Map = Model = orthodox shut up and calculate Quantum Theory' nor 'Territories = Realities = Bohmian Mechanics, Many Worlds, etc.'

But I won't ague it because it philosophy - not physics.

People choose different interpretations for all sorts of reasons, some philosophy, some simply gut reaction, some it's all they have read - its endless the reasons.

I you want to understand interpretations better read books about then and make up your own mind.

Here is one to start with:
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/index.html

Thanks
Bill

Hmm.. just this question for you now...

Is our shut up and calculate orthodox quantum theory a theory or interpretation?

 

[bhobba]

Is our shut up and calculate orthodox quantum theory a theory or interpretation?

It's an attitude compatible with any interpretation - you are just not worried by the issue of interpretation.

An interpretation is a specific view of the axioms of QM where certain things not stated (eg what is probability in the Born Rule) is spelled out. For example in MW that probability is simply lack of knowledge in a fully deterministic theory. Others have different views - eg in decoherent histories the emphasis is removed from observations and replaced by a history (defined as a series of projection operators). In that interpretation QM is the stochastic theory of histories. But it doesn't matter which one you hold to if you are a proponent of shut up and calculate you are saying it has no effect on the work I do.

One thing non-professionals who post here tend to forget is while they are VERY interested in what QM means etc, all the foundational questions and what not, most physicists don't really care. If you pin them down they will probably say some version of Copenhagen, or if they read Ballentine The Ensemble interpretation, but in their day to day work, say in condensed matter physics, it makes no difference.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Blue Scallop]

It's an attitude compatible with any interpretation - you are just not worried by the issue of interpretation.

An interpretation is a specific view of the axioms of QM where certain things not stated (eg what is probability in the Born Rule) is spelled out. For example in MW that probability is simply lack of knowledge in a fully deterministic theory. Others have different views - eg in decoherent histories the emphasis is removed from observations and replaced by a history (defined as a series of projection operators). In that interpretation QM in the stochastic theory of histories. But it doesn't matter which one you hold to if you are a proponent of shut up and calculate you are saying it has no effect on the work I do.

One thing non-professionals who post here tend to forget is while they are VERY interested in what QM means etc, all the foundational questions and what not, most physicists don't really care. If you pin them down they will probably say some version of Copenhagen, or if they read Ballentine The Ensemble interpretation, but in their day to day work, say in condensed matter physics, it makes no difference.

Thanks
Bill

So if experiments has proven say Bohmian Mechanics.. then what would happen to orthodox QM. This is what I'd like to know. Does it means Bohmian Mechanics will be a theory different from the orthodox QM.. this means we will set Bohmian Mechanics as the theory of QM and orthodox QM an incomplete theory (or somewhat like an effective field theory)? What language must we use? Also if Bohmian Mechanics is correct, then there will never be need for any interpretation because it is the QM. Right?

 

[zonde]

I'm not arguing it. I hate philosophy too when it gets nowhere. But I just want to know the semantics so I can understand others or convey to others. So is it right that (I need to know so know how to communicate with all kinds of people):

Map = Model = orthodox shut up and calculate Quantum Theory

Territories = Realities = Bohmian Mechanics, Many Worlds, etc.

So if someday BM trajectories can be observed or branches in MWI can be seen then it becomes or make the quantum theory become a different theory? but I don't understand the shift from map to territories. I mean. Is Map a theory too? Or are both Map and Territories considered as both Theories. Can you give an example where a Map or Model is a theory and example where territories or reality is a theory? This distinction is important to get the gist of it all. Please address my questions. Thanks.

All our theories, interpretations, speculations, ideas about physical reality are "maps".
"Territory" is physical reality or philosophically speaking it's our idea that there is something independent of "maps" that we can describe with our "maps" and we can benchmark our "maps" for how accurately they describe "territory".

 

[Blue Scallop]

All our theories, interpretations, speculations, ideas about physical reality are "maps".
"Territory" is physical reality or philosophically speaking it's our idea that there is something independent of "maps" that we can describe with our "maps" and we can benchmark our "maps" for how accurately they describe "territory".

Really.. do the rest of thousands of physicists believe this too that quantum intepretations are all maps? I just want to learn how to communicate with physicists in general. In the case of temperature.. is it the map and the moving particles the territory? But prior to Einstein or in the time of Newton. They just know what is the temperature. In this case.. they only know the map and not the territory? Any book or papers about the which theories are maps or territory? I just want to be well converse about the semantics of it just to communicate with others. Thanks.

 

[PeterDonis]

So if experiments has proven say Bohmian Mechanics

How would experiments confirm Bohmian Mechanics? It uses the same math and makes the same predictions as all of the other interpretations of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations" instead of "different theories". And that's why discussions of which interpretation is "right" are not discussions about physics--because such questions can't be answered by doing experiments.

 

[zonde]

Really.. do the rest of thousands of physicists believe this too that quantum intepretations are all maps?

Yes, at least majority.

Well, philosophy of science is still philosophy so it just lies out the options and scientists have to chose. But to have meaningful discussion you have to have some common basis, so they have to chose similar enough philosophies to have meaningful discussions. So currently I would say it's mostly Popper's ideas that are chosen.
From Wikipedia article about Karl Popper":
Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings.
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive; it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.

 

[Blue Scallop]

Yes, at least majority.

Well, philosophy of science is still philosophy so it just lies out the options and scientists have to chose. But to have meaningful discussion you have to have some common basis, so they have to chose similar enough philosophies to have meaningful discussions. So currently I would say it's mostly Popper's ideas that are chosen.
From Wikipedia article about Karl Popper":
Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings.
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive; it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.

In the history of science from Newtonian or even Copernicus, is there any example where the territory is known or are all our physics from the beginning all just maps? If there is a single case where the territory is known.. can you give example what it is?

 

[PeterDonis]

are all our physics from the beginning all just maps?

Yes.

 

[Kuzon]

If experiments in the future can determine say the trajectories of the bohmian particles or prove there are really different worlds where the branches exist, then it's no longer an interpretation but a theory? It's just weird that all the intepretations were tailored to match the math of QM as if constraining them to certain dynamics. But you are right that to avoid getting sinked in interpretations for a lifetime.. one must focus on the math and instead spend time to understand road to a fuly interacting non-perturbative quantum field theory.

i agree with everything you said my friend.

 

[Mario Rossi]

Guys what do you think about this: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html ? Should I open another thread?

 

[Mario Rossi]

In the history of science from Newtonian or even Copernicus, is there any example where the territory is known or are all our physics from the beginning all just maps? If there is a single case where the territory is known.. can you give example what it is?

Are you referring to the Korzybski's "the map is not the territory"? You need to consider that both two the interpretations (thoughts) and the experiences are maps. Remember the human body is limited and need technology (map) to perceive the world (for example in QM). But the important thing is this: "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness."

 

[OCR]

...Gonsky without going into it...

Gonski, as in Gonski Report ??... without going into it... .

 

[Blue Scallop]

by the way.. are elementary particles like electrons or quarks also maps or territory?

we used vectors or probabilities or other abstract notions to describe them at the fundamental levels or maps.. so the territory should look something like these.. is it not.. or maybe particles could still be pink elephants or output of a Matrix like programme using Zeeghaahehaaa programming language?

 

[bhobba]

Gonski, as in Gonski Report ??... without going into it... .

Yes - it's Gonski - but its just an example.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

So if experiments has proven say Bohmian Mechanics.. then what would happen to orthodox QM.

Well first BM is deliberately cooked up to be the same as ordinary QM. So what you are talking about is a BM like theory that differs in some way from QM. In that case QM is proved wrong.

Its so simple I am having trouble even understanding what you are driving at.

The essence of science is correspondence with experiment - its not hard.

All that I can think of is you are not across that interpretations, with a few exceptions such as Primary State Diffusion, are deliberately cooked up to be indistinguishable from ordinary QM. Much of it is simply being more precise on things like probability ie is a level of confidence inside a theorists head or relative frequencies in a practically infinite sequence of the same observation as in the Ensemble Interpretation.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Blue Scallop]

Well first BM is deliberately cooked up to be the same as ordinary QM. So what you are talking about is a BM like theory that differs in some way from QM. In that case QM is proved wrong.

Its so simple I am having trouble even understanding what you are driving at.

The essence of science is correspondence with experiment - its not hard.

All that I can think of is you are not across that interpretations, with a few exceptions such as Primary State Diffusion, are deliberately cooked up to be indistinguishable from ordinary QM. Much of it is simply being more precise on things like probability ie is a level of confidence inside a theorists head or relative frequencies in a practically infinite sequence of the same observation as in the Ensemble Interpretation.

Thanks
Bill

If Primary State Diffusion was right.. is it a map or territory?

Are elemental particles like electrons map or territory?

 

[Mario Rossi]

by the way.. are elementary particles like electrons or quarks also maps or territory?

we used vectors or probabilities or other abstract notions to describe them at the fundamental levels or maps.. so the territory should look something like these.. is it not.. or maybe particles could still be pink elephants or output of a Matrix like programme using Zeeghaahehaaa programming language?

There is not a way to know the "territory", every knowledge is a map including electrons. Maybe it is an accurate map, maybe it is not.

 

[Mario Rossi]

@bhobba @PeterDonis @Lord Jestocost @phinds what do you think about this: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html ?

 

[bhobba]

If Primary State Diffusion was right.. is it a map or territory? Are elemental particles like electrons map or territory?

Well what's a map? - define it exactly. Whats a territory? - define it exactly.

Atoms were once considered just a theory so many would say its just a map. But then the tunneling electron microscope came along so you can literally 'feel' individual atoms. Did that change atoms from a map to a territory - does it depend on technology?

Its a philosophical minefield, and since you claim to be ani-philosophy why does it worry you? Exactly what does such 'semantics' change? Nothing - precisely nothing.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

what do you think about this: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html ?

A new theory of the beginning of the universe - they are a dime a dozen.

We will see exactly what observation says about it over time - just like any other theory.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

There is not a way to know the "territory", every knowledge is a map including electrons. Maybe it is an accurate map, maybe it is not.

Its a philosophical minefield. I agree with you - but what a professional philosopher would make of it - beats me - nor is it suitable for discussion here.

Why not avoid such in the first place? Surely its the easiest way of handling it. It my view anyway.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Blue Scallop]

Its a philosophical minefield. I agree with you - but what a professional philosopher would make of it - beats me - nor is it suitable for discussion here.

Why not avoid such in the first place? Surely its the easiest way of handling it. It my view anyway.

Thanks
Bill

Ok. Just want to convince myself everything is map. Electron is map. Electron could be made up of strings. Strings is map. Strings could be made up of other things.. so it's maps all the way. Therefore in physics there is no territory or ultimate ontology where there is nothing beyond it. So even if Weinberg is right the final theory is pure math, then the pure math is the map still.. and no territory.

Just want to be clear of all the arguments so beginning today it's all math I'd focus and would take me years to understand it. Thanks.

 

[stevendaryl]

Regarding decoherence and the related misunderstanding:

Consider a superposition and its evolution in course of time according to the Schroedinger equation. There is no physical process - how irreversible it might be - which is capable to reduce interference terms exactly to zero. You can "decohere" as much as you want, you will never get rid of the superposition. Why don't people get this into their heads? The whole information which the observer had at the beginning of the measuring process remains thus unchanged during the measuring act. Thus, no increase in entropy takes place and, consequently, no conversion of a pure state into a mixed state can takes place. A superposition remains always a superposition as long as mere physical processes are considered. That's physics! There is no way out! The conceptual transition from quantum to classical ignorance has to be put in “by hand” - the role of the observer.

Right. There is a sense, as you say, that decoherence doesn't change anything, at a fundamental level. But in practice, it changes everything.

1. For practical purposes, we don't want to consider the wave function of the entire universe, but only the state of the system(s) of interest.
2. After decoherence, the system of interest can no longer be described by a pure state (wave function), but can only be described by a mixed state.
3. But a mixed state can be given an "ignorance" interpretation: The system is really in this state or that state, but we just don't know which, and the density matrix can tell us the probabilities.

So in practice, you can pretend that after decoherence happens, the wave function of the system of interest "collapses" nondeterministically into one of a number of possibilities. But there is no physical process for such a collapse--it's just an artifact of our pragmatic decision to focus on a small subsystem, rather than the entire universe.

That doesn't answer any of the fundamental questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it explains why in practice, we don't need to answer those questions.

 

[stevendaryl]

Ok. Just want to convince myself everything is map. Electron is map. Electron could be made up of strings. Strings is map. Strings could be made up of other things.. so it's maps all the way. Therefore in physics there is no territory or ultimate ontology where there is nothing beyond it. So even if Weinberg is right the final theory is pure math, then the pure math is the map still.. and no territory.

Just want to be clear of all the arguments so beginning today it's all math I'd focus and would take me years to understand it. Thanks.

Well a map is something that corresponds in a mathematically precise way to something else. Or in mathematics, the word "map" refers to the correspondence itself. So the paradigm case is a piece of paper that can be thought of as a portion of a 2-dimensional Euclidean space, and each point on the piece of paper corresponds to a point on the surface of the Earth.

It doesn't actually make sense (to me) to say that something is a map without having a second thing that it's the map of. So an electron can't be a map. If we describe the electron by a wave function, then the wave function can be a map. But not the electron.

Of course, there may be no actual electrons, because our concept of electrons might be just an approximation to what's really going. This might be nitpicky, but I don't consider one theory being an approximation to another theory to be an instance of the map/territory distinction. They are two different relationships. A road map is not an approximation to the surface of the Earth, it's a representation of it.

 

[bhobba]

Ok. Just want to convince myself everything is map. Electron is map.

If you want to look at it that way - go ahead - it's doesn't really matter.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Lord Jestocost]

After decoherence, the system of interest can no longer be described by a pure state (wave function), but can only be described by a mixed state.

That's fundamentally wrong! Please, provide a time dependent Schroedinger equation which comprises a physical process that allows to “cut” the wave function of the considered system into “real” pieces, viz. which leads to an increase in entropy and, consequently, to a physical conversion of a pure state into a mixed state.

You cannot trick quantum theory because of your feeling of what “reality ought to be”!

 

[bhobba]

You cannot trick quantum theory because of your feeling of what “reality ought to be”!

There is no trick.

Consider the entangled state 1/√2 |a>|b> + 1/√2 |b>|a>. The two systems are entangled. But now just observe system 1 - it's not in a pure state but with a little math you will find in many sources, even Susskinds Introduction to QM, shows it is in a mixed state:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465062903/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I have posted the slightly tedious math before but its so common there is no need eg see section 1.2.3
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5439/1/Decoherence_Essay_arXiv_version.pdf

Its very very basic.

Thanks
Bill