What Is Your Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Shut Up and Calculate?

[Fra]

I agree we need an interpretation which is not just a practical type "treatment" of foundation QM, but more importantly, a way to guide future research. Yes i too feel there is a correlation between the scientific process and natural processes. But do you think its a naturalistic mimicking we engage in on a subliminal level or is there really a stronger law of "subjectivity" of which humans are only becoming aware?

For example, since I am human, the human perspective is unavoidably relevant - I can not release myself from that. But apart from that, none of my suggested abstractions is by any means constrained to humans or biological systems. Except for the obvious, that the abstraction itself live in my brain. But that is a universal: every question is relative to the questioner.

As I see it humans are part of nature like other systems. But we are complex and have evolved an impressive level of sophistication.

But like you indicated in the other posts, how does the world look like to a very simple low-complexity system?

So I am somehow trying to ponder what questions any given observer CAN ask. And what view of the world it is likely to have. And how does the observer itself evolve during the question/response processes in a given environment?

In therms of physics this amounts to ask what possible interactions CAN a given system participate in? And how does the system evolve during the interaction process?

But all these questions, are fired from me, who is human. My probably utility of this is that I can try to predict my environment. It's like a game, where each player to find his optimum strategy must also guess the strategy of the other players. But since all other humans, while different, relativity speaking are fairly well synchronized, it is likely that other humans ask similar questions. I would expect that. But I would not expect that a snail will ponder about life at this level. But instead it probably has it's own "questions" (not verbal of course) that applies to it's intrinsic self.

I am more likely to understand a snail, than a snail is likely to understnad me.

Have you read any of Henry Stapp's papers or theories? I believe he also feels that in a sense everything is conscious. His papers are all here:
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html

No I haven't read any of it, but thanks for the link! i'll try to skim some of those papers.

The problem we face is a physics community which loathes the idea of subjectivity. Its understandable because scientists are trained to be objective about everything and i think it will be hard for many to traverse the new paradigm.

This is an interesting point and I think many people have a hard time understanding how subjectivity can make sense and not necessarily trash all logic. Unfortunately universal objectivity is an illusion IMO. Those who think they can do science and not deal with that are from my POV unlikely to have anything todo with the next generation of science. That's my opinion.

Carlo Rovelli has some excellent points to make about the relational nature of things. Relativity or subjectivity doesn't contradict emergent objectivity, as per negotiation processes. I don't agree with his entire reasoning but the early part of hte paper is just excellent IMO.

"Suppose a physical quantity q has value with respect to you, as well as with respect to me. Can we compare these values? Yes we can, by communicating among us. But communication is a physical interaction..."
-- Carol Rovelli, "Relational Quantum Mechanics", http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002

Subjectivity is not near as stupid as some people sometimes seem to think. I think those who reject that lightly and think it means that anything goes at equal probability simply doesn't understand it's beauty. Subjectivity is really nothing but relativity.

/Fredrik

 

[Coldcall]

Fra,

"...I am more likely to understand a snail, than a snail is likely to understand me."

Yes, and perhaps one day we will understand much more of what goes on with snails. Maybe we will even figure out how to communicate with them on some biochemical level.

"This is an interesting point and I think many people have a hard time understanding how subjectivity can make sense and not necessarily trash all logic. Unfortunately universal objectivity is an illusion IMO. Those who think they can do science and not deal with that are from my POV unlikely to have anything todo with the next generation of science. That's my opinion."

Absolutely and this is a major problem in the mindset of modern physics. Its almost as if quantum mechanics never happened because even though phycists accept it they seem to ignore what it tells us about reality. I think this is why we seem to have hit a brick wall in regards to unification theories as described by Lee Smolin in TTWP. Its as if we've been traveling down a long winding road, found the side road for QM, but from that point on we got lost and missed the next turn. My view and i know you don't agree with me on this part, is that instead of accepting the observer paradox and researching how or why observers are essential for a "reality" to occur, we have ignored the problem and tried to deal with it in other ways.

Again i don't know what defines a valid observer exactly but i suspect its any kind of biology.

"Suppose a physical quantity q has value with respect to you, as well as with respect to me. Can we compare these values? Yes we can, by communicating among us. But communication is a physical interaction..."
-- Carol Rovelli, "Relational Quantum Mechanics", http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002"[/B][/I]

Yes very interesting. Thanks.

"Subjectivity is not near as stupid as some people sometimes seem to think. I think those who reject that lightly and think it means that anything goes at equal probability simply doesn't understand it's beauty. Subjectivity is really nothing but relativity."

I think subjectivity is intrinsically linked to our "consciousness". If you think about it we have to be capable of highly subjective thought to even "understand" quantum mechanics, and even then as you've pointed out; many realists or materialists have a real problem with it. Yes the observership angle to Relativity, and the subjective mindset one must enter to understand it correlates far closer to quantum mechanics than first impressions.

In fact life seems pretty subjective (quantum mechanical) even on macroscopic and human social levels. What are confrontations about other than two different versions of reality clashing? Its a subjective duel though the outcome will effect the global reality. Usually the victor gets his way and the world ends up reflecting that outcome. The loser either dies (becomes non-existent) or retreats - meaning he/she has less influence in moulding the future reality. One can apply this subjective model of interractions across all of life as we know it.