At Nature: For now, “uncertainty seems the wisest position” on the implications of quantum mechanics
| August 11, 2018 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Mind, Physics |
What’s odd is that the interference pattern remains — accumulating over many particle impacts — even if particles go through the slits one at a time. The particles seem to interfere with themselves. Odder, the pattern vanishes if we use a detector to measure which slit the particle goes through: it’s truly particle-like, with no more waviness. Oddest of all, that remains true if we delay the measurement until after the particle has traversed the slits (but before it hits the screen). And if we make the measurement but then delete the result without looking at it, interference returns.
It’s not the physical act of measurement that seems to make the difference, but the “act of noticing”, as physicist Carl von Weizsäcker (who worked closely with quantum pioneer Werner Heisenberg) put it in 1941. Ananthaswamy explains that this is what is so strange about quantum mechanics: it can seem impossible to eliminate a decisive role for our conscious intervention in the outcome of experiments. That fact drove physicist Eugene Wigner to suppose at one point that the mind itself causes the ‘collapse’ that turns a wave into a particle.
Philip Ball, “Two slits and one hell of a quantum conundrum” at Nature
Ball spends the rest of the review backing away from the implication that the mind is real but, that said, his is a good summary and he ends by recommending that pluralism is currently well-advised: “For now, uncertainty seems the wisest position in the quantum world.”
See also: Quantum physicist David Bohm on why there cannot be a Theory of Everything
Researchers clearly observe quantum effects in photosynthesis
Inspiring Philosophy on quantum mechanics and the death of materialism
and
Is the search for meaning in quantum physics a form of religion?
37 Responses to At Nature: For now, “uncertainty seems the wisest position” on the implications of quantum mechanics
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The implication is not just that the mind is real but also that physical “reality” is subordinate to mind. The real difficulty here is that most theories of mind begin from the materialistic premise that it is “physical reality” that forms or informs the mind.
Somewhere, George Berkeley (1685-1753) is smiling.
As I quoted one other time,
I just finished reading “What Is Real: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics”, a history of various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including questions of exactly what is real, what is the role of measurement, and how, specifically, has the Copenhagen interpretation fared against other interpretations in light of further experiments in QM.
In the summary, Becker wrote this:
Excerpt From: Adam Becker. “What Is Real?.” iBooks
I just posted more on this subject in the “WJM throws down the gauntlet” tread.
P.S. I definitely agree with the title of this thread. Trying to interpret what QM “really” means is an exercise in unprovable metaphysics. I think we need to live with the uncertainty of understanding that the ambiguities of QM are what they are, and may not ever resolve into a definite understanding of what “really” is behind the quantum world we can investigate.
re 2: Thanks, Dick. I just read some about Berkeley, and it seems like wjm’s philosophy is very much like Berkeley’s.
jdk said:
That local reality has been disproved is as settled as “disproved” and as “settled” as things get in the provisional nature of science. That photons and electrons are affected by conscious observation and not mere interaction with supposed physical surroundings is as settled as it gets in science.
Just because materialism-committed physicists don’t like what the evidence implies doesn’t change any of that, as you allude to as you contniue:
They object to this rational implication of the evidence on the grounds that they dislike where they think the implication leads.
Yes, it is. I’ve never said otherwise. Just because the theory of an external reality is good at explaining a lot of evidence/experience doesn’t mean it is true. Insisting that evidence repeatedly gathered and proved via further experimentation doesn’t mean what it rationally indicates – that the external reality model is wrong – is displaying ideological commitment to the external reality model. It’s like clinging to the geocentric model when evidence clearly demonstrates that view is wrong.
No, but the quantum evidence that has disproved local reality has demonstrated exactly that very thing. It doesn’t render the “exterior reality” model unusable; it just means that what we experience is not what that model describes and that there are phenomena that do not fit that model. Unfortunately for external realists, that non-fitting phenomena is the deep foundation of all of what we experience as an “external physical reality”.
jdk said:
I feel much the same way about arguing that consensual experience “means” that an external reality exists – unless one just uses it as a provisional model, it’s metaphysical ideology.
The double slit is definitely very friendly to Theistic, even specific Christian, presuppositions.
Richard Feynman stated this about the double slit experiment with electrons
The double slit has now been performed with ‘objects’ much larger than electrons.
In the following video, Anton Zeilinger, a leading experimentalist in quantum mechanics, states that
And in this following video, Anton Zeilinger goes on to state that
Yet contrary to Zeilinger’s claim that “We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between.”, the fact of the matter is that not only do we not know what the photon is doing in between in the double slit experiment as it is traveling we really don’t even know how photons are emitted and absorbed in the first place.
This following wikipedia article on quantum electrodynamics states that ‘It is important not to over-interpret these diagrams. Nothing is implied about how a particle gets from one point to another. The diagrams do not imply that the particles are moving in straight or curved lines. They do not imply that the particles are moving with fixed speeds. The fact that the photon is often represented, by convention, by a wavy line and not a straight one does not imply that it is thought that it is more wavelike than is an electron. The images are just symbols to represent the actions above: photons and electrons do, somehow, move from point to point and electrons, somehow, emit and absorb photons. We do not know how these things happen, but the theory tells us about the probabilities of these things happening.’
And although, according to Anton Zeilinger, we cannot know exactly what the photon is doing in the double slit experiment between emission and absorption, we do know that while a photon is doing whatever it is doing in the double slit, that the photon is mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimensional state,,,
,, an infinite dimensional state that also takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Moreover, Richard Feynman, in his role in developing Quantum-Electrodynamics, which is a mathematical theory in which special relativity and quantum mechanics are unified,
,, Richard Feynman was only able to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics in quantum electrodynamics by quote unquote “brushing infinity under the rug” by a technique called Renormalization
In the following video, Richard Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug” in Quantum-Electrodynamics:
I don’t know about Richard Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:
The reason why I find it rather comforting is because of John 1:1, which says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ‘The Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic.
So that it would take an infinite amount of logic to know what tiny bit of spacetime is going to do is pretty much exactly what one should expect to see under Christian presuppositions.
In fact, as a Christian Theist, I find both the double slit and quantum electrodynamics to be extremely comforting for Christian concerns. In the double slit experiment we found that while a photon and/or electron is traveling in the double slit experiment it is mathematically required to be defined as being in an infinite dimensional space.
And we found that the photon is also mathematically required to be described by an infinite amount of information.
Now, saying something is in an infinite dimensional state to me, as a Christian Theist, sounds very much like the theistic attribute of omnipresence.
And then saying something takes an infinite amount of information to describe it sounds very much like the Theistic attribute of Omniscience to me.
And then we also saw that when Quantum Mechanics and special relativity were unified in quantum-electrodynamics that it still took an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do.
Now all this is pretty much exactly what we would expect to see under Christian presuppositions. But, on the other hand, under Atheistic materialism and/or naturalism, and the presuppositions therein, there simply is no rational explanation for why we should find these things to be as they are.
Moreover, the basics of quantum wave collapse dovetail perfectly into some of the oldest philosophical arguments that were made by Aristotle and Aquinas for the existence of God, and even offers empirical confirmation for those ancient philosophical arguments.’
Here is a technical explanation and video of Aquinas’ First way argument for God where you can, at your leisure, see just how well the argument from motion dovetails into what we are seeing in quantum mechanics
Or to put Aquinas’ argument much more simply “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”:
And again, all in all, the double slit experiment is very friendly to Theistic, even specific Christian, presuppositions.
Verses
Thanks for the replies, wjm. Let me start with your last remark:
When I wrote, “I definitely agree with the title of this thread. Trying to interpret what QM “really” means is an exercise in unprovable metaphysics.”, you replied
In my opinion, all interpretations about metaphysics, including what is “really real” in respect to QM, is a provisional model. I certainly don’t think I hold to any ideology about the situation, and even though I think you were referring to others, I don’t hold a “materialist-committed” position.
You write,
I agree with your statement about local reality. (You’ll note that my quote in the “gauntlet” thread quotes John Bell on this issue.) I’ll also agree that quantum phenomena are affected by conscious observation. I don’t think it is a settled issue, however, that quantum phenomena are not affected by “mere interaction with supposed physical surroundings”.
When I wrote, “prominent QM theorists have objected to this idea on the grounds that it leads to solipsism”, you replied,
This is most likely because they see flaws in those implications, not because the “don’t like” those implications.
There is a difference here between claiming that the ultimate nature of quantum phenomena is unknowable by us and claiming that the evidence supports the conclusion that consciousness is a necessary prerequisite for quantum phenomena to be the foundation of an external reality. Of course consciousness is necessary for us to experience the world, but that doesn’t mean that consciousness is necessary for the world to exist.
Somewhat related: in googling “Bell” and “local reality” I found this interesting article:
https://www.nature.com/news/physics-bell-s-theorem-still-reverberates-1.15435
For several years now WJM has clearly articulated the need for mind to be considered primary in reality.
WJM is in VERY good company:
Max Planck went on to state:
Even Heinsenberg himself weighed in with a very Theistic friendly interpretation of quantum mechanics:
Moreover, another towering giant of physics, Einstein himself, was shown to be wrong in his opposition to quantum mechanics.
Most people are aware of the falsification of Einstein’s ‘hidden variables’ model that tried to explain away the ‘spooky action at a distance’ of quantum entanglement,,,
,, but fewer people are aware that Einstein was also falsified in his belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
A fuller meaning of exactly what is meant by ‘the experience of ‘the now” can be read in the following article:
Yet, ‘the experience of the now’ is, contrary to what Einstein thought possible, very much a part of experimental physics. For example, in the following experiment, that was performed with atoms instead of photons, it was proved that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
The Theistic implications of this experiment are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
Thus, contrary to Einstein falsely claiming that ‘the experience of ‘the now’ can never be a part of physics, the fact of the matter is that ‘the experience of the now’, as far as quantum mechanics itself is concerned, is very much a part of modern day experimental physics.
And as was stated at post 2 by Dick “Somewhere, George Berkeley (1685-1753) is smiling.”
A few more notes that are very friendly to George Berkeley’s Theistic concerns
Yes, ba, there are people who support this interpretation. There are those that don’t. You don’t collect quotes from those who don’t, do you?
As I have said, here I use wjm’s words, all these interpretations are “provisional models” of metaphysics, subject to considerable well-informed disagreement (and in my opinion, at least to some extent, a matter of philosophical choice but not something that can be shown to be “true”.)
I tend to agree with jdk.
Within my limited understanding of QM, it seems that the jury is still out concerning the materialist-vs-idealist implications.
FWIW I tend to side with the idealists. This is because the long human history of ‘altered states of consciousness'(ASCs), in which the human mind seems to expand infinitely, describes a scenario almost identical with an idealist interpretation of quantum-mrchanical reality.
Whether the ASC was that of mystics such as Yeshua Ben Yosef (“Jesus”) after his 40 days and nights of fasting; or the transcendent visions of near-death experiencers, or the accounts of 5-MeO-DMT psychonauts, or the insights of people trained in deep meditation, the bottom line is the same: mind creates everything and mind IS everything.
(Also, the contemporary computer scientist and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, following in Berkeley’s footsteps, has written several books and papers explaining why idealism is a more parsimonious interpretation of reality than is materialism, and thus – following Occam’s razor – is more likely to be true. His latest book “The Idea of a World” has just been published.)
Evidence for the correct interpretation of QM will eventually accumulate, just as evidence gradually accumulated to solve the geocentric-vs-heliocentric debate. We live in exciting times!
Charles Birch stated:
If you told somebody that you believe the Earth, or any particular human on the earth was the center of the universe, their initial reaction would most likely be to laugh you to scorn and then tell you that everybody with half a brain knows that the Earth is revolving around the sun and that Ptolemy’s earth centered model was proven wrong.
If they are a little more educated they might inform you of the supposedly incontrovertible fact that we are whirling around the center of our galaxy at an incredibly fast pace, and that our galaxy is itself moving with great speed through space,,,
This belief that the earth and/or humans have no special position or status within the universe is referred to as the Copernican Principle and/or the mediocrity principle. The Copernican principle, is named after Copernican heliocentrism and is an assumption that there is nothing very unusual or special about the earth or humanity:
That is to say, with the removal of the earth from the center of the solar system (and the center of the universe in general), some people generalized it to mean humans in general have no real meaning, purpose, and significance in this universe.
Yet, this belief that the earth, and humans in particular are not ‘special’ in this universe, is now shown to be wrong.
Contrary to what is believed by the vast majority of people today, apparently by both Christians and atheists alike, recent advances in science have restored the earth and humanity to a special, even central, position within the universe.
First off, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
Einstein himself stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
Fred Hoyle and George Ellis add their considerable weight here in these following two quotes:
As Einstein himself noted, there simply is no test that can be performed that can prove the earth is not the center of the universe:
Here are a few more references that drives this point home:
Even Stephen Hawking himself, who once claimed that we are just chemical scum on an insignificant planet, stated that it is not true that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.”
Even individual people can be considered to be central in the universe according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,
,,, In fact, when Einstein’s first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
Whereas, on the other hand, in Quantum Mechanics it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe.
Richard Conn Henry who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University states “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
Moreover, there are Anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that strangely line up with the solar system and earth.
These ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR indicating a earth centered universe have now been ‘re-confirmed’ with more accurate measurements from the Planck satellite:
In further establishing our centrality in this vast universe, in the following video, physicist Neil Turok states that we live in the middle, or at the geometric mean, between the largest scale in physics and the smallest scale in physics:
Here is a picture that gets his point across very clearly:
The following interactive graph is also very interesting to the topic of geometric ‘centrality in the universe’:
As you can see, the preceding interactive graph pegs the geometric mean at 10^-4 meters , which just so happens to correspond to the limits to human vision as well as the size of the human egg.
All of this is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision as well as the size of the human egg could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly at the geometric mean.
It is also very interesting since it more or less directly challenges the supposed ‘Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity’ which holds life, and humans in particular have no special significance within this universe.
In conclusion, the earth, and more specifically, humans upon the earth are not nearly as insignificant as is believed by the vast majority of supposedly “scientifically educated” people today.
A few more notes along that line
Verse:
While the evidence provided by quantum mechanics may not be a knockout argument against materialism, it is definitely not an argument for it. It is the materialist who is forced to rationalize and equivocate. Looking at it dispassionately and objectively that is not a strong position
I don’t believe anyone in this thread (such as me) has been trying to support materialism.
Scientists are closing loopholes in delayed choice experiment so materialism cannot be position based on science. It appears that materialism is more of a ideologically driven position rather than scientific/logical/rational
https://www.quantamagazine.org/closed-loophole-confirms-the-unreality-of-the-quantum-world-20180725/
re 20: that is an interesting article. However, and this is the topic that started the “wjm throws down the gauntlet” thread, I don’t think the issue discussed in the article is materialism (in the modern sense), either pro or con, but rather trying to refine our understanding of the nature of quantum particles, which are the foundation of the material world.
Note also that towards the end the article mentions some alternative explanations for what is going on, which is what good science writing should do.
Hi jdk,
My favorite young physicist is Nima Arkani Hamed. He’s working on theory that’s supposed to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics. It’s pretty abstract so it takes a while to get it but if you have 1 hour 31 minutes there’s a great recent lecture on YouTube
https://youtu.be/t-C5RubqtRA
Thanks. Unfortunately I don’t take the time to watch videos: I prefer reading. Unfortunately, I can’t find any text by him. I did find five lectures from 2020 that looked interesting: http://www.cornell.edu/video/p.....al-physics
If you know of any written summary of his ideas, I’d be interested.*
At 20 Eugen mentioned a ‘new’ loop-hole in quantum mechanics that was recently closed:
This adds to the growing list of ‘loop-holes’, (ad hoc ‘loop-holes’ that would have saved a classical, materialistic, and/or deterministic view of the world), that have now been closed,,,
I would like to focus in on the supposed ‘free will’ loop-hole.
Although many people seem to believe there are several ‘interpretations’ possible for quantum mechanics, in his article entitled ‘The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics’, Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, states that there are, in reality, only two possible interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Weinberg rightly rejects the ‘realist’ approach since it leads to the insanity called the ‘many worlds’ interpretation and since the ‘realist’ approach really does not deal with the probabilities properly without invoking ad hoc assumptions and since quantum entanglement itself also contradicts the ‘realist’ approach.
And although it is easy to see why Weinberg rejected the deterministic ‘realist’ approach, it is interesting to see why he rejects the ‘instrumentalist’ approach.
The reason why Weinberg rejects the instrumentalist approach is because, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
Basically Weinberg rejects the instrumentalist approach because of free will. It is just plain bizarre that someone would think it ‘reasonable’ to reject the instrumentalist approach of quantum mechanics because of free will.
To reject free will is to undermine any ability we might have had to reason rationally in the first place.
As Martin Cothan states in the following article “The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”
And as Michael Egnor also recently pointed out, the denial of free will is self-refuting:
Micheal Egnor also highlights the fact that neurological research supports the reality of free will.
As Dr. Egnor stated in the first article, “The denial of free will is an ideological bias, not a credible scientific or philosophical conclusion.”
Moreover, besides neurological research supporting the reality of free will, in quantum mechanics we find that the reality of free will is now supported by what is termed ‘contextuality and/or the Kochen-Speckter Theorem
With contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation” and “Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.”
And as leading experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
And to reiterate, the ‘free will’ loop-hole in quantum mechanics has now been all but effectively closed with the only remaining options limited to ‘truly bizarre’ scenarios in which our choices were somehow ‘superdetermined’ humdreds (even billions) of years ago:
One concluding thought, although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life, (infinity if you will), with God, or Eternal life, (infinity again if you will), without God. C.S. states it as such:
And exactly as would be expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:
Verse:
ba writes,
1. The classical view of the world (Newtonian, clockwork, Cartesian space within which time flows steadily) has been off the table for a century.
2. A deterministic quantum perspective that posits hidden variables out of which the probability and wave collapse that we see is not supported by the experiment Eugen posted about.
3. However, nothing about that experiment addresses materialism in the modern sense, one way or another. Quantum phenomena are the foundation, as far as we know, of the material world, so learning how they work is a materialistic enterprise.
The issue, which we have been discussing here, is the role of the conscious observer, and that issue is unsettled, as has been discussed on the “gauntlet” thread.
LOL 🙂
Besides the fallacy of assuming your conclusion into your premise, i.e. “begging the question”, there is nothing ‘materialistic’ in man’s ability to practice science.
From our technology, to the ‘intelligent design’ of the scientific instruments themselves, (test tubes, telescopes and computers certainly do not ‘naturally’ appear out of thin air), to the design and analysis of scientific experiments with ‘immaterial mathematics’, even computers themselves, the entire enterprise of science is thoroughly ‘non-materialistic’ in its endeavor.
In fact, the imposition of what is termed ‘methodological naturalism’ onto science, far from being a supposed required prerequisite of science, as atheists falsely claim that it is, actually leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Although the Darwinist/Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, the fact of the matter is that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
ba writes,
LOL, indeed. According to this argument, studying rocks disproves materialism, because it assumes (begging the question) that human investigation of the world is the product of something immaterial, which is exactly the point upon which materialists disagree.
And, ba, in his hodge-podge of quotes, has strayed from what I think is the point of the thread, which is whether it is settled matter that conscious experience is essential for the manifestation of reality, whatever that might mean, at the quantum level.
I’ll return to the question that John Bell raised, which I quoted in the “gauntlet” thread”
Excerpt From: Adam Becker. “What Is Real?.” iBooks.
Those are questions that the “mind before matter” crowd need to address.
@jdk Since you like reading, this is the book description of Ashish Dalela’s Quantum Meaning — A Semantic Interpretation of Quantum Theory, using insights from Indian philosophy and every day life to speak about the quantum issue. The main idea is that quantum theory has stumbled across the nature of reality as meaning/information/ideas but this goes so much against Newtonian physics and classical thinking, which is still embedded in the minds of many scientists, that it is simply impossible to accept at this time. This is the full book description from Amazon, if you’re interested:
“The problems of indeterminism, uncertainty and statistics in quantum theory are legend and have spawned a wide-variety of interpretations, none too satisfactory.The key issue of discontent is the conflict between the microscopic and the macroscopic worlds: How does a classically certain world emerge from a world of uncertainty and probability? To attempt to solve this riddle, we must first understand the nature of atoms.
What If Atoms Are Not Things But Ideas?
In the Semantic Interpretation of Quantum Theory atomic objects are treated as symbols of meaning. The book shows that if atoms are symbols, then describing them as meaningless objects would naturally lead to problems of uncertainty, indeterminism, non-locality and probability.
For example, if we analyze a book in terms of physical properties, we can measure the frequencies of symbols but not their meanings. Current quantum theory measures symbol probabilities rather than meanings associated with symbol order. Unless quantum objects are treated as symbols, the succession or order amongst these objects will remain unpredictable.
Is Quantum Theory a Final Theory of Reality?
Quantum Meaning argues that the current quantum theory is not a final theory of reality. Rather, the theory can be replaced by a better one, in which objects are treated as symbols, rendering it free of indeterminism and probability. The Semantic Interpretation makes it possible to formulate new laws of nature. These laws will predict the order amongst symbols, similar to the notes in a musical composition or the words in a book.
How This Book Is Structured
Chapter 1: Quantum Information—discusses the quantum physics – classical physics conflict and connects it to the historical divide between primary and secondary properties. The consequences of introducing semantic information into physics are described.
Chapter 2: The Quantum Problem—surveys the “quantum weirdness” including issue such as discreteness, uncertainty, probability, wave-particle duality, non-locality and irreversibility.
Chapter 3: Developing the Intuitions—an informational view of nature is motivated by analyzing the problems that arise when symbols are treated as classical objects. The connection between problems of meaning and Godel’s Incompleteness and Turing’s Halting Problem are discussed and certain foundational notions such as semantic space and quantum spacelets are introduced.
Chapter 4: The Semantic Interpretation—interprets standard constructs in the quantum physics formalism such as statistics, uncertainty, Schrodinger’s equation, non-locality and complementarity. The chapter shows how these constructs cease to be problematic when quanta are treated as symbols.
Chapter 5: Advanced Quantum Topics—extends the ideas in the previous chapter to interpret quasi-particles, antiparticles, spin, the weak force, decoherence and the constant speed of light. The chapter discusses a semantic path to Quantum Gravity.
Chapter 6: Comparing Interpretations—compares the Semantic Interpretation with some well-known interpretations of quantum theory such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Ensemble Interpretation, the Many Worlds Interpretation, the Von Neumann/Wigner Interpretation, the Relational Interpretation, and the Objective Collapse Interpretation.
The book concludes by arguing that the quantum wavefunction—which is currently treated physically—can also be treated semantically. Much like a word can be understood as a sound vibration, but also has meaning, the quanta can also be treated as phonemes that symbolize meanings.”
Ross Rhodes has offered one very unconventional approach to the mysteries of quantum physics, described in his paper “A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, at http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/pdf/615.1.pdf . He believes that the mysteries of quantum mechanics can best be explained as being an artifact of our reality being a virtual reality simulation being cybernetically, computationally, generated by a Being or Beings of incalculable power for the benefit (or otherwise) of us, the users or unwilling participants. Inherent to his ideas is the understanding of human consciousness as being fundamentally apart from and of a different nature than “physical” reality.
The table of contents below summarizes some of his ideas. It seems to me that it is at least strange that there should be so many “coincidental” correspondences.
I. The Appearance of Waves
A. Waves with no medium, as though they were mathematical formula only
B. Waves of calculation, not otherwise manifest, as though they really were differential equations
C. Standing waves, as though they were mathematical formula only
II. The Measurement Effect
A. “Collapse of the wave function” — consciousness as mediator, as though the sensory universe was a display to the user
B. Uncertainty and complementary properties, as though variables were being redefined and results calculated and recalculated according to an underlying formula
III. The Identical/Interchangeable Nature of “Particles” and Measured Properties – as though the “particles” were merely pictures of particles, like computer icons
IV. Continuity and Discontinuity in Observed Behaviors
A. “Quantum leaps,” as though there was no time or space between quantum events
B. The breakdown at zero, yielding infinities, as though the universe was being run by a computer clock on a coordinate grid
V. Non-locality – As though all calculations were in the CPU, regardless of the location of the pixels on the screen
VI. The Relationship of Observed Phenomena to the Mathematical Formalism – as though physical manifestations themselves were being produced by a mathematical formula
As to, “Solipsism—the idea that you are the only person”
as was already referenced and ignored by jdk
This “Theistic immaterialism” is referred to as “occasionalist idealism” by Prof. Bruce Gordon
And after reviewing what is actually happening in the double slit, (as was mentioned in post 8), it is beyond me how anybody in their right mind, especially supposedly bright people in quantum physics, could possibly think that they themselves have the ‘Solipsitic’ capacity to collapse the infinite dimensional – infinite information wave function all by their lonesome selves.
Such a self-absorbed notion, ‘Solipsism’, that so blindly ignores the omniscient omnipresent Mind of God as the ‘sufficient cause’ necessary to collapse the infinite dimensional – infinite information wave function is nothing less than sheer absurdity!
The double slit, and the “infinity’ details inherent therein, is definitely very friendly to apriori Theistic, even specific Christian, presuppositions.
Of humorous note to ‘Solipsism’,
Also see Plantinga’s “God and Other Minds”
Verse and Quote:
Two things I bring up from time to time, I’ll reiterate here, as it seems to be ‘a propos’.
For all we know, in terms of physics, the only sovereign reality is light* (strangely, evocative of God), space-time being contingent ;
And that we each inhabit a world of our own, integrated and coordinated, ultimately spiritually, by God, who is spirit and mind.
For materialists, as the scientist, Robert Jastrow, put it ‘…. it all ends like a bad dream.’ All dressed up, and nowhere to go.
ba writes,
No ba, I have not ignored this. In fact I have responded a numbered of times that the claim made in your first sentence (which I will note starts with “if”) is not a settled matter, and I have offered, several times, some reasons why not, as summarized in the quote I have offered by John Bell.
Furthermore, I have made numerous statements about how interpretation of QM is more metaphysics, and to use wjm’s phrase, provisional models as opposed to definitive conclusions.
You have not responded to these points, other than offering your typical laundry list of quotes. It is you who have ignored my points, not the other way around, I think.
jdk, regardless of what you think as an atheist, I find the evidence from quantum mechanics that the Mind of God precedes “material” reality to now be overwhelming.
And given the constant bias that I have seen against God right here on UD, by atheists such as yourself, I am certainly not overly concerned whether you may personally find the evidence compelling or not.
For instance, you, as an atheist, believe, against all common sense, that unguided Darwinian processes provide a better explanation for the human brain than God does:
And that is just one example of the irrational bias from atheists against God out of many I could have provided,,, To deny, as atheists constantly do, that God provides, by far, the best explanation for why the human brain exists, is, in my book, for the (internet) atheist to disqualify himself from reasonable conversation and to reveal himself as nothing other than a severely partisan troll.
Moreover, I find the ad hoc rationalizations of atheists against the clear Theistic implications of Quantum Mechanics to be, to put it mildly, desperate attempts to rationalize away what has been, as Dr. Henry pointed out, the glaringly obvious Theistic implications of Quantum Mechanics for 80 plus years now.
And last but not least, and to reiterate, for the atheist to deny the reality of his own immaterial mind and his own free will, which are both foundational presuppositions within quantum mechanics, is for them to commit intellectual suicide. (see bottom of post 27)
A few supplemental notes:
LOL.
BA77 @ 34: Excellent points. Well done!
re 36 concerning 35: yes, but not actually a response to 33.