Simple, Unambigous Evidence We Do Not Live In An Objective, External Material World

_{William J Murray
October 9, 2020

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When how I choose to observe a photon at a particular time and place can (1) instantaneously affect a photon a billion light years away and (2) retroactively changes the history of that photon (delayed choice quantum eraser), and when we have searched far, wide and deep and have not found any “matter,” we have comprehensive, conclusive evidence that we do not live in an objective, external, material world.

At some point, if your views are guided by reason and evidence, you will have to accept that whatever “experience” is, it is not caused by an objective, external, material world.

Comments

VL, the PS above may help. We have gone through paradigm shifts and permanently have new understandings of matter, states, interactions etc. KFkairosfocus_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

TF, any conclusion that we are locked in the bubble of our consciousness is self-referentially incoherent. The Kantians' ugly gulch is problematic. In effect to infer that one cannot know external reality is to imply a knowledge claim about such, its un-knowability. The claim is self-refuting. A sounder start point is Josiah Royce's Error exists, undeniably true and so objective, bridging the inner and outer worlds in a very humbling way. We would be better advised to accept the self-evident and linked start points such as principle of identity them proceed provisionally but confidently, especially on what is reliable. KF PS: I suggest that the quantum world allows reinterpretation of matter and particularly states, bridging micro and macro worlds. What that solid wall means is a molecular-fields-quantum phenomenon. What energy is emerges as a key abstract currency of interaction governed by statistically supported thermodynamics, free energy playing a particularly useful role. Time emerges in a temporal-causal succession. And more, especially quantum weirdness.kairosfocus_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Q. I like the way you contrast Dowd and Hossenfelder. I may watch those. I am interested in different QM interpretations, so I might have the same feelings about Dowd that you do. Also, I read the Rovelli book about a year ago: in fact it was a post here a month or so ago about Rovelli, natural numbers, and "is math invented or discovered" that first got me to this site. Thanks for the resources.Viola Lee_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @20, You raise some very good questions! Let me give you a couple of examples and let you decide for yourself: First watch . . . Matt O'Dowd, PhD - PBS Does Consciousness Influence Quantum Mechanics? (17 min)) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT7SiRiqK-Q Notice his confident, even condescending dismissal of various interpretations, rejecting some out-of-hand due to their implications and rejecting others with strawman objections. Sorry, but I find his explanations to be annoying scientific browbeating. Next, watch . . . Sabine Hossenfelder, PhD The Problem with Quantum Measurement (7 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3HlA_9968 Notice the absence of condescension and her insightful, honest, and clear descriptions. It almost seems that O'Dowd and Hossenfelder are talking about two different subjects! While I'm not convinced of some of her conclusions, I respect her experimentalist perspective and clear identification of speculation. If you enjoyed those or would like to compare their different explanations for the Big Bang theory, you might consider watching these two videos: Matt O'Dowd, PhD - PBS Did Time Start at the Big Bang? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8gV05nS7mc Sabine Hossenfelder, PhD How did the universe begin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHhUCav_Jrk Since you prefer reading to acquire information, here are a few of the books in my library on the subject you might want to consider: Lee Smolin - Einstein's Unfinished Revolution Lee Smolin - Time Reborn Sabine Hossenfelder - Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray Leonard Susskind - The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking Brian Greene - The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality Carlo Rovelli - Reality is Not What It Seems I particularly enjoyed Lee Smolin's humble and honest approach. I did notice that he's a little tricky about getting rid of pesky assumptions right at the beginning. Hope this is helpful, -QQuerius_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Just FYI to William: The remark by me that you quoted at 26 was in response to Kairosocus at 21. Earlier I made it clear, I think, that I understand that at the quantum level there is no such thing as "solid matter", or matter in the classical pre-QM sense.Viola Lee_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Addendum: an "epistemological nightmare" is something bad. Very, very bad. :) Materialism’s Epistemological Blunder Truthfreedom_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

9 Chuckdarwin
Simple, Unambiguous Evidence We DO Live In An Objective, External Material World:
Lol! As if Chuckie , a materialist/ naturalist had any chance of accessing that 'external world' he is so fond of: Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare
"Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world." Dr. Dennis Bonnette. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Logic is a very demanding mistress, that you shouldn't try to overcome, or she'll bite you in the rear end. What were you saying about "objectivity", Chuckdarwin? :)Truthfreedom_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee said:
And of course, our everyday life involves experiencing the macro world, which of course involves solid matter, but science tells us that that solidity does not extend all the way to the foundation of the physical world.
Actually, science tells us there is no such thing as matter, period - at least that we can experience.. Logic alone tells us we can never actually experience any world external of mind regardless of whether it is made of matter or energy.William J Murray_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Hi ET. I think I know what materialism is as a metaphysical philosophy. What I don't understand is why quantum mechanics (QM) is or isn't definitely about that philosophy. QM is about what we understand about the very foundations of the physical world, and we certainly know the physical world is not what we used to think it was like 100 years ago. However, no matter how much we know about the physical (i.e material) world, studying QM is not going to touch on all aspects of the world, or whether everything can be explained by QM. That's why I'm curious about Querius' comment that some are trying to "preserve materialism" via QM: what arguments would such people use?Viola Lee_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

VL, I was giving a summary of the state of play in terms those who have engaged across time would recognise. Perhaps Nobel Prize holder Monod can be reckoned with. First, Chance and necessity:
[T]he basic premise of the scienti?c method, . . . [is] that nature is objective and not projective. Hence it is through reference to our own activity, con-scious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as | makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object's “naturalness" or “arti?cialness." [pp. 3 - 4] . . . . [T]he postulate of objectivity is consubstantial with science: it has guided the whole of its prodigious develop-ment for three centuries. There is no way to be rid of it, even tentatively or in a limited area, without departing from the domain of science itself. [p. 21]
Then there is reporting of a key interview he gave c 1971:
[T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, 'French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance', New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.]
the root of reality is blind matter, energy, chance and necessity. Such undergoes change based on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity giving rise to the cosmos we observe, and then OOL then all the way to us. And this is REQUIRED before you can start science. Where, science dominates and delimits serious knowledge. Philosophy is swept away a priori, this metaphysics is left unchallenged and unchallengeable on the field. The implications for man as a morally governed, rationally responsible, significantly free creature are patent and appalling. Such is reduced to delusion, coming round to bite the said philosopher in a lab coat in his back for he too cannot escape the evolutionary materialistic circle. Most people does not typically include the relevant guild of scholars. It is generally hard enough to communicate that the sense of solidity is a matter of interacting fields giving rise to the famous intermolecular force curve. I accept that say the electron double slit exercise can open up some appreciation of the quantum world but that falls into just what I spoke to. Shrug . . . KFkairosfocus_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Viola- materialism just means that matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions is all that is required to explain what we observe. It is untestable nonsense.ET_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

I'm sorry, Kairosfocus, but I don't understand what your first two sentences are trying to say. As to the sentence that starts, "Most people ...", I think we are talking about people knowledgeable about quantum mechanics, not the uninformed layperson. And of course, our everyday life involves experiencing the macro world, which of course involves solid matter, but science tells us that that solidity does not extend all the way to the foundation of the physical world.Viola Lee_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

VL, in practice, naturalism boils down to evolutionary materialistic scientism, often imposed a priori and deemed a precondition of being scientific. Yes, some talk physicalism, others talk emergentism etc but the pattern is clear and overwhelmingly common. Most people look at Q theory as mathematical weirdness useful for entertainment and technical sci-tech, it cannot compete with the macro evidence of solidity of matter. KFkairosfocus_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Hi Querius. Up at 14 you write,
I’m always running into attempts to preserve determinism and materialism online in forums and YouTube videos by science celebrities.
I like to read rather than watch videos, so I'm probably not familiar withe the videos you watch. ButI have two questions for further discussion, if you're willing. 1. I don't understand how one can "attempt to preserve determinism" in light of the fact that probabilities underlie quantum events. Can you summarize what argument such people might make to claim that quantum events are strictly deterministic? I suspect the argument involves "hidden variables" that are supposedly truly deterministic even though those events will always appear probabilistic to us. Is that the gist of the argument? 2. I don't understand the concerns about "materialism". As I stated earlier, no one believes in the outdated view of the world being made of some smallest bits of indivisible "matter". The physical world is at its roots quantum in nature, so whatever definition of "materialistic" one has now, it has to include quantum phenomena. So, in what way are these science celebrities of which you speak trying to "preserve materialism"? Is this primarily involved with the measurement problem, and the issue of what causes the wave-form to collapse? Can you explain more about the arguments you run into. Also, could you mention some of the forums and science celebrity videos you watch. Even though I'm unlikely to watch long videos, I'd be interested in knowing about such places so I can take a look. ThanksViola Lee_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

18 Bornagain77
Atheists choose not to live their life as if it had no meaning and purpose and, in an exercise of self-delusion, choose to create illusory meanings and purposes for their lives.
With their inexistent free-will. :) 10 Reasons why Atheists are Delusional https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/11-reasons-why-atheists-are-delusional/Truthfreedom_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

Querius at 12
While quantum mechanics has been validated more than any other branch of physics, you’re pointing out that the interpretation of the experimental validation of quantum effects is wildly controversial, in some cases reportedly leading to shouting matches at conferences. I can understand why. There’s a lot at stake ideologically.
The only 'interpretation' of quantum mechanics that does not collapse into absurdity is an interpretation where consciousness and free will play a fundamental role in the measurement process. Multiple lines of experimental evidence all confirm that the immaterial mental attributes of free will and 'the experience of the now' are irreducible parts of the measurement process.
July 2020 - How the mental attributes of 'the experience of the now' and of 'free will' correlate with recent advances in quantum mechanics https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/michael-egnor-talks-with-podcaster-lucas-skrobot-about-how-we-can-know-we-are-not-zombies/#comment-706147 Sept. 2020 - An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such, “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-have-been-confirming-quantum-entanglement-in-brain-tissue/#comment-713170 How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas
Of course atheists are upset that quantum mechanics overwhelmingly supports a Theistic, even Christian, worldview. I believe Steven Weinberg, an atheist, has said something to the effect of 'to hell with it', when faced with the, in his view, 'unappealing' option of having to accept that we live in a Theistic universe where consciousness is fundamental. Why atheists would, much like they do with in their fight against Intelligent Design, fight tooth and nail against what is staring them right in the face, and find the option of God to be 'unappealing', I have no idea. It is not like atheists have a better option than God. Far from it. In their rejection of God, atheists have chosen a life that is devoid of any true meaning, value, or purpose.
Is There Meaning to Life? - Dr Craig videos (animated video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE
As Dr Craig pointed out in the video, many leading atheist philosophers themselves agree that life has no objective meaning, value, or purpose if God does not exist. And even though leading Atheists themselves agree with Dr. Craig's premise that God is necessary for life to be truly meaningful, Atheists choose not to live their life as if it had no meaning and purpose and, in an exercise of self-delusion, choose to create illusory meanings and purposes for their lives.
The Absurdity of Life without God - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Meaning of Life First, the area of meaning. We saw that without God, life has no meaning. Yet (atheistic) philosophers continue to live as though life does have meaning. For example, Sartre argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action. Sartre himself chose Marxism. Now this is utterly inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say life is objectively absurd and then to say one may create meaning for his life. If life is really absurd, then man is trapped in the lower story. To try to create meaning in life represents a leap to the upper story. But Sartre has no basis for this leap. Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sartre's program is actually an exercise in self-delusion. Sartre is really saying, "Let's pretend the universe has meaning." And this is just fooling ourselves. The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/ Study: Atheists Find Meaning In Life By Inventing Fairy Tales - Richard Weikart MARCH 29, 2018 Excerpt: However, there is a problem with this finding. The survey admitted the meaning that atheists and non-religious people found in their lives is entirely self-invented. According to the survey, they embraced the position: “Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself.” Thus, when religious people say non-religious people have no basis for finding meaning in life, and when non-religious people object, saying they do indeed find meaning in life, they are not talking about the same thing. If one can find meaning in life by creating one’s own meaning, then one is only “finding” the product of one’s own imagination. One has complete freedom to invent whatever meaning one wants. This makes “meaning” on par with myths and fairy tales. It may make the non-religious person feel good, but it has no objective existence. http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/29/study-atheists-find-meaning-life-inventing-fairy-tales/
Moreover this act of self-delusion on the part of atheists, of making up illusory meaning and purposes for their lives, is proof, in of of itself, that atheism must be false. Specifically, the impossibility for Atheists to live their lives consistently as if atheism were actually true directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true As the following article points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Moreover, it is not like this act of self delusion is not without consequences. The negative effect of atheists rejecting God is fairly dramatic: For instance,
“In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 "Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism."[3] - per conservapedia Study: Religiously affiliated people lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…” July 1, 2018 Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation. - per uncommon descent
Thus, to repeat, it is not as if atheists have a better option than God. Far from it, atheists, in their rejection of God, atheists have chosen a life that is devoid of any true meaning, value, or purpose and this choice they have made to reject God has fairly dramatic detrimental effects on their mental and physical health. Moreover, in my Christian worldview, after death, their choice to reject God is going to have even far greater detrimental effects than it does now. i.e. complete separation from God, i.e. 'hell". I can only hope and pray that atheists would come around to reason and finally accept God and specifically accept what God has done for us through Jesus Christ:
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
bornagain77_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

P2P network and other simulation theories might be useful analogies, but they basically just shift the burden of explaining reality/existence in terms of the evidence we have available. Would life in the "real world" beyond the simulation be any different than what we experience here? Also, these theories largely ignore the evidence we have from people who have left their "simulation avatars" here. Is that part of the simulation? Is producing a computing system powerful enough to render on-demand, local, interconnected, fully immersive sensory "CGI" even possible in a world that doesn't have quantum behaviors like this one? Good luck with that. The simplest explanation is that we exist entirely within a mental reality. Even if we were in a simulation we would still be experiencing everything entirely within our mind and completely dependent upon how it generates anything we experience with no way to access any so-called "external world" even if we log out of the simulation technology. IOW, once we log out, there would be no way to validate the actual existence of an external world that built the virtual reality system we just logged out of. We would still be in Plato's Cave. Until we accept this basic, inescapable fact and start treating it seriously instead of finding ways to ignore it, IMO we will never be able to understand the nature of our existence. We won't be able to approach investigation and research of this situation as effectively as possible, and we will keep coming up with increasingly convoluted and problematic theories to avoid it.William J Murray_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

I think the simulation theories are better than current physicalist theories, but they generally all suffer from backdoor materialism. IOW, it's materialists trying to characterize a non-material existence from the materialist perspective. What's the virtual reality system made of? How do users log in? When they aren't logged in, what is the non-virtual environment? How does the system get us to forget what was going on before we logged in? The simulation theory is a decent analogy and a good start but it tries to solve "this world" issues by either (1) conceptually copying and pasting another "this world" on top of this world and calling this world a simulation run by the world above us (simulations all the way up?), or (2) saying nothing about the "real world" at all and we're just supposed to take it on faith it can produce these kind of computerized systems. IOW, simulation theories are attempts to preserve materialism essentially by saying the things that disprove materialism here "aren't real."William J Murray_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

> We Do Not Live In An Objective, External Material World We live in a mind-blowingly-powerful quantum computer / simulator. Now, whether that QM computer exists objectively and materially is nearly the same question as whether the virtual world inside your favorite computer game exists objectively and materially. Actually, it does indeed exist - it exists as electron flows in the XBox silicon CPU in our world. Similarly, our QM simulator may exist as some kind of a techno-gadget in the higher-level reality. (That gadget may even be on sale there for just $299). It should be pretty obvious by now that in our reality at the most basic level there is nothing but pure math and random numbers. There are definitely no "things" there. However, there are certainly rules and constraints on math.Eugene_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Viola @13, You may be right, but I'm always running into attempts to preserve determinism and materialism online in forums and YouTube videos by science celebrities. Even realism is now very shaky, pressing us toward idealism, in which the mind creates or participates in the creation of reality. A good case in point is the astonishing quantum zeno effect, where changes such as radioactive decay can be arrested by continuously observing the particle. -QQuerius_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Up in post 4, Querius made some correct observations, in my opinion, when he wrote,
The problem with understanding matter-wave duality is that the “waves” part are mathematical probability waves in a field of information, not electromagnetic waves. Probability waves are not tangible or directly measurable. They only manifest themselves as mass-energy when they are observed or measured and the wave function collapses into reality.
But then Querius wrote,
physicists have been squirming under the implications for decades, although materialistic philosophers and academics remain largely clueless of these scientific discoveries.
It is indeed true that physicists in general have struggled, and continue to struggle, to understand the meaning and implications of QM in respect to reality. But I think virtually all philosophers and other academics that address the nature of reality, be they "materialists" or of some other philosophical view, accept the quantum nature of reality, and have long ago left the classical Newtonian world of solid things. I really doubt that any of them are clueless about the scientific discoveries that have shown us something of the quantum world underlying the macroscopic world we experience.Viola Lee_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Latemarch, I really respect and appreciate Dr. Hossenfelder's no-nonsense, show-me approach. Her short and simple presentations on her channel are well worth watching. Here one that's about seven minutes long: The Problem with Quantum Measurement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3HlA_9968 She presents her own ideas to a panel of the top quantum physicists in the world here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YglT09Korr0 (Warning: Her presentation and the questions and critiques that follow is long and deeply technical.) -QQuerius_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Doubter, Yes, you've illustrated my point about physicists squirming under the implications of a non-material, non-deterministic reality. While quantum mechanics has been validated more than any other branch of physics, you're pointing out that the interpretation of the experimental validation of quantum effects is wildly controversial, in some cases reportedly leading to shouting matches at conferences. I can understand why. There's a lot at stake ideologically. -QQuerius_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Sorry Chuckdarwin @9, but your description has been falsified experimentally. The "you" in your sentence means that someone by their observation has collapsed the wave function into atoms and molecules, hence the collision. Both the driver and his cat, "Schrödinger," are now dead.
An international team of researchers has published their paper demonstrating quantum teleportation between two Canary Islands. Last May [2012], European researchers reported successfully teleporting photons over a distance of 143 km - a little over 88 miles- between two Canary Islands.
Quantum teleportation of macro objects such as a human is at least theoretically possible. Quantum superposition was demonstrated at the scale of 25 times the size of the Covid-19 virus and captured photographically. It was the first time quantum superposition was (barely) visible to the naked eye. Fusion of hydrogen nuclei in the sun is made possible by quantum superposition and this of course is visible to the naked eye as well. The creation and collapse of the wave function can also be observed in the famous double-slit experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho Quantum levitation is demonstrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXHczjOg06w&feature=youtu.be&t=7m9s But it seems like you're more comfortable in the world of James Watt, Charles Darwin, and Karl Marx. That's certainly ok, but scientifically out-of-date by about a century. -QQuerius_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Simple, Unambiguous Evidence We DO Live In An Objective, External Material World: Next time you are driving down the interstate in your car, ramp it up to full speed and drive it head on into a concrete and rebar overpass pylon.......chuckdarwin_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

I like that, Latemarch! :-)Viola Lee_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

SABINE HOSSENFELDER
Indeed, the biggest divide in the quantum foundations community today is metaphysical: It is that between realists and non-realists. Those in the camp of realism long for a theory whose mathematical structures can be interpreted as how things really are, while the non-realists take quantum mechanics to be a theory about what we know. “Know about what?” you may ask. Ah, but that’s a question only a realist would ask.
Heh!Latemarch_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

I reject your reality and substitute my own. 😝Latemarch_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Querius The most sophisticated version of the simulation hypothesis is currently the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Simulation Hypothesis developed by philosopher Marcus Arvan, at https://www.p2p-simulation-hypothesis.com/ . It is based on serious scientific and philosophical sub-hypotheses, and I think it encompasses the probabilistic quantum mechanical behavior you mention.. It explains features of the physical world (including quantum world) that no other theory explains. And it makes predictions about our world, and so may be confirmed or falsified.
The P2P hypothesis holds that we are living in a peer-to-peer networked computer simulation. Some computer simulations have a "dedicated" central server (a single computer running the simulation that all other computers access). However, peer-to-peer networked simulations have no central server. The "simulated reality" is simply a vast network of different computers (a "cloud"). What the P2P Hypothesis Explains: Quantum Mechanics & Relativity: Because each computer on a peer-to-peer network runs its own simulation, the computational structure of a peer-to-peer simulation inherently has all of the following properties: The location of any "object" within the simulation is a computational superposition, i.e. an object represented at position A on computer A, position B on computer B, position C on computer C, etc. will be coded, at the level of the whole simulation, as being simultaneously in positions A, B, C, etc. (superimposed in all of those locations at once). "The" location of any object or property in a P2P simulation is therefore also indeterminate, given that each computer on the network has its own representation of where "the" object or property is, and there is no dedicated server on the network to represent where the object or property "really" is (any object or property "really" is represented at many different positions on the network, thanks to slightly different representations on many computers all operating in parallel), Any measurement taken by any single measurement device a P2P network also thereby affects the network as a whole (since what one computer measures will affect what other computers on the network are likely to measure at any given instant), giving rise to a massive measurement problem (one can only measure an object is on the network by disturbing the entire network, thereby altering where other computers on the network will represent the particle as being). Because different machines on the network represent the same object in slightly different positions at any given instant (with some number n of machines representing a given object at position P, some other number n* of machines representing a given object at position P*, etc.) a dynamical description of where a given object/property probably is in the environment will have features of a wave (viz. an amplitude equivalent to the number of computers representing the object at a given instant, and wavelength equivalent to dynamical change of how many computers represent the object at a given point at the next instant). By a similar token, any particular measurement on any particular computer will result in the observation of the object as located at a specific point. Any particular measurement on any particular computer will result in the appearance of a “collapse” of wave-like dynamics of the simulation into a single, determinate measurement. It is also a natural result of a peer-to-peer network that single objects can “split in two”, becoming entangled (in a peer-to-peer network multiple computers can, in a manner of speaking, get slightly out of phase, with one or more computers on the network coding for the particle passing through a boundary, while one or more other computers on the network coding for the particle to bounce backwards – in which case, if the coding is right, all of the computers on the network will treat the “two” resulting objects as simply later continuants of what was previously a single object). All time measurements in a P2P simulation are relative to observers. Each measurement device on a P2P simulation (i.e. game console) has its own internal clock, and there is no universal clock or standard of time that all machines share. Because the quantized data comprising the physical information of a P2P simulation will have to be separated/non-continuous much as there are "spaces" between pits of data on a CD/DVD/Blu-Ray disc, there must be within any such simulation something akin to the Planck length, an absolute minimum length below which measurements of space-time cannot be taken in principle (a feature of our world for which, at present, "there is no proven physical significance").
doubter_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

The problem with understanding matter-wave duality is that the "waves" part are mathematical probability waves in a field of information, not electromagnetic waves. Probability waves are not tangible or directly measurable. They only manifest themselves as mass-energy when they are observed or measured and the wave function collapses into reality. Yes, that's what quantum mechanics seems to demonstrate experimentally and physicists have been squirming under the implications for decades, although materialistic philosophers and academics remain largely clueless of these scientific discoveries. They are happy to live in the world of James Watt, Charles Darwin, and Karl Marx. -QQuerius_{October 9, 2020
October
10
Oct
9
09
2020
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply