Physicist and philosopher Marcelo Gleiser is always worth reading:

The world of the very small is like nothing we see in our everyday lives. We do not think of people or rocks being in more than one place at the same time until we look at them. They are where they are, in one place only, whether or not we know where that place is. Nor do we think of a cat locked in a box as being both dead and alive before we open the box to check. But such dualities are the norm for quantum objects like atoms or subatomic particles, or even larger ones like a cat. Before we look at them, these objects exist in what we call a superposition of states, each state with an assigned probability. When we measure many times their position or some other physical property, we will find it in one of such states with certain probabilities.

Without philosophy, there is no way forward from here.

As it happens, Gleiser, author of *The Island of Knowledge* (Basic Books, 2014) anticipates the publication of a new book with Adam Frank and Evan Thompson, *The blind spot* (MIT Press, 2024) on the theme: “It’s tempting to think science gives a God’s-eye view of reality. But we forget the place of human experience at our peril.” The current link is to a 2019 *Aeon* essay by all three authors setting forth that view.

Meanwhile, at *Big Think,* Gleiser introduces QBism, which seems to anticipate the book:

Due to space, I will only mention one more epistemic interpretation, Quantum Bayesianism, or as it is now called, QBism. As the original name implies, QBism takes the role of an agent as central. It assumes that probabilities in quantum mechanics reflect the current state of the agent’s knowledge or beliefs about the world, as he or she makes bets about what will happen in the future. Superpositions and entanglements are not states of the world, in this view, but expressions of how an agent experiences the world. As such, they are not as mysterious as they may sound. The onus of quantum weirdness is transferred to an agent’s interactions with the world.

A common criticism levied against QBism is its reliance on a specific agent’s relation to the experiment. This seems to inject a dose of subjectivism, placing it athwart the usual scientific goal of observer-independent universality. But as Adam Frank, Evan Thompson, and myself argue in The Blind Spot, a book to be published by MIT Press in 2024, this criticism relies on a view of science that is unrealistic. It is a view rooted in an account of reality outside of us, the agents that experience this reality. Perhaps that is what quantum mechanics’ weirdness has been trying to tell us all along. (February 8, 2023)

One to watch for.

*Note:* This is a weird situation for a meaningless universe to be in. Isn’t it? Or, wait…

Somehow all this weirdness is necessary for an objective experience in the macro world where we live.

But how did all this weirdness come about? It makes the macro world seem extremely complicated but actually tame compared to the micro world. What could have caused such a thing?

Well, they’re getting really close. At some point they’re going to realize as many others have that it’s all just easier and more efficient once you do away with the so-called “external world.” It’s like trying to do evolutionary science under the mistaken yoke of Darwinism. The so-called “external world” is an unprovable myth that cannot be evidenced, much less demonstrated, even in principle.

The myth of the external world is just making externalists grasp at straws trying to find some experiment that will clear up the past 100 years of quantum evidence and salvage some form of ontological realism.

Seversky at 2, first lets just ‘observe’ that Hossenfelder, (because of her apriori commitment to atheistic naturalism), rejects the reality of free will in quantum mechanics, (in spite of empirical evidence from Zeilinger to the contrary),,

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-65c-hossenfelder-on-the-rest-of-the-story-on-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser-exercises/#comment-775366

And Seversky, let’s also just ‘observe’ that Hossenfelder holds the wave-function to be merely a abstract ‘mathematical tool’, (again, in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary)

https://uncommondescent.com/physics/lfp-65d-superposition-and-the-wave-function/#comment-775556

And Seversky, let’s finally ‘observe’ that, since Hossenfelder appealed to “The Standard Model is a quantum field theory”, that one of the ‘unintended’ consequences of unifying special relativity with quantum mechanics, in order to produce quantum field theory, was that that ‘unification’ left the entire enigma of the ‘measurement problem’ on the cutting room floor,

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-science-hero-stories-stand-in-the-way-of-progress/#comment-675955

As Sheldon Lee Glashow explains, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.,,, Bell never completed his planned quantum mechanics textbook because he could not devise a suitably relativistic theory of measurement.”

Which is to say, although they unified special relativity and quantum mechanics together into quantum field theory by “brushing infinity under the rug”, (R. Feynman), this unification between special relativity and quantum mechanics into Quantum field theory came at the unacceptably high price of leaving the entire enigma of Quantum Measurement itself on the cutting room floor. Yet quantum measurement is precisely where the free will choices of the conscious observer makes their presence fully known in quantum mechanics.

So Seversky, let’s just ‘observe’ that if Hossenfelder truly wants to understand the measurement problem perhaps it would first greatly behoove her to pay attention to experimental evidence, even when it contradicts her apriori commitment to atheistic naturalism, and to become more open to “QBism (which) takes the role of an agent as central.”

In other words Seversky, in reality the ‘measurement problem’ is much more of a insoluble ‘problem’ for atheistic naturalists such as yourself and Hossenfelder, who refuse to allow the agent to have any role whatsoever in quantum mechanics, than it is a supposed ‘problem’ for, say, the authors listed in the OP, i.e. Marcelo Gleiser, Adam Frank and Evan Thompson, who champion “QBism (which) takes the role of an agent as central.”

Seversky at 2,

I’ve decided Miss Hossenfelder is not worth the time or effort. Significant advances in quantum mechanics have occurred because engineers, as always, are given a job to do and they do it. They don’t care about philosophy or weirdness. It doesn’t matter. They use or invent whatever tools they need to solve problems. That’s how the field advances. And that’s all it is, another field for engineering and then, product development.

Bornagain77: And Seversky, let’s also just ‘observe’ that Hossenfelder holds the wave-function to be merely a abstract ‘mathematical tool’, (again, in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary)If you could see a particle described by the wave function what do you think you would see? A tiny little wave function? A tiny little sphere? What?

The wave function is a mathematical construct (defined by abstract mathematical terms) that models behaviour. The wave function is NOT the thing being modelled. I can model the behaviour of a projectile using a parabolic function but the thing I’m modelling is NOT a parabola.

This is the case for all mathematical models: the model is not the thing.

JVL, while I agree with your overall point, i.e. “the (mathematical) model is not the thing”, if you would have read my link, you would have seen that Hossenfelder takes a radical position. She is an ‘instrumentalist’ who holds the wave function is merely, and only, an abstract “mathematical tool”.

I also linked to the late Steven Weinberg’s article, (which, BTW, is an excellent article for untangling much of the confusion surrounding quantum mechanics), where he clarified exactly what is meant when a person says that they are a ‘instrumentalist’ in regards to quantum mechanics.

Specifically he stated, “The instrumentalist approach,,, rejects quantum mechanics altogether as a description of reality. There is still a wave function, but it is not real like a particle or a field. Instead it is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.”

In short, Hossenfelder is holding that there is no correspondence whatsoever between the ‘map’, i.e. the mathematical model, of the wave function and the reality of the wave function. In other. words, It is as if you had a map of the real world, but the central feature of the map, i.e. the wave function, you were also holding did not correspond to anything that you could go out and actually physically measure in the real world.

As should be obvious, holding that the wave function does not actually correspond to anything in the real world, anything that we could go out and actually physically measure, would render the ‘map’, i.e. the mathematical model of the wave function, for all intents and purposes, completely useless as an accurate map of the real world.

And given that quantum mechanics is extremely, even astonishingly, successful in its experimental predictions, let’s just say that the belief that the wave-function is ‘just’ an abstract mathematical tool, with no correspondence to physical reality that we can actually measure, is suspect.

And indeed, it now experimentally shown that she is wrong in her belief that the ‘map’ of the wave function does not correspond to reality in a real and meaningful way.

Specifically, “superposition” of the wave function is now experimentally shown to be physically real, and to not be merely an abstract ‘mathematical tool’ as Hossenfelder holds.

As the following article states, “For nearly a century physicists have argued about whether the wave function is a real part of the world or just a mathematical tool.,,, Eric Cavalcanti,, Alessandro Fedrizzi,, and their colleagues have made a measurement of the reality of the quantum wave function. Their results rule out a large class of interpretations of quantum mechanics and suggest that if there is any objective description of the world, the famous wave function is part of it”,,,

In fact, collapse of the ‘superposition’ wave function into a finite particle state of only one definite position, has now also been experimentally demonstrated.

As the following article states, experiments have now demonstrated “the non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function”,, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”,, “the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected”,, and “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”,,

Since the wave function is now experimentally shown to be an objectively real feature of reality, and not just to be some abstract ‘mathematical tool’ that has no correspondence to reality, as Hossenfelder holds, then it is interesting to look at the mathematical definition of the wave function.

The wave function is mathematically defined as being in an ‘infinite dimensional’ state which takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.

As is fairly obvious, the ‘infinite dimensional’ Hilbert space corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omnipresence. And the infinite information required to describe the ‘infinite dimensional’ wave function prior to collapse to its finite particle state corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omniscience.

In essence, the infinite dimensional/infinite information wave function is, basically, mathematically described as being one of “God’s thoughts’ prior to its collapse to its finite ‘material’ state.

Of supplemental note, It is also very interesting to note that the collapse of the wave function, (which, I remind, has now been experimentally shown to be a real effect), fits very well into Aristotle and Aquinas’s ancient ‘first mover’ argument for the existence of God, i.e. (reduction of potency to act).

So thus in conclusion JVL, contrary to what Hossenfelder holds, the ‘map’ of the wave-function is found to correspond to an objectively real feature of reality that we can go out and physically measure. Moreover, to the consternation of atheists, the mathematical ‘map’ that we now have in hand is pointing, and/or leading, us towards God as the true explanation for reality.

Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, may not like where the ‘map’ is pointing us, but personally I hold pointing us to almighty God to be a very GOOD thing for any ‘map’ to do. Especially given the fact that, without God, we are all doomed to a hopeless nihilistic existence without any real meaning, purpose, nor even any real beauty, to our existence.

Verse:

Also of supplemental note, besides pointing us to almighty God, the mathematical ‘map’ that we now have of the ‘real’ world is also pointing, and/or leading, us to Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead as the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

Specifically, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with the presupposition of ‘contingency’), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”

Verse:

As Neil Young sings in his 1983 album

Trans:“every wave is new until it breaks…..” (it’s a triple entendre)Or in this case, collapses….

I still don’t understand what the wave “collapsing” means, but it sounds cool and impressive to say it…

CD: “I still don’t understand what the wave “collapsing” means,”

It is somewhat similar to what happens to Darwin’s theory whenever it is put under any real scrutiny.

🙂

Let’s cut to the chase. Engineers have figured out the quantum realm. IBM has quantum computers. The “weirdness” has been figured out and put to practical use. Quantum computers can do things existing computers cannot. The working element, called a Qubit, has been figured out. It has been determined that a quantum computer requires 100 Qubits to perform useful work. IBM has announced that this year – 2023 – that this goal has been reached. Quantum computers will be doing useful work this year, not at some indefinite date in the future.

I highly recommend the following video which explains how quantum computers work and how the quantum realm was put to practical use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UlxHPIEVqA

Oh come now, BA77. Darwin’s theory is so simple that even I can understand it. None of this spooky wave stuff………

CD at 13,

Self-upgrading organisms? Fiction.

CD: “Darwin’s theory is so simple that even I can understand it.”

That reminds me of this observation from Laszlo Bencze:

Or perhaps this one

Whereas others not so easily enamored with the claim from Darwinists that evolution is an ‘obvious fact’ might just be inclined to ask Darwinists, “Can you tell me anything you KNOW about evolution, any one thing that is true?”

Bornagain77: while I agree with your overall point, i.e. “the (mathematical) model is not the thing”, if you would have read my link, you would have seen that Hossenfelder takes a radical position. She is an ‘instrumentalist’ who holds the wave function is merely, and only, an abstract “mathematical tool”.I’m still having a think about your comments so my responses just now should be taken as first impressions.

On the face of it I’m not sure that I disagree with a mathematical function as being just a ‘tool’ for predicting behaviour. Since we all agree that the function is not the object. What else is it for?

Specifically he stated, “The instrumentalist approach,,, rejects quantum mechanics altogether as a description of reality. There is still a wave function, but it is not real like a particle or a field. Instead it is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.”That sounds correct to me. The math is not the thing.

In short, Hossenfelder is holding that there is no correspondence whatsoever between the ‘map’, i.e. the mathematical model, of the wave function and the reality of the wave function. In other. words, It is as if you had a map of the real world, but the central feature of the map, i.e. the wave function, you were also holding did not correspond to anything that you could go out and actually physically measure in the real world.Well, clearly there has to be some correspondence between the ‘thing’ and the model or the model wouldn’t work. I’m not entirely sure that’s what the instrumentalist camp is saying. But I’m not really up on the different camps of QM. Let me think about this stuff a bit more. I’m not sure that there actually is any great controversy here.

But I am sure that our models are limited and only reflect a portion of what is actually happening. As all mathematical models have been. But they have to reflect reality enough to be useful.

JVL at 16,

The concepts have been applied to working quantum computers. The details have been dealt with and put to practical use, including wave function, measurement and so on. Watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UlxHPIEVqA

Think about it all you want. The mathematical ‘map’ of the wave function is experimentally shown to have a deeper correspondence to reality than Sabine Hossenfelder, and many other ‘instrumentalist’, are holding.

And in empirical science, experimental evidence has the final say.

CD: “Darwin’s theory is so simple that even I can understand it.”

It’s the theory that life is all sheer dumb luck.

It describes a twofold random process:

1.) random variation

2.) random natural elimination.

Some say that natural elimination is not random wrt the environment. This is true. However, on closer inspection, the environment is just another layer of randomness.

Eric Anderson:

Origenes

I didn’t know that evolution had its very own definition of “random.” I must have slept through class that session. Likewise, I didn’t know that randomness came in layers, like a wedding cake. What next?

Honestly, some days I wonder why I waste time responding to IDers…..

ChuckyD,

ChuckyD, is utterly convinced that an organism’s environment is not random. There is nothing random about the environment, it is not random, it really is not. For him, the fact that the environment is non-random is so incredibly crystal clear that he can no longer argue why that is. It is a fact beyond argument. He can no longer relate to people who have different opinions. Whenever he encounters someone who starts yapping about the random vagaries and hazards of the environment he spontaneously starts shaking his head in disbelief and thinks:

CD@20

“Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms. “

That’s Julian Huxley, leading figure in the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.

You are not wasting time.

Some observations and clarifications:

When I throw a six-sided die into the air, all its final states, 1-6, exist at 16.7% each. But when it lands, they all collapse into a single state at 100%. The wavefunction in this analogy has collapsed.

Apparently, Darwinism can mean anything you want it to mean. It changes with every new discovery, but it mainly appeals to its triune gods-of-the-gaps, MIGHTA, MUSTA, and EMERGES, to explain every massive inconsistency, contradiction, and conundrum.

As Belfast noted in 23, according to this other trusted source on Darwinism, mutations are most certainly random.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/dna-and-mutations/mutations-are-random/

For the same reason, ecosystems and environments are also the result of random processes UNLESS of course, they’re actually the product of intelligent design.

Even determinists, who contend, not surprisingly, that everything is predetermined, cannot explain how the original big bang (or whatever is necessary to keep entropy from being infinite in the present, which it’s not) came up with a predetermined set of initial conditions and the finely tuned constants that are at the foundation of all physics.

Some people need to pay more attention in class. I did.

-Q