QM - Fact or Fantasy

[Ilya Startsev]

Wigner wrote that 'particles' were nothing more than a convenient mental picture. QM is really, only the math itself. So because during his epoch  we did not have either a functioning naturalist or realist theory, his ideas as to the origin of math  were important--but not so much today.

 

So yes, he was definitely not a 'materialist'! Yet because Wigner is a canonical figure in the history of QM, what he says is important. Amazingly, the math that he did for his matrix was his own.

 

I'm afraid you've misunderstood: photon-particles ARE energy. Their energy is written as h-slash.

 

In a larger sense, you live in a world of photons because all light and heat are photon/energy.

 

By some definitions of 'truth', i suppose we live in a bigger- picture world than that of the quanta. For example, i don't really think much of Born-based non-identity when translating a gazul. Yet it's all reducible to quanta in one way or another....

 

AH

 

The concern to reduce everything to particles and quanta is materialism. Here is what Kant wrote:

there is a relation and connection between reality and negation, or rather a transition from the former to the latter, which makes every reality representable to us as a quantum (COPR, p. 123)

 

Does Wigner see anything besides particles (as mental images) and do you see anything besides particles (as energy)? Seemingly not. Thus, you negate, or reduce, reality to a sub-reality or a non-reality (i.e., your 'vacuum'). What you do not want to comprehend is that particles are not energy. Particles are organized, quantized, structured localizations of energy. (You even said "their energy," which means there is something else besides the pure energy that makes particles qua particles.) Energy is the stuff from which they are made, the half-waves of vibrations. The same way is our world made of such energy and particles, but our world as a whole, an irreducible sum, such as the computer you look at or a room where you sit have a form that we perceive actively as human beings and not merely sense our surroundings like passive receptacles, such as the non-human instruments that physicists use.

 

I have a question for you: Is there a difference between a robot and a human?

[Ilya Startsev]

In a broader sense, non-A, in and of itself, is the equivalent of the spatial void as you wrote about it in the linked reference.

 

if existence is timeless, then it fits within my framework.

 

I don't want to keep you in the dark. Although I denied a conceptual basis for void and vacuum, I still implicitly conceive of Nonexistence. Epistemological non-A ultimately comes from metaphysical Nonexistence. Here is the reformulation of my metaphysics:

 

Existence is timeless everywhere, and Nonexistence is spaceless everywhen. They complement perfectly, with the latter coming before the former.

[New Buddha]

Buddha said:

 

 

Here again you make objectivity contra correspondence... And what about physics transcends perceptual limitations while remaining objective? .......

 

I will respond to your previous comments soon.

 

Will you give us a clear definition of objective?

Objective is the opposite of Subjective.  Objective knowledge is predicated on the Primacy of Existence.  Subjective knowledge is predicated on the Primacy of Consciousness.  Objective knowledge is formed from the evidence of the senses.  Subjective knowledge is unavoidable due to a dialectic between some form of noumenon vs. phenomenon.

 

Objectivism does not just mean "objects".  It means that an individual can hold that a proposition is objective if he has, to the best of his ability, eliminated wishful thinking and/or the belief that contradictory held knowledge is "ontological" rather than "epistemic".  Example:  Based on historical data, it is OBJECTIVE to assume that the rainfall in your region won't exceed 2 inches per hour when designing for ponding on a roof structure.  This assumption is objective because it is based on a historical record.  However, if a future rainfall "contradicts" the 2 inches per hour assumption, this only means that your assumptions were incorrect - not that the Universe is "spooky".

 

One of the places where you and I seem to butt heads is on the use of terms.  In above posts, you state something along the lines of:  "The concept 'apple', currently held in my mind, has absolute correspondence with the 'particular apple' I'm holding in my hand."

 

I would just state:  "The concept 'apple', currently held in my mind, has an objective correspondence with the 'particular apple' I'm holding in my hand -- as well as having objective correspondence to all the apples I've seen in the past and will see in the future."  The use of the term absolute correspondence  implies - in my mind at least - a measure of correspondence.  Thus, the use of the term absolute correspondence implies that partial correspondence is also a possibility.

 

Edit:  20 plus years in the business makes me scared of terms such as "absolute".  We say that something is "fire resistant" not "fire proof" or "water resistant" not "water proof".  All the applied sciences are engaged in trying to hold back entropy.  It's a losing battle.  Change is a constant.

Edited January 20, 2015 by New Buddha

[dream_weaver]

I don't want to keep you in the dark. Although I denied a conceptual basis for void and vacuum, I still implicitly conceive of Nonexistence. Epistemological non-A ultimately comes from metaphysical Nonexistence. Here is the reformulation of my metaphysics:

 

Existence is timeless everywhere, and Nonexistence is spaceless everywhen. They complement perfectly, with the latter coming before the former.

Ilya, it's not I that you are keeping in the dark. I simply reject this out of hand, and move on.

Edited January 20, 2015 by dream_weaver

[andie holland]

Objective is the opposite of Subjective.  Objective knowledge is predicated on the Primacy of Existence.  Subjective knowledge is predicated on the Primacy of Consciousness.  Objective knowledge is formed from the evidence of the senses.  Subjective knowledge is unavoidable due to a dialectic between some form of noumenon vs. phenomenon.

 

Objectivism does not just mean "objects".  It means that an individual can hold that a proposition is objective if he has, to the best of his ability, eliminated wishful thinking and/or the belief that contradictory held knowledge is "ontological" rather than "epistemic".  Example:  Based on historical data, it is OBJECTIVE to assume that the rainfall in your region won't exceed 2 inches per hour when designing for ponding on a roof structure.  This assumption is objective because it is based on a historical record.  However, if a future rainfall "contradicts" the 2 inches per hour assumption, this only means that your assumptions were incorrect - not that the Universe is "spooky".

 

One of the places where you and I seem to butt heads is on the use of terms.  In above posts, you state something along the lines of:  "The concept 'apple', currently held in my mind, has absolute correspondence with the 'particular apple' I'm holding in my hand."

 

I would just state:  "The concept 'apple', currently held in my mind, has an objective correspondence with the 'particular apple' I'm holding in my hand -- as well as having objective correspondence to all the apples I've seen in the past and will see in the future."  The use of the term absolute correspondence  implies - in my mind at least - a measure of correspondence.  Thus, the use of the term absolute correspondence implies that partial correspondence is also a possibility.

 

Edit:  20 plus years in the business makes me scared of terms such as "absolute".  We say that something is "fire resistant" not "fire proof" or "water resistant" not "water proof".  All the applied sciences are engaged in trying to hold back entropy.  It's a losing battle.  Change is a constant.

Why not just use the terms already in place: 

Objective= subject independent

Subjective=subject dependent....?

 

From there, you can proceed to determine whether, and to what extent, any given  concept is really a thing or an idea. For example 'baseball' is somewhat hybrid, as it uses both material objects and mental constructs.

 

One can also cross-cut objective and subjective with the dimension of epistemology vs ontology--computers, for example are sunject independent in the epistemoogical sense, but depend upon humans as an ontology.

 

AH

[Ilya Startsev]

Objective is the opposite of Subjective.  Objective knowledge is predicated on the Primacy of Existence.  Subjective knowledge is predicated on the Primacy of Consciousness.  Objective knowledge is formed from the evidence of the senses.  Subjective knowledge is unavoidable due to a dialectic between some form of noumenon vs. phenomenon.

 

<snip>

 

All the applied sciences are engaged in trying to hold back entropy.  It's a losing battle.  Change is a constant.

 

It is impossible to avoid this dialectic. Change is indeed constant. And we indeed are subjective and objective, just like our world.

 

Ilya, it's not I that you are keeping in the dark. I simply reject this out of hand, and move on.

 

You are rejecting Time then. Where did Time come from? It surely did not come from Everything that's out of time.

[dream_weaver]

No, I don't reject the concept of time. Sometimes rejecting 'colorless green ideas sleeping furiously' out of hand, is just a rejection of 'colorless green ideas sleeping furiously' out of hand.

[Ilya Startsev]

No, I don't reject the concept of time. Sometimes rejecting 'colorless green ideas sleeping furiously' out of hand, is just a rejection of 'colorless green ideas sleeping furiously' out of hand.

 

Lakoff showed that "colorless green ideas sleeping furiously" has meaning that allows us to understand that it's syntactically valid.

 

Edit: and your concept of time is not valid, since it has no metaphysical foundation.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

Lakoff showed that "colorless green ideas sleeping furiously" has meaning that allows us to understand that it's syntactically valid.

 

Edit: and your concept of time is not valid, since it has no metaphysical foundation.

And if we were just discussing syntax, that might be relevant.

 

First you tell me that I'm rejecting time.

Now you want to tell me that my concept of time is not valid.

 

Which is it? Please, make up my mind for me.

 

If you're interested in the metaphysical foundational basis for time, all you need to do is reverse engineer it using the rules of concept formation Rand introduces us to in ITOE. Time is an abstraction from abstractions. You had overlooked the lexicon entry initially when I had mentioned it earlier. There are some good assessments out there and lots of bad ones. Since mine is not valid, according to you, I'll save the trouble of posting a link to what I thought was an excellent breakdown of on it that I used in helping me to form a clearer understanding of it.

[dream_weaver]

Edit:  20 plus years in the business makes me scared of terms such as "absolute".  We say that something is "fire resistant" not "fire proof" or "water resistant" not "water proof".  All the applied sciences are engaged in trying to hold back entropy.  It's a losing battle.  Change is a constant.

I find a certain (almost absolute) sense of irony in your use of an absolute in wrapping up that thought.

[andie holland]

The concern to reduce everything to particles and quanta is materialism. Here is what Kant wrote:

there is a relation and connection between reality and negation, or rather a transition from the former to the latter, which makes every reality representable to us as a quantum (COPR, p. 123)

 

Does Wigner see anything besides particles (as mental images) and do you see anything besides particles (as energy)? Seemingly not. Thus, you negate, or reduce, reality to a sub-reality or a non-reality (i.e., your 'vacuum'). What you do not want to comprehend is that particles are not energy. Particles are organized, quantized, structured localizations of energy. (You even said "their energy," which means there is something else besides the pure energy that makes particles qua particles.) Energy is the stuff from which they are made, the half-waves of vibrations. The same way is our world made of such energy and particles, but our world as a whole, an irreducible sum, such as the computer you look at or a room where you sit have a form that we perceive actively as human beings and not merely sense our surroundings like passive receptacles, such as the non-human instruments that physicists use.

 

I have a question for you: Is there a difference between a robot and a human?

To clarify Kant's CoPR, our minds impose three a prioris on the objects in question: space, time, quantity, Kant called the later 'quanta' because that's what everyone else did at the time, and for reasons of style it's left in the original Latin.

 

One of Kant's proofs that counting is an a priori is our ability to negate, and to use infinities. Thinking negatively reveals to us what things aren't, therefore giving us the ability to mentally pare away all the non-A-ness of a posited 'A'.

 

Wigner was a founding father of QM; what he saw is clearly written in his book. OTH, I'm only a grad student in Spanish lit/linguistics with a minor in Physics. Prior to the Aspect experiments which I've taken some pains to describe, Wigner's mentalist explanation was as good as any.  

 

Now it's established that particles are real; on the chart of the Standard Model, photons have zero mass, one spin, and a given # of energy. in so far as they're considered 'fundamental particles', to say that energy is the stuff of which photons are made doesn't make any sense.

 

Lastly, you've misunderstood 'quantum vacuum' which is not 'mine'. Rather, it's standard Physics

 

AH

[New Buddha]

I find a certain (almost absolute) sense of irony in your use of an absolute in wrapping up that thought.

Really?  You completely missed to point of my post.

 

Let's suppose that (however farfetched) you might, some day in the future be professionally liable for the design of a building's structural system.  Your solvency and  lively-hood is based on the performance of your design....

 

How do you evaluate a historical record of rain-fall events?  Does the historical record that you hold in your hands have an absolute correspondence with the multitude of rain-fall events that were recorded by others, long before you were born?  Does the "fact" that there is no historical record of rain-fall events exceeding 2"/hour  guarantee that no rain-fall events will ever exceed 2"/hour?

[Plasmatic]

Buddha, what did you think Weaver meant?

[dream_weaver]

Really?  You completely missed to point of my post.

 

Let's suppose that (however farfetched) you might, some day in the future be professionally liable for the design of a building's structural system.  Your solvency and  lively-hood is based on the performance of your design....

 

How do you evaluate a historical record of rain-fall events?  Does the historical record that you hold in your hands have an absolute correspondence with the multitude of rain-fall events that were recorded by others, long before you were born?  Does the "fact" that there is no historical record of rain-fall events exceeding 2"/hour  guarantee that no rain-fall events will ever exceed 2"/hour?

Whether it rained today or not, is an absolute. How well we understand weather to make predictions depends on more general absolutes that we can identify and more importantly integrate together over time. You point is taken that the case you make, Not to mix in another contentious matter, but a more rhetorical question using it as a parallel, where do you think the global warming alarmist would be today if they held that same perspective in your last paragraph with regard to their more encompassing subject?

 

The notion "Change is constant" is a broad generalization. Although often cited as a challenge to certainty - the apparent certainty of the statement is counted on as a punctuation point.

* I note that many skeptics are fond of the aphorism that "Change is the only constant." Going back to Heraclitus of Ephesus, the bears the notion that the only absolute that there is, is that of change. As Aristotle points out later, this is a fallacy. It falls victim to reaffirmation through denial. Change presupposes that there is something (an identity), which becomes something else (a different identity).

Edited January 22, 2015 by dream_weaver

[New Buddha]

Whether it rained today or not, is an absolute. How well we understand weather to make predictions depends on more general absolutes that we can identify and more importantly integrate together over time.

 

Let me try and explain where you err.

1. The holy grail of pre-QM math/physics was the creation of a theoretical framework, by inductive reasoning, based on a priori (non-sensory dependent) truths.  This theoretical framework  would account for the imprecision of instrumental measurements (a posteriori  knowledge).  This is Subjectivism -- and the modern variant of it began with Kant, not Hume.  It's basically Theory vs. Practice, which is a dualism that, of course,  Objectivism rejects.  
2. QM posed contradictions that could not be resolved by those who accepted the a priori/a posteriori dialectic (this includes both Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics).  QM posited that both a priori and a posteriori  knowledge were probabilistic.  Uncertainty ruled.  God did, indeed, roll the dice....
3. There is no such thing as a priori truths that somehow "pop" into our minds independent of experience (Objectivism).
4. All knowledge is informed by experience (Objectivism).

I think the two of us can agree on the points above, but we disagree on the points below: 

1. Observations inform generalizations. (My view)
2. Generalizations do not inform observations. (My view, but not yours per your above statement).

To dramatically exaggerate the error or your statement about "general absolutes" consider the following:

1. Beginning with the observation of a Mazda 3, a Ticonderoga HB pencil, a computer and the Super Bowl -- I can arrive at the "absolute generalization" that Existence Exists, and that I, as the observer, exist.
2. Beginning with Existence Exists (the most fundamental "general absolute"), you cannot inductively reason the existence of yourself or the other things listed above.

Your belief that "absolute generalizations" will, over time, account for the inherent imprecision of observations is nothing more than a variant of,  "a priori truths will, over time, account for a posteriori observations." (i.e. Subjectivism).

Edited January 23, 2015 by New Buddha

[New Buddha]

 I note that many skeptics are fond of the aphorism that "Change is the only constant." Going back to Heraclitus of Ephesus, the bears the notion that the only absolute that there is, is that of change. As Aristotle points out later, this is a fallacy. It falls victim to reaffirmation through denial. Change presupposes that there is something (an identity), which becomes something else (a different identity).

 

Are you, here and now, stating that entropy does not exist?  Are you trying to sell a perpetual motion machine?

[dream_weaver]

Are you, here and now, stating that entropy does not exist?  Are you trying to sell a perpetual motion machine?

This is an interesting alternative. To declare it a false alternative, as I understand false alternative, is to posit a third. While I'm not completely satisfied with this as a third alternative, I'll try to articulate it here.

 

Children, left to themselves, generally develop an anthropomorphic view of causality.

One of the Greek achievements was to divorce ourselves from this view.

 

In The Logical Leap, Harriman describe causality in Greek terms, with human causality as a sub-type.

In Selected Topics in the Philosophy of Science, Binswanger talks about entropy. The gist of it, to me, boiled down to:That which is most likely to occur, does.

 

After reading your reply here, the question that comes to my mind is along the lines of: Is the grasp of entropy contrasted against a perpetual motion machine on a deeper level, an anthropomorphic projection in some way?

[Plasmatic]

Change and entropy are not synonymous and the universe is in perpetual motion. It never "started" and it can't "stop"....

Edit: Oist don't "start" with existence exist the way you claim in 3 and 2. Its implicit from the first awareness but knowledge of it comes after knowing particular things...

Edited January 23, 2015 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Buddha, is this your site? :

"Dark Buddhism: Integrating Zen Buddhism and Objectivism"

http://www.darkbuddhism.com/id3.html

Buddhism is often referred to as "the middle way" because it rejects extremes [...] The Buddha rejected all "views" because, as noted previously, a "view" is like a photograph; it is a still-life image, frozen and unchanging. Reality, on the other hand, is in constant movement and is in a constant state of change. Thus, any view one takes must necessarily be inaccurate. The doubt and confusion caused by such an inaccurate view, which becomes more and more contradictory when compared to reality over time, is a prime source of dukkha in our lives.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Plasmatic

[dream_weaver]

A. Let me try and explain where [i think] you err.

 

1. The holy grail of pre-QM math/physics was the creation of a theoretical framework, by inductive reasoning, based on a priori (non-sensory dependent) truths.  This theoretical framework  would account for the imprecision of instrumental measurements (a posteriori  knowledge).  This is Subjectivism -- and the modern variant of it began with Kant, not Hume.  It's basically Theory vs. Practice, which is a dualism that, of course,  Objectivism rejects. 
2. QM posed contradictions that could not be resolved by those who accepted the a priori/a posteriori dialectic (this includes both Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics).  QM posited that both a priori and a posteriori  knowledge were probabilistic.  Uncertainty ruled.  God did, indeed, roll the dice.... Objectivism rejects.
3. There is no such thing as a priori truths that somehow "pop" into our minds independent of experience (Objectivism).
4. All knowledge is informed by derived from experience (Objectivism).

 

B. I think the two of us can agree on the points above, but we disagree on the points below:

 

1. Observations inform generalizations. Generalizations are derived from observations. (My view)
2. Generalizations do not inform observations. (My view, but not yours per your above statement).

 

C. To dramatically exaggerate the error or your statement about "general absolutes" consider the following:

 

1. Beginning with the observation of a Mazda 3, a Ticonderoga HB pencil, a computer and the Super Bowl -- I can arrive at the "absolute generalization" that Existence Exists, and that I, as the observer, exist.
2. Beginning with Existence Exists (the most fundamental "general absolute"), you cannot inductively reason the existence of yourself or the other things listed above.

 

Your belief that "absolute generalizations" will, over time, account for the inherent imprecision of observations is nothing more than a variant of,  "a priori truths will, over time, account for a posteriori observations." (i.e. Subjectivism).

I've edited section A in such a way, as I think it should not substantially alter your meaning or intent.

I'm not partial to the term "inform" as used here and am suggesting "derived from" as a substitute that I usually use when I see it used out there in this manner.

If so, I should be able to reword B1 an keep the meaning the same. I can't do that with B2, and would suggest that this would be the most fundamental point to address.

 

Would you agree with this assessment so far?

 

Edit: Oist don't "start" with existence exist the way you claim in 3 and 2. Its implicit from the first awareness but knowledge of it comes after knowing particular things...

Plasmatic, I see three point 2's in this and point 3 is not raising a flag to me as I read it.

Edited January 23, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Plasmatic]

Weaver said:

Plasmatic, I see three point 2's in this and point 3 is not raising a flag to me as I read it.

The statement:

There is no such thing as a priori truths that somehow "pop" into our minds independent of experience (Objectivism).

as I read it, is Buddha saying Oism accepts apriori truths popping into our heads.

This statement:

Beginning with Existence Exists (the most fundamental "general absolute"), you cannot inductively reason the existence of yourself or the other things listed above.

Is the #2 I was referring to. However, depending what he meant by "inform" in the second 2, I reject the other two as well. ( If he means something like Hume about future events...) Edited January 23, 2015 by Plasmatic

[dream_weaver]

There is no such thing as a priori truths that somehow "pop" into our minds independent of experience (Objectivism).

 

 

That's not how I read it. I'll let New Buddha confirm or deny.

[Plasmatic]

Weaver, I read it that way because of the other "Objectivism rejects" statement. Contrasted with that it appears to be saying "Objectivism" accepts...

Buddha?

Edited January 23, 2015 by Plasmatic

[andie holland]

Change and entropy are not synonymous and the universe is in perpetual motion. It never "started" and it can't "stop"....

Edit: Oist don't "start" with existence exist the way you claim in 3 and 2. Its implicit from the first awareness but knowledge of it comes after knowing particular things...

Ugh, well, modern astrophysics does indeed stipulate both a beginning and a stipulated ending for our universe. 

 

AH

[dream_weaver]

Ugh, well, modern astrophysics does indeed stipulate both a beginning and a stipulated ending for our universe. 

 

AH

Quite simply then: you have a view that accepts a beginning and an ending, and a view that does not accept a beginning and an ending. What is the criteria for determining which, if either, is correct?