The Quantum Poker: §4
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
The Quantum Poker: §4
~
Considering quantum entanglement as paradoxical is simply the result of flawed empirical analysis. To illustrate the significance of this Wittgensteinian statement, I draw from Malcom's empirical analysis "Dreaming"( Routledge, 1959), in which he states, from a scientific point of view, dreams are memories we have after waking up. From a purely empirical point of view, there can be no proof that a person is having a dream. Thus according to Wittgenstein, it is irrational to consider whether dreams occur while asleep at all. From Wittgenstein's perspective on epistemological enquiry, it is pointless asking a question if it's meaningless or impossible to answer. THUS FOR QUANTUM MECHANICS, there is no meaning to asking the question of what a particle's state might be before it is observed. It's simply unknowable and that is the beginning and end of what can be said about it.
~
Attempting to construct paradoxes out of whether its state 'was' after the observation is made is pointless. That is the nature of empirical investigation, and it has been the foundation of science since the 'father of empiricism', Francis Bacon, wrote NOVUM ORGANUM, all the way back in 1620 AD. The amount of ludicrosity on so-called 'quantum paradoxes' is truly astounding. That said, I've found with discussion on Wittegenstein's healthy yet extreme skepticism that many find his conclusions too bizarre compared to intuitive expectation to accept, and it transpires very few people can even understand his rationality, let alone accept it.
~
The notion that particles must have some state before observation arises from a very primal instinct called 'object preservation. It's been shown that some higher-order mammals also possess the instinct. But it is only an instinct. Logically speaking, there is no necessity that all objects possess the permanence we intuitively expect. In advanced formal logic, many demonstrated cases show that such permanence does not exist. A simple example is in Searle's analysis of illocutionary acts, which analyzes the creation and limit of verbal contracts that define new objects, including, words themselves.
~
For quantum mechanics, considering the state of a particle before it is observed is simply meaningless, because the energy imparted on the system by the act of its observation is of the same order as the energy state being observed. Even if suggestions indicating possible state are found, the actual state prior to observation is simply unknowable to science, and therefore meaningless even to consider in the course of investigation.
~
This again parallels Malcom's observations of dreaming. Some scientists have tried to prove dreams exist by looking at eyeball movement under eyelids. And indeed, scientists performed the experiments, then claimed they had found proof that dreams exist. What an equally ludicrous waste of time. No matter how much one finds eyeball movements, they only indicate whether a dream may perhaps be remembered when the sleeper wakes up.
~
The meaningfulness of what a quantum state might be before it it observed directly parallels the meaningfulness of asking whether one had a dream that one does not remember.
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: The Quantum Poker: §4
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: The Quantum Poker: §4
Ive seen this kind of comment in many contexts, and all of them have the problem that Occam's razor is not a scientific method. And I was only drawing an analogy to illustrate the boundaries of that which is meaningfully knowable in material sicence. Thank you for your comment.Alan Masterman wrote: ↑February 26th, 2023, 7:00 am Wittgenstein's interpretation may offend against Occam's Razor. Research has shown that rapid eye movements during the REM stages of sleep do, by and large, appear to correlate significantly with the dream experiences reported by sleepers when awakened immediately after such a sleep state. Your argument also needs to develop more strongly the logical connections between the states of dreaming or sleeping and quantum mechanics. If you are only drawing an analogy that's fine, so long as you concede that dream states have no evidentiary value for quantum mechanics.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: The Quantum Poker: §4
Science has done an incredible job of meeting new questions, observing evidence, theorising from that evidence and then testing the theories' predictions. It's built an amazingly detailed and useful physicalist model of the world and how it works that way, which we rely on without a thought every day. It's answered many apparently intractable questions too, and is still on that journey. For example dreaming can now be addressed by machines built to monitor activity in different areas of the brain, and correlations made with what sleepers report when they wake. Thus the evidence builds for the hypothesis that dreams occur during sleep which would predict such correlations.ernestm wrote: ↑February 25th, 2023, 9:53 pm (Following is section 4 of a forthcoming blog in Summer 2023, "The Quantum Pokeer." As will be explained in section 1, the name draws upon the New York Times bestseller "Wittgenstein's Poker.")
~
Considering quantum entanglement as paradoxical is simply the result of flawed empirical analysis. To illustrate the significance of this Wittgensteinian statement, I draw from Malcom's empirical analysis "Dreaming"( Routledge, 1959), in which he states, from a scientific point of view, dreams are memories we have after waking up. From a purely empirical point of view, there can be no proof that a person is having a dream. Thus according to Wittgenstein, it is irrational to consider whether dreams occur while asleep at all. From Wittgenstein's perspective on epistemological enquiry, it is pointless asking a question if it's meaningless or impossible to answer. THUS FOR QUANTUM MECHANICS, there is no meaning to asking the question of what a particle's state might be before it is observed. It's simply unknowable and that is the beginning and end of what can be said about it.
~
Attempting to construct paradoxes out of whether its state 'was' after the observation is made is pointless. That is the nature of empirical investigation, and it has been the foundation of science since the 'father of empiricism', Francis Bacon, wrote NOVUM ORGANUM, all the way back in 1620 AD. The amount of ludicrosity on so-called 'quantum paradoxes' is truly astounding. That said, I've found with discussion on Wittegenstein's healthy yet extreme skepticism that many find his conclusions too bizarre compared to intuitive expectation to accept, and it transpires very few people can even understand his rationality, let alone accept it.
~
The notion that particles must have some state before observation arises from a very primal instinct called 'object preservation. It's been shown that some higher-order mammals also possess the instinct. But it is only an instinct. Logically speaking, there is no necessity that all objects possess the permanence we intuitively expect. In advanced formal logic, many demonstrated cases show that such permanence does not exist. A simple example is in Searle's analysis of illocutionary acts, which analyzes the creation and limit of verbal contracts that define new objects, including, words themselves.
~
For quantum mechanics, considering the state of a particle before it is observed is simply meaningless, because the energy imparted on the system by the act of its observation is of the same order as the energy state being observed. Even if suggestions indicating possible state are found, the actual state prior to observation is simply unknowable to science, and therefore meaningless even to consider in the course of investigation.
~
This again parallels Malcom's observations of dreaming. Some scientists have tried to prove dreams exist by looking at eyeball movement under eyelids. And indeed, scientists performed the experiments, then claimed they had found proof that dreams exist. What an equally ludicrous waste of time. No matter how much one finds eyeball movements, they only indicate whether a dream may perhaps be remembered when the sleeper wakes up.
~
The meaningfulness of what a quantum state might be before it it observed directly parallels the meaningfulness of asking whether one had a dream that one does not remember.
But hard science's reliance on third party observation/falsifiability will always have problems with consciousness, because it's not third party observable, it has to rely (where possible) on reports correlating with the observable eidence.
Is the theory of wave particle duality analogous in that it's ultimately not falsifiable in the standard way because observation/measurement could be a causal factor? I don't know enough about it, but the comparison to dreams suggests we can't rule out new ways being found.
Another option in the case of wave particle physics seems to be that observation somehow brings particle matter into existence. That may be true. In which case the physicalist model of what the world is and how it works would require a fundamental re-think. The fact that it currently takes no account of consciousness (including observation) might just be a clue pointing that way, but it's a stretch which currently has little framework to support it.
The upshot is, science struggles to account for consciousness because of its subjective, private, first person nature. And as consciousness is our way of knowing anything at all, we're stuck for now at least, with a physicalist scientific model, having no 'objective' way of knowing how closely it models ontological reality. You can assume the model's coherence, detail, predictability and ability to to work so well for us suggests it's close to reality - or take Hoffman's position that we're creating Darwinian fictions, from the way our senses work in representing the world to the most abstract theorising. But when we hit problems where consciousness itself may be part of the physicalist answer, the issue of physicalist science not being able to explain consciousness is brought into relief.
As I say, I don't know if wave particle duality will be such a case. But I don't agree we should stop trying to find out, continue refining our model as best we can as we've always done.
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: The Quantum Poker: §4
The QUANTUM POKER: #5Gertie wrote: ↑February 26th, 2023, 3:54 pmScience has done an incredible job of meeting new questions, observing evidence, theorising from that evidence and then testing the theories' predictions. It's built an amazingly detailed and useful physicalist model of the world and how it works that way, which we rely on without a thought every day. It's answered many apparently intractable questions too, and is still on that journey. For example dreaming can now be addressed by machines built to monitor activity in different areas of the brain, and correlations made with what sleepers report when they wake. Thus the evidence builds for the hypothesis that dreams occur during sleep which would predict such correlations.ernestm wrote: ↑February 25th, 2023, 9:53 pm (Following is section 4 of a forthcoming blog in Summer 2023, "The Quantum Pokeer." As will be explained in section 1, the name draws upon the New York Times bestseller "Wittgenstein's Poker.")
~
Considering quantum entanglement as paradoxical is simply the result of flawed empirical analysis. To illustrate the significance of this Wittgensteinian statement, I draw from Malcom's empirical analysis "Dreaming"( Routledge, 1959), in which he states, from a scientific point of view, dreams are memories we have after waking up. From a purely empirical point of view, there can be no proof that a person is having a dream. Thus according to Wittgenstein, it is irrational to consider whether dreams occur while asleep at all. From Wittgenstein's perspective on epistemological enquiry, it is pointless asking a question if it's meaningless or impossible to answer. THUS FOR QUANTUM MECHANICS, there is no meaning to asking the question of what a particle's state might be before it is observed. It's simply unknowable and that is the beginning and end of what can be said about it.
~
Attempting to construct paradoxes out of whether its state 'was' after the observation is made is pointless. That is the nature of empirical investigation, and it has been the foundation of science since the 'father of empiricism', Francis Bacon, wrote NOVUM ORGANUM, all the way back in 1620 AD. The amount of ludicrosity on so-called 'quantum paradoxes' is truly astounding. That said, I've found with discussion on Wittegenstein's healthy yet extreme skepticism that many find his conclusions too bizarre compared to intuitive expectation to accept, and it transpires very few people can even understand his rationality, let alone accept it.
~
The notion that particles must have some state before observation arises from a very primal instinct called 'object preservation. It's been shown that some higher-order mammals also possess the instinct. But it is only an instinct. Logically speaking, there is no necessity that all objects possess the permanence we intuitively expect. In advanced formal logic, many demonstrated cases show that such permanence does not exist. A simple example is in Searle's analysis of illocutionary acts, which analyzes the creation and limit of verbal contracts that define new objects, including, words themselves.
~
For quantum mechanics, considering the state of a particle before it is observed is simply meaningless, because the energy imparted on the system by the act of its observation is of the same order as the energy state being observed. Even if suggestions indicating possible state are found, the actual state prior to observation is simply unknowable to science, and therefore meaningless even to consider in the course of investigation.
~
This again parallels Malcom's observations of dreaming. Some scientists have tried to prove dreams exist by looking at eyeball movement under eyelids. And indeed, scientists performed the experiments, then claimed they had found proof that dreams exist. What an equally ludicrous waste of time. No matter how much one finds eyeball movements, they only indicate whether a dream may perhaps be remembered when the sleeper wakes up.
~
The meaningfulness of what a quantum state might be before it it observed directly parallels the meaningfulness of asking whether one had a dream that one does not remember.
But hard science's reliance on third party observation/falsifiability will always have problems with consciousness, because it's not third party observable, it has to rely (where possible) on reports correlating with the observable eidence.
Is the theory of wave particle duality analogous in that it's ultimately not falsifiable in the standard way because observation/measurement could be a causal factor? I don't know enough about it, but the comparison to dreams suggests we can't rule out new ways being found.
Another option in the case of wave particle physics seems to be that observation somehow brings particle matter into existence. That may be true. In which case the physicalist model of what the world is and how it works would require a fundamental re-think. The fact that it currently takes no account of consciousness (including observation) might just be a clue pointing that way, but it's a stretch which currently has little framework to support it.
The upshot is, science struggles to account for consciousness because of its subjective, private, first person nature. And as consciousness is our way of knowing anything at all, we're stuck for now at least, with a physicalist scientific model, having no 'objective' way of knowing how closely it models ontological reality. You can assume the model's coherence, detail, predictability and ability to to work so well for us suggests it's close to reality - or take Hoffman's position that we're creating Darwinian fictions, from the way our senses work in representing the world to the most abstract theorising. But when we hit problems where consciousness itself may be part of the physicalist answer, the issue of physicalist science not being able to explain consciousness is brought into relief.
As I say, I don't know if wave particle duality will be such a case. But I don't agree we should stop trying to find out, continue refining our model as best we can as we've always done.
So then to the issues with 'quantum entanglement.' Dr. Gene Douglass wrote "Imagine a baker has enough ingredients to make one chocolate chip cookie and one sugar cookie. The baker randomly mails one cookie to California and another cookie to New York. The customer in California opens up the box and sees a sugar cookie. We then know the customer in New York has the chocolate chip cookie. No information was exchanged to determine that. We can think of the baker as the hidden variables. Unlike the cookies that were always whatever the baker made them as, the entangled particles literally aren’t one or the other until someone opens the box."
~ 5.1 ~
So that is an alternative perspective on quantum entanglement. Some would say therefore quantum entanglement is 'wrong.' But from a scientific perspective, one is meant to construct an experiment that can differentiate between alternative explanations. But it's impossible.
~ 5.2 ~
The conflict in opinions are arising because of the presumption that quantum phenomena can be described in terms of gross matter, then seeking inconsistencies with Newtonian physics. However, since Schrodinger's observations that explanations can at best be probablistic, and a quantum phenomenon's position and energy state cannot be known simultaneously, the entire pursuit is nonsense. Whether quantum phenomena behave like the baker's cookies or not is a meaningless question scientifically, because it describes an untestable theory.
~ 5.3 ~
There is no necessity for science to consider quantum phenomena as anything more than equations for zones of spacetime, through which the equations can propagate. The act of adding inductions such as quantum phenomena being particles or waves simply creates new questions that are not only impossible to answer scientifically, but also meaningless, because they arise from the presumption that quantum phenomena should behave like either.
~ 5.4 ~
In the past, I've encountered many confusions about the nature of scientific theory, and most of them resolve to a lack of understanding of the difference between an induction and a deduction. A valid and sound deduction is provably true. However, an induction involves the act of introducing an additional layer of abstraction. The defined abstraction itself may never be the actual 'cause' of an event. There always could be an additional undiscovered or unknowable factor that is actually causing the event, resulting in the existing explanation being superseded. For this reason, all explanations in science are called 'theories.' Only observations are knowable facts, and deductions based on observations are simply new observations.
~ 5.5 ~
For instance, from the existence of dinosaur bones, one can make inferences about species origination that are consistent with the theory of evolution. As this particular theory has been fruitful across many scientific disciplines, even acclaimed scientists have asserted that 'evolution disproves God.' That is an enormous overreach of what is knowable in science. There are many alternatives to species origination from more likely survival of the species' members with better varietal adaptions that are beyond the domain of science to evaluate.
~ 5.6 ~
One alternative is that animals choose mates because they have their own sense of beauty. But there is no way to test any goal-oriented, or 'teleological' alternatives. In this case, an animal's 'mind,' if it exists, is inaccessible to our understanding. so it is not considered a useful hypothesis for scientific inquiry. The same applies to Aristotle's explanation that an acorn 'wants' to become an oak tree.
~ 5.7 ~
That doesn't mean teleological explanations are not happening as well as evolution. Even if one chooses to believe that all species origination is caused by selection pressure, it's still possible that a Creator designed the universe to enable natural selection as a tool to create us. Aristotelian and theological explanations are still valid, and may be meaningful to a person, or not, depending on the person's beliefs. But it is meaningless to assess them relative to scientific theory, because they are explanations beyond validation by material observation.
~ 5.8 ~
Saying such alternative possibilities cannot be happening is referred to as 'scientism.' because it is asserting beliefs as irrefutable facts, and therefore, turning science into a religion. It is a comment on the downward path of civilization that Nobel prizes are being awarded for efforts that are no more than quantum scientism.
----------------------------------------------
With thanks to Dr. Gene Douglass: https://www.linkedin.com/in/efdouglass/
-----------------------------------------------
(NOTE: the name of this series, "THE QUANTUM POKER," is drawn upon the New York Times 2002 bestseller "Wittgesntein's Poker" (Ucca, 2002), wherein some metaphysicists disagree whether he was angry when he waved a poker during an argument. Wittgenstein stated he was simply excited and using the poker to make a point, but others who didn't agree with his opinion that emotions are confusions arising from irrational reasoning said he had lost his temper).
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: The Quantum Poker: §4
- Bret Leduc
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: June 12th, 2023, 5:59 am
Re: The Quantum Poker: §4
I am going to pursue that text next.
These are some of my current favorite questions to consider.
“What is actually happening when thinking is happening?”
“What is actually happening when matter persists?”
“What is actually happening when electricity is happening?”
“You pour water into a glass. You can measure the water and also predict when the glass will fill. These are matters of math. BUT what topic discusses the POURING of the water itself?”
“If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?”
What are yours?
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: The Quantum Poker: §4
At this point, allow me to indulge in a slight digression! In popular journalism, one sometimes encounters the view that Occam's Razor means "the simplest explanation is probably the correct one". This of course is nonsense; William meant no such thing. In fact, the history of science shows us that, if anything, the simplest explanation is seldom the correct one.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023