The Quantum Poker: §4

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

The Quantum Poker: §4

Post by ernestm »

(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.
Alan Masterman
Posts: 219
Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am

Re: The Quantum Poker: §4

Post by Alan Masterman »

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.
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: The Quantum Poker: §4

Post by ernestm »

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.
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.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: The Quantum Poker: §4

Post by Gertie »

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.
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. 

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. 
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: The Quantum Poker: §4

Post by ernestm »

Gertie wrote: February 26th, 2023, 3:54 pm
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.
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. 

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. 
The QUANTUM POKER: #5
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).
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: The Quantum Poker: §4

Post by ernestm »

Sadly this forum won't let me share links to my blog any more, so I have to go.
User avatar
Bret Leduc
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: June 12th, 2023, 5:59 am

Re: The Quantum Poker: §4

Post by Bret Leduc »

I KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOMETHING NONTRIVIAL IN THIS THREAD! I am actively looking for philosophy of science as mentioned here “Aristotle -> an acorn wants to become a tree.”
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?
Alan Masterman
Posts: 219
Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am

Re: The Quantum Poker: §4

Post by Alan Masterman »

Perhaps a last comment on Occam's Razor: this principle - "do not multiply entities beyond necessity" - is firmly establshed as a scientific orthodoxy. In approaching any phenomenon which can reasonably be considered as a fit subject for scientific enquiry, one always adopts the simplest hypothesis which will explain the available data. As more data come to hand, it may be necessary to expand the hypothesis, or even replace it with a better one.

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021