Ruth & Rindler (General)
RUTH (under Ruth's "real" possibilities): Dh, I think I understand what's bothering you. I take as my starting point Heisenberg's comments, but keep in mind that he is assuming that 'real' = 'physically real'. I refer to Heisenberg's formulation, but I do differ with it in that I don't assume that because something is not physically real, that it is unreal. Note that in my figure 7.2, I don't say that category III is 'unreal', I just don't take it as physically real. -What bothers me is not reality/unreality but comparative reality as in more real/less real. That's why I thought it might be less confusing to say Heisenberg's 'potentia' are less physical (instead of 'less real') than events in the actual world, but more physical (instead of 'more real') than thoughts. But I now understand what you meant, so thank you for the clarification. If it's OK with you, I'd like to move on to my second set of questions, which concern 7.3.2: The puzzle of 'Rindler quanta'.-You wrote: "The phenomenon of Rindler quanta has serious implications for the question of the 'reality' of quanta, since it seems to tell us that not only the properties of quanta but even whether or not there are any quanta is a purely 'contextual' matter ... i.e. dependent on the observer and what types of measurements he/she chooses to make."-Your response is: "From the PTI standpoint, the problem evaporates. There are no independently existing 'quanta' in either case [= accelerating or inertial observer], there are simply possible transactions."-As I understand you, a transaction cannot take place without an emitter and an absorber. If there are no independently existing quanta, what might possibly be emitted and absorbed in your possible transactions?-Quote: "In both cases, a transaction occurs; it is simply interpreted differently by the different observers" (because they see it from different perspectives). Is it the transaction that is interpreted differently, or the quanta that underlie the transactional process? If it's the latter, how does this differ from the properties and even existence of the quanta being "dependent on the observer and what types of measurement he/she chooses to make"?-You conclude: "Since transactions, and the possibilities leading to them, are the fundamental ontological entities in TI ... rather than quanta ... TI has no trouble accounting for the phenomenon of Rindler quanta."-I don't understand how transactions can be the fundamental ontological entities independently of the 'quanta' that form the basis of the transaction. Again it seems that the properties of the quanta depend on the observer, and I can't see how your argument does or does not tell us whether the quanta actually exist. It's as if you are simply saying their existence is irrelevant. -This whole post may well be a total misunderstanding of your argument, but if so, my hope is that it will give you some idea of how easy it is for the potential reader of your 'popular' book to get confused. So once again I hope you won't be too put off by my obtuseness.
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell 
, Monday, August 05, 2013, 21:19 (3923 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I don't understand how transactions can be the fundamental ontological entities independently of the 'quanta' that form the basis of the transaction. Again it seems that the properties of the quanta depend on the observer, and I can't see how your argument does or does not tell us whether the quanta actually exist. It's as if you are simply saying their existence is irrelevant. > > This whole post may well be a total misunderstanding of your argument, but if so, my hope is that it will give you some idea of how easy it is for the potential reader of your 'popular' book to get confused. So once again I hope you won't be too put off by my obtuseness.-I think I understand dhw's confusion. The problem is quanta have been handled as twins, particle and wave, successfully for 90 years. Something exists and newer researchers, like Ruth, want to dig to the bottom of reality, if possible. She and they should. Half an answer is never satisfying. PTI and a differing interpretation of Heisenberg's probability layer of reality may be the solution.-The reference to Rindler quanta in Chapter Seven has to do with an attempt to get away from the 90 year old Copenhagen Convention of duality with particles and waves. The recent research has tried to look at quantum field theory (qft) for a different concept. Rindler are conceptualized quanta, with comparisons of moving observers and stationary observer results in Hilbert (relativized) space, compared to real Minkowski quanta in Minkowski spacetime (developed originally in 1908 from Einstein's work). -"Philosophical reflection on quantum field theory has tended to focus on how it revises our conception of what a particle is. However, there has been relatively little discussion of the threat to the "reality" of particles posed by the possibility of inequivalent quantizations of a classical field theory, i.e., inequivalent representations of the algebra of observables of the field in terms of operators on a Hilbert space. The threat is that each representation embodies its own distinctive conception of what a particle is, and how a "particle" will respond to a suitably operated detector. Our main goal is to clarify the subtle relationship between inequivalent representations of a field theory and their associated particle concepts. We also have a particular interest in the Minkowski versus Rindler quantizations of a free Boson field, because they respectively entail two radically different descriptions of the particle content of the field in the *very same* region of spacetime." ( http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/73/)-Ruth's chapter 7 is confusing for those of us at a lay level in understanding quantum mechanics. All she is saying is her theory does away with qft conjectures to try to understand duality.-I suggest referring to Matt Strassler's blog on virtual particles and field theory for more understanding of the latest thinking. -( http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particl... hope this clears up some of the confusion. Ruth's popular book is going to require much simplification for lay readers. I've spent a couple days googling and thinking to come up with this post. It is clear to me why trained philosophers need to interpret and advance quantum theory, as logic defying as it is.
Ruth & Rindler
DAVID: Ruth's chapter 7 is confusing for those of us at a lay level in understanding quantum mechanics. All she is saying is her theory does away with qft conjectures to try to understand duality. I suggest referring to Matt Strassler's blog on virtual particles and field theory for more understanding of the latest thinking. -( http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particl...I hope this clears up some of the confusion. Ruth's popular book is going to require much simplification for lay readers. I've spent a couple days googling and thinking to come up with this post. It is clear to me why trained philosophers need to interpret and advance quantum theory, as logic defying as it is.-Many thanks for this thoughtful post, David. Unfortunately, although the Strassler link came up with the heading (Of Particular Significance), it also apologized because the page could not be found! Ah, these particles and articles that appear and disappear! That's QM for you!-If Feynman says that no one understands quantum mechanics, what chance does an ignorant layman like me have of doing so? However, Ruth's Chapter 7 merges science with philosophy, and even if the scientific basis is beyond me, the logic of the argument (which often depends on terminology) is something I ought to understand. There is, as far as I can judge, no difference between Ruth's transactional interpretation of quanta as a process of emission and absorption, and the everyday process of perception, whereby an object emits, the senses absorb, and the brain interprets. Subjectivism looms large in both, and ultimately may lead to a questioning of the very existence of the object (see Bishop Berkeley et al). That is the topic Ruth begins to discuss in the section on Rindler: the subjectivism of interpretation and the possibility that quanta don't even exist. But the argument by which "the problem evaporates" is simply not clear to me for reasons I've explained in my post. By discussing these individual points, we can narrow the focus and maybe gain clarification one step at a time, which suits my limited brain and will probably suit the brains of Ruth's potential lay readers!
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 06, 2013, 16:18 (3922 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: If Feynman says that no one understands quantum mechanics, what chance does an ignorant layman like me have of doing so? However, Ruth's Chapter 7 merges science with philosophy, and even if the scientific basis is beyond me, the logic of the argument (which often depends on terminology) is something I ought to understand. There is, as far as I can judge, no difference between Ruth's transactional interpretation of quanta as a process of emission and absorption, and the everyday process of perception, whereby an object emits, the senses absorb, and the brain interprets. -There is a major difference. First of all, Ruth is saying that the Heisenberg 'layer' of reality (HLR)is not our reality. Our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer, but separate from it. The HLR is quantum energy in many possible potentialities, all interconnected. This is why spookiness at a distance works faster than the speed of light. In the HLR there is no need for speed of light.-Unfortunately we cannot work at the HLR level. we can probe at it, analyze some of it, and with Rindler conjecture mathematically about it. A particle is a smudge or ripple in a field:-"The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word "particle" in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A "virtual particle", generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields."--"In general, what we have in quantum fields are disturbances of many types. There is a very special disturbance we may call a particle, which is a ripple that can in principle travel forever. But this is an idealization: any real particle interacts with other objects, and this means nothing is ever exactly this precise, idealized ripple. So the issue is how close is it to the ideal case. In most physical processes one deals with objects that are clearly either close to the ideal or very far from the ideal. A photon traveling from the Pleiades is clearly about as close as you are going to get to the ideal; its energy and momentum are almost the perfect match that you would expect for a massless particle. The disturbance between [a "virtual photon exchanged"] between an electron and a nucleus in an atom has very little energy and a lot of momentum; it is very far from what you would call a particle."-http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/-Maybe this is a better link. QM is at the very edge of what we can imagine, since we cannot get at all of it at once. Ruth's transactions are an attempt to explain the back and forth between the layers and to improve our imagination of what the other side is like. Because imagination must be used!
Ruth & Rindler
by BBella , Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 00:45 (3921 days ago) @ David Turell
..Ruth is saying that the Heisenberg 'layer' of reality (HLR)is not our reality. Our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer, but separate from it. -I understand, in one sense, that the HLR is not our reality, in the sense we not aware of it as we go about our daily lives. And, I can understand that "our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer". But how is it "separate from" our spacetime?
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 01:58 (3921 days ago) @ BBella
..Ruth is saying that the Heisenberg 'layer' of reality (HLR)is not our reality. Our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer, but separate from it. > > I understand, in one sense, that the HLR is not our reality, in the sense we not aware of it as we go about our daily lives. And, I can understand that "our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer". But how is it "separate from" our spacetime?-As I understand it, it is with us at all times. We just don't have the sensory ability to appreciate it. We can pull out bits and pieces and study them but only partially. A photon producer (a lazer) emits quantum photons and they are absorbed on a screen in parallel shadows on the other side of a double slit experiment. This tells us that photons make waves, or are wave-like blobs of fundamental energy. We can split a photon and the two daughters can be spread miles apart and each still know exactly what each is doing, even in a delayed choice (Wheeler) experiment. Ruth's explanation is that the two are fully connected on the other side. Considering how confusing the whole subject has been, her idea makes perfect sense. It is here, but always separate. Just don't look for a boundary. Your lighted bulb emits photons absorbed by your retina. You see the light but not the quantum mechanics.
Ruth & Rindler
by BBella , Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 04:49 (3921 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 04:55
[DAVID]..Ruth is saying that the Heisenberg 'layer' of reality (HLR)is not our reality. Our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer, but separate from it. > > > >[ME] I understand, in one sense, that the HLR is not our reality, in the sense we not aware of it as we go about our daily lives. And, I can understand that "our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer". But how is it "separate from" our spacetime? > >[DAVID] As I understand it, it is with us at all times. We just don't have the sensory ability to appreciate it. We can pull out bits and pieces and study them but only partially.[...] It is here, but always separate. Just don't look for a boundary. Your lighted bulb emits photons absorbed by your retina. You see the light but not the quantum mechanics.-I do actually understand this part [...] of your explanation and am familiar with it since I have studied with interest the photon and the theroy of QM for many years (altho admittedly I've absorbed very little that's been emitted), but just because we can study it in action though aren't unaware of it in our daily life and lack the sensory ability to appreciate it still doesn't explain how it is separate from our reality. In what way is it separate?
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 05:42 (3921 days ago) @ BBella
> b bella:I do actually understand this part [...] of your explanation and am familiar with it since I have studied with interest the photon and the theroy of QM for many years (altho admittedly I've absorbed very little that's been emitted), but just because we can study it in action though aren't unaware of it in our daily life and lack the sensory ability to appreciate it still doesn't explain how it is separate from our reality. In what way is it separate?-I'm sure you understand what you describe. The appearance of separation is based on Heisenberg's comments, the wall of uncertainty and the potentialities and probabilities in the quantum realm. It is here but in our human state we cannot see it or find it, but we can draw it out through our experimentation. We live in our four dimensional space-time and that is all we can appreciate. Quantum effects innundate us all the time. But according to Ruth it is best understood if we conceive of it as another layer to our reality,and outside our reality. We are allowed only partial views and separated partial properties of the energies present there.-Perhaps Ruth can explain better than I can.
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 15:02 (3921 days ago) @ David Turell
Mathematicians comment on QM:-"MAX TEGMARK: Quantum mechanics famously threw that monkey wrench into the old idea of causality when it turned out there are certain experiments where you can't say for sure what's going to happen. But you can take a purely mathematical description, known as the Schrödinger equation, and say that it always applies to everything, so there is no random or indeterminate thing about that. It just means that the actual full reality is bigger than the reality that we can see. TKF: Are you saying that to us it feels subjective and random, but above it all there is this order that we just can't perceive? -MAX TEGMARK: Yes. It's like if they put one clone of you in a room labeled A and the original you in a room labeled B. When you come out the next morning and look at your room label, you can't predict whether you are going to see A or B because you have no way of knowing whether you're the clone. So it's going to seem subjectively random to you whether you come out of room A or room B. But someone who is observing both you and your clone will be able to predict that if your clone comes out of room A, than your original version will come out of room B."- http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/kavli-origins-of-math-The whole discussion is worth reading
Ruth & Rindler
by BBella , Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 22:23 (3920 days ago) @ David Turell
...according to Ruth it is best understood if we conceive of it as another layer to our reality, -I completely agree, David, with the above, that the QL is a layer of our reality, as is consciousness.->...and outside our reality. We are allowed only partial views and separated partial properties of the energies present there. But, I cannot see the QL as outside or separated from our reality. I imagine the framework of the Quantum Reality as that which sustains all realities so cannot see how it could be separate from or outside it.-> Perhaps Ruth can explain better than I can.-I do hope she will comment on it David.
Ruth & Rindler
Dhw There is, as far as I can judge, no difference between Ruth's transactional interpretation of quanta as a process of emission and absorption, and the everyday process of perception, whereby an object emits, the senses absorb, and the brain interprets. DAVID: There is a major difference. First of all, Ruth is saying that the Heisenberg 'layer' of reality (HLR)is not our reality. Our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer, but separate from it. The HLR is quantum energy in many possible potentialities, all interconnected. This is why spookiness at a distance works faster than the speed of light. In the HLR there is no need for speed of light.-My reference to everyday perception is an analogy which you've taken out of context, because I go on to relate it to Ruth's claim in her Rindler section that her theory makes "the problem evaporate" ... i.e. that of the subjectivism of interpretation and the possibility that quanta do not exist. I can't follow the reasoning behind her claim. All the same, the discussion you're having with BBella may be more fruitful than my questions for Ruth in illuminating the relationship between QM reality and that of our own world. I hadn't realized that the Strassler piece on virtual particles which are not particles was the same as the one you referred us to earlier. I quoted it myself on 30 July at 12.21! But perhaps the article on magnetoreception (under Nature's Wonders: Migration) is even more enlightening, if only as another analogy
AVID: More on magnetoreception, a sense we humans don't have but migratory animals do. Iron compounds and quantum reactions are all present:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36722/title/A-Sense-of-Mystery/-QUOTE: Indeed, the question of how animals can detect magnetic fields has proven maddeningly difficult to answer, and scientists are only just beginning to elucidate the physiological mechanisms behind this mysterious extra sense. "This is a sense that doesn't exist in humans, so we don't have any intuitive feeling for what it would be like to perceive magnetic fields," says Ken Lohmann, a neurobiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who studies the navigational abilities of sea turtles and other marine animals. "In addition, unlike most other stimuli, magnetic fields go right through biological tissue, so in principle the receptors could be anywhere in the body, and they may not be clustered in one place."-BBella asks in what way QM reality is separate from ours. Maybe the answer is that it's not. Maybe we simply have no way of reaching beyond our subjective perceptions, and so at least for now we have no way of grasping all the realities around us. But animal perceptions show clearly that there are realities beyond those we ourselves can perceive, and perhaps (very tentative!) these may also be emissions absorbed by a "mysterious extra sense" in some humans that underlies what we call psychic experiences. Is that what you're getting at, BBella?
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 15:18 (3921 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: There is a major difference. First of all, Ruth is saying that the Heisenberg 'layer' of reality (HLR)is not our reality. Our spacetime is intimately connected to this other layer, but separate from it. The HLR is quantum energy in many possible potentialities, all interconnected. This is why spookiness at a distance works faster than the speed of light. In the HLR there is no need for speed of light. > > dhw: My reference to everyday perception is an analogy which you've taken out of context, because I go on to relate it to Ruth's claim in her Rindler section that her theory makes "the problem evaporate" ... i.e. that of the subjectivism of interpretation and the possibility that quanta do not exist. I can't follow the reasoning behind her claim. All the same, the discussion you're having with BBella may be more fruitful than my questions for Ruth in illuminating the relationship between QM reality and that of our own world. > dhw: BBella asks in what way QM reality is separate from ours. Maybe the answer is that it's not. Maybe we simply have no way of reaching beyond our subjective perceptions, and so at least for now we have no way of grasping all the realities around us. But animal perceptions show clearly that there are realities beyond those we ourselves can perceive, and perhaps (very tentative!) these may also be emissions absorbed by a "mysterious extra sense" in some humans that underlies what we call psychic experiences. Is that what you're getting at, BBella?-I've retained all of the above because the answer to your problem is contained in the discussion and in the mathematician's comment I just reproduced.(2013-08-07, 15:02) Quanta exist, but are undescribable in their totality with our current senses. Therefore, we can only nibble at thier properties, eventually see all of the reality one bite at a time. Most of the incongruities are obviated by Ruth's approach. They are all interconnected and reacting together at random in their on realm.
Ruth & Rindler
DAVID: [...] the answer to your problem is contained in the discussion and in the mathematician's comment I just reproduced.(2013-08-07, 15:02) Quanta exist, but are undescribable in their totality with our current senses. Therefore, we can only nibble at thier properties, eventually see all of the reality one bite at a time. Most of the incongruities are obviated by Ruth's approach. They are all interconnected and reacting together at random in their on realm.-This is clear, thank you. But these generalizations don't cover the specific questions I asked in my Rindler post of 3 August at 11.43. For instance, the fact that we can only see reality 'one bite at a time' does not explain to me how the problem of dependence on the observer to identify the properties and even the existence of quanta "evaporates", because in both cases "a transaction occurs" which is "simply interpreted differently by the different observers". I need to stress once more with maximum emphasis that I'm in no position to challenge these arguments. I find the above confusing, and am simply hoping that clarification will be useful for Ruth's new book as well as for lay people like myself. DAVID: Mathematicians comment on QM: "MAX TEGMARK: Quantum mechanics famously threw that monkey wrench into the old idea of causality when it turned out there are certain experiments where you can't say for sure what's going to happen. But you can take a purely mathematical description, known as the Schrödinger equation, and say that it always applies to everything, so there is no random or indeterminate thing about that. It just means that the actual full reality is bigger than the reality that we can see.-TKF: Are you saying that to us it feels subjective and random, but above it all there is this order that we just can't perceive?-The all-important answer here is "yes". I shan't quote the rest. http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/kavli-origins-of-math-I read this with interest, but again it doesn't answer my specific questions, and as usual the experts don't agree among themselves: Tegmark and Hellerman are physicists who consider maths to be integral to the nature of the universe, and Butterworth and Nunez as cognitive scientists see it as part of the human tendency to impose patterns on Nature. Causality is another of the subjects I would like to get onto in my study of Ruth's Chapter 7.
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2013, 15:30 (3920 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I read this with interest, but again it doesn't answer my specific questions, and as usual the experts don't agree among themselves: Tegmark and Hellerman are physicists who consider maths to be integral to the nature of the universe, and Butterworth and Nunez as cognitive scientists see it as part of the human tendency to impose patterns on Nature. -Humans cannot impose patterns if they do not already exist to be discovered. The argument is alot of philosophic twaddle.
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2013, 15:36 (3920 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: [...] the answer to your problem is contained in the discussion and in the mathematician's comment I just reproduced.(2013-08-07, 15:02) Quanta exist, but are undescribable in their totality with our current senses. Therefore, we can only nibble at thier properties, eventually see all of the reality one bite at a time. Most of the incongruities are obviated by Ruth's approach. They are all interconnected and reacting together at random in their on realm. > > dhw: This is clear, thank you. But these generalizations don't cover the specific questions I asked in my Rindler post of 3 August at 11.43. For instance, the fact that we can only see reality 'one bite at a time' does not explain to me how the problem of dependence on the observer to identify the properties and even the existence of quanta "evaporates", because in both cases "a transaction occurs" which is "simply interpreted differently by the different observers".-Part of this is Ruth investigating a relativistic view of quantum theory. No two viewers ever 'see' quanta the same way. I wish Ruth would step in to explain. The Rindler quanta are views with motion and position involved.
Ruth & Rindler
by BBella , Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 22:53 (3920 days ago) @ dhw
> BBella asks in what way QM reality is separate from ours. Maybe the answer is that it's not. Maybe we simply have no way of reaching beyond our subjective perceptions, and so at least for now we have no way of grasping all the realities around us. But animal perceptions show clearly that there are realities beyond those we ourselves can perceive, and perhaps (very tentative!) these may also be emissions absorbed by a "mysterious extra sense" in some humans that underlies what we call psychic experiences. Is that what you're getting at, BBella?-dhw, yes, I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a separated Quantum Layer of reality that is outside our own. All along, as I've studied QM, I've imagined it as a layer of reality that is as integral and as real to the physical reality as our unseen cells are to our physical body (only thing I can think of to compare). Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there or that it's not just as real as our physical reality. If our physical reality actually emanates from the QR, which I suspect is so, I would think the QR is more real than our physical reality (if there is any qualitative differences, which I suspect there isn't). It is more that our perspective is limited by our sight and mind.
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2013, 02:35 (3920 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: dhw, yes, I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a separated Quantum Layer of reality that is outside our own. All along, as I've studied QM, I've imagined it as a layer of reality that is as integral and as real to the physical reality as our unseen cells are to our physical body (only thing I can think of to compare). Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there or that it's not just as real as our physical reality. If our physical reality actually emanates from the QR, which I suspect is so, I would think the QR is more real than our physical reality (if there is any qualitative differences, which I suspect there isn't). It is more that our perspective is limited by our sight and mind.-I think you've got it right. The separation is that quanta pass easily into the reality we perceive, but it difficult for us to see the all of the other side all at once. We get glimpses of bits and pieces. And again you are correct that QM is the source of and underlies our reality, and therefore is the primary reality. I view the separation as a semipermeable membrane as used in dialysis: most material can go back and forth, but the setup is rigged so certain dissolved molecules move best in one direction.
Ruth & Rindler
bbella: dhw, yes, I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a separated Quantum Layer of reality that is outside our own. All along, as I've studied QM, I've imagined it as a layer of reality that is as integral and as real to the physical reality as our unseen cells are to our physical body (only thing I can think of to compare). Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there or that it's not just as real as our physical reality. If our physical reality actually emanates from the QR, which I suspect is so, I would think the QR is more real than our physical reality (if there is any qualitative differences, which I suspect there isn't). It is more that our perspective is limited by our sight and mind.-DAVID: I think you've got it right. The separation is that quanta pass easily into the reality we perceive, but it difficult for us to see the all of the other side all at once. We get glimpses of bits and pieces. And again you are correct that QM is the source of and underlies our reality, and therefore is the primary reality. I view the separation as a semipermeable membrane as used in dialysis: most material can go back and forth, but the setup is rigged so certain dissolved molecules move best in one direction.-As in my discussion with Ruth, I find the term "more real" extremely dubious. Try stepping in front of a bus and then tell me that QR is more real than our physical reality. That was why I asked Ruth for criteria by which to measure reality. She and I eventually agreed that quantum reality was less MANIFEST than everyday reality. We might speculate that quantum reality has a greater influence on spacetime reality than vice versa (e.g. if you are thinking of it as the source of consciousness or of the material universe), or may be more lasting than spacetime reality (e.g. if you are thinking of an afterlife). -I find David's dialysis image extremely helpful. Maybe we just don't need the confusing term "separation", though. It could be argued that ALL entities are separate. We only get to know "bits and pieces" of whatever we perceive ... from inanimate objects to live people. I would suggest that quantum reality is less manifest, less accessible, less definable than our everyday reality, but not "more real" and not "separate".
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2013, 15:50 (3920 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As in my discussion with Ruth, I find the term "more real" extremely dubious. Try stepping in front of a bus and then tell me that QR is more real than our physical reality. That was why I asked Ruth for criteria by which to measure reality. She and I eventually agreed that quantum reality was less MANIFEST than everyday reality. We might speculate that quantum reality has a greater influence on spacetime reality than vice versa (e.g. if you are thinking of it as the source of consciousness or of the material universe), or may be more lasting than spacetime reality (e.g. if you are thinking of an afterlife). > > I find David's dialysis image extremely helpful. Maybe we just don't need the confusing term "separation", though. It could be argued that ALL entities are separate. We only get to know "bits and pieces" of whatever we perceive ... from inanimate objects to live people. I would suggest that quantum reality is less manifest, less accessible, less definable than our everyday reality, but not "more real" and not "separate".-This is why Ruth introduced the discussion of what is a table. Is there a table? QM forces us to think at that level. Review the background. Classical physicists are dragged kicking and screaming into the quantum world. Einstein says can't be. The Copenhagen interpretation is a bastardized why of getting by. Ruth is stepping back, as have others, and says there has got to be a better way of looking at this.-Your problem with Ruth's writings is a relection of our human confusion over the whole subject. Remember Ruth quoted Feynman's famous quote to me. If a Nobel laureate is confused no wonder you are.
Ruth & Rindler
Dhw: I find David's dialysis image extremely helpful. Maybe we just don't need the confusing term "separation", though. It could be argued that ALL entities are separate. We only get to know "bits and pieces" of whatever we perceive ... from inanimate objects to live people. I would suggest that quantum reality is less manifest, less accessible, less definable than our everyday reality, but not "more real" and not "separate". -DAVID: This is why Ruth introduced the discussion of what is a table. Is there a table? QM forces us to think at that level...Ruth is stepping back, as have others, and says there has got to be a better way of looking at this.-The question of how we can know the attributes or even the existence of things is as old as philosophy itself. We all step back the moment we ask such questions. But Ruth is linking the physical reality we know with another "possible" or "potential" reality, and all I'm doing is campaigning for as much clarity as possible in our attempt to grasp that reality.-DAVID: Your problem with Ruth's writings is a reflection of our human confusion over the whole subject. Remember Ruth quoted Feynman's famous quote to me. If a Nobel laureate is confused no wonder you are.-I find nothing confusing in the argument that different observers see different things, or that no observer sees the whole or the true nature of things, or that we cannot even be certain that what we perceive exists, or that there may be levels of reality which we are not normally aware of but which may nevertheless be present and may even be having an influence on us. I do get confused when I'm told that my familiar space/time thoughts and feelings are "less real" than a world I don't even know or than realities that are "potential"; and I get confused when I'm told (or think I'm being told) that the problem of subjective perception and the possible non-reality of things evaporates because what is observed is interpreted differently by different observers. I may have misunderstood this, and so I'm asking for clarification. Dhw: I read this [the conversation between two physicists and two cognitive scientists] with interest, but it doesn't answer my specific questions, and as usual the experts do not agree among themselves: Tegmark and Hellerman are physicists who consider maths to be integral to the nature of the universe, and Butterworth and Nunez as cognitive scientists see it as part of the human tendency to impose patterns on Nature. -DAVID: Humans cannot impose patterns if they do not already exist to be discovered. The argument is a lot of philosophic twaddle.-All our perceptions, ideas, theories, and decisions are based on forming patterns. We cannot observe the whole of anything ... but just, in your terms, "bits and pieces". And our impression of the whole is the pattern we impose on those bits and pieces. As often as not, we get it wrong! You see a pattern of divine purpose in Nature, others see a pattern of mindless randomness ... so do both patterns already exist to be discovered? Philosophy, religion and science all entail joining "bits and pieces" of information into patterns. So if the patterns already exist, all philosophical, religious and scientific theories must be true! Hey, hey, who's twaddling now?
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Friday, August 09, 2013, 15:26 (3919 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I do get confused when I'm told that my familiar space/time thoughts and feelings are "less real" than a world I don't even know or than realities that are "potential"; and I get confused when I'm told (or think I'm being told) that the problem of subjective perception and the possible non-reality of things evaporates because what is observed is interpreted differently by different observers. I may have misunderstood this, and so I'm asking for clarification.-In our spacetime relativity is real. Position and motion make a difference. The simple example of the train whistle. So if we have the problem of relativity perception in our reality, how much worse is the problem when it comes from a area of potentiality to start with as in QM studies. > > dhw; All our perceptions, ideas, theories, and decisions are based on forming patterns. We cannot observe the whole of anything ... but just, in your terms, "bits and pieces". And our impression of the whole is the pattern we impose on those bits and pieces. As often as not, we get it wrong! You see a pattern of divine purpose in Nature, others see a pattern of mindless randomness ... so do both patterns already exist to be discovered? Philosophy, religion and science all entail joining "bits and pieces" of information into patterns. So if the patterns already exist, all philosophical, religious and scientific theories must be true! Hey, hey, who's twaddling now?-You have neatly shifted the argument about patterns. I was pointing out mathematical patterns which the scientists use to understand nature. These work out solidly. Philosophic patterns are built on reasonble inferences, but may contain unexpected quicksand. Don't conflate solid maths with twaddle.
Ruth & Rindler
Dhw: Tegmark and Hellerman are physicists who consider maths to be integral to the nature of the universe, and Butterworth and Nunez as cognitive scientists see it as part of the human tendency to impose patterns on Nature. -DAVID: Humans cannot impose patterns if they do not already exist to be discovered. The argument is a lot of philosophic twaddle.-Dhw: All our perceptions, ideas, theories, and decisions are based on forming patterns. We cannot observe the whole of anything ... but just, in your terms "bits and pieces". And our impression of the whole is the pattern we impose on those bits and pieces. [...]-DAVID: You have neatly shifted the argument about patterns. I was pointing out mathematical patterns which the scientists use to understand nature. These work out solidly. Philosophic patterns are built on reasonble inferences, but may contain unexpected quicksand. Don't conflate solid maths with twaddle.-Your belief that mathematical patterns exist independently of humans is what the whole debate is about! Here is the introduction to the discussion:-THE RECENT DISCOVERY OF THE HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE, which was predicted by mathematical formulas, shows the power of math to describe and predict the world around us--from the helical structure of DNA and the spirals of galaxies, to how rapidly epidemics spread and our universe is expanding. But is that because everything in our world is inherently mathematical and follows precise rules? Or do we tend to see mathematical patterns everywhere because of the way our brains embroider an orderly overlay over what we experience?-The origins of math has become a hot topic of debate as neuroscientists continue to uncover mathematical abilities we seem to be born with, and have pinpointed regions in the brain responsible for mathematical thinking. Other scientists are finding that certain math capabilities vary by culture and depend on how we interact with the world. Both types of findings suggest math is a human construct rather than a phenomenon that determines how the cosmos is constructed.-It's a hot topic. And no-one knows the answer. Your point about "solid" patterns is dealt with by both sceptics:-NUNEZ: We humans are pretty good at trying to make sense of things and excel at developing new tools for such purposes. You are giving examples for cases in which mathematics does work apparently in nature. But, how about all those cases for which it doesn't, including for making precise weather predictions? The saga of mathematics in science has been to invent new mathematical tools that help make testable predictions and to keep those that work, while discarding those that aren't useful. But there are tons of other things in pure mathematics that aren't testable or useful in empirical science proper.-BUTTERWORTH: Numbers are not necessarily a property of the universe, but rather a very powerful way of describing some aspects of the universe. -Of course it is essential to your faith in a creator God that the universe should be the product of his mathematical mind. However, the above quotes, and the fact that there are so many atheist or agnostic physicists (including Peter Higgs himself), should perhaps sound a warning. By all means believe that your mathematical pattern exists, but do not "twaddle" those experts in the field who believe maths to be just one more instance of "the way our brains embroider an orderly overlay over what we experience". He who twaddles others' beliefs doth himself deserve a twaddling. (Old Agnostic Proverb)
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Saturday, August 10, 2013, 16:35 (3918 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:It's a hot topic. And no-one knows the answer. Your point about "solid" patterns is dealt with by both sceptics: > > NUNEZ: We humans are pretty good at trying to make sense of things and excel at developing new tools for such purposes. You are giving examples for cases in which mathematics does work apparently in nature. But, how about all those cases for which it doesn't, including for making precise weather predictions? -Nunez is now in never never land. Weather is not a fixed physical pattern. The controlling parameters are so confusing there are folks who believe the Earth will roast while for the past 17 years there is no change in overall temps. Straw man argument.- > BUTTERWORTH: Numbers are not necessarily a property of the universe, but rather a very powerful way of describing some aspects of the universe. -That is exactly the point. Numbers fit the most important aspects of telling us much of the origin of our reality. > > dhw: He who twaddles others' beliefs doth himself deserve a twaddling. (Old Agnostic Proverb)-Nunez needs a twaddling. Perhaps old agnostics also.
Ruth & Rindler: more quantum confusion
by David Turell , Sunday, August 11, 2013, 16:05 (3917 days ago) @ David Turell
The following dicussion of Bell's inequality thought experiment, reminicent of Wheeler's delayed choice, claims that reality isn't there until we look for it:-http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality-"Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871)."-It appears to me that Ruth's proposed solution fits. Offer waves and conformation waves pull out the underlying reality from 'the other side' so to speak.
Ruth & Rindler: my confusion
by David Turell , Sunday, August 11, 2013, 18:41 (3917 days ago) @ David Turell
An afterthought: I just don't know or understand enough about Ruth's theory or about quantum mechanics to be sure that my enthusiasm is warrented. There is an article on her website where she debates an objecting theory.-http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/mp/2012/617291/ a thought experiment by Maudlin is discussed, but I get lost. And I have the question, how much of the PTI is thought experiment and how much is the result of hard evidence?
Ruth & Rindler
by BBella , Thursday, August 08, 2013, 18:02 (3920 days ago) @ dhw
bbella: If our physical reality actually emanates from the QR, which I suspect is so, I would think the QR is more real than our physical reality (if there is any qualitative differences, which I suspect there isn't). It is more that our perspective is limited by our sight and mind.[/i] > I find David's dialysis image extremely helpful. -I understand dialysis, but can't understand the connection to Quantum Reality and Layers, unless you saying what we see (the physical) is what slips through the QL, but what we do not see is what does not? ->Maybe we just don't need the confusing term "separation", though. It could be argued that ALL entities are separate. We only get to know "bits and pieces" of whatever we perceive ... from inanimate objects to live people. I would suggest that quantum reality is less manifest, less accessible, less definable than our everyday reality, but not "more real" and not "separate".-I completely agree about not needing the term "separation" which is why I wrote in parenthesis "if there is any qualitative difference, which I suspect there isn't" and why I brought up this subject of separation in the first place. Although it's a poor analysis, I used the cells within the body and the body to express that thought. Both the cells and the body are physical yet one seems less physical than the other because we need magnifying instruments to catch a glimpse of them. But in truth, they are both one reality. For definitive purposes we might call one "perceptible" reality and the other "imperceptible" reality, but there is really no difference in either realities but that one is perceptible to the human eye and mind while the other is not.
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2013, 18:19 (3920 days ago) @ BBella
> > I find David's dialysis image extremely helpful. > > bbella: I understand dialysis, but can't understand the connection to Quantum Reality and Layers, unless you saying what we see (the physical) is what slips through the QL, but what we do not see is what does not? -Exactly. What is in the other layer of our reality are potentials and probabilities. Offer waves give us a peek. > > >bbella:Maybe we just don't need the confusing term "separation", though. It could be argued that ALL entities are separate. We only get to know "bits and pieces" of whatever we perceive ... from inanimate objects to live people. I would suggest that quantum reality is less manifest, less accessible, less definable than our everyday reality, but not "more real" and not "separate".-Again a good analysis > > bbella:I completely agree about not needing the term "separation" which is why I wrote in parenthesis "if there is any qualitative difference, which I suspect there isn't" and why I brought up this subject of separation in the first place. .... But in truth, they are both one reality. For definitive purposes we might call one "perceptible" reality and the other "imperceptible" reality, but there is really no difference in either realities but that one is perceptible to the human eye and mind while the other is not.-I think the term imperceptible goes too far. We go perceive a great deal of the quantum portion of reality.
Ruth & Rindler
by BBella , Thursday, August 08, 2013, 18:57 (3920 days ago) @ David Turell
But in truth, they are both one reality. For definitive purposes we might call one "perceptible" reality and the other "imperceptible" reality, but there is really no difference in either realities but that one is perceptible to the human eye and mind while the other is not. > > I think the term imperceptible goes too far. We go perceive a great deal of the quantum portion of reality.-Are you saying we perceive a great deal of the q-portion through instruments or the human eye? Because my use of the word perceptible and imperceptible is to describe that which can be perceived with the human eye and mind without instruments.
Ruth & Rindler
by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2013, 20:25 (3920 days ago) @ BBella
But in truth, they are both one reality. For definitive purposes we might call one "perceptible" reality and the other "imperceptible" reality, but there is really no difference in either realities but that one is perceptible to the human eye and mind while the other is not. > > > > I think the term imperceptible goes too far. We go perceive a great deal of the quantum portion of reality. > > Are you saying we perceive a great deal of the q-portion through instruments or the human eye? Because my use of the word perceptible and imperceptible is to describe that which can be perceived with the human eye and mind without instruments.-I'm referring to instrument work. We naturally have no idea that quanta exist, because the idea of a single photon is scientific knowledge. I see light, not photons. A photon hits my retina, an ionization wave goes along the optic nerve to my brain, and the neurons in the optic area at the back of my brain tell me I've seen light. I know photons do it only from scientific research. A photon is one of the elemental particles in the universe.