Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities (General)
This will be the first in a number of posts in which I'd like to pinpoint certain areas of Ruth's Chapter 7 that I don't understand. Most of the science is beyond me, though, and I'll be focusing on the philosophical premises and conclusions. But I hope these will be interesting for others, and that a discussion of them may also prove useful for Ruth herself, as she's writing a book that aims to make quantum theory accessible to non-specialists. Perhaps there will be questions already covered in other chapters, but it might be months before some of us can read the book. I shall only take one point at a time, and my first is this:-7.2 The PTI formulation: possibility as physically real potentiality-"'Heisenbergian 'potentia' [...] are less real than events in the actual world, yet more real than mere thoughts or conceivable events."-"Under PTI, the realist use of the term 'possible' or 'potential' refers to physical possibilities; that is, entities which can directly give rise to specific observable physical phenomena based on a realized transaction. This is distinct from the common usage of the term 'possible' or 'possibility' to denote a situation or state of affairs which is merely conceivable or consistent with physical law." You then emphasize that PTI possibilities refer to individual events rather than "universal sets of events".-I find this confusing. Until a possibility, whether physical or intellectual, is realized in physical terms as an individual event, surely it remains a possibility, and so I can't see the distinction between your use of the term and the common usage. For instance, I might have an idea for a house (emission), and then Richard Rogers hears about it (absorption), and builds it (realized transaction - lucky me!). Do we not have a conceivable possibility giving rise to an observable physical phenomenon based on a realized transaction? Or are you saying that in the context of PTI, 'possible' and 'potential' can only refer to the physical, e.g. that the steel and glass used by Rogers 'emit' the PTI possibility, whereas my idea is non-physical and therefore is not a PTI potential? (You will gather from this that as a layman I look for clear examples to illustrate generalizations!) -By the same token, I have difficulty understanding your claim that one potential is more real than the other. Is this another way of saying that your criterion for measuring "reality" is physicality? This would open up a Pandora's box of philosophical problems, not least in the light of your response to David concerning the difficulty or even impossibility of getting consciousness "to somehow emerge from purely physical matter"! -For your entertainment, but still in the context of reality, let me offer you one of a series of sketches I wrote about thirty years ago: -THE ACTOR Lights up on THE ACTOR, lying on the ground with a ladder on top of him.-ACTOR:	Part One. I am an actor. This is a ladder. I am acting a play in which I am supposed to fall off the ladder and break my leg. He groans and grimaces realistically. Now during this particular performance I have, in reality, fallen off the ladder and broken my leg. More groans and grimaces. I am therefore genuinely in agony, having genuinely fallen off the ladder, but am acting the part of a man who is in agony having fallen off a ladder. More groans and grimaces. The question is: where does fiction end and reality begin? Pause. He stands up. Part Two. I am an actor. Ten years ago I dreamt that I was in a play and had to pretend to fall off a ladder and break my leg. But in my dream, I did fall off the ladder and I did break my leg. Five years ago I was in a play and had to pretend to fall off a ladder and break my leg. But I did fall off the ladder and I did break my leg. I am now standing in a theatre recounting the story of my dream and the sequel to the dream. For those who are listening to me, the dream and the sequel are both stories. And so the question is: where does reality end and fiction begin? Lights out.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell 
, Sunday, July 28, 2013, 15:44 (4134 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: 7.2 The PTI formulation: possibility as physically real potentiality > > "'Heisenbergian 'potentia' [...] are less real than events in the actual world, yet more real than mere thoughts or conceivable events." > > "Under PTI, the realist use of the term 'possible' or 'potential' refers to physical possibilities; that is, entities which can directly give rise to specific observable physical phenomena based on a realized transaction. This is distinct from the common usage of the term 'possible' or 'possibility' to denote a situation or state of affairs which is merely conceivable or consistent with physical law." > You then emphasize that PTI possibilities refer to individual events rather than "universal sets of events". > > I find this confusing. Until a possibility, whether physical or intellectual, is realized in physical terms as an individual event, surely it remains a possibility, and so I can't see the distinction between your use of the term and the common usage. -I have an answer to your puzzlement, but would prefer to wait for Ruth's interpretation, rather than pre-empt her response. The key to understanding the point is in her blog I originally presented:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/06/21/can-we-resolve-quantum-paradoxes-by-stepping-out-of-space-and-time-guest-post/-"My development of the Transactional Interpretation makes use of an important idea of Werner Heisenberg: "Atoms and the elementary particles themselves ... form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than things of the facts." This world of potentialities is not contained within space and time; it is a higher-dimensional world whose structure is described by the mathematics of quantum theory. The Transactional Interpretation is best understood by considering both the offer and confirmation as Heisenbergian possibilities—that is, they are only potential events. That removes the possibility of causal-loop inconsistencies, since neither the positive-energy offer wave nor the negative-energy confirmation wave carries real energy, and neither is contained in spacetime. It is only in the encounter between the two that real energy may be conveyed within spacetime from an emitter to an absorber—and when this occurs, all the energy is delivered in the normal future direction."
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by BBella , Sunday, July 28, 2013, 19:13 (4134 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw: 7.2 The PTI formulation: possibility as physically real potentiality > > > > "'Heisenbergian 'potentia' [...] are less real than events in the actual world, yet more real than mere thoughts or conceivable events." > > > "My development of the Transactional Interpretation makes use of an important idea of Werner Heisenberg: "Atoms and the elementary particles themselves ... form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than things of the facts." This world of potentialities is not contained within space and time; it is a higher-dimensional world whose structure is described by the mathematics of quantum theory. The Transactional Interpretation is best understood by considering both the offer and confirmation as Heisenbergian possibilities—that is, they are only potential events. That removes the possibility of causal-loop inconsistencies, since neither the positive-energy offer wave nor the negative-energy confirmation wave carries real energy, and neither is contained in spacetime. It is only in the encounter between the two that real energy may be conveyed within spacetime from an emitter to an absorber—and when this occurs, all the energy is delivered in the normal future direction."-The TQP (transactional quantum possibilities) just sounds to me like the MF (malleable fabric) of the ATI (All That Is), before it becomes WI (what is). Thought I would use acronym's to make it sound more scientific. Am I OB (off base)? lol
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 22:30 (4132 days ago) @ BBella
You could look at it that way, although the 'fabric' apparently has different layers of possibility (see my other post).
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
RUTH: "'Heisenbergian 'potentia' [...] are less real than events in the actual world, yet more real than mere thoughts or conceivable events."-RUTH: "Under PTI, the realist use of the term 'possible' or 'potential' refers to physical possibilities; that is, entities which can directly give rise to specific observable physical phenomena based on a realized transaction. This is distinct from the common usage of the term 'possible' or 'possibility' to denote a situation or state of affairs which is merely conceivable or consistent with physical law." [Ruth then emphasizes that PTI possibilities refer to individual events rather than "universal sets of events".]-DHW: I find this confusing. Until a possibility, whether physical or intellectual, is realized in physical terms as an individual event, surely it remains a possibility, and so I can't see the distinction between your use of the term and the common usage. DAVID: The key to understanding the point is in her blog I originally presented:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/06/21/can-we-resolve-quan...-"My development of the Transactional Interpretation makes use of an important idea of Werner Heisenberg: "Atoms and the elementary particles themselves ... form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than things of the facts." This world of potentialities is not contained within space and time; it is a higher-dimensional world whose structure is described by the mathematics of quantum theory. The Transactional Interpretation is best understood by considering both the offer and confirmation as Heisenbergian possibilities—that is, they are only potential events. That removes the possibility of causal-loop inconsistencies, since neither the positive-energy offer wave nor the negative-energy confirmation wave carries real energy, and neither is contained in spacetime. It is only in the encounter between the two that real energy may be conveyed within spacetime from an emitter to an absorber—and when this occurs, all the energy is delivered in the normal future direction."-This simply serves to show that a Heisenberg/TI potential remains outside space/time, since no "real" energy is involved. Only a space/time encounter results in a "real" event. My puzzlement remains: If a potential is regarded as real, there is no limit to what you can believe. But if "reality" is restricted to space/time encounters/transactions/events, why is an unrealized TI potential or "possibility" considered different from any other unrealized potential, and why is a physical potential considered more "real" than an idea or concept? N.B. I'm not saying there are no realities outside our own spacetime reality. That is the field both you and I are so eager to explore. But I need help in understanding the terms and arguments that are being used here! *****-Just seen BBella's post! You're right. A lot of these discussions actually centre on terminology which always requires definitions, after which the definitions require further definitions ad infinitum. It's a philosophical syndrome we might call Definitions Of Definitions Of...You can make an acronym out of that!
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Monday, July 29, 2013, 15:48 (4133 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: This simply serves to show that a Heisenberg/TI potential remains outside space/time, since no "real" energy is involved. Only a space/time encounter results in a "real" event. My puzzlement remains: If a potential is regarded as real, there is no limit to what you can believe. But if "reality" is restricted to space/time encounters/transactions/events, why is an unrealized TI potential or "possibility" considered different from any other unrealized potential, and why is a physical potential considered more "real" than an idea or concept? N.B. I'm not saying there are no realities outside our own spacetime reality. That is the field both you and I are so eager to explore. But I need help in understanding the terms and arguments that are being used here!- "Undertanding the terms and arguments" are an issue in itself. That is why QM needs philosophers to play a major role. Ruth asked me if I knew about virtual particles, and I do. They follow Heisenberg's uncertainty & possibilty and I view them as changing smudges in fields. Please read the following to see what you and I are up against. The math, which we cannot do explains or reveals an understanding which seems almost unreal to me, but it is real, just on the other side!-http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
Dhw: This simply serves to show that a Heisenberg/TI potential remains outside space/time, since no "real" energy is involved. Only a space/time encounter results in a "real" event. My puzzlement remains: If a potential is regarded as real, there is no limit to what you can believe. But if "reality" is restricted to space/time encounters/transactions/events, why is an unrealized TI potential or "possibility" considered different from any other unrealized potential, and why is a physical potential considered more "real" than an idea or concept? N.B. I'm not saying there are no realities outside our own spacetime reality. That is the field both you and I are so eager to explore. But I need help in understanding the terms and arguments that are being used here!-DAVID: "Understanding the terms and arguments" are an issue in itself. That is why QM needs philosophers to play a major role. Ruth asked me if I knew about virtual particles, and I do. They follow Heisenberg's uncertainty & possibilty and I view them as changing smudges in fields. Please read the following to see what you and I are up against. The math, which we cannot do explains or reveals an understanding which seems almost unreal to me, but it is real, just on the other side!-http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particl...-Thank you for this. It's a remarkable article, and the comments, questions and answers that follow are also revealing and highly educational. Interestingly, the subject of "virtual particles" vividly illustrates the problems of terminology:-STRASSLER: "The term "virtual particle" is an endlessly confusing and confused subject for the layperson, and even for the non-expert scientist. I have read many books for laypeople (yes, I was a layperson once myself, and I remember, at the age of 16, reading about this stuff) and all of them talk about virtual particles and not one of them has ever made any sense to me. So I am going to try a different approach in explaining it to you.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..."-With your scientific background, you were able to work out the meaning for yourself. But when I see the term, I automatically assume it means what it appears to say. I have the same problem with Ruth's use of "potential" and "possibility" when she links it to "real" and to degrees of reality. Yes, we must learn to think outside the box ... that applies to many fields of life, and if humans didn't, there would be no inventions, no discoveries, no revolutions. But if we are to communicate with one another, we have to define or explain our terms, as Strassler does here. Incidentally, he says he too is writing a book for lay people, so there is competition for Ruth!-One of the sections of Ruth's Chapter 7 is on causality (again I have questions). This comes up in the correspondence
AUL: My lay understanding was that virtual particles "challenge" conventional notions of cause and effect, but you use the word "cause" in very conventional ways in this article. -STRASSLER: Could you try to help me figure out where this notion comes from? Do you know where you read it? I have some guesses as to where this conception comes from, but I wonder whether there are modern books promulgating the idea. While it is true that one has to be careful in general about assuming that all processes can be described in terms of cause and effect (even before accounting for quantum mechanics), and also true that quantum mechanics is weird, no doubt about it , there is no profound challenge to basic causality in this context. Certainly I do not think you will not find any discussion of challenges to causality from "virtual particles" (i.e. generalized disturbances in fields) in any modern quantum field theory book.-I don't know to what extent this challenges Ruth's take on causality, because I don't know to what extent the two approaches overlap, but I mention it because scientists rarely agree amongst themselves. Basically, for a non-scientist like myself, the interest lies in the conclusions that are drawn from the science, and the general lack of consensus at least gives us a degree of latitude in our own assessments of those conclusions.-I'm drawn to this subject because you consider it so integral to your beliefs, and because it appears to offer avenues into those vast areas of existence that we know practically nothing about. However, it may well be that I should stay out of the discussion altogether, and I most certainly should if my ignorance becomes a source of irritation.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 19:24 (4132 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: STRASSLER: Could you try to help me figure out where this notion comes from? ...... Certainly I do not think you will not find any discussion of challenges to causality from "virtual particles" (i.e. generalized disturbances in fields) in any modern quantum field theory book. > > dhw: I don't know to what extent this challenges Ruth's take on causality, because I don't know to what extent the two approaches overlap, but I mention it because scientists rarely agree amongst themselves.-I don't know where you get the idea that scientists don't agree. Yes they argue theory among themelves, but science would not advance unless a concensus coalesces around varius advances in thought and theory. Einstein was resisted for some time, because his relativiety theory was counterintuative, but the evidence become overwhelming he was correct. Euclidian geometry had to give way to relativity.-> dhw: Basically, for a non-scientist like myself, the interest lies in the conclusions that are drawn from the science, and the general lack of consensus at least gives us a degree of latitude in our own assessments of those conclusions.-The apparent lack of concensus around QM is the confusion that appears to be present in trying to define terms in words that convey to weirdness. Strassler says one thing in his way and Kastner has a slightly different approach. I like him because he is very clear and refers to the underlying math but doesn't bring it into play, as any ontologic understanding of it is well beyond my feeble mind, without a math background. The math seems to bring into play such things as the square root of minus one. No wonder it is all fuzzy. > > dhw; I'm drawn to this subject because you consider it so integral to your beliefs, and because it appears to offer avenues into those vast areas of existence that we know practically nothing about. However, it may well be that I should stay out of the discussion altogether, and I most certainly should if my ignorance becomes a source of irritation.-Your questions should never be irritating. Not to a good teacher. What impressed me about Dr. Kastner is her approach to Heisenberg's wall of uncertainty. It is not opaque, but somewhat transparent so we can study transactions and understand why the results seem so unreal on our side of reality. The EPR paradox paper is a good reason to ask questions. Did both sister particles contain the same information or did they somehow remain connected at a distance? We know the current answer that they are connected or appear to be connected. I know this example goes back 80 years, but this is how science builds. And this all integral to my beliefs. The basis of our reality comes out of the quantum realm. It is understood by math. the book Fearful Symmetry asks the question, is God a geometer? Einstein is surprised that the world is explained by math. God is at the quantum level. It must be understood in the search for God.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 22:29 (4132 days ago) @ David Turell
A short answer to dhw's concern about the distinction between my physically real quantum possibiities and other notions of possibility, such as ideas in the mind, is that the former are describable by quantum states, and are capble of being physically created and manipulated, while other merely conceivable things (such as Quine's 'possible fat man in the doorway') are not. -QM seems to instruct us that there are indeed different levels of possibility. Nonrelativistic QM states are at one level ('real particles'), while field propagators ('virtual particles') are at a more subtle level.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 02:56 (4132 days ago) @ rekastner
> rek: QM seems to instruct us that there are indeed different levels of possibility. Nonrelativistic QM states are at one level ('real particles'), while field propagators ('virtual particles') are at a more subtle level.-With your theory of transactions opening up an increased understanding of the Heisenberg possibilites and potentialities level, beyond what I've realized about non-locality doing away with the speed of light issue, are there other discoveries that remove some of the counterintuitive issues? Does quantum mechanics really need consciousness? Or is it just a choice of method of study issue?
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 04:54 (4132 days ago) @ David Turell
My interpretation does not require consciousness, although it does not preclude it. It's possible to see consciousness entering at the level of the quantum field operators (these are what create and destroy quanta, including virtual particles).-Some interpretations invoke consciousness in order to "collapse the wavefunction" because it's the only way they can think of solving the measurement problem. You don't need this if you take absorption into account.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 06:43 (4132 days ago) @ rekastner
REK: My interpretation does not require consciousness, although it does not preclude it. It's possible to see consciousness entering at the level of the quantum field operators (these are what create and destroy quanta, including virtual particles).- I didn't know one could create and dstroy quanta. I thought they were forever. Please explain. I don't follow > > rek: Some interpretations invoke consciousness in order to "collapse the wavefunction" because it's the only way they can think of solving the measurement problem. You don't need this if you take absorption into account.-Can you expand on this. I'm lost again. Thanks
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 07:17 (4132 days ago) @ David Turell
Creation and destruction takes place at the relativistic level. So no, individual quanta certainly are not eternal; they are created and destroyed. For example, photons are created in the sun and destroyed at the earth (e.g., absorbed by a leaf). -Have you listened to my introductory lecture from my website? This addresses both your questions:-http://rekastner.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/introduction-to-tiqm-7-19-12.mp3-The accompanying slides are here:-https://rekastner.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/the-transactional-interpretation.ppt
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 15:58 (4131 days ago) @ rekastner
rek: Creation and destruction takes place at the relativistic level. So no, individual quanta certainly are not eternal; they are created and destroyed. For example, photons are created in the sun and destroyed at the earth (e.g., absorbed by a leaf). -As much as I read I get confused, and forgot about absorption.-Yet photons can be very long-lived:- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/photons-last-quintillion-years-light-particles_n_3677220.html
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities: fields
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 21:18 (4131 days ago) @ David Turell
All particles are related to fields. But as this article shows the fields may be an approximation to reality. be sure to look at the video on fields. the comments are alos very instructive:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=physicists-debate-whether-world-made-of-particles-fields-or-something-else&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20130731
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Thursday, August 01, 2013, 02:33 (4131 days ago) @ David Turell
Yes they can!
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
RUTH: A short answer to dhw's concern about the distinction between my physically real quantum possibiities and other notions of possibility, such as ideas in the mind, is that the former are describable by quantum states, and are capble of being physically created and manipulated, while other merely conceivable things (such as Quine's 'possible fat man in the doorway') are not.-I remain confused! Firstly, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by quantum possibilities "are describable by quantum states". Secondly, your quantum possibilities can only become "real" through a transaction, i.e. an encounter between emitter and absorber. How is this different from the example I gave, in which my idea (or "conceivable thing") of a house (emission) is taken up by Richard Rogers (absorption) and physically created? RUTH: QM seems to instruct us that there are indeed different levels of possibility. Nonrelativistic QM states are at one level ('real particles'), while field propagators ('virtual particles') are at a more subtle level.-My problem here is not different levels of possibility, but different levels of reality. My love for my wife and children is as real to me as the house I live in, but the former is non-physical and the latter physical. The claim that a quantum POTENTIAL is "more real than mere thoughts or imaginings or conceivable events" (your Section 7.2) seems to me to cry out for a yardstick by which you measure reality. The only one you appear to be offering is physicality. Please don't get me wrong. I don't understand the world of QM or, more importantly for me, its relevance to and impact on the world I live in, and am eager to have it explained to me. But all I can do as an ignorant layman is point to those areas of your theory that are not clear to me.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Thursday, August 01, 2013, 02:42 (4131 days ago) @ dhw
Well, a physicist can set up a laser in the lab and conduct an experiment in which whatever is coming out of the laser can be described by a specific mathematical object in a specific theoretical construct that will predict very precisely what he will observe.-Can you apply the same formalism to an idea, concept or subjective feeling and predict with equal success? I don't think so, and that's why I view the latter as not being in the same metaphysical category as quantum objects.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
Dhw: My problem here is not different levels of possibility, but different levels of reality. My love for my wife and children is as real to me as the house I live in, but the former is non-physical and the latter physical. The claim that a quantum POTENTIAL is "more real than mere thoughts or imaginings or conceivable events" (your Section 7.2) seems to me to cry out for a yardstick by which you measure reality. The only one you appear to be offering is physicality. RUTH: Well, a physicist can set up a laser in the lab and conduct an experiment in which whatever is coming out of the laser can be described by a specific mathematical object in a specific theoretical construct that will predict very precisely what he will observe. Can you apply the same formalism to an idea, concept or subjective feeling and predict with equal success? I don't think so, and that's why I view the latter as not being in the same metaphysical category as quantum objects.-So is predictability your yardstick for measuring reality? I thought that one essential feature of the quantum world was its UNpredictability. Theoretically, though, given all the necessary information, I suppose any outcome is predictable, even for concepts and subjective feelings. The question is whether we have all the necessary information. So are you saying that in the quantum world we have more of the necessary information to predict outcomes than in the world of human ideas and feelings? Is your experiment with the laser more "real" than my concept of a house (which can be given precise and predictable physical reality by my architect and builders) or than my feelings should something disastrous happen to my family? If predictability is your criterion for measuring reality, doesn't that make much of life and Nature unreal? A burst tyre that causes a car to mount the pavement at precisely the time and place where I happen to be walking would therefore not be as "real" as your experiment with a laser, because the latter is predictable and the former is not.-I do hope you can understand why I still find your original statement and subsequent explanations concerning the reality of quantum potentials confusing, and I hope my confusion is not making too many demands on your patience!
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Thursday, August 01, 2013, 17:12 (4130 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Theoretically, though, given all the necessary information, I suppose any outcome is predictable, even for concepts and subjective feelings. The question is whether we have all the necessary information. > I do hope you can understand why I still find your original statement and subsequent explanations concerning the reality of quantum potentials confusing, and I hope my confusion is not making too many demands on your patience!-I may have memory trouble at my age, but I understand your confusion. Yes, I did read all of Ruth's material and forgot absorption, but I can't learn now like I did in medical school, snapping everything up like a sponge.-What I understand and it is amazing: Heisenberg described the quantum level as potentialities and probabilities. Yet the equations they use work! They are averages of the probabilities of all the potential particles ( which are particles by the Coppenhagen convention), even though they are really not particles but disturbances in fields. Feynman invented renormalization by crossing out all the infinities. Like taking a meat ax to complex math (!), but it works. -In a sense your confusion is everyone's confusion. Ruth's approach is exciting to me because it makes sense as a new way to try and understand the quantum level in a more reasonable way.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
DAVID: In a sense your confusion is everyone's confusion. Ruth's approach is exciting to me because it makes sense as a new way to try and understand the quantum level in a more reasonable way.-It's exciting for me too. However, there are several statements in Ruth's Chapter 7 that bother me, and I'm taking them one at a time in the hope of clarification. At present I'm struggling with her comparative realities (Heisenberg potentials are less real than actual events but more real than mere thoughts etc.). You mention Copenhagen, and you and Ruth repeatedly refer to Heisenberg, so in my eagerness to find out more I've been googling. That hasn't helped! On the first website I tried, I found the following: -"The Copenhagen Interpretation *1. There is no deep reality. Our physical world is real enough, but its quantum foundations are not real (Segré, 1980). This interpretation was favored by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg."-There are, of course, various other interpretations of the relationship between quantum theory and our world, and we're focusing on Ruth's, not Heisenberg's. My hope is that through these discussions, we shall gain a clearer vision both of Ruth's interpretation and, through that, of the nature of reality. It IS exciting! But maybe it doesn't have to be quite as confusing as it seems!
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Friday, August 02, 2013, 16:21 (4129 days ago) @ dhw
dhw; My hope is that through these discussions, we shall gain a clearer vision both of Ruth's interpretation and, through that, of the nature of reality. It IS exciting! But maybe it doesn't have to be quite as confusing as it seems!-Confusion has been part of the game. What you are finally seeing is the puzzlement as the great experts were dragged kicking and screaming into the realization of how counterintuative was the subject they were studying. The copenhagen convention was a tool that got us where we are. There is a well done play on the subject that my wife and I saw in London. Confusing, but it worked. The formulas give usable results.-That is why I was so excited when I spottted Ruth's blog through Musser on Sci. Am.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Monday, August 05, 2013, 17:44 (4126 days ago) @ David Turell
Thanks David. Even Feynman said:-"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself,.... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain" into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped."-I think it can 'be like that' because QM is describing entities that are not contained within spacetime. These are what I call 'physical possibilities', after an idea by Heisenbert that he didn't pursue. Most physicists assume that 'physically real' = 'living in spacetime'; I'm suggesting that this should be questioned. Physical reality need not be restricted to the spacetime manifold.- Again, for dhw -- I'm not saying other things (such as mental phenomena) are not real. But for now, I'm not considering them as physical things (but I don't rule out that they could be, on some very subtle level that is not a known part of any current physical theory).
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
RUTH: Thanks David. Even Feynman said: "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself,.... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain" into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped." I think it can 'be like that' because QM is describing entities that are not contained within spacetime. These are what I call 'physical possibilities', after an idea by Heisenbert that he didn't pursue. Most physicists assume that 'physically real' = 'living in spacetime'; I'm suggesting that this should be questioned. Physical reality need not be restricted to the spacetime manifold.-This is what fascinates both David and myself, and eventually I hope we will get onto the POSSIBLE (no more than that) implications for consciousness, psychic phenomena, origins and even the existence of David's God. RUTH: Again, for dhw -- I'm not saying other things (such as mental phenomena) are not real. But for now, I'm not considering them as physical things (but I don't rule out that they could be, on some very subtle level that is not a known part of any current physical theory).-As I've explained in the first part of my post under "Ruth & Rindler", this is a misunderstanding. My concern here was not with reality/unreality but with your repeated formula of more/less real. However, you have now suggested "less manifest", and that is fine with me too! It does away with all the problems of criteria.-My aim in these posts is to point out those areas of your arguments which confuse a layman like myself, in the hope that (a) you can clarify them for me, and (b) such discussions will be useful for your new book. But if they're not, do please feel free to say so!
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Tuesday, August 06, 2013, 14:31 (4126 days ago) @ dhw
OK -- again though, the ' less real' formulation I inherited from Heisenberg and in this context it should be understood to be qualified, as 'less physically real'. If you prefer to think of this as 'less physically manifest', that's fine with me.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Saturday, August 03, 2013, 01:41 (4129 days ago) @ dhw
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. -However, this doesn't rule out some subtler level of physical reality for category III. For purposes of my book, which discusses a particular interpretation of QM, I assume that ideas in the mind are not described by QM, because QM has not been applied to these, nor is it clear how one would do that. But I'm not saying it's impossible.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Thursday, August 01, 2013, 22:46 (4130 days ago) @ dhw
I think you're reading something pejorative into my categorization that isn't intended. All I'm saying is that the physical possibilities I'm referring to are those things that are describable by QM -- by that particular theory.-I'm not addressing other types of things, e.g., that could be mental in nature, and I'm not saying those aren't real, they are just not part of the 'actualized, physical' realm (spacetime) or of the realm described by the QM formalism.-Also, I've noted that QM seems to be telling us there are layers to reality, all of which one can think of as 'real,' but at subtler levels. One could think of the mental realm as a subtler level of the QM realm, which would mean it is more fundamental but less manifest in a physical sense. I'm not endorsing that view but it's certainly a possibility.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Friday, August 02, 2013, 02:25 (4130 days ago) @ rekastner
> REK: Also, I've noted that QM seems to be telling us there are layers to reality, all of which one can think of as 'real,' but at subtler levels. One could think of the mental realm as a subtler level of the QM realm, which would mean it is more fundamental but less manifest in a physical sense. I'm not endorsing that view but it's certainly a possibility.-From what you have noted before, how do you feel about the theory that consciousness is at a quantum reality level in the brain?
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Friday, August 02, 2013, 04:54 (4130 days ago) @ David Turell
I'm not sure, can you give me more specifics about what this theory involves?
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by David Turell , Friday, August 02, 2013, 16:02 (4129 days ago) @ rekastner
rek:I'm not sure, can you give me more specifics about what this theory involves?-I'm not trying to take us off point of understanding your 'new' modification of QM theory, but as dhw notes in his current dicussions, we do have the bigger picture of seeing if QM leads us to some more inclusive conclusions about the origin of our reality, God, chance, or otherwise.-What I am referring to is the study of Near to Death episodes and the conclusions reached by recent authors that that a quantum level causes retention of consciousness during a period of documented total inactivity of the brain. The studies by Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist, and the autobiographical book by Eben Alexander, an academic neurosurgeon, who experienced a week of severe infectious meningoencephalitis and retained a memory of what he feels is a journey to Heaven: "Proof of Heaven", 2112, by E.A., M.D. Speaking as a retired internist, this guy is no kook, and the medically scientific underpinnings of his story are valid.-As I sort out your theory in my brain, I'm trying to see if your role a philosopher carries over to the wider implications this website delves into. I hope you will remain patient. Do you see the possibility of your theory opening up any road to understanding a theory of the source of consciousness?
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Friday, August 02, 2013, 20:46 (4129 days ago) @ David Turell
I've read the book. Fascinating. This is definitely something to explore, and I'm continuing to think about it, although it's premature for me to say anything definite right now.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
RUTH: I think you're reading something pejorative into my categorization that isn't intended. All I'm saying is that the physical possibilities I'm referring to are those things that are describable by QM -- by that particular theory. I'm not addressing other types of things, e.g., that could be mental in nature, and I'm not saying those aren't real, they are just not part of the 'actualized, physical' realm (spacetime) or of the realm described by the QM formalism.-Also, I've noted that QM seems to be telling us there are layers to reality, all of which one can think of as 'real,' but at subtler levels. One could think of the mental realm as a subtler level of the QM realm, which would mean it is more fundamental but less manifest in a physical sense. I'm not endorsing that view but it's certainly a possibility.-Thank you for this response, which certainly brings me a lot closer to an understanding of your ideas. I don't see your categories as necessarily pejorative, though. We all struggle to express these difficult ideas in language that will clarify and not obscure (and there are other instances in your Chapter 7 which I'd like to discuss if you're still willing). The statement that threw me was your categorical one that Heisenbergian 'potentia' "are less real than events in the actual world, yet more real than mere thoughts or imaginings or conceivable events. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2." And under Figure 2 you repeat the formula of less real/more real. This led us into a philosophical maze, searching for criteria by which you measure reality. You came up with physicality, and then with predictability, both of which led us even deeper into the maze. In the light of what you've written above, would it not be less confusing to remove all the references to comparative realities, and say that Heisenbergian 'potentia' are less physical than events in the actual world, but more physical than thoughts [why 'mere'?] or imaginings or conceivable events? -The idea that there are layers to reality, all of which one can think of as "real", is far more flexible than "x is more real than y". I'm not sure about "subtle" and "subtler" or "more fundamental" (both of which could suggest some kind of value judgement), but the idea that some levels are "less manifest in a physical sense" than others sounds to me like a good neutral compromise! Perhaps also they are less accessible, or less definable. I hope you won't feel these comments are presumptuous on my part. They're just my clumsy attempts to avoid what may be unnecessary confusion. In this context, do please read my latest response to David on this thread. I must confess the mental area is what fascinates me most, and of course David is hoping it will encompass all levels of consciousness right through to a Universal Intelligence. I'm intrigued by the fact that you don't endorse that view but regard it as a possibility. Sounds like a nicely balanced agnostic approach!-******-A formal note: it's generally helpful if you can preface your post by identifying the person and quoting any particular passage you're responding to, as above. It saves switching back and forth between posts.
Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities
by rekastner , Monday, August 05, 2013, 18:01 (4126 days ago) @ dhw
"Less manifest" is fine with me. -See also my reply of 8-03, 1:41