Thanks David -- you say-"This paper on the atom opens up the realization that we have only a partial view of 'real' things such as atoms, and they are not entirely real because we have to imagine what they are like. It is not surprising that Alice of wonderland fame is involved"- We have a partial view of atoms, yes, but I argue that that does not make them 'unreal'. The point is that reality can be more than what we can see -- i.e. there are (at least) two levels: -(i) the world of appearance -- what we can see
 
(ii) the underlying reality -- what we can't see, but can use reason, based on level (i), to gain knowledge of its structure. I argue that this is what QM offers us.

Sorry for popping in and out of the conversation, but it has been a busy week. 84+ hour work week and finals to boot!-
>Rek: My point is simply this: there is no proof or categorical demonstration anywhere that shows that it is not possible to gain objective knowledge about reality (where the latter is not limited to the world of appearance). Of course there are arguments in favor of that view, and it can be very compelling, but that doesn't make it assertable as a truth. One can give evidence/arguments for this claim, but one can also find strong evidence/arguments against it.
> -> In fact QM is a prime example of a piece of knowledge that scientists were decidely NOT looking for, but was forced on them by the inner workings of nature.-Actually, I think this IS demonstrable. First, consider the way our senses and the brain works. Your eye is sensitive enough to detect a single photon, yet you will never see one with your naked eye because your brain can not focus and interpret data to that degree. The same could be true for any of our other senses. What YOU experience is an unconscious interpretation of data. So that rules out objective knowledge from first party experience. -What about objective knowledge from a third party then? First, any instrument will only detect what it is designed to detect, so unless you can build a sensor that can detect everything, it is safe to assume that you will never have a complete and accurate picture of any one event, but rather an observation of an event that was biased before it was ever observed because of the limitations of the designer and the observer. -Further, we understand nothing in a vacuum. What I mean is that no one tidbit of knowledge that we ever gain is completely referenced, but instead builds upon knowledge that we have acquired else where. Even our 'instinctive' understanding is shaped this way, which is why, for some, pain is pleasure or pleasure is pain. ->Rek: > And certainly there are many people who see what they want to see, but this doesn't demonstate that it's impossible to see what we don't want to see, or to be surprised by what we see because we weren't looking for it. In fact, Heisenberg and Planck are key examples of scientits who firmly believed that the world was as classically conceived and yet who were forced, by the fact that their preferred theories (which are forms of knowledge) failed to describe the evidence, to an alternative very strange theory -- quantum theory.
> -The requirement is not your personal desires, but rather your personal bias, which is slightly different. A bias may not be intentional, or even based on desire. It could, for example, be from a lack of understanding or from the simple absence of relevant raw data. A classic example was the belief that the world was flat. It was not that the people WANTED to believe it, but rather that they simply lacked the data, as well as the understanding of the data they did possess, to come to any other conclusion. -Knowledge of an objective reality has the pre-requisite of a complete data set. Without the complete data set your knowledge will always be skewed and inaccurate, and there for is not objective because it is biased by your own limitations in understanding. The catch 22 is, you will never know if you have a complete data set unless you already possess a complete data set, or at least some criteria detailing what would constitute a complete data set, which in return requires the prerequisite knowledge of the complete data set. There is know way around it. Objective knowledge is impossible for humans to achieve.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Ruth: 
> The unactualized possibilities in PTI are very specific physical things -- whose existence could be detected (even if indirectly), not mere thoughts or imaginings. So I don't see a 'slippery slope' problem that you seem to be arguing for here.-"DHW: As I said earlier, and in conjunction with Tony's comments, it seems to be a licence for people to believe whatever they want to believe."-This was dhw's comment. His background is all literary and the science of quntum mechanics, which I barely understand with my medical background, is well beyond what he can appreciate. He is right. His commnets will be a good guide to your layman's book to come. I'm also looking forward to it as your two layer approach is right on to help with understanding how much we can learn of the 'other side'.

I woke up to find a marvellous exchange between rekastner and David, and I want to express my own delight at the prospect of what for all of us is a possible new avenue or "window into Kant's 'noumenal realm'." (In the light of our own discussion on knowledge, however, I must point out that in The Critique of Pure Reason Kant denied that noumena could be known!) David ... who is too modest to mention that he has already published one brilliant book on Science vs Religion, and has another coming out this autumn ... is right to emphasize that QM is well beyond me, and I have already freely admitted that I am out of my depth. All the same, precisely because I want to learn more, I would like to go on posing my questions. We have, however, to a certain extent been sidetracked by the discussion on knowledge, and I do need to answer you:-rek: You assert: ""even if there are objective realities outside spacetime, we cannot know what they are."
And, if I understand correctly, you're arguing -- in spite of my point that the question of how knowledge is gained, and whether objective knowledge about reality is possible, is the subject of long and sustained debate -- that you can continue to categorically assert that it's impossible to gain objective knowledge about reality? -I have specified "objective realities outside spacetime". I firmly believe that on a commonsense level (as opposed to an absolute level) we can gain objective knowledge about spacetime realities. (See below)-rek: My point is simply this: there is no proof or categorical demonstration anywhere that shows that it is not possible to gain objective knowledge about reality (where the latter is not limited to the world of appearance). Of course there are arguments in favor of that view, and it can be very compelling, but that doesn't make it assertable as a truth. One can give evidence/arguments for this claim, but one can also find strong evidence/arguments against it. -And that is why it is essential to agree on a definition of knowledge. I have offered you my own (which was arrived at on this forum after a very long discussion on epistemology): "knowledge is information the truth of which is recognized by general consensus among those aware of it." I did ask if you accepted this, but if you do not, I need to know what you understand by knowledge. However, you are right that "there is no proof or categorical demonstration anywhere that shows that it is not possible to gain objective knowledge about reality (where the latter is not limited to the world of appearance)." Negatives of this nature cannot be proved. Bertrand Russell, whom you quote in one of your lectures (see my sad story below), pointed out that we cannot prove there is not an invisible china teapot orbiting the sun. We need to agree not only on definitions but also on the level at which we debate these issues.-The remainder of your response concerns people who have changed their beliefs, which of course does not mean that their new beliefs are any more objectively verifiable than their old beliefs. And once again there is a difference between us since you refer to theories as "forms of knowledge". They may be interpretations of reality extrapolated from knowledge, but by my definition they are not knowledge.-In your response to the second half of my post, you say you don't see a 'slippery slope' problem. "The unactualized possibilities in PTI are very specific physical things". Perhaps once more we are talking at cross purposes. I chose the multiverse concept (extended to the multi-dhw concept) as an example because this comes into your paper which David referred us to. You do not regard the multiverse as essential to your own theory, but my problem is that quantum theory HAS been used in this way. And just as with Russell's teapot, we cannot prove that the multiverse is not real (ditto the multi-dhw!). Perhaps it IS real, but for a layman like myself such concepts (like the 11 dimensions of string theory) smack as much of fantasy as of science. Perhaps this could be a problem to cover in your new book, and it would be wonderful if our discussions did prove to be helpful to you as well as to us. 
 
And now to a sad story: I have to report that last night I set aside an hour to listen to your lectures on appearance and reality, but 8 minutes into the first one, at precisely the moment when you were about to read some pages from Bertrand Russell, you began a duet with yourself, in which the beginning of the lecture coincided with, I presume, the reading. I tried to stop the tape, but even when I logged off the internet, and clicked onto my documents, your voice (solo) continued with the introduction. It is a very nice voice ... but it had to be stopped! In the end, all I could do was switch off the computer. I am notorious for my incompetence with technology, and have a special gift for making mechanical things go wrong, but do please check just in case it was NOT my fault!

As is so often the case, we find precisely what we seek based on the preconceived notions of what we want. I am no exception to that rule, even though I do try to take a more balanced approach. (I just happen to be on the more religious side of the pendulum swing at the moment). If you search for God in science, you will find him/her/it everywhere you look. If you search for proof that God does not exist, you will find it everywhere you look. In either case, the most realistic answer is that what you have found is neither proof for nor against anything, but rather your interpretation of the evidence. I have long held that science is as much of a religion as any of the worlds recognized religions, and that both science and religion are simply different aspects of the same search for answers based on different criteria. Personally, I see God's handiwork everywhere I look; from the vast and wondrous universe to our own bodies which are 'wonderfully and fearfully made'.-QP & QM only serve to deepen my appreciate and strengthen my faith that there is something greater than ourselves and infinitely more purposeful than random chance driving creation. Science that breeds no understanding of the nature of existence is like learning something new about an old friend to me.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Most shapes in geography and biology yield to fractal formulas. here is a new approach for research in this area:-http://phys.org/news/2014-12-simple-patterns-complex-world.html-"The method, named fractal Fourier analysis, is based on new branch of mathematics called fractal geometry.-The method could help scientists better understand the complicated signals that the body gives out, such as nerve impulses or brain waves.-"It opens up a whole new way of analysing signals," said Professor Michael Barnsley, who presented his work at the New Directions in Fractal Geometry conference at ANU.-"Fractal Geometry is a new branch of mathematics that describes the world as it is, rather than acting as though it's made of straight lines and spheres. There are very few straight lines and circles in nature. The shapes you find in nature are rough."


> "Pawłowski and his colleagues have found that this postulate is respected by classical physics and by standard quantum mechanics, but not by alternative theories that allow for stronger forms of entanglement-like correlations between information-carrying particles. For that reason, the group writes in their paper, "information causality might be one of the foundational properties of nature" — in other words, an axiom of some future, reconstructed quantum theory." (my bold)
> 
> dhw: Apparently information causality says "that if one experimenter (call her Alice) sends m bits of information about her data to another observer (Bob), then Bob can gain no more than m classical bits of information about that data — no matter how much he may know about Alice's experiment."
> 
> dhw: As you have put the sentence in bold, it's clearly important to you, but I'm totally flummoxed. I'd be grateful if first you would explain what is meant by "classical" information.-Classical information is the information at the non-quantum level. It is Newton's classical science.- If the authors are saying that Bob will not gain more information from what Alice has sent him than the information she has sent him, it's like saying that if I give you a dollar, I'm not giving you more than a dollar. Not exactly startling. On the other hand, if Bob is given additional information by one of Alice's colleagues, might he not "gain" more than she has sent him? The authors give no further explanation of "information causality", so I hope you can sympathize with my confusion and can tell us what you understand by the term.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/physics-quantum-quest-1.13711?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130912&#... 
> QUOTE: "Still, this does seem an odd way for the Universe to behave. And this is what prompted Fuchs to call for a fresh approach to quantum foundations. He rejected the idea, held by many in the field, that wave functions, entanglement and all the rest represent something real out in the world (see Nature 485, 157...158; 2012). Instead, extending a line of argument that dates back to the Copenhagen interpretation, he insisted that these mathematical constructs are just a way to quantify "observers' personal information, expectations, degres of belief"."
> 
> dhw: In other words, as we discussed on our epistemological thread, whatever conclusions are drawn will be subjective. I had great difficulty following Ruth's arguments against subjectivism in her Chapter 7, and if experts in the field can't agree, how can a layman possibly know what is true and what is not?-Your confusion is because these folks are ignoring Ruth. She recognizes more than they do Heisenberg's wall of uncertainty and the confusion it brings. These folks keep trying to interpret quantum phenomena as if they are fully within our reality and they are not. They are probabilities and one can only average what to expect. Copenhagen was just a way to go forward and not worry about the confusion.

Quantum mechanics possibly at work to hold DNA together and perhaps to interpret-
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/-WOW:-"Phonons are quantum objects, meaning they can exist in a superposition of states and become entangled, just like other quantum objects.
 
To start with, Rieper and co imagine the helix without any effect from outside heat. "Clearly the chain of coupled harmonic oscillators is entangled at zero temperature," they say. They then go on to show that the entanglement can also exist at room temperature.
 
That's possible because phonons have a wavelength which is similar in size to a DNA helix and this allows standing waves to form, a phenomenon known as phonon trapping. When this happens, the phonons cannot easily escape. A similar kind of phonon trapping is known to cause problems in silicon structures of the same size.
 
That would be of little significance if it had no overall effect on the helix. But the model developed by Rieper and co suggests that the effect is profound. -Although each nucleotide in a base pair is oscillating in opposite directions, this occurs as a superposition of states, so that the overall movement of the helix is zero. In a purely classical model, however, this cannot happen, in which case the helix would vibrate and shake itself apart.
 
So in this sense, these quantum effects are responsible for holding DNA together."