tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post2957762469087568320..comments2023-08-01T17:43:14.664+03:00Comments on Magister Mortran: Metaphysics Part VI - Materialism or Idealism?Magister Mortranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393820354644211186noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post-90090731482147149672014-03-27T22:15:28.629+03:002014-03-27T22:15:28.629+03:00No, I don't imagine that his explanations are ...No, I don't imagine that his explanations are better or worse than that of any other in a study that is so theoretical. But, he is not alone in his thinking and this ideology appears to have been dubbed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics" rel="nofollow">Relational Quantum Mechanics</a>. What does make sense to me is the idea further explained as this bit from the Wikipedia article:<br /><br /><i>Because "state" is expressed in RQM as the correlation between two systems, there can be no meaning to "self-measurement". If observer O measures system S, S's "state" is represented as a correlation between O and S. O itself cannot say anything with respect to its own "state", because its own "state" is defined only relative to another observer~</i><br /><br />Which appears to anecdotally correlate with your postulate of Inter-subjective Reality, at least in part. I've seen this seen this sort of explanation of reality as a kind of mutual experience in many places. And though it is proposed in many different ways, the underlying theme, that "reality-as-or-is-relational" is a commonality among them. That I find interesting because it makes me wonder if there is something to it, even if we are far from nailing down exactly how it works.<br /><br />I personally don't have enough information to make a concrete judgement about the nature of existence, but I am glad that other people consider these things to and that there are those who are willing to put forth something beyond the popular theories. Because, at the end of the day, humanity isn't likely to advance until all corners of possibility are thoroughly considered.<br /><br />I think of it this way... There is a predominant view in Computer Science at the moment that a fully functional "Micro-kernel", as is classically defined by CS is not possible without significant performance loss when compared to Monolithic Kernels, which are in wide-spread use. And, while the design of micro-kernels theoretically offers great benefits to operating system design, the research being conducted on them is little more than an afterthought.<br /><br />That is a real shame... Because popular theory dismisses their functional existence as a "pipe-dream," and not much R&D is being carried out in that area when it could fix a lot of problems in Computer Science. To this point:<br /><br />Number of Linux (Monolithic) Kernel Developers: <a href="http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/04/16/linux-kernel-development-numbers/" rel="nofollow">1,316</a><br />Number of L4 (Micro) Developers: <a href="http://ssrg.nicta.com.au/projects/seL4/" rel="nofollow">8</a><br />Number of GNU Hurd (Micro) Developers: <a href="https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/how_many_developers.html" rel="nofollow">A Handful</a><br /><br />Yes, those numbers vary but I'm using it loosely to point out the issue of popularity in research. If we abandon every difficult idea that presents itself in <b>any</b> science, we're only going to slow progress.Luridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157236357677638874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post-41364249752204268562014-02-26T17:30:54.627+03:002014-02-26T17:30:54.627+03:00I downloaded Ron Garret’s original paper from his ...I downloaded Ron Garret’s original paper from his website and went through the details. Thereby I noticed that his experimental proof (the quantum eraser experiment) against the Copenhagen interpretation is essentially flawed.<br />He claims that the interference disappears because the path of the light particle is “in principle” known by placing two different polarization filters in front of the two slits. And he calls this a “proto-measurement”. However there is no such thing as a proto-measurement. Something is either measured or it is not. Period. The interference does not disappear because the path of the photon is “in principle” knowable, but because equal polarization is a requirement for interference. It is a simple classical optical effect. The light behaves simply like a wave and has not collapsed into a particle. There is no quantum effect at all.<br />In his thought experiment he assumes a FTL communication between the left and the right side of the experiment by instantly causing the interference on one side to disappear or reappear, when he inserts a 45° polarization filter (“quantum eraser”) in the other side of the experiment. But since it is only a classical optical effect that the interference disappears, he will not see any entanglement effect on the other side. If there is interference or not, only depends on the presence or absence of the 45° polarization filter on each side. And what happens on the right side is independent from the left. It is classical optics and there is no entanglement in classical optics. The path of the photon is not known by using polarization filters. There is no collapse of the wave function, so the light behaves like a wave, not like a particle with entangled properties. <br />Therefore this experiment is no proof against the Copenhagen interpretation.<br /><br />In the second part of his paper he uses mathematical tricks (introducing complex numbers) in order to back up his zero-world interpretation of quantum mechanics. It remains unclear what negative values for entropy are supposed to mean in the physical world, but his math works.<br />However this doesn’t contradict the Copenhagen interpretation. It is just another way to look at it. Yes, he can claim that measurement is no collapse of the wave function but simply entanglement, but it is only an interpretation, not an ontological statement. It doesn’t lead to any different predictions. And there remains the question why a particular state is initially singled out, to which all the rest is entangled with in a big network of entanglement that creates our impression of consistent reality according to his interpretation. He also needs some kind of collapse of the wave function in his zero-world interpretation. Just like in the many-world interpretation he has to explain why it is this particular world or “web of entanglements” that we see. So his interpretation is in no way better than the other common interpretations of quantum mechanics.<br />Magister Mortranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393820354644211186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post-35201199502826193412014-02-23T14:12:53.616+03:002014-02-23T14:12:53.616+03:00I watched the video. Apparently Garret offers a mo...I watched the video. Apparently Garret offers a modified version of the many-worlds interpretation (He calls it the zero-world interpretation.) and strongly opposes the Copenhagen interpretation.<br />As evidence he offers some mathematical proof (necessary reversibility, which is implied in the equation), which is not a valid argument. Our equations can't claim to be a complete description of the world. But he also mentions the "quantum eraser" as experimental proof against the Copenhagen interpretation. This was new to me and I think I have to read more about it.<br />In all I have written in this blog I tried to remain within the Copenhagen interpretation, which I thought is most widely accepted among physicists. <br />But if Garret is right with his "zero-world" interpretation of quantum mechanics, then even inter-subjectivity would ultimately not exist and we would be left with a kind of solipsism. We would create our own reality by observation in an unreal quantum world of infinite possibilities. And the consistency of our experience of the world would only be based on entanglement. <br />I will have a look at the current status of the Copenhagen interpretation, if there is already an experimental disproof.Magister Mortranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393820354644211186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1029843221092431834.post-51840699997531480612014-02-23T00:01:49.157+03:002014-02-23T00:01:49.157+03:00I had to come back and post this here because... W...I had to come back and post this here because... Well, lets just say this is very interesting. This lecture shows a blurring of lines between Quantum Mechanics and Information Theory, and what happens when you apply some information based math to problems in quantum mechanics. I make no judgements as to the overall validity of his claims... I probably won't ever do that as no one has ever proposed a complete system to me that makes sense on all fronts.<br /><br />What made me come here is I remember your thoughts on "inter-subjective reality." He proposes the idea that entanglement IS measurement. And, though he doesn't say this specifically: that entanglement experiments are creating a kind of arbitrary observation without realizing that. He goes a bit further to explain that the whole process of observation is entanglement on a larger scale.<br /><br />What he appears to be proposing is: the process of entanglement is particles effectively sharing information to produce a common observation between, or picture of reality, between the involved systems. The camera, sensor, even the receptor in our eyes become entangled and thus all observe a common state of information about a particular picture of reality. He backs all this up with math and shows how even billions of particles can experience entanglement, and how the probability of the involved parties having the same information moves from 0 to 1. i.e. They share a common OBSERVATION.<br /><br />Anyway, this seems to support your thoughts on inter-subjectivity, at least in part, and I thought I'd share.<br /><br />http://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc<br /><br />Luridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157236357677638874noreply@blogger.com