The mystical Copenhagen Interpretation

@richrf,

richrf;81473 wrote:

I enjoy your simplified treatment of the subject, just as I enjoyed the billiard ball example.

I wonder why you insist on repeating me in a falsified way when i already pointed out to you that i was perfectly conscious that we don't see particles as billiard balls as can be seen in the original (not falsified) quote:

Exebeche;78853 wrote:

However if the ball is as small as photons it seems logical to me that the photons you send out will play pool billiard with your object.
[...]
(i know that we don't see particles as balls anymore however for better understanding this picture works very well).

What you still haven't learned is that particles are still treated as particles in all physical matters where it's wave function is not of interest.
Your repeated attempts of ridiculing me give me the impression that you have to pay me back for something.
I can forgive you however, probably you have to compensate that your statement QM had nothing to do with logics was blown.

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;81553 wrote:

What you still haven't learned is that particles are still treated as particles in all physical matters where it's wave function is not of interest.

Right. However, we are discussing the metaphysical implications of quantum physics and the fact that it behaves like a particle and a wave is of interest. What I am presenting is an unbiased presentation of all existing interpretations. I am not biasing the presentation in favor of a personal point of view. There are several variations of the Copenhagen Interpretation as well as many other interpretations.

My presentation was to illustrate that there is no consensus among scientists concerning the descriptive nature of quantum. Feynman explicitly writes that it is neither a wave or particle. Bohm believes it is a particle guided by a wave. Everett suggests that it is a wave that manifests into many universes. Bell tends to agree with Bohm. These are some of the greatest thinkers in physics. However, it is all total speculation and opinion since the formulas predict and do not describe. No one knows. And these physicists are at least admitting to this. I believe that my presentation more unbiased and more descriptive of the current situation.

Rich

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

"Let us now return to our ultimate particles and to small organizations of particles as atoms or small molecules. The old idea about them was that their individuality was based on the identity of matter in them... The new idea is that what is permanent in these ultimate particles or small aggregates is their shape and organization. The habit of everyday language deceives us and seems to require, whenever we hear the word shape or form of something, that it must be a material substratum that is required to take on a shape. Scientifically this habit goes back to Aristotle, his causa materialis and causa formalis. But when you come to the ultimate particles constituting matter, there seems to be no point in thinking of them again as consisting of some material. They are as it were, pure shape, nothing but shape; what turns up again and again in successive observations is this shape, not an individual speck of material..." (Erwin Schroedinger)

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;82050 wrote:

They are as it were, pure shape, nothing but shape; what turns up again and again in successive observations is this shape, not an individual speck of material..." (Erwin Schroedinger)

Hi,

I like the way Schroedinger poses the philosophical problem. Somewhere between that which we see and feel as material and the world of quantum particles pure shapes become what we call material. So what is going on in the quantum world? How does the metamorphoses take place from pure shape to material? How should philosophers, scientists, an alike shape the questions and how shall we explore the depths. It seems impenetrable at the moment.

Quantum mechanics are mathematical equations that predict. They are loaded with variables that are subject to interpretation, and modification. If philosophers wish, they can explore the nature of the equations along with everyone else involved. It is an interesting world. And if one wishes, one can also explore the nature of Relativity and why is the image of the world of Relativity so different from that of the Quantum world. Where and how does this metamorphosis take place? For me, it is fascinating.

Rich

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

so really, they are not anything. Every thing that exists is separable and countable. 'Exist' means 'this, not that', 'this one, not that one'. Identity is the essence of existence. But 'these things' do not have any identity, no essence, and no substance.

They don't exist.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;82230 wrote:

so really, they are not anything. Every thing that exists is separable and countable. 'Exist' means 'this, not that', 'this one, not that one'. Identity is the essence of existence. But 'these things' do not have any identity, no essence, and no substance.

They don't exist.

It depends upon which interpretation you want to go with. If you look at the chart above in post above, there are many different ways to look at it.

I just started a thread in the Metaphysics forum where I am discussing Bohm's views. Bohm has a completely different interpretation of quantum mechanics from the various Copenhagen interpretations.

I think, what I wanted to point out in my posts, was that no one knows. You can read one interpretation and come away thinking that the waves are real. Another one, that they are not. Another one that they are real and they all continue to exist in many universes or cease to exist in many histories. It is really all over the place.

One has to be comfortable that no one knows and that it is just fun reading all the interpretations and try to come up with one that works for you. In the world of quantum interpretation, it is all up for grabs. Uncertainty rules the day.

Rich

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

Sorry! Don't buy that. I think the word 'exist' has a very specific meaning and such things as electrons and photons don't meet it. There are no such things. End of story as far as I am concerned, I will just wait for the rest of the world to catch on.

And I really don't like the 'works for you' approach. It is fine for interior decorating or the colour of your car. But there is a hard truth, it is the way it is, it has nothing to do with whether we like it or not, it is not our perogative, and it is not up to us. I do appreciate that you have a different view, but please understand that I don't accept it, will never accept it, and furthermore nothing I say, or anyone else says for that matter, will change your view on the matter, so please let us not discuss that any more. It is getting like a broken record. Anyway I am outta this thread, it has been really interesting, now I have go and do some actual work.

Thanks.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;82237 wrote:

Sorry! Don't buy that. I think the word 'exist' has a very specific meaning and such things as electrons and photons don't meet it. There are no such things. End of story as far as I am concerned, I will just wait for the rest of the world to catch on.

And I really don't like the 'works for you' approach. It is fine for interior decorating or the colour of your car. But there is a hard truth, it is the way it is, it has nothing to do with whether we like it or not, it is not our perogative, and it is not up to us. I do appreciate that you have a different view, but please understand that I don't accept it, will never accept it, and furthermore nothing I say, or anyone else says for that matter, will change your view on the matter, so please let us not discuss that any more. It is getting like a broken record. Anyway I am outta this thread, it has been really interesting, now I have go and do some actual work.

Thanks.

But don't be disheartened. If you like things to exist there is quantum interpretation of you. If you want things not to exist until they are measured, then there is a quantum interpretation for you. If you want many things to exist or things to cease to exist, there is an interpretation for you. That is the beauty of quantum physics. There is an interpretation for anyone so that everyone can be happy with any one of the interpretations or all of them. And, if you aren't satisfied with any of them, then don't despair, there are new ones being offered all of the time.

Our motto is: What ever works for you!

Rich

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

Rich - Bones - great stuff in this thread and I don't know if I can add much but here goes.

It seems clever people may have, in a way, built another Stonehenge in that the predictive power of Stonehenge may have had the same effect on the people then as Quantum Mechanics has on people today. It seems reasonable to claim that just as today, many opinions would be expressed when the light at an equinox burst upon an audience.
However, it would seem that some people hope the particle must herald the first simplest solid thing but QM dashes this hope and rightly so because solidness, as such, seems to be a practical impossibility.

So what are we to make of the Particle? In the light of E=Mc2, it would seem to offer our minds a hook that would allow us to visualise a path between the world of energy and our familiar 'solid' world, except that when specialists examine our solid world it seems much of the spookiness and weirdness of the particle is carried thru to the materials we are surrounded by and take for granted. Nature, it seems, is a continuous opportunistic experiment with particles.

It all seems to hinge on what we think a particle should be and it isn't. For example, if it is a particle of something then how can it exhibit wave-like properties? Alternatively, how can it be a pure wave if it can exist in one place and move as if it had weight?

The notion that it is a particle of something is definitely a non-starter so the alternative seems to be the only reasonable conclusion but can wave energy exist in one place? It seems the energy of Ball Lightning can, at least for a time and it exhibits pretty spooky behaviour too. If the particle is only wave energy and solidness only a series of effects then science may have to think carefully about other favourite concepts like weight and inertia and I do mean to the macro level.

I am not sure if it is correct to say that the mind could never affect particles because, as I understand it, not all particles are yet known.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Bracewell;92784 wrote:

The notion that it is a particle of something is definitely a non-starter so the alternative seems to be the only reasonable conclusion but can wave energy exist in one place? It seems the energy of Ball Lightning can, at least for a time and it exhibits pretty spooky behaviour too. If the particle is only wave energy and solidness only a series of effects then science may have to think carefully about other favourite concepts like weight and inertia and I do mean to the macro level.

I am not sure if it is correct to say that the mind could never affect particles because, as I understand it, not all particles are yet known.

Hi Bracewell,

I certainly share your uncertainty.

Not only do we have to conceptually deal with wave/particle duality, but there is also this notion that the setup of of the experiment determines how elementary particles manifest. And of course, there is all of that counter-intuitive behavior such as non-locality, dual-choice etc.

I find that Bohm's Implicate order, which suggests that there is a quantum force carrying the particle, creates a very nice image that does explain these phenomenon, but for some reason physicists are loathe to explore it. Maybe because it enfolds consciousness into the implicate order.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am very much in agreement with you.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

I agree with Jeeprs about this. It is only our ignorance that allows us to choose an interpretation. There can only be one that is correct.

As to which is correct, it is surely noteworthy that physics finds itself unable to refute the view that nothing really exists, just as the doctrine of mysticism claims, as endorsed by Schroedinger.

As far as I can work out, his view is the only one for which nonlocal effects are not impossible.

3 Replies

@Whoever,

Whoever;92956 wrote:

I agree with Jeeprs about this. It is only our ignorance that allows us to choose an interpretation. There can only be one that is correct.

Not if the subject of this comment is translated into any sort of language - if it is expressed in language it is difficult and nearly impossible to have a single correct understanding unless one introduces a frightening number of preconceived notions, a host of which would have thoroughly stifled artistic work for many years past not to mention this very thread.

0 Replies

@Whoever,

Whoever;92956 wrote:

As to which is correct, it is surely noteworthy that physics finds itself unable to refute the view that nothing really exists

Trying to refute the view that nothing exists is not really of any interest for physics or any other science.
One of the primary paradigms of science is that any theory has to falsifiable.
As long as it's not falsifiable it's not even a theory.
The world is full of non falsifiable ideas.
Such as Henderson's 'theory' of the flying spagetti monster .
He created it to demonstrate that an absurd idea is of no interest for science if you can not falsify it.

Philosophy is last but not least a science that emerged from the need to decide wether something is true or not.
In a world that is full of ideas that are contradictory you have to make a decision.
That's why logic is one of the major disciplines of philosophy.
If person A sais Jahwe is the creator of the world, and person B sais Jehova is the creator, the rules of logic allow to find a solution of how both statements can be correct.
However this solution must be subject to logic.
Logic does not allow to just pick anything you like.
This is how i understand jeeprs.
If you choose between religions, ok go ahead.
But when we talk about quantum physics it's simply a violation against the rules of science to say: Isn't it great? We can choose anything we like.

This is the difference between science and mysticism.

Thus the name of the thread.

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

Exebeche I agree with what you say and it seems there is an almost wicked misinterpretation of what is being said.
It is not that nothing exists but what is being claimed is that what does exist must exist as waves and not as anything solid.

This is taken from a previous thread titled 'What does E=Mc2 mean'.

"Firstly I need to make sure you understand that waves lose energy thru reduction of amplitude only; the frequency does not change. For example, a note played on a stringed instrument will remain constant until the note is too quiet to hear. Another way to think of it is to draw a graph where the vertical axis is amplitude and the horizontal axis is frequency. Any point on the graph will describe a wave with a certain amplitude and frequency. If the energy in the wave is not maintained then inevitably it will decay but not to the null point, but vertically with constant frequency to zero amplitude.

I now want you to go find a golf ball and look at it. You will see that the surface is covered in dimples, which you must imagine are waves. Now increase the amplitude of the waves until the waves meet in the middle. What happens is that as the waves meet the amplitudes interfere and are reinforced, which is another characteristic of waves. The question is, can such a wave structure now decay or does it last forever as a three dimensional structure and what would the limit of complexity be if such structures exist?"

This, I think, illustrates an example of a falsifiable theory but that is not the main point. What it also illustrates is that energy might exist in a permanent wave form with the possibility of an almost infinite amount of complexity based on the principles of waves. There would in fact be nothing solid involved but things would exist just as we know them.

The fact that Bones O would probably tear this idea to bits does not make the point any less valid, don't you agree?

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever;92956 wrote:

I agree with Jeeprs about this. It is only our ignorance that allows us to choose an interpretation. There can only be one that is correct.

As to which is correct, it is surely noteworthy that physics finds itself unable to refute the view that nothing really exists, just as the doctrine of mysticism claims, as endorsed by Schroedinger.

As far as I can work out, his view is the only one for which nonlocal effects are not impossible.

The meaning of 'really exists' is very important here. It is a very short leap from there to 'nothing exists, nothing matters, nothing is real', which is nihilism. I think the understanding we are reaching for here is that nothing exists absolutely, or in its own right. It seems like a milder claim, but for scientific realism it is perhaps equally shocking. Because in many respects the whole project of Enlightenment physics was to find a 'truly existent objective entity'. I still think that when this project failed, materialism actually was doomed at that moment. The basic tenet of materialism is after all that there are only bodies in motion. Now we find the bodies are actually 'sunya', empty. They have no ultimate determinate essence or substance. They can play with words now or say that 'matter is really energy anyway' and so on but in important ways I think the game is over.

So we are back again to appearances and reality. The more things change, the more they stay the same. But I don't mind it, I like a bit of mystery. Gives your imagination a bit of room to manouvre.

Quote:

Schopenhaur: "...materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself." He claimed that an observing subject can only know material objects through the mediation of the brain and its particular organization. The way that the brain knows determines the way that material objects are experienced. "Everything objective, extended, active, and hence everything material, is regarded by materialism as so solid a basis for its explanations that a reduction to this (especially if it should ultimately result in thrust and counter-thrust) can leave nothing to be desired. But all this is something that is given only very indirectly and conditionally, and is therefore only relatively present, for it has passed through the machinery and fabrication of the brain, and hence has entered the forms of time, space, and causality, by virtue of which it is first of all presented as extended in space and operating in time."

Source.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Bracewell;93162 wrote:

The fact that Bones O would probably tear this idea to bits does not make the point any less valid, don't you agree?

Actually i think he would politely apply some corrections.
I know him as a very friendly type of monster. Wink

But, yes i agree.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;93243 wrote:

The meaning of 'really exists' is very important here. It is a very short leap from there to 'nothing exists, nothing matters, nothing is real', which is nihilism. I think the understanding we are reaching for here is that nothing exists absolutely, or in its own right. It seems like a milder claim, but for scientific realism it is perhaps equally shocking. Because in many respects the whole project of Enlightenment physics was to find a 'truly existent objective entity'. I still think that when this project failed, materialism actually was doomed at that moment. The basic tenet of materialism is after all that there are only bodies in motion. Now we find the bodies are actually 'sunya', empty. They have no ultimate determinate essence or substance. They can play with words now or say that 'matter is really energy anyway' and so on but in important ways I think the game is over.

So why are the Universities and their flocks of "analytic" philosophers so behind on this?

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

That, sir, is an extremely interesting, and a very large, question. I view it as a matter of historical determinism - the whole 'Western' worldview is still in the throes of casting off the traditional metaphysic which had become associated with scholasticism and religion generally, and attempting to locate what is 'really there' in terms of particles and objects. This is the agenda of materialism is it not? What has become embarrasingly clear is that there are no ultimate objects or particles and so there are no absolutes in this realm. Hence this thread. In fact the very opening sentence in this thread was brilliantly perceptive. That is what attracted me to the discussion.

This blog entry might also be relevant.

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

Didymos - I agree about language. I think there can only be one correct interpretation, but I do not think it can entirely communicated, for the reasons you give and others.

Exebeche;93130 wrote:

Trying to refute the view that nothing exists is not really of any interest for physics or any other science.
One of the primary paradigms
of science is that any theory has to falsifiable.

Yes, this is the problem for my theory. If it's true it's unfalsifiable, in which case it isn't a theory, in which case it of no interest to you even if it's true. What you are suggesting is that science is not interested in the truth, and sometimes I think you're right.

Quote:

The world is full of non falsifiable ideas.
Such as Henderson's 'theory' of the flying spagetti monster .
He created it to demonstrate that an absurd idea is of no interest for science if you can not falsify it.

Obviously, since even a perfectly reasonable and true idea is of no interest if it is unfalsifiable.

Quote:

If you choose between religions, ok go ahead.
But when we talk about quantum physics it's simply a violation against the rules of science to say: Isn't it great? We can choose anything we like.

Why would it be any easier to choose a religion than a physical theory? Are you suggesting you don't use your reasoning to form your religious views?

Quote:

This the difference between science and mysticism.

I don't think there is one, just a misunderstanding.

---------- Post added 09-25-2009 at 03:11 PM ----------

jeeprs;93243 wrote:

The meaning of 'really exists' is very important here.
It is a very short leap from there to 'nothing exists, nothing matters, nothing is real', which is nihilism. I think the understanding we are reaching for here is that nothing exists absolutely, or in its own right.

Thanks for making this point. The word 'really' is a crucial proviso in the sentence 'nothing really exists.'

It is possible to logically prove that nothing really exists, while Nihilism is logically absurd.

2 Replies

@Whoever,

Whoever;93510 wrote:

Why would it be any easier to choose a religion than a physical theory? Are you suggesting you don't use your reasoning to form your religious views?

Most people don't.

0 Replies

The mystical Copenhagen Interpretation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know