M-Theory and Essence

[Soulewolf]

I believe you are mistaken regarding those images. Not having a link to what you are referring to, I will say that it’s a fundamental principle of superposition that it cannot be photographed – it’s only viable in a non-collapsing context, and a photo would force the particle to “locate”. This is the lesson of the famous “double slit experiments”. As soon as a sensor is put in place to detect which slit each photons go through, the interference bands disappear!

I imagine there are some cool visualizations of what the “spatial probabilities” may look like, but if you can photograph it, you know you do not have superposition in action. Superposition means that the particle occupies all of its possible quantum states (and this set varies depending on what particle you are talking about in what context) at once. Since the probability function of a particle will not be “all chances are equal”, it should be visualizable to some extent. But it would only ever be visualization from math models as opposed to photography, or any other kind of measurement.

-TS

Yeah it appears you are right. I guess i misunderstood what i heard. Though it is an answer to “if a tree falls in a forest an no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound”. Yes and no

 

[Anselm33]

I have no qualifications in science; so I don’t know what to make of that. I would presume some interaction with gravity; pressure and so forth; but I don’t know.

There are some books on quantum mechanics written by both philosophers and physicists for non-mathematically inclined people that are useful in understanding what’s happening:
“Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” by Stephen Barr (a physicist)
“Quantum Enigma” Rosenblum and Kuttner (physicists–not terribly sophisticated philosophy but easy to understand quantum mechanics)
“On Physics and Philosophy” by Bernard D’Espagnat (physicist, but heavy on classical–i.e. Aristotlean and Thomistic philosophy)
“Quantum Mechanics and Experience” by David Albert (a philosopher, and biased towards a “many minds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, but non-mathematical in its exposition of quantum mechanics)
“From Physics to Metaphysics” by Michael Redhead (a British Philosopher, and compact in size, but dense in presentation; the thrust is to explain the violation of Bell’s Theorem, i.e. the violation of local reality).
If you go to the web, there are lots of sites, and it depends on what you’re interested in.
Possibly the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has the best collection of articles (315 at last count) and one that might be of interest to you (with metaphysical implications) on identity and individuality in quantum theory, and which would pertain (perhaps peripherally) to this thread is
plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-idind/

Enjoy!

 

[The_Exodus]

This is contradicted by physics. The Schrödinger Equation models the quantum state of a physical system, and is performative because it tracks the real properties of that system. Probability wave functions are as real as any other property in physics.

Touchstone, JohnDamian’s point is that probability has no causal power, as I’ve tried to show in other posts. It cannot be a property, because it does not exist. And if you tried to use evidence to substantiate such a claim, you would effectively be saying “here is a reason that things happen for no reason” which is absurd. Thus any physical system which tries to prove that “something can happen for no reason” cuts its feet out from under itself.

This fatal error results from physics abandoning metaphysics, and goes to show how it is many times the case that physicists are bad at philosophy.

 

[Soulewolf]

Also stephen hawkings latest book is pretty good too

 

[Soulewolf]

Touchstone, JohnDamian’s point is that probability has no causal power, as I’ve tried to show in other posts. It cannot be a property, because it does not exist. And if you tried to use evidence to substantiate such a claim, you would effectively be saying “here is a reason that things happen for no reason” which is absurd. Thus any physical system which tries to prove that “something can happen for no reason” cuts its feet out from under itself.

This fatal error results from physics abandoning metaphysics, and goes to show how it is many times the case that physicists are bad at philosophy.

Well its obvious that the waves themselves are not physically probability. This is just the closest word we have in the English language to describe the phenomena and how it behaves. I dont believe science knows what these waves are actually “made of”. i could be mistaken. Maybe someone with more of a science background can expand on the idea.

 

[The_Exodus]

Well its obvious that the waves themselves are not physically probability. This is just the closest word we have in the English language to describe the phenomena and how it behaves.

Unfortunately, this is not so obvious, as many have come to hold that things can come into being without any cause or explanation whatsoever.

 

[sinnerdexter]

The multiverse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It states that whenever a wave function collapse all the possible outcomes are real, that is another actual worlds exist realising the other outcomes we do not see.

It is not special to quantum string of M-theory. Rather any quantum theory can be interpreted in this way. I have no idea if such worlds really exist and if we can contact them.

 

[JohnDamian]

Well its obvious that the waves themselves are not physically probability. This is just the closest word we have in the English language to describe the phenomena and how it behaves. I dont believe science knows what these waves are actually “made of”. i could be mistaken. Maybe someone with more of a science background can expand on the idea.

Ambiguity abounds.

The closest thing we have in the English Language to say this is that the act of an object occurs in a manner consistent with probabalistic predictions.

It would be wrong to state than the act of an object occurs in a manner consistent with probabalistic predictions; because of those predictions; or the probabalistic nature therein.

So if observation is causally determinate then me’s in other universes are essentially the same. If it is accidentally detterminate, then they are not?

There is no reason to believe in possible world semantics. That is pop-metaphysics. They are unhelpful; ambiguous and useless “tools” that impugn the subject of Philosophy.

If observation is causally determinate; then the act per se elicits the consequent; if it is accidentally determinate then the act per se elicits a thing which elicits the consequent.

That is the problem with Newtonian physics. It doesnt work on the quantum level. As the video showed, particles can and are in more than one location at once. They have pictures of a particle being in superposition (two or more places at once [or so i’ve read]).

If a particle is in more than one place it is more than one object; as objects can be individuated in haec (through this; haecceity) insofar as locality is a predicate. ie-ergo more than one object exists; if only one particle.

Further; even if they share a real unicity (viz. causal) then they are formally distinct; and seperate objects thereof.

Theres info on the web if you are interested enough.

I absolutely believe in self-education; and studying the implications of Quantum Mechanics seems like an interesting endevour.

All Students of physics should have to study Individuation before studying Quantum Mechanics. All the time I see QM claims that completely fail to stand up to scrutiny; or who make absurd claims about unicity; and who fail to understand the multiplicity of forms present in real unity; the multiplicity of modal degree in a singular; and so forth - it is truly painful. Further; seeing people applying probability as an inhered property or predicate; rather than a reflective phantasm (viz. concept-object) is painful.

I am continously startled by the terrible pop-metaphysics of QM. When we have philosophers who lived in the dark ages such as Porphyry, Proclus and Boethius showing critical understandings that fly over the heads of many modern “pop-metaphysicians” who are oft. indistinguishable from QM “theorists”. When people today are making mistakes about the nature of reality Aristotle pointed out over two thousand years ago it is truly painful.

 

[Touchstone]

The multiverse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It states that whenever a wave function collapse all the possible outcomes are real, that is another actual worlds exist realising the other outcomes we do not see.

It is not special to quantum string of M-theory. Rather any quantum theory can be interpreted in this way. I have no idea if such worlds really exist and if we can contact them.

That would be the “Many Worlds Interpretation” (often just “MWI”), not the “multiverse”, in the M-Theory lingo. The M-Theory multiverse is a different concept, and one that does proceed from M-Theory. The universes in the that multiverse model are not “forked copies” that cleave apart for every quantum decoherence, as is supposed to be the case in the Many Worlds Interpretation. In the multiverse model (Susskind calls this the “cosmic landscape”), a multitude of universe exist as completely independent universes, generated with different cosmological parameters according to the mathematical landscape that proceeds from M-Theory.

Universes in the multiverse, as its used in physics are not the products of quantum decoherence.

To clear things up, I believe there is a classification system being adopted where a “Level II” metaverse is what proceeds from M-Theory, and a “Level III” metaverse is what proceeds from the Many Worlds Interpretation. Ostensibly there is some metaverse that is implied by the combination of these two ideas, where a multitude of discrete universes are each forking of distinct new permutations for every wave function collapse. That’s a fairly mind boggling production, and it’s probably got a “class” name, but I don’t know what it would be, and a simple Google to recall it didn’t show anything obvious.

-TS

 

[Soulewolf]

Ambiguity abounds.

The closest thing we have in the English Language to say this is that the act of an object occurs in a manner consistent with probabalistic predictions.

It would be wrong to state than the act of an object occurs in a manner consistent with probabalistic predictions; because of those predictions; or the probabalistic nature therein.

if you say so. its obvious i wont be able to convince you. You should do a bit of research on the subject yourself. Much of quantum physics is very much counterintuitive.

If observation is causally determinate; then the act per se elicits the consequent; if it is accidentally determinate then the act per se elicits a thing which elicits the consequent.

Wasn’t your argument that they are not the same object through the idea of haecceity, which is disproved if the objects in question are casually determinate? if not please clarify.

If a particle is in more than one place it is more than one object; as objects can be individuated in haec (through this; haecceity) insofar as locality is a predicate. ie-ergo more than one object exists; if only one particle.

Further; even if they share a real unicity (viz. causal) then they are formally distinct; and seperate objects thereof.

chuckles you have much to learn about quantum physics my friend.

No it is not two objects. It is one object in more than one location simultaniously. This is the definition of the word “superposition”.

youtube.com/watch?v=pTJd25kWMhU This is a very well explained video on superposition. Check it out.

I absolutely believe in self-education; and studying the implications of Quantum Mechanics seems like an interesting endevour.

All Students of physics should have to study Individuation before studying Quantum Mechanics. All the time I see QM claims that completely fail to stand up to scrutiny; or who make absurd claims about unicity; and who fail to understand the multiplicity of forms present in real unity; the multiplicity of modal degree in a singular; and so forth - it is truly painful. Further; seeing people applying probability as an inhered property or predicate; rather than a reflective phantasm (viz. concept-object) is painful.

I am continously startled by the terrible pop-metaphysics of QM. When we have philosophers who lived in the dark ages such as Porphyry, Proclus and Boethius showing critical understandings that fly over the heads of many modern “pop-metaphysicians” who are oft. indistinguishable from QM “theorists”. When people today are making mistakes about the nature of reality Aristotle pointed out over two thousand years ago it is truly painful.

These arent “mistakes” they are the only reasonable explanation for the behavior of quanta and these explanations have been experimented with time and time again with the same result. Again check out the video. It explains everything.This is what i’m talking about with the astounding philosophical ramifications of quantum theory.

 

[JohnDamian]

if you say so. its obvious i wont be able to convince you. You should do a bit of research on the subject yourself. Much of quantum physics is very much counterintuitive.

I am absolutely open to convincing if it can be demonstrated that probability inheres; rather than exists as a phantasmal extrapolate.

Wasn’t your argument that they are not the same object through the idea of haecceity, which is disproved if the objects in question are casually determinate?

If the objects are causally determinate; they share a real unicity; but can still inhere a formal distinction. By causality I am speaking of efficient ordering; and not accidental ordering; as well as real unicity; ie-ergo the object is both really identical too; and efficiently interdependant upon its constituants; as it is a formal composite.

If the objects are determinate only accidentally; they lack a real unity also; as the posterior can exist with the prior; ie-ergo they are really distinct.

No it is not two objects. It is one object in more than one location simultaniously. This is the definition of the word “superposition”.

A composite can be composed of more than one object; is it not plausible that a) the composite is split; b) that the agent is duplicated through another process; c) that the agent violates the principle of locality. That video was a good explanation of how it appears that the particle is in two places at once.

Yet; the video gives little reason to believe that the particle (taken as a composite) cannot split; duplicate or violate the principle of locality…

This reminds me of Albert the Greats commentary upon De Anima; where he claimed light in an individual exists intentionally; which could also be proffered as an explanation for some of the effects of QM; at least those of photons.

These arent “mistakes” they are the only reasonable explanation for the behavior of quanta and these explanations have been experimented with time and time again with the same result.

Why is it more reasonable to believe that than to believe in duplication; generation; violations of the principle of locality; efficient causality from observers; formal degradation of a composite; or even Alber the Great’s idea about intentional existence?

The result is not what is questioned; the extrapolation is. A photon appears in two places does not mean that a) it is the same photon; or b) that it is in both places; or c) that it is not a division of the object; retaining the qualia for recognition.

That said; QM is certainly produces a challenge modern metaphysicians will have to answer.

 

[Soulewolf]

A composite can be composed of more than one object; is it not plausible that a) the composite is split; b) that the agent is duplicated through another process; c) that the agent violates the principle of locality. That video was a good explanation of how it appears that the particle is in two places at once.

Yet; the video gives little reason to believe that the particle (taken as a composite) cannot split; duplicate or violate the principle of locality…

“In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must violate either the principle of locality or the form of philosophical realism known as counterfactual definiteness.”
-wikipedia

A) No. If they were split, they would be two particles of lesser frequency. This is not the case. Also the particles would be entangled and would thus behave differently. the instant one particle was reflected, the others frequency would shift simultaneously as well, and both A and B sensors would be activated.

B) No. Through the number of times the experiment has been performed and the very careful engineering done by scientists, It is done in a vacuum and only one photon is being introduced to the experiment at a time. There are no outside factors.

C) No. This outcome would not be repeatable in as many experiments as have been performed.

Why is it more reasonable to believe that than to believe in duplication; generation; violations of the principle of locality; efficient causality from observers; formal degradation of a composite; or even Alber the Great’s idea about intentional existence?

The result is not what is questioned; the extrapolation is. A photon appears in two places does not mean that a) it is the same photon; or b) that it is in both places; or c) that it is not a division of the object; retaining the qualia for recognition.

That said; QM is certainly produces a challenge modern metaphysicians will have to answer.

See above.

 

[Touchstone]

Why is it more reasonable to believe that than to believe in duplication; generation; violations of the principle of locality; efficient causality from observers; formal degradation of a composite; or even Alber the Great’s idea about intentional existence?

The result is not what is questioned; the extrapolation is. A photon appears in two places does not mean that a) it is the same photon; or b) that it is in both places; or c) that it is not a division of the object; retaining the qualia for recognition.

That said; QM is certainly produces a challenge modern metaphysicians will have to answer.

This is a very good example of where metaphysical intuition actively becomes a severe barrier to understanding and knowledge of the real world.

Despite what you’ve said here, QM is really no challenge at all for metaphysics, as metaphysics is not “challenge-able” that way. It just tweaks its tautologies as is convenient, just as we see here. Of course what physics says is the same photon, entangled, is actually a “divided object”, it would be “metaphysically absurd” otherwise.

Metaphysics isn’t constrained or accountable to the very subject it focuses on, the extra-mental world. It can’t be challenged, overruled, or tested. The only court it appeals to is the intuition, and so all that needs be done via QM is just to cast the definitions in ways that satisfy the intuition. “Not the same photon” as a type of reaction, applied wherever needed.

-TS

 

[sinnerdexter]

That would be the “Many Worlds Interpretation” (often just “MWI”), not the “multiverse”, in the M-Theory lingo. The M-Theory multiverse is a different concept, and one that does proceed from M-Theory. The universes in the that multiverse model are not “forked copies” that cleave apart for every quantum decoherence, as is supposed to be the case in the Many Worlds Interpretation. In the multiverse model (Susskind calls this the “cosmic landscape”), a multitude of universe exist as completely independent universes, generated with different cosmological parameters according to the mathematical landscape that proceeds from M-Theory.

Universes in the multiverse, as its used in physics are not the products of quantum decoherence.

To clear things up, I believe there is a classification system being adopted where a “Level II” metaverse is what proceeds from M-Theory, and a “Level III” metaverse is what proceeds from the Many Worlds Interpretation. Ostensibly there is some metaverse that is implied by the combination of these two ideas, where a multitude of discrete universes are each forking of distinct new permutations for every wave function collapse. That’s a fairly mind boggling production, and it’s probably got a “class” name, but I don’t know what it would be, and a simple Google to recall it didn’t show anything obvious.

-TS

So, although string theory is probably a enqueue theory it has many vacua , each of one representing a “potential universe”. This is the string landscape.

Taking the multivese in QM idea seriously, then I suppose each of these “string vacua universes” would then split-off into there own multiverses. Assuming that every string vacua is realised in nature somehow.

Honestly, I have not thought much along these lines.

 

[Tuno]

Being such flatlanders as we are, would not such an idea as the string landscape and QM go more with the greater glory of God than the traditional Christian constriction of understanding? Aren’t we often saying that God or the Universe is not only greater than we imagine, but greater than we can imagine?? I mean it would have a tiny bearing on the arrogant assumption that all that “out there” was for our regalement on a starry night.