The Quantum World Veiw & Materialism

[Wildgraywolf]

Not precise. Matter and energy are not separable. That is why I like to use the term STEM - which stands for space-time-energy-matter.

In the singularity the physics is unknown. We don’t have a model to describe the properties inside a singularity (to my best knowledge). Since space-time is contingent on matter, and in a singularity the density of the matter is infinite, there is no meaningful way to speak of “flow of time” there.

Fascinating and thank you. Is STEM a pre-expansion state lumped into one neat acronym? Is there an “accounting” for anti-STEM? Or could STEM and anti-STEM be resulting from expansion?

 

[ateista]

Fascinating and thank you. Is STEM a pre-expansion state lumped into one neat acronym?

The physics of the pre-expansion state is big unknown. But according to the principle of conservation of matter/energy, it is some kind of a matter/energy. Its properties are not known.

Is there an “accounting” for anti-STEM? Or could STEM and anti-STEM be resulting from expansion?

There is a lot of non-STEM “stuff”: abstractions, ideas, concepts etc. They depend on STEM, but not part of it. Just like “walking” which is a “non-material activity” of matter (the legs).

 

[Wildgraywolf]

The physics of the pre-expansion state is big unknown. But according to the principle of conservation of matter/energy, it is some kind of a matter/energy. Its properties are not known.

There is a lot of non-STEM “stuff”: abstractions, ideas, concepts etc. They depend on STEM, but not part of it. Just like “walking” which is a “non-material activity” of matter (the legs).

So expansion might include STEM, anti-STEM and neutral STEM “properties” or end up that way after expansion began?

 

[Just_Lurking]

What is wrong with the statistical intepretation of QM, where you don;t look at one particle, but at an ensemble of small particles which are then seen to follow a probability distribution.

From Wikipedia (see here):

Alfred Nuemaier find fault with the applicability of the Ensemble Interpretation to small systems.

“Among the traditional interpretations, the statistical interpretation discussed by Ballentine in Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358-381 (1970) is the least demanding (assumes less than the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation) and the most consistent one. It explains almost everything, and only has the disadvantage that it explicitly excludes the applicability of QM to single systems or very small ensembles (such as the few solar neutrinos or top quarks actually detected so far), and does not bridge the gulf between the classical domain (for the description of detectors) and the quantum domain (for the description of the microscopic system)”. (spelling emended) [4]

---

From John S. Bell’s Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists, reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics:

It would seem that the theory is exclusively concerned with ‘results of measurement’ and has nothing to say about anything else. When the ‘system’ in question is the whole world where is the ‘measurer’ to be found? Inside, rather than outside, presumably. What exactly qualifies some subsystems to play this role? Was the world wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer - with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less ‘measurement-like’ processes are going on more or less all the time more or less everywhere? Is there ever then a moment when there is no jumping and the Schrodinger equations applies?

The concept of ‘measurement’ becomes so fuzzy on reflection that it is quite surprising to have it appearing in physical theory at the most fundamental level.
…

The problem is this: quantum mechanics is fundamentally about ‘observations’. It necessarily divides the world into two parts, a part which is observed and a part which does the observing. The results depend in detail on just how this division is made, but no definite prescription for it is given. All that we have is a recipe which, because of practical human limitations, is sufficiently unambiguous for practical purposes. So we may ask with Stapp: ‘How can a theory which is fundamentally a procedure by which gross macroscopic creatures, such as human beings, calculate predicted probabilities of what they will observe under macroscopically specified circumstances ever be claimed to be a complete description of physical reality?’. Rosenfeld makes the point with equal eloquence: ‘… the human observer, whom we have been at pains to keep out of the picture, seems irresistibly to intrude into it, since after all the macroscopic character of the measuring apparatus is imposed by the macroscopic structure of the sense organs and the brain. It thus looks as if the mode of description of quantum theory would indeed fall short of ideal perfection to the extend that it is cut to the measure of man.’

 

[bobzills]

“Among the traditional interpretations, the statistical interpretation discussed by Ballentine in Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358-381 (1970) is the least demanding (assumes less than the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation) and the most consistent one. It explains almost everything, and only has the disadvantage that it explicitly excludes the applicability of QM to single systems or very small ensembles (such as the few solar neutrinos or top quarks actually detected so far), and does not bridge the gulf between the classical domain (for the description of detectors) and the quantum domain (for the description of the microscopic system)”. (spelling emended) [4]’

I have read that QM is really not applicable to a single particle anyway, so, it that is true, then the statistical interpretation is really the one that makes the most sense.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I have read that QM is really not applicable to a single particle anyway, so, it that is true, then the statistical interpretation is really the one that makes the most sense.

The biggest issue that I have with the statistical interpretation is that there is no precise identification of the measuring device, and the requirement to apply classical physics to the measuring device, which precludes the application of this interpretation to quantum cosmology.

But whatever you believe, there is some Ph.D. physicist who agrees with you. I personally believe that none of the proposed solutions really make sense, and that physics hasn’t really solved this problem yet.

I also speculate that since quantum theory hasn’t figured out the problems with quantum measurement, nor has it figured out how to incorporate quantum gravity, it may be the case that there is a new theory that will solve both these problems at the same time.

Interesting discussion!

 

[JimG]

OK, but that does NOT distinguish between “imaginary” and “eternal”. “Eternal” remains synonymous with ‘nonexistent’ or ‘imaginary’, based on what you’ve said here, thus far. If I missed the distinction, please point it out for me.

Any concept within the mind may correspond to an external reality, or not. “Imaginary” refers to those concepts, such as a unicorn, which do not refer to an external reality. Your concept of eternity may exclude the idea of its reality, mine does not.

The concept itself, however,–any concept—has reality at least insofar as it exists in one’s mind. For the materialist, that concept would be identified as a particular brainstate. The non-materialist would hold that while the brainstate forms a necessary precondition, the concept itself—the abstract idea—might be devoid of all materiality.

Judging from the discussion on this thread, the extent of and manner in which the concept of Quantum Theory is expressed in external reality, seems to be a matter of dispute. Yet the concept itself is undoubtedly real and useful.

I’m not sure to what degree the sciences would exclude from external reality the idea of some entity that has no extension in space or time. Until recently, it seems, certain subatomic particles were thought to be “point particles,” being entirely dimensionless. I always wondered how a four or more dimensional universe could be built up from a substrate of dimensionless particles, but that’s a matter for the physicists.

The self endures as a persistent identity as atoms and molecules come and go. One carbon atom is as good as another – they’re all completely interchangeable, so a mind that preserves the same electro-chemical “brain-states” whilst it’s atoms change in and out constantly retains its “self-ness”.

So what we perceive as our self—that within us which unifies our experiences over time and space as attributable to a single sentient self-reflective subject, the “I”, is explainable by certain arrangements of matter within our brain, which manage to persist essentially unchanged for a lifetime?

If that is the case, the microbiology, the neurophysiology, the chemistry and physics of any particular “self” should ultimately be capable of being analyzed in significant detail, and even being reproduced. Cloning the body is one thing, but if one’s “self” could be reproduced in the lab, that would be a significant revolution.

 

[bobzills]

The biggest issue that I have with the statistical interpretation is that there is no precise identification of the measuring device, and the requirement to apply classical physics to the measuring device, which precludes the application of this interpretation to quantum cosmology.

But whatever you believe, there is some Ph.D. physicist who agrees with you. I personally believe that none of the proposed solutions really make sense, and that physics hasn’t really solved this problem yet.

I also speculate that since quantum theory hasn’t figured out the problems with quantum measurement, nor has it figured out how to incorporate quantum gravity, it may be the case that there is a new theory that will solve both these problems at the same time.

Interesting discussion!

I don’t see a need for quantum gravity since the force of gravity is exceedingly small and applies at large distances. In other words it is negligible when you are looking at small particles and does not really come into play at that level. Why do you need quantum gravity?
I don’t see anything wrong with the statistical interpretation of QM. QM really applies to an ensemble of small particles anyway.

 

[bobzills]

If that is the case, the microbiology, the neurophysiology, the chemistry and physics of any particular “self” should ultimately be capable of being analyzed in significant detail, and even being reproduced. Cloning the body is one thing, but if one’s “self” could be reproduced in the lab, that would be a significant revolution.

I think that you may be forgetting about the human soul which cannot be cloned.

 

[Touchstone]

Any concept within the mind may correspond to an external reality, or not. “Imaginary” refers to those concepts, such as a unicorn, which do not refer to an external reality. Your concept of eternity may exclude the idea of its reality, mine does not.

It doesn’t exclude it as a matter of proscription, but rejects it as incoherent. “Eternity” just doesn’t mean anything in existential terms. “Outside of time”, or “beyond time” have become comfortable terms to the ear (they certainly did to me, hearing them since my early days in Sunday School). But they are no more meaningful than “the smell of the color nine”. “Eternity” isn’t even a non-reality. A unicorn may be non-existent, but it’s at least coherent as a concept. “Eternity” doesn’t even qualify for consideration for being real or non-real, so far as I can see.

The concept itself, however,–any concept—has reality at least insofar as it exists in one’s mind. For the materialist, that concept would be identified as a particular brainstate. The non-materialist would hold that while the brainstate forms a necessary precondition, the concept itself—the abstract idea—might be devoid of all materiality.

Sure, see ateista’s fine example of “walking”. “Walking” as a concept has a physical infrastructure (the brain) hosting it, but the referent of the concept is abstract.

Judging from the discussion on this thread, the extent of and manner in which the concept of Quantum Theory is expressed in external reality, seems to be a matter of dispute. Yet the concept itself is undoubtedly real and useful.

Yes, but the conceptual foundations of what ‘exists’ and ‘real’ remain – crudely but effectively captured by the phrase 'extended in space/time. That is, the basis for coherence for any QM interpretation is in place, while the various hypotheses and interpretations compete to establish themselves as best in performing against the existential/empirical baseline.

I’m not sure to what degree the sciences would exclude from external reality the idea of some entity that has no extension in space or time. Until recently, it seems, certain subatomic particles were thought to be “point particles,” being entirely dimensionless. I always wondered how a four or more dimensional universe could be built up from a substrate of dimensionless particles, but that’s a matter for the physicists.

Being ‘dimensionless’ is not a problem; being extended in time fulfills the requirement. Same thing goes for the reverse case. It’s only when there’s no purchase at all on either space or time that conceptually we cross over into ‘imaginary’. One thing to keep in mind might be that ‘dimensionless’ doesn’t necessarily deny temporality or spatial location.

So what we perceive as our self—that within us which unifies our experiences over time and space as attributable to a single sentient self-reflective subject, the “I”, is explainable by certain arrangements of matter within our brain, which manage to persist essentially unchanged for a lifetime?

I think the “self” is constantly changing, but it has “identity” as matter of logical continuity. Which is just a qualified way of saying “Yes” to your question. Consciousness and self-conception are spectacular examples of ‘strange loops’, where systems and processes interact with themselves in complex ways to produce exceedingly complex and exotic phenomena (see Hofstadter’s* Gödel, Escher, Bach and I Am A Strange Loop* for a sublime treatment of this subject). The complexity of the emergence obscures it’s reduction, but reduced, it’s several layers of abstraction built from basic physics and biology.

If that is the case, the microbiology, the neurophysiology, the chemistry and physics of any particular “self” should ultimately be capable of being analyzed in significant detail, and even being reproduced. Cloning the body is one thing, but if one’s “self” could be reproduced in the lab, that would be a significant revolution.

That’s an understatement. The more we understand about the stupefying complexity and scale of the human brain (something like 10,000 discrete connections elsewhere per neuron?!?!?) the more intimidating the task you describe appears. But in principle, yes. An exquisite, evolved organic machine. Finite automata (leveraging quantum indeterminance) on an almost inconceivable large scale.

There’s a beautiful irony in this, doncha know. In order for the human brain to be conceptually powerful enough to wrestle with the concept of its own consciousness as a physical phenomenon in even a rudimentary way, the brain has to be so complex and inscrutable that it’s a formidable concept to develop and embrace. The more capable we are of understanding our own conscious brains, the more intricate and difficult the brains get!

-Touchstone

 

[JimG]

I think that you may be forgetting about the human soul which cannot be cloned.

Which is why I don’t believe that the “self” is likely to be reproduced in the lab, since it would be essentially a replication of the soul.

But why can’t the soul be cloned? Only because it is non-material, or as it is phrased here–non STEM.

In re-reading the thread, I noticed this

There is a lot of non-STEM “stuff”: abstractions, ideas, concepts etc. They depend on STEM, but not part of it.

I agree with this. Abstractions, ideas, and concepts are non-STEM. Yet the human mind actually produces them. Since humans are able to produce non-STEM stuff, there must be an aspect of human nature which is non-STEM. That would be the soul.

 

[ateista]

Abstractions, ideas, and concepts are non-STEM. Yet the human mind actually produces them. Since humans are able to produce non-STEM stuff, there must be an aspect of human nature which is non-STEM. That would be the soul.

So what is walking? It is also a non-STEM activity, though it relies on the physical infrastructure of the legs. There is no need to postulate some “walk-soul”, is there?

And what about those unfortunate people who are in persistent vegetative state, whose brain is too damaged to produce abstract ideas and concepts? There is no need to talk about “souls”. Just because the STEM produces non-STEM phenomena there is no need to invoke mysticism.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I don’t see a need for quantum gravity since the force of gravity is exceedingly small and applies at large distances. In other words it is negligible when you are looking at small particles and does not really come into play at that level. Why do you need quantum gravity?

In my estimation, approaches which do not modify the Schrodinger equation to account for measurement taking and measurement results suffer from foundational issues. But approaches so far that try to tweak the Schrodinger equation suffer from no longer agreeing with experimental results. So I think that a very small tweak, about the size of the tweak to account for quantum gravity, is what physics should be looking for to account for measurement as well.

Just my musings.

 

[fhansen]

*Everything that has a beginning is a result of the rearrangement of existing matter.
*
When stated more precisely, it is clear that it has zero bearing on the creation of space/time/matter/energy itself. We have zero evidence and experience of how that happens.

-Touchstone

But this should still preclude universes popping into existence ex nihilo. Wouldn’t it be more precise to say that in order for something to have a beginning, something had to already exist beforehand? Or, in order for anything to exist, there could never be a time when something didn’t exist?

 

[JimG]

So what is walking? It is also a non-STEM activity, though it relies on the physical infrastructure of the legs. There is no need to postulate some “walk-soul”, is there?

And what about those unfortunate people who are in persistent vegetative state, whose brain is too damaged to produce abstract ideas and concepts? There is no need to talk about “souls”. Just because the STEM produces non-STEM phenomena there is no need to invoke mysticism.

Walking is a physical activity comprised of physical (STEM) processes which can be described in detail in physical terms. The concept of walking, like all concepts, is however, non-physical.

So human beings produce a lot of non-STEM stuff like abstractions, ideas, concepts, decisions. Humans, in fact, do this constantly. It might be seen as one of the unique aspects of the species. Science couldn’t exist without the production of ideas and concepts, many quite elegant, yet all non-STEM. Just how does the physical produce the non-physical, STEM produce non-STEM? If it does it in a physical way, there must be a physical process. If it does it in a non-physical way, there must be a non-physical process. Calling it mysticism doesn’t explain how it happens. And if STEM produces non-STEM, in what way can ideas, abstractions and concepts really be said to be non-STEM?

 

[ateista]

Walking is a physical activity comprised of physical (STEM) processes which can be described in detail in physical terms. The concept of walking, like all concepts, is however, non-physical.

No question about it. Nevertheless the “acitivity of walking” itself is not an physical object.

So human beings produce a lot of non-STEM stuff like abstractions, ideas, concepts, decisions. Humans, in fact, do this constantly. It might be seen as one of the unique aspects of the species. Science couldn’t exist without the production of ideas and concepts, many quite elegant, yet all non-STEM.

Correct.

Just how does the physical produce the non-physical, STEM produce non-STEM? If it does it in a physical way, there must be a physical process.

There is. The firing of the neurons are the thoughts, ideas, etc. Obviously the translation onto the actual physical process is much more complicated than translating the “activity of walking” onto the movements of the muscles.

If it does it in a non-physical way, there must be a non-physical process. Calling it mysticism doesn’t explain how it happens.

No atheist will ever call this process “mystical”, only highly complicated. Theists would call it “mystical”, they invoke such concepts as “souls”.

And if STEM produces non-STEM, in what way can ideas, abstractions and concepts really be said to be non-STEM?

The abstractions are not space-time-matter based ontological objects, just like walking is not.

 

[JimG]

Yes, walking is a physical activity, not a physical object. It remains entirely physical, however. It sounds as if you are saying that thinking is also a physical activity, though not a physical object. Of that, I am not convinced. I also perceive the products of intellection, i.e. thoughts and abstractions, to have real, though not strictly physical, existence. It seems as though the entirety of literature, philosophy, science, civilization, and even internet forums, is a result of the workings of these non-STEM entities.

 

[ateista]

Yes, walking is a physical activity, not a physical object. It remains entirely physical, however. It sounds as if you are saying that thinking is also a physical activity, though not a physical object.

Yes, that is correct. Walking is the activity of the muscles (directed by the brain) and thinking is the electro-chemical activity of the neurons.

Of that, I am not convinced.

Why not?

I also perceive the products of intellection, i.e. thoughts and abstractions, to have real, though not strictly physical, existence.

Yes, that is conceptual existence, not denied by atheists.

It seems as though the entirety of literature, philosophy, science, civilization, and even internet forums, is a result of the workings of these non-STEM entities.

Sure. So what is the significance? When push comes to shove, all these are the activity of the neurons.

Let me try to give an analogy. In a computer there are wires, and electronic impulses. In the brain there are neurons and elecro-chemical impulses. The complexity of the brain is much higher and there is this emergent property we call the mind. There is no equivalent in the computers - as of yet.

It will be very interesting when the first computer will be able to pass the Turing-test (some are getting rather close) and be able to create abstractions, thoughts, theorems etc… The theological ramifications are simply staggering. I wonder how the Vatican will cope with this problem.

 

[Touchstone]

But this should still preclude universes popping into existence ex nihilo.

Why would you say that? The whole point I was making is that those are precisely the kinds of propositions we have no basis for offering.

Wouldn’t it be more precise to say that in order for something to have a beginning, something had to already exist beforehand?

I’m not sure if it’s more precise or not, but it’s an unjustified condition, in any case.

Or, in order for anything to exist, there could never be a time when something didn’t exist?

See, we cannot even express your ideas without invoking “internal” language to do it. When you say “be a time”, you’ve just made it a tautology, as time is a “something [to] exist”. If you have time, you have some form of existence. Like saying if you have a “bachelor” , you have some form of marriage in place to give the term “bachelor” meaning.

It’s very difficult to avoid the conceptual “traps” of our own local existence in the universe, when talking hypothetically about the “dynamics” (and see! even that word “dynamics” is loaded with semantic freight from this universe) of the metaphysic.

-Touchstone

 

[JimG]

Why not?

Because neuroscience has not–at least not as yet–demonstrated the actual physical mechanism of thought, any more than advocates of the soul can demonstrate a mechanism by which the soul produces thought. No one denies the necessity of the entire body and particularly the brain in the process of intellection; even theists state a body/mind composite. But biology and biochemistry can fully explain the mechanics of walking. It cannot explain the mechanics or biochemistry of thinking.

If however, all of thought, all intellection, all decision making, has a biochemical basis, then any given thought process, any concept, say quantum theory, produced as a result of intellection, ought to be describable in terms of biochemistry. This entire thread, with it’s twists and turns, should be reducible to and describable in detail by, a series of physical reactions. So, ultimately, should all of human history. Relativity and quantum theory, then, would have to be seen not so much as triumphs of human thinking as the culmination of centuries of biochemical interactions.

As to the Turing Test, it may be a little too simple. Machines can and do simulate reality. A 3-D movie with perfect sound and 360 degree projection may give one the impression of being in a totally different environment, yet the underlying reality has not changed.

But if an AI becomes capable of discussing the philosophical implications of quantum theory, or even the motivations of Hamlet intelligently, I might be convinced. (Actually, those are a little too specialized; maybe just participating in internet discussion forums would be a better test.)