Essay Abstract

Despite its success, quantum mechanics still struggles to be fully accepted even within the physics community. Much of this is related to an attachment to a classical view of the world based on objectively real "billiard ball" particles as used by Boltzmann. It is argued that in order to make further progress in physics, classical objective reality must be replaced by quantum reality as the framework for understanding the universe.

Author Bio

Hal Swyers is a former officer in the United States Navy and graduate of the Naval Nuclear Power Program. He has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Marquette University and will be completing a M.S. in Environmental Management from the University of Maryland University College in the fall. He has extensive programming and modeling and simulation experience and currently works as a Senior Operations Research Analyst.

Download Essay PDF File

Hal,

A very well-written essay. I agree with what you are saying, but I might differ a bit on the definition of "objective realism," although I think your arguments are perfectly watertight given the definition you use. For example, I would say that the quantum paradigm IS objective reality in the sense that any competent observer will observe the quantum-theoretic prediction, rather than the classical prediction, in experiments (such as the double-slit experiment). In this sense, the theory isn't observer-dependent.

Given your Coleman quote, I'd be interested to know your view of Feynman's sum-over-histories version of quantum theory. This seems to me the version most suited to quantum gravity; for instance, see my essay

On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics

Take care,

Ben Dribus

    Ben,

    Thanks for the interest and the post! I am going to have to re-read your paper before I can any comments on it, but I will post them to your paper at the earlist opportunity.

    As far as objective realism, we need to frame this question in terms of Einstein's apparent view on this subject, since this is at the center of EPR's paper (as highlighted in the first paragraphs of the paper). It is important that we recognize that they didn't bother to provide a full definition of objective reality. This is significant because a lack of definition in a paper that is arguing that objective reality is the means by which we should grade theories should be viewed as flawed from the start.

    So we are left grasping as to what is actually meant by the term.

    In posterior construction, we have to note that Einstein was heavily influenced by both Mach and Boltzmann. Einstein never met Boltzmann, but he did meet Mach, and on page 164 of Walter Isaacson's book Einstein: His Life and Universe [1] we see the following exchange:

    "Einstein wanted to convince Mach of the reality of atoms, which the old man had long rejected as being imaginary constructs of the human mind. "Let us suppose that by assuming the existence of atoms in a gas we were able to predict an observable property of this gas that could not be predicted on the basis of non-atomistic theory" Einstein asked. "Would you then accept such a hypothesis?"

    "If with the help of the atomic hypothesis on could actually establish a connection between several observable properties which without it would remain isolated, then I should say this hypothesis was an 'economical' one," Mach grudginly replied.

    It was not a full acceptance, but it was enough for Einstein."

    So we see that Einstein was deeply influenced by Boltzmann's ideas, and presumably his ideas of objective reality. So then we have to examine what Boltzmann meant. It turns out that there is a collection of Boltzmann's philosophical discourse. The book Ludwig Boltzmann, Theoretical Physics and Philosophical Problems, Edited by Brian McGuinness; contains a paper entitled "Objective Existence in Inanimate Nature". What is interesting is that as Boltzmann first builds an argument where he must start which the subjective observations before he can talk about objective things. This is effectively an argument where the objective *emerges* from subjective roots, then we get to page 65 of the the book where Boltzmann says this:

    "It would of course be absurd to prove or disprove the objective existence of matter."

    then

    "Rather, it will be the case of giving further reasons why it would be inappropriate constantly to remind ourselves of the fact stated earlier, namely that we denote matter as not objectively existing, although we should always remain clearly aware of this fact."

    and further

    "To fix the concept of objective existence we earlier appealed to the common judgement of all."

    Boltzmann's objective is to then show start with the other point of view, starting with objective inanimate matter. This argument is a little harder to follow but one part of the argument stands out on page 70:

    "It is simply that, for our subjective feelings, that is fine and lofty which advances and raises our species: objectively these concepts do not exist."

    Here is the man, Boltzmann, who Einstein admired enough as to propose his world view to his other hero, Mach, basically pointing out that objective existence can only be built upon a foundation of collected subjective interpretation. Since the latter can not *emerge* from the former. He is basically arguing that we are mechanisms, and essentially everything that we identify with individuality is purely non existent.

    This is the argument as it stood for 100 yrs. It is also the view that quantum mechanics says is completely wrong. It is also disproved by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in the sense that existence built on discrete material objects is simply incapable to explain the universe, or even people (we have to differentiate from the discreteness found in QM, which is a discreteness in hilbert space).

    Ok, now onto path integrals.

    First we have to recognize that the wave-particle duality that is frequently discussed is different from the wave-simple harmonic oscillator duality. Particles, as we identify them in nature, most are not simple entities. The are composite entities, they are composed of waves. Even the simple photon itself is a composite entity, as highlighted in the dual slit experiment, it interferes with itself. A simple wave, like a sine wave, extends throughout all of space, however, it has a dual representation as a simple harmonic oscillator. There is nothing contradictory in saying that a composite particle, like the electron, when it is in a potential well, behaves as a simple harmonic oscillator. However, is it conversely true to argue that a simple harmonic oscillator is a particle? I would argue that it isn't.

    Why I discuss this is that it is important to understand that Feynmann's path itegral approach has a dual Hamilitonian approach, as highlighted in most QFT books, but specifically I refer to A. Zee's book QFT in a Nutshell. Essentially it says that recursive evolution (hamiltonian evolution) is functional equivalent to the spacetime filling path representation. So at some level one can see the analogy of oscillator-path to simple harmonic oscillator-wave duality.

    So what about Feynmann diagrams, and there use of particles? What about strings? Are these not real objects?

    The simple answer is no. If we reference Diagrammatica by Veltmann, we find an interesting quote:

    "Feynman rules have a true physics content,and the physicist must understand that."

    The point as emphasized in the book, is the strength of the theory has nothing to do with the concept of particles, it is the development of rules to govern how we derive a result. Does it matter whether there is a point or a string in the diagram, not really except that we can attach additional variability to our mental image of a string. The string is simply a more evolved collection of oscillators.

    I hope that answer isn't too long, I just thought it was better to give more detail about my thoughts on this than less.

    Harlan

    [1]http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=einstein+met+mach&source=bl&ots=1w4yuUfxpK&sig=EH0OwvnLqNXoWiAn3qjWCQkIkAQ&hl=en#v=onepage&q=einstein%20met%20mach&f=false

    • [deleted]

    • Post #4

    Dear Harlan Swyers,

    I do beg your pardon. I know nothing about physics. In my essay Sequence Consequence, I have tried to convey what little I know of reality. I truly believe that one real appearing Universe can only be perpetually occurring in one real here for one real now while always fully captured in one real dimension once. Only one real 1 of anything can only exist once. I do not quite see how anyone could possibly gain a superior sense of reality than that of anybody else by dwelling unduly on seeming identical abstractions concerning the behavior of expensively created particles of matter.

      Hi Joe, thanks for the post and the interest!

      One thing I am certainly not is a multiple world interpretation (MWI) advocate, there is only one universe, but the point is that as one considers the universe in its entirety, and the relationships between observers, then what we begin to experience definite outcomes. This was the crux of what Mott and Coleman were getting at. Coleman goes so far as to say that our common experience is that we see a definite outcome to observations.

      There is useful concept when thinking about these sorts of issues and that is the idea of mutual information as a measure of correlation between systems.

      From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mutual_information

      "In other words, if we assume the two variables x and y to be uncorrelated, mutual information is the discrepancy in uncertainty resulting from this (possibly erroneous) assumption."

      I will discuss more as we go on, but in short, we have to think of what is we consider as "objectively real" as an emergent phenomena associated with the measure of mutual information.

      One minor clarification, when I speak of waves extending throughout space, I am really discussing spatial dimensions as they are represented in some abstract space, like hilbert space, and not physical space. What we think of spacetime is really only where we build representations of what we observe.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #7

      Hal,

      I really wish I could have used your essay as a reference in my own essay! There is something very 'natural' about quantum mechanics and Hilbert Spaces, but the 'ontological' view (to use an overly fancy, but appropriate phrase for ... what *really* is happening) can be scary to express when faced with an insistance that 'quantum behavior just doesn't *sound* real to me!'

      There seems to be a lot 'going on behind the scenes' in our universe that is 'real' in the sense that it may be what holds things together, but the 'either classical reality exists' OR ' there is superluminal communication' seems mathematically and empirically a little too rigid.

      Many of my thoughts about this ended up on the cutting room floor because I couldn't find a way to express those thoughts as elegantly as you have.

      Well done!

      Dean

        Harlan,

        Thanks for the detailed answers. I also responded to your remarks on my thread, without remembering at the time that you were the same person who wrote this essay.

        I see that your definition and treatment of "objective reality" is based on aspects of the history of science that you are more familiar with than I am. I have a reasonably good physics education, but the history is something that tends to be neglected.

        Regarding path integrals, I am not sure how general the duality you mention is. I tend to doubt the ultimate relevance of the continuum, as you know from reading my essay. I know how to derive an analogue of the canonical formulation very generally from the sum-over-histories approach, but I am not sure about the converse. Take care,

        Ben

        Dean, thanks for the kind words!

        Before getting started, I want to make sure I clarify that locality is a critical feature of quantum mechanics. On the face of it the choice expressed by Coleman of classical mechanics or non locality is directed at those who talk about quantum mechanics being non local in order to highlight that they are thinking about the problem wrong. It points out that that no form of classical theory could be correct, quantum mechanics, with space filling component wave functions, uses local operations to produce observations. It is therefor fundamentally different. What makes it possible to *think* of it in terms of local *objects* is that the fundamental space filling waves have a dual representation as oscillators moving in time in some abstract space. Collection of oscillators define discrete particles that we represent in spacetime.

        What is interesting, in Boltzmann's paper "Reply to a Lecture On Happiness Given by Professer Ostwald" Boltzmann expresses admiration for Mach even while admitting differences. He also gives Mach's view of the world:

        "Mach pointed out that we are given only the law-like course of our impressions and ideas, whereas all physical magnitudes, atoms, molecules, forces, energies and so on are mere concepts for the economical representation and illustration of these law-like relations of our impressions and ideas. These last are thus the only thing that exists in the first instance, physical concepts being merely mental additions of our own."

        Two things are interesting here.

        1) Referencing Einstein's meeting with Mach in my response to Ben Dribus above, Mach never actually moved from his position. Einstein and others may have interpretted it that way when he said atomism was economical, but he never wavered (this view is also reinforced by ref [1] in the paper)

        2) We have evidence of the thought process that what we consider as objective reality in Boltzmann's view is an emergent phenomena. Referencing the response to Ben Dribus again, if we start with objective reality everything that defines ourselves does not emerge. Classical mechanics completely fails.

        So its not so much of an all or nothing choice between classical mechanics or non locality, it really is a nothing or everything choice between classical mechanics or quantum reality.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #10

        Hal

        I would agree with your start point that we have to dispense with the notion that the 'basic constituent is a billiard ball', but...

        In attempting to identify what constitutes the 'bottom line' of physical reality, think on this. If one asserts that the elementary state is 'something' (be it different types and/or like a 'billiard ball' or whatever), then the question becomes: what constitutes physical reality as at any given point in time? Because that 'something' alters in its physical state (which might be manifest as spin, or some other changing attribute). Similarly, in respect of the notion of 'wave', the question is what physically constitutes this, and then the same conundrum applies? And furthermore, whatever exists (ie is fundamental), definitely does so. There is no form of 'vagueness' about it, physical existence cannot occur that way.

        So the elementary physical state which constitutes physical reality cannot be the 'things' of themselves. It must relate to the physical state of the properties of the elementary 'things'. The principle here being, as Joe says above, there can only be one physically existent state in any given sequence at a time.

        Apologies for the non-technical language.

        Paul

          Hi Paul!

          Thanks for the comment!

          This gets into a very interesting discussion on what we mean by wave function. Definitions are sometimes fluid, which is why the particular definition of objective realism appeared in the essay. When we cross into physics we need something that can translate into definite concepts. What is interesting about the wave function is that in the traditional Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function is understood to be the "state of knowledge" an observer has of the larger system. In quantum mechanics, states can be combined linearly, and any state can be decomposed into component basis states. This is understood as the principle of superposition.

          I don't want to be ambiguous, I agree that at any instant there is only one observed state that an observer can be in, and there is only one state that has any *emergent* property that one would normally associate with what we see. In other words, I do not subscribe to the Many World Interpretation (MWI) that has become the favorite in popular shows on physics. However, a proper understanding of the theory tells us that any state can be decomposed into component basis states. This is general understood in terms of Fourier expansion of a given wave function.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #12

          Hal

          "This gets into a very interesting discussion on what we mean by wave function". Indeed it does, a question I have asked several times in the past year. But that is just a sub-set of a wider question, which is: whenever any concept is referred to, what is the corresponding physical reality?

          "the wave function is understood to be the "state of knowledge" an observer has of the larger system". If this is so, then it is incorrect. What existed (ie was physical reality) as at any given point in time, did so. It also did so in a definite state. Physical existence does not occur with some form of indefiniteness. Any form of knowledge of that physically existent state is seperate, and probably inaccuate/incomplete for a whole range of practical reasons.

          "any state can be decomposed into component basis states. This is understood as the principle of superposition". If a 'state' can be decomposed, then it is not a physically existent state, but a combination thereof. If anything is deemed to be physically existent, then it can only be in one physical form. That is, if alteration is involved then, by definition, what is being described involves more than one physically existent state. One needs to differentiate what occurs until one identifies what existed as at a point in time. Which is easy to say, but probably impossible to achieve.

          "I agree that at any instant there is only one observed state that an observer can be in". It is not a case of the observer. It is a function of how physical reality occurs. Indeed, any form of sensing (observation being the most prominent) involves the receipt of physically existent phenomena which exist as a result of an interaction with what existed. Though I agree with your subsequent position.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          • Post #13

          Thanks for your insight Paul!

          If we first agree on the definition of concept I think we can get through some of these points. From wikipedia for concept:

          "A concept is a general idea, or something conceived in the mind"

          So I interpret your first question as: Whenever anything is conceived in the mind, what is the corresponding physical reality? This is very similar to questions Einstein was trying to address in his paper, and this is where the first mistake is made. Einstein asserts the following:

          "Any serious consideration of a physical theory must take into account the distinction between the objective reality, which is independent of any theory, and the physical concepts with which the theory operates. These concepts are intended to correspond with the objective reality, and by means of these concepts we picture this reality to ourselves."

          Here we see the formation of a logical fallacy. It happens when there is an assertion of there being an objective reality. Once this premise is accepted then one begins to fall down the slippery slope. However, lets take a look at the rest of this statement. Using our definition of concepts, Einstein is saying that the theory is working with an idea conceived in the mind. So he is saying that elements of the mind are to correspond to objective reality. However, the premise of there being an objective reality is something that Einstein asserts as existing, whereas it can only be understood by humans as a concept that is another idea of the mind. So Einstein is really saying that ideas of the mind should correspond to ideas of the mind, which is obviously tautological.

          So the measure of completeness is then whether a theory can accurately capture all the ideas of the mind. Ultimately the analysis boils down to whether quantum mechanics can capture the ideas of the mind, and also whether hidden variables can capture ideas do mind. As stated before, the wave function was designed to represent a "state of knowledge" so any concept and idea in principle could be a component of the wave function. Hidden variables on the other hand is limited only to inanimate objects and the properties thereof. It should be intuitive to see that whether I am thinking red or blue has no meaning in classical physics, but can in fact be represented as two separate states in quantum mechanics. In fact that is exactly the point made when we say that Dirac's kets can have arbitrary labels.

          Getting to your other points, I think the best way to address these is to go directly to Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics 4th ed page 12. To paraphrase, Dirac discussion superpositions of states, and how whenever a system is definitely in one state it should also be considered as partly in two or more other states. The original state must be considered as a result of the superposition of other states which is foreign to classical mechanics. Quoting Dirac directly:

          "Any state may be considered as the result of a superposition of two or more other states, and indeed in an infinite number of ways"

          To summarize, the question of "whenever any concept is referred to, what is the corresponding physical reality?" is that any concept that can be conceived inside the mind can be represented as a state in quantum mechanics, physical reality is a concept of the mind, and can also be represented as a state in quantum mechanics. So essentially the theory does offer a complete description of "reality". Its the question then that is tautological.

          p.s. not entirely sure why my response popped up as anonymous, must be a timeout issue, but just wanted to claim my post

          • [deleted]

          • Post #15

          Hal

          "Whenever anything is conceived in the mind, what is the corresponding physical reality?"

          Yes(ish). My word 'concept' did not have any specific meaning, it was just a mechanism to refer to anything. For any representational device, whether it be words, graphics or maths, which purports to define physical reality, there must be corresponding physical existence. Now, we (and all sentient organisms) are aware of reality (of which we are a part) through the evolution of sensory detection systems (ie sight, hearing, etc). This is a closed system, ie no organism can transcend its own existence, but physical existence is independent of it. So we have an objective basis (assuming we eradicate any 'interference' that occurs in the processing of received physical phenomena!-but this is physics not psychology or sociology). The main problem with this is that for a number of known practical reasons we cannot always effect direct experience. So hypothesis is necessary (ie indirect experience), but that should be based on direct experience. The danger is that one can 'drift' too far with combinations of hypotheses, or, say, the development of a mathematical model which takes on a 'life of its own', ie is driven by the intrinsic logic of the system, rather than extrinsic validity. And since these are references to phenomena which cannot be directly experienced, disproof becomes problematic.

          "It happens when there is an assertion of there being an objective reality"

          As above, this is not the problem, as such. Because there is an objective reality. Or at least to be precise, within the confines of our existence, there is one. And since anything else is only a logical possibility and we can never know it anyway, it is irrelevant. Scientifically, we must confine ourselves to explaining what is manifest to us (which includes that which would appear to exist but for demonstrable practical reasons we cannot directly experience). The problem is when hypotheses become 'self-fulfilling', ie they incorporate assertions as to what constitutes reality, and then create a depiction which has no extrinsic validity, although intrinsically the hypothesis 'works'. Validity/completeness/whatever is subservient to validated experience (or proven potential thereof), not, inherently, correctness of the model in itself.

          Another important point here is what we, or any sentient organism thinks, etc, is irrelevant. Physical reality occurs independently of this. The problem is we only have individual perceptions as a start point from which to ultimately infer what physically existed.

          I found a copy of the Dirac pages you refer to. He attributes a state, which can be measured in all aspects as at any given point in time, to a presumption of classical mechanics. Whereas it is a function of the nature of physical reality. By definition, to physically exist, whatever is existing can only be in one physically existent state at a time. Otherwise 'it' cannot exist, neither can there be alteration (apart from asking, 'what was 'it', one then asks 'what changed to what'). And physical existence must involve definiteness, the question being what constitutes a state of physical existence, not whether it involves some attribute which is contrary to the very essence of existence. Whether or not we can measure/observe it is irrelevant. Our deficiencies do not affect physical reality. After all, sensory detection evolved to give sentient organisms, as against rocks, an advantage in terms of survival, not a system which is capable of decomposing reality in its entirety. Furthermore, it is irrelevant what physical phenomena one is referring to, ie the same principles still apply. Because any phenomena deemed to have physical existence must conform to the principles of a physical sequence.

          The essential point here is that one should start with what is known about physical reality, hence what that implies about how it occurs, and then establish what is occurring, given those generic rules. Not make observations, which are bound to involve deficiencies, and then try and make sense of them.

          Paul

          Hal,

          Thank you for the clarification. If I understand clearly (and I am slightly sleep deprived, so confusion is eminently still possible), then 'classical mechanics' and 'objective reality' based on the viewpoint of a human observer both fail and that what we experience are emergent phenomena arising from local operations (what I might call inter-actions) on oscillators that do not have a grit-like particle existence, but are wavefunctions spread out in space and have an existence in an abstract space (Hilbert space).

          I still find myself falling down conceptual rabbit holes if I'm not careful!

          The abstract space seems so important and 'real' in its own right to me. I may wrongly have come to conceptualize/visualize this abstract space as largely not space-like at all, except in the narrow realm of it participating in local operations. I know people sometimes say "you can't visualize quantum mechanics," but I have found it incredibly useful to try!

          Though thoroughly 'entangled' and un-billiard ball like as a whole, it seems unwise to minimalize the importance of the abstract space just because we have experimental methods and 'normalization' that, as Penrose says, 'can largely safely ignore' most of the more bothersome random, entangled or superposed aspects, at least in cases which can be handled in a largely linear, statistical or highly local fashion. Don't get me wrong ... I am in awe of how high-functioning quantum mechanics is, and what *can* be handled by it is anything but *simple*, but I am bothered by the mystical thinking around the edges!

          As you may be able to tell, the main focus of my somewhat haphazard studies has been on constructing a coherent and consistent conceptual model that embraces the -- for lack of better phrases -- non-local or entangled aspects of wavefunctions in a way that conveys the entangled-ket nature of quantum theory without destroying causality or the possiblity of an emergent 'reality'. I wrote my essay in the hopes that I'm either closer to a workable 'functional myth', or someone can show me the error of my ways more quickly than I usually can do on my own!

          In any case, I hope I haven't made an even bigger mess of your ideas. I appreciate your careful clarification and I should probably sleep before I make a real mess of things!

          Dean

            Paul,

            Thanks again for your insights!

            I think I didn't make myself plain enough. Remember, the issue here is that Einstein asserted the existence of an objective reality, which is an assertion he makes without any proof. The point is that once one recognizes that one can ultimately only view objective reality as a derived concept within the mind. In your response you reassert that there is an objective reality.

            "Because there is an objective reality."

            Again this is an assertion, or an assumption. The key point in the Bell experiments and GHZ is that there is no way this assumption could be valid. One must accept either quantum mechanics or non-locality, and since accepting non-locality contradicts the evidence of relativity in classical theories, then one is forced to accept quantum mechanics, and the assumption of objective reality is no longer valid, so it can not be asserted as fact.

            This debate is old, one could make certain statements that it dates back several thousands of years in various forms. People who are absorbed into metaphysics and philosophy might see the argument in light of body versus soul, or the material world vs. the spiritual world, but such discussions and comparisons are not particularly helpful.

            However, if one looks at dialogues with Einstein one sees these conversation in the context of his discussion about god not playing dice with the universe (see page 58 of Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man By William Hermanns, Albert Einstein.

            http://books.google.com/books?id=QXCyjj6T5ZUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA58#v=onepage&q&f=false

            Here ome gets that proper sense that Einstein again was arguing about the independence of the objective world. In his mind the objective world was god, this explains his philosophical view that he did not believe in a personal god. His point was that he felt observers were merely looking at some larger corporeal object whose actions were completely independent. This is what is being challenged in quantum mechanics. Observers in quantum mechanics play a key role, they can not be left out of the picture. This does not necessarily mean that observers need to be particularly advanced creatures, or creatures at all, only that we can not ultimately separate them from the surrounding environment without changing the environment.

            Hopefully that helps you on your thoughts about this problem, thanks again for the post!

            • [deleted]

            • Post #18

            Hi Dean, thanks!

            I think the definitions of reality is fine by itself, if we pull up wikipedia for reality, the way the way its described is:

            "reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined"

            The key point is the issue of what we call objective. There are different definitions for the word objective and some of those are not incompatible with quantum physics in any way. The key one though is how the words "objective reality" relates to physics and its alignment with classical approaches to theory.

            What most people associate with "reality" in the physical sense are actually collections of observations. The assumption people make is that observations are associate with classical objects (in the sense of Boltzmann's particles) that have independent existence and that theory a complicated interaction, certain other relationships emerge. So that ultimately, everything can be reduced to pure interactions driven by forces between the inanimate classical objects (billiard balls). This is also the approach of classical computer theory and the associated mathematics. In essence, the idea is that the observations are the result of mixing of properties associated with an independent "thing".

            Where quantum theory diverges first is that it is a theory of observations, it really isn't a theory about classical particles. Although certain types of observations can be grouped in such way we can characterize them as being associated with different types of particles, what the theory is trying to predict is the possible outcome of an observation.

            One of the current divergences occurring in the physics community hits directly on this question about whether the wave function is real in the sense that it is classical object itself, spread out in space. This the type of concept that led to pilot wave theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave). Pilot wave theory is another sort of hidden variables theory that has been shown to be incompatible with the outcomes of Bell's experiments and GHZ.

            What this means is that one way we can really think about the problem is that there are observations that can be made that can be grouped in such a way that they can be associated with some more fundamental entities. That we still call them particles is a matter of convenience, but ultimately what we are interested in the outcomes of observations. The wave function controls the evolution of the possible outcomes and it can be viewed as no more real than the idea that there is some function that tells us the possible outcomes of throwing a pair of dice, or what cards might come up in a game of poker. Certainly no one would argue that the relationships that control the outcomes of a poker game are "objectively real" even if they accept the definition of reality as provided by wikipedia.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #20

            Hal

            But it is not an assertion. Leaving aside beliefs, which science is not concerned with, what is manifest to us (and all organisms), via the sensory systems, physically exists. There is 'something there' (which includes us). And it occurs independently of the sensory systems which enable sentient organisms to be aware of it, because the physically existent results (eg light, noise, etc) of physical interactions with it, are physically received by these sensory systems. That is, the subsequent processing into meaningful perceptions cannot alter physical existence, ie there is an objective physical reality.

            So, for the science of physics, we have two knowns: a) there is an independent physical existence, b) there is alteration. Which means that it is sequence, etc, etc, etc.

            It is not a case of: "one can ultimately only view objective reality as a derived concept within the mind". Individual perceptions are just the only available start point, they are not reality. But, by understanding the physical processes involved, it is then possible to reverse-engineer them, and eradicate individualism, thereby establishing what originally occurred (existed). Remember, not only do individuals 'interfere' with what is received when creating their perceptions, they do not receive the reality under consideration anyway, but the results of interaction with it. And furthermore, what they do receive may not be a complete and/or accurate representation of that reality for a number of practical reasons.

            "The key point in the Bell experiments and GHZ is that there is no way this assumption could be valid". As with Julian Barbour, who referred to some theory, the point here is: which comes first? And the answer is, the way in which physical reality must occur in order to correspond with what we directly experience and know. This is rather like ignoring the known physical qualities of wood, and asserting they are something else, then turning up at a woodworking class with a hairbrush and nail clippers and expecting to get results. The inherent nature of what is being investigated takes precedence over models purporting to represent it. And if those models contradict fundamental characteristics of physical reality, then they are, in effect, belief systems.

            For example, if a theory involves the presumption that 'observers play a key role', then it has a problem, because any form of sensing cannot affect what existed. Since a) the senses do not receive reality, b) reality occurred before the senses received what they did receive, c) reality cannot exist in some form of 'incomplete' physical state, neither can it be in more than one such state at a time, otherwise physical existence would not occur.

            Paul