Realism Escaping Wittgenstein’s Silence: The Paradigm Shift That Renders Quantum Mechanics Natural by Sascha Vongehr

Jimbo,

Is there a big difference between "deleting unwanted comments" (Vongehr) and "never replying to unwanted comments" (Christian, Tegmark)?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho,

Yes there is.

A deleted comment is no longer available to anyone and hence is no longer in the scientific discourse. For the readers of the blog it then gives a biased and distorted view of the discussion.

An unanswered comment on the Internet, on the other hand, can be read by anyone at anytime, and hence it remains in the scientific discourse. If the comment is never replied by the addressee, then it could mean many things. It could mean that the addressee is not interested in the comment or the relevant discussion; or it could mean that the addressee is unable to address the comment; or it could mean that the addressee simply has other priorities.

There is no comparison between overt scientific misdemeanours (as habitually committed by Mr. Vongehr) and setting one's priorities right for the sake of science (which, I suspect, would be the case for Dr. Christian and Prof. Tegmark). You seem to be confusing the two.

Jimbo

Pentcho,

You asked: "...do you think special relativity is in danger?"

I think---let alone special relativity---science itself is in danger from Mr. Vongehr type scientific misdemeanours.

Jimbo

No, Jimbo, science is destroyed by dignitaries, not by people like Vongehr:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/max-tegmark-time.html

Max Tegmark: "If someone asked Isaac Newton, "Excuse me, what's the time?" he would have felt that that question made sense because he believed that there was "the time," the absolute time, which was completely well-defined and ticked at the same rate for everybody. And Einstein overturned this and said no, each clock, even a perfect atomic clock, will run at a different rate, which depends on how fast the clock is moving and how far down it is in the Earth's gravitational field. It's all relative. The question, "What is the time?" is actually a trick question. There is no "the time," and "the time" flows at a different rate depending on how fast you're moving and depending on where you are."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

Max Tegmark: "We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Sascha,

"The most severely misleading of our basic physical assumptions is a tacitly held direct realism and its way of physical actualization of future."

Really? Who was misled by that assumption? Most scientists I know tacitly hold with metaphysical realism as described by Popper and other rationalist philosophers of science. Certainly not with Wittgenstein's philosophy.

Perhaps you would like to read my essay. Wheeler plays a prominent role. So do you and Amazing Randi.

(Please don't invite me to your blog -- you've already deleted everything on there that I had to say.)

Tom

Dear Professor Vongehr,

I read your essay but must admit it was not an easy read.

The overall picture I get about your description of tautological modal realism is that we would expect the most fundamental theory of nature to describe it in its totality, and that this implies articulating all possible alternatives into which the parts of nature can evolve to in the next instant, and furthermore, that these alternatives are treated equivalently with respect to such a theory, and finally, that because there is nothing else to compare the totality to, it can only be compared to itself, and hence its description becomes tautological.

Your argument then would be that since QM already contains some of these features it may be close to, or perhaps even already be, our most fundamental description of nature. So for someone who has adopted the tautological modal realism perspective, Quantum mechanics should appear natural, if not even tautological, and the assumption that QM is "strange" is wrong.

Although I find your argument quite ingenious, I seriously doubt that many people will be convinced by it to regard QM as "natural" (unless, by virtue of becoming so familiar with the theory, it no longer triggers their sense of wonder).

The reason why I doubt this is simple: Surely someone before QM was developed should have developed intuitions in line with tautological modal realism, and been filled with puzzlement that measurements on objects up until then yielded definite results (within the accuracy and precision then available), and they would have been disturbed about the absence of observable superposition. I would be amazed if such a person existed. Moreover, from what little I understand about tautological modal realism (if I even understood it at all) I don't see why it should not lead us to expect to observe macroscopic superposition phenomena (not necessarily due to quantum mechanics)? Should it not lead us to expect to observe superpositions of gravity fields at energy scales which are accessible to us, for example? If we adopt this worldview, then, it seems to me, it would be inconsistent that we emphasize how well it fits one set of our observations but not emphasize how poorly it fits another.

I'd like to emphasize that I am not suggesting in any manner that QM is wrong or not a fundamental description of nature. My point is, rather, that adopting this type of worldview post hoc seems to me akin to a form of rationalization.

I accept that quantum mechanics is correct and fundamental, but that does not stop me from trying to understand what the origin of its puzzling features is. Some of my professors have told me that "why" questions are not the kind with which physicists are really concerned, but I strongly disagree. We have to keep asking "why" if we want to maintain any hope of gaining deeper insights into nature. Adopting a worldview which keeps me from asking "why" seems counterproductive. Indeed, it was because I kept asking why that I believe I made any progress in my own attempts at trying to 'understand' quantum mechanics.

The previous commenters have painted a picture of someone who does not take criticism well, but, not having had any prior interactions with you, I like to believe that when faced with an attempt at respectful, thoughtful and constructive criticism, you will receive it in the spirit in which it was given, namely that we can benefit and learn from an exchange of each other's perspectives, even if they sometimes disagree.

All the best,

Armin

Sasha

I am big admirer Wittgenstein Tractatus logico- philosophical

Specially 4.461 "Tautology and contradiction are without sense"

I often try to use this thesis as applied to the Universe.

If the Universe is cyclic mean tautology

If the Universe is mortal mean contradiction.

What is your opinion?

Hello Sascha,

Thank you for your comments. I find your replies interesting.

You said: "This is not about us expecting, but it being so by definition ("most fundamental")."

It appears to me that we have different perspectives on what might constitute a most fundamental description of nature. However, it is incumbent upon me to explain the difference because I think your view is more in line with a general consensus view whereas mine is not.

In my opinion, the most fundamental description of nature transcends what would normally be called a "theory of nature" because it will contain regions in its domain that are in principle observationally inaccessible to us, but perhaps not to other kinds of observers, so that our description of those regions is really metaphysical, whereas to other kinds of observers they might well be part of physics (and our physics might be their metaphysics). You may think of I am referring to the many-worlds hypothesis but that is not the case. It refers to something more similar to the inaccessibility of information about the interior of black holes to us, but I'd like to emphasize that my conception of those domains is much more general than that. It just so happens that my essay in this contest contains a more detailed explanation, so if you are interested in finding out more details, I invite you to take at look at it, and especially the appendix, which outlines a worldview that is quite different from that almost universally held today.

Getting back to your comment, from my perspective it is not so "by definition" because you first need to specify what you mean by "fundamental theory of nature". Do you mean a framework which describes that aspect of nature describable by us just in terms of physics? Then I disagree, because that is, in my opinion, not the whole part of the story and therefore cannot by definition refer to the "totality" of nature. Do you mean the by "fundamental theory of nature" all aspects of nature which could be described by any kind of hypothetical observer whatsoever? Then yes, by definition it describes it in "totality" but note, then you have adopted a point of view in which such a description includes both physical and metaphysical regions and transcends what we normally would call a "fundamental theory of nature".

You said "No, statistical mechanics already does (all configurations in phase space)."

Yes but phase space is totally different from Hilbert space. It seems to me that you cannot just pick and choose which "space" you wish to apply your philosophical principles to, otherwise your principles risk becoming either internally inconsistent or vacuous. Phase space is well compatible with classical physics, quantum superposition is not. My understanding of your paper was that its goal was to try to help show the reader a perspective in which quantum mechanics seems natural. A perspective in which "phase" space seems natural falls short of this because it already seems natural to a classical physicist.

You said: "This is because you left out most of the argument."

Yes, indeed I did. That is because I could not avoid leaving out something out of your argument without reproducing almost your entire paper, I had to make hard choices and pick the points that seemed the most salient to me.

You said: "One of the main points is that tautological modal realism is NOT yet QM."

Actually, I thought that was one of the points I did (implicitly) include by the statement "...since QM already contains some of these features.." (as opposed to, say, "since QM is implied by this...")

You said: "You need to add special relativity in order to then come to Wheeler's "utterly simple idea that demands the quantum". "

Allow me to express skepticism at the idea that adding one counter-intuitive idea to another in the manner you describe makes the whole more intuitive (I suppose it is possible, but I am skeptical). Also, I did not come away with a clear idea of what Wheeler's idea was, I wished your essay had been clearer on that.

You said: "Precisely! For thousands of years there have been people for who "possibilism" was self-evident."

Ah, thank you for clarifying this, so I stand corrected on this point.

You said: "I do not exclude 'further facts' like Bell's fifth position or gravity induced non-linearities (e.g. Diosi-Penrose)."

When I said I accept QM as fundamental this is what I meant more precisely: I do not believe that any future theory that replaces QM will show that QM was wrong, but it might shed insight into how QM fits into our total worldview. In other words, I meant that QM is fundamental (=won't be shown to be wrong) in its domain, not "fundamental" in the sense that it is already the final theory that covers its domain. I regret that I did not express myself clearly.

You said: "The question now is, for example, why do the correlations between alternative worlds lead to Born probabilities rather than stronger or less severe violations of the Bell inequality. This will likely be answered via David Deutsch's ideas hitting Relational Quantum Mechanics as applied to EPR."

As I have my own ideas on this, it is only natural that I may disagree, but that's okay, since this is still at the edge of our knowledge. We still have room to disagree.

Thank you for your serious replies.

Armin

Dear Professor Vongehr,

I just visited your column. While I don't mind that you put my comment there, I think it will be inevitable before one of your regular readers googles my name and as a result will find something about me that they will notify you about, and I'd prefer you find out from me.

About 10 years ago, as I was preparing to pursue a master in public health degree, having already graduated from pharmacy school, I had an epiphany about a fundamental aspect of nature. Physics not being my field, I hesitated to do anything about this, but after some time I realized that I had a strong inner urge to find out whether the insight from that epiphany had any merit or not.

I broke off my MPH studies halfway and decided to learn physics. Because some of the initial glimpses of what I was beginning to understand about quantum mechanism seemed to match the insight, I became very enthusiastic. In a fit of overactive enthusiasm, I applied to the JREF Million Dollar challenge, claiming that I had an epiphany which would transform our understanding of quantum mechanics. Because I do not know the "cause" of my epiphany, and frankly do not believe in supernatural phenomena, I framed my claim in accordance with my convictions by saying that it would be less likely for a layperson with no prior training to have such a fundamental insight than for a genuine psychic event to occur. In order to not be disqualified from the challenge, however, I expressed this very subtly.

Given that you appear to hold the JREF in very high esteem, having founded your own quantum version of their challenge (which, BTW I believe is impossible to beat), I think it is fair for me to believe that this new information will strongly color your perception of me and make it more likely for you to discount anything else I say.

However, I request that you hear the rest of the story.

At the time, none of the applications were online, that came later. While I was not happy when they did post my application without my consent or permission and prefaced it by calling me "psychic Einstein", I decided to ignore them and continue with my studies. I continued to take almost all the courses a physics major would take (on a part-time basis) as well as additional philosophy of physics and mathematics courses at the University of Michigan, while working full-time as a pharmacist.

Seriously studying physics can be a humbling experience. However, I was determined to honestly try to find out if what I seemed to have stumbled upon had any merit. In particular, I was ready to admit any mistake I had made, and unfortunately I made lots of them. The upside of making a mistake, however, is that one can learn from it, and as a result, one knows more than before the mistake was made.

Last year, I finally felt ready (after 7 years) to make the details of my idea public. I already had ongoing discussions with a couple of my professors (one in the physics and the other in the philosophy department) and after they understood the details of my idea they gave me permission to deposit the relevant papers in Deep Blue, the University of Michigan's repository.

I have since participated in some conferences, and observed that the JREF's action appears to be seriously hurting my efforts to achieve a meaningful scientific exchange with others. For instance, I participated last year at a conference at Perimeter, giving a poster presentation about my framework, and by the second day, the JREF's post upon googling my name jumped from 13th to 1st position, and I could tell that people were avoiding me. Also, when I sent in my paper for publication, the chief editor, no doubt having googled me after seeing some unorthodox ideas in the paper, felt fit to write me back saying that I did not understand quantum mechanics.

Before you write me off as a crackpot or a delusional person, too, I'd like to ask that you consider the evidence, which you can check for yourself:

-I have never compared myself to Einstein, they did. I only claimed that I had an epiphany, which I truthfully did, and it has changed the course of my life

-My actual claim does not contain a psychic claim but a comparison of the likelihood of what happened to me to an actual psychic event (but of course, after one sees "psychic Einstein" who is going to check?)

-Finally, the content of my idea. Before you make any judgement about its merit, why not examine the evidence? 3 months ago, I gave a talk about my framework at the Vaxjo conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics in which I attempted to give an overview and I believe this is the best way to familiarize someone who knows nothing about it. You will find that the central idea is so simple that a layperson with no knowledge about quantum mechanics could have stumbled on it (although that was not my initial epiphany, however it directly led to that central idea). And if during the talk I said anything that contradicts our current knowledge about quantum mechanics, I will be the first to admit that I was mistaken.

You can find the talk here: http://youtu.be/GurBISsM3

I have throughout the entire time I have been studying physics been eager to be honest with myself and readily admit when I make a mistake. I believe this is what distinguishes what many call a 'crackpot' from somebody who is pursuing an unorthodox idea in a scientific fashion. I believe that even someone in academia can be a crackpot if they refuse to admit that they have made a mistake in their endeavor.

I believe I can say that my professors know me as a hardworking and serious but also very curious student and hope you take the evidence I presented into account before judging me.

Armin

Sascha, if you really are interested in engaging on Wittgenstein's role in the philosophy of logic and mathematics with one who understands it -- I will be more than happy to accommodate. Wittgenstein plays no significant role in the philosophy of science, however, and I challenge you to produce one credible source that successfully argues so.

As it is, you lay false premise upon false premise, to reach your false conclusions. For example, "I say that the alternatives (worlds) physically match up (one Alice per Bob) and that this is the 'interaction' between alternatives (worlds) that is the very core of QM." No, that is the core of your belief about what is at the core of QM. There is no physical interaction among alternative worlds, else there would be no reason to label them "alternative."

The physics core of QM is quite simple and straightforward: A continuously variable classical quantity, such as angular momentum, is observed to take discrete measured values restricted to simple rational numbers.

You want a real debate, or not?

Tom

Sascha, there is actually *nothing* in Wittgenstein's philosophy that would allow you to arrive at Wheeler's "utterly simple idea," because in Wittgenstein there is no physics. Wheeler, OTOH, is all about physics.

Tom

Sasha

I would like to show

old essay http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

essay for this contest

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Two persons inspired me for this work

1.Ludwig Wittgenstein

2.John Wheeler

"Classical physics emerges from QM, not the other way around."

Of course, you cannot support this statement in any objective way. EPR-Bell is by strictly classical parameters, for one thing -- and for another, so are Wheeler's ideas. What the experimental violation of Bell's inequality explicitly shows, is that classical physics *cannot* emerge from quantum mechanical rules.

Problem is, you are so convinced that physic is an observer-created -- as opposed to observer-participatory, which is Wheeler's interpretation of the covariance inherent in relativity -- that you ignore the physics entirely, in favor of the language analysis that attends anti-rationalist philosophy.

Tom