The Quantum Reality Paradox

My dear fellow,

Reality is easy to see, all you have to do is open your eyes. You mistakenly wrote: "Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread). If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's." Reality is not dependent on any abstract we abstractly working on any abstract premise so that abstract we can abstractly prevent abstractly deceiving abstract us from abstractly distinguishing the abstract differences between an abstract God's abstract work and an abstract blind abstract nature's abstract work." Please stop thinking about abstract we and concentrate on the real you.

Joe Fisher, Realist

My Dear Fellow,

You bewilderingly wrote some more abstract codswallop: "According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space" Forget about any abstract "our" abstract perception. No matter in which direction you look, you will always see a plethora of real intermeshed flattish surfaces. As only real surface can be really observed, there can be no space.

Glad to set you straight,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Hosein,

GET REAL. Please stop repeating abstract codswallop: "The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy." Only real surface is always observable by real eyes that have real surface. Real surface has no abstract fundamental starting point.

Joe Fisher, Realist

lets say we view quantum theory to counting from 1 to infinity (start with one because we cant start at nothingness), when going from a number to the next you can find similarity and rules etc... that govern what the next number with no duplication's. However there are events that do not have any context except that of themselves and the original starting point. in the case of counting this would be prime numbers. So as we may find ways to describe events such as odds/even multiples of 3 etc... there is nothing that can definitively define primes. Anyway if you apply what you are saying to my statement above then you are saying the starting point of your observation is the phenomenon creating this "quantum contextuality" ... i leave the rest for your own conclusion/judgment

Dear One,

Please stop offering poorly written codswallop ruminations of an: "lets (sic) say (abstract) we (abstractly) view (abstract) quantum theory to counting from 1 to infinity (abstractly) (start with one because we cant (sic) (abstractly) start at nothingness), Open your real eyes and take note of the fact that no matter in which direction you look, you will only always see a plethora of real enmeshed flattened partial surfaces.

Joe Fisher, Realist

I agree that prime numbers are the context for quantum domain. See "Khrennikov's theorem" pp. 10 - 13 in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/T_H_Ray/contributions

Existent and non-existent are one.

See: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Is-True-Reality-the-Immaterial-Influencing-the-Material

One what?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Let's see that a real observable with contextuality can exist thus showing that a hidden variable model of QM could possibly be contextual, thus not obeying the premises of the Kochen-Specker Theorem. The definition of noncontextuality given in the reference The Kochen-Specker Theorem is :

«If a QM system possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured.»

Let's take a macroscopic spinning object like a pencil with a central spinning axis. It can have a clockwise or anticlockwise sense of rotation when viewed from its top.

Let's define what I call the «relative sense of rotation». Instead of refering to the topview of the pencil for the sense of rotation, we will refer to an observer's Z axis of reference making an angle with the spinning axis of the pencil. We will measure the sense of rotation relative to that axis. In that case, its value, clockwise or anticlockwise, depends upon the angle between the spinning axis of the pencil and the Z axis. Rotate suffisantly the Z axis towards or away from the pencil, as could be done with an astronaut in a weightlessness state, and you change the «relative sense of rotation» of the pencil from clockwise to anticlockwise or from anticlockwise to clockwise.

The measured sense of rotation here is a «contextual» value of the observable I called the «relative sense of rotation». We deal with a real observable with contextuality. I therefore see no reason why hidden variables models in QM should be presumed to be non-contextual. The key of the matter should lie in the three dimensional spatial behavior «perceived» by the measuring apparatus of the quantum phenomenon or particle under study. No «magic» there.

Dear Bertrand,

Could you possibly try a bit harder to write understandable English? You mystifyingly wrote: "Let's see that a real observable with contextuality can exist..." All observations made with real eyes are real because they are seen with real eyes. You do not need to see if any abstract context could exist, the fact that you are really looking at a real plethora of real surfaces automatically provides all the context you will need.

Glad to have been of health,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

One reality. Where reality is dual. Immaterial wavefunction and material particle. Metaphysical/ subjective and physical/ objective.

Robert,

The one spirit;

Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themself as separate and distinct lifeforms.

See http://www.sankaracharya.org/i_am_that.php

From Article:

"God's Omniscience?

It was through these interviews that Cabello discovered that Specker wanted to study quantum reality--whether it was indeterministic, as standard quantum theory asserts, or could instead be described by a deterministic hidden-variables theory--in part, to better understand deep religious questions. Could God be omniscient, if reality itself is not set until it is observed by humans?"

Sum Over Futures

Sum Over Futures (SOF) is the CTMU interpretation of quantum mechanics. In SOF, quantum phenomena are not random (acausal), but obey higher-order causal invariants. These invariants tend to maximize generalized utility as the universe evolves. Langan observes that due to quantum uncertainty,

Chris Langan said:

[T]he last states of a pair of interacting particles are generally insufficient to fully determine their next states. This, of course, raises a question: how are their next states actually determined? What is the source of the extra tie-breaking measure of determinacy required to select their next events ("collapse their wave functions")?[1]

The answer, he writes, is neither "randomness" nor distributed laws of causality, but rather higher-order causation, involving nonrandom temporally-extensive relationships not wholly attributable to distributed laws. In this picture, the universe sums over timelines to extract the utility of possible futures and selects the most utile configurations for actualization. This "sum over futures" is enabled by the Extended Superposition Principle (ESP) under the guidance of the Telic Principle.

Sum over futures involves an atemporal (existing or considered without relation to time) generalization of "process" (from past participle stem of procedure "go forward"), telic recursion (before determining the next state, Reality takes all of the past and future into account and then chooses a particular state on the basis of its own values), through which the universe (Reality) effects on-the-fly (as time passes, in other words, at every moment) maximization of a global (over all of Reality) self-selection parameter (measurement), generalized utility (what the universal Desire hopes to achieve).

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Sum_Over_Futures

The CTMU is based on the premise that not only does life evolve, but the universe does as well. And the collapse of the wave-function plays a fundamental role in its evolution. In other words, it is atemporally communicating between past, present and future in order to maximize a quantifiable self-selection parameter to produce the best outcomes. The Uncertainty Principle states that pairs of properties of particles such as position and momentum cannot be determined simultaneously, this then leads us to the conclusion that reality branches off into many possible futures. This is good news, because if it atemporally communicated a doomed future for mankind it can always retroactively adjust itself for the greater good. It appears that the CTMU is empirical after all.

Further reading on Sum Over Futures: https://warosu.org/sci/thread/6658825

Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot have a finite whereabouts.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot contain a finite spirituality. Please think for yourself.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot be studied. Only unrealistic abstract information about abstract reality can be abstractly studied.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

I wish there was an ignore option for you.

Hi Bertrand

I don't think this is, what contextuality means. Your observation is relative but not contextual. An observer in one direction can share its information with another observer in another direction. If they know their relative location (rotation or distance or whatever), they can agree, that they observed the same thing. This is not possible any more in QM.

A easy introduction to contextuality seems to be in this blog.

Regards

Luca

Hi Luca,

I refered to the following definition of noncontextuality in QM: «If a QM system possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured.» Applying the same definition in classical physics, the sense of rotation relative to the observer is contextual. It has a measurable value that clearly depends on the context, that depends on the observer.

The fact that there is a unique objective reality behind the different measurements made by two observers has nothing to do with the definition of noncontextuality that is given to us in the citation. You may give another definition to noncontextuality and contextuality, but I refered precisely to the above mentioned definition.