Hi Lucas,

as I see it analogies and thought experiments can be used to try to understand,and convey to others, what is happening or might be happening; by providing easily visualized or conceptualized substitutes. Rather than being helpful I find your sheep and flowers add to the confusion.

Already the colour that the sheep can be seen to be is a sensory product. It is not a property of the sheep itself. The use of everyday language does not distinguish qualia from independently existing characteristics of objects. To find the 'difference between the sheep unseen it would be more sensible to carry out chemical analysis of their wool, as there will be correlation between difference in pigmentation and amount of light reflected from the sheep, affecting the appearance. IE this sheep is one that will appear to be black, or will appear to be white. While there could hypothetically be correlation between diet preference and wool pigmentation without having established that, flower preference is not measurement of seen colour difference.

An important consideration is whether the product of a measurement or experiment is generated by the procedure or represents something independent of it. In the macroscopic experiment, chemical analysis of the wool is a test of something existing independently of the visual observation of the sheep's wool. In a quantum experiment where detected colour is imparted by the procedure, the colour determination can not be said to be independently existing prior to its production. If the sheep is to be dyed pink or blue by the procedure, one can not say prior to the dying this sheep will be seen to be blue, or this sheep will be seen to be pink.

I can see from your abstract that you are playing 'the devil's advocate'. I think that rather than supporting a positive view as you set out to do, you have presented an argument that detracts from it by over complicating matters. The above is meant as food for thought. I'm sorry if it seems harsh. Better to get feedback that can be considered and may be addressed, rather than being ignored.

Kind regards Georgina

    Dear Georgina,

    I appreciate your critical feedback. And it might be true, that I overcomplicated things. I chose the simple and totally fictional model, that what a sheep is eating depends on its color, because that allowed to me to ask, what would change in our knowledge about the color, if the interactions changes. It is a petty, that this prevented you to discuss the interesting consequences of my interpretation:

    1. relative to the observational setting, the phases are not observable. (the density matrix is reduced).

    2. This reduction of the density matrix is not subjective but objective.

    3. The object measurement system must be separable from the environment in order to give a successful measurement in contrast to the decoherence interpretation.

    4. The EPR reality criteria has to be given up

    5. The fundamental concepts and thus the laws depend on the measurement setting

    I do not play the 'devils advocate'. I really belief some sort of positivism has to be accepted. But this is not without problem. I belief that how we usually think about reality is a realistic one. I suspect from several posts of yours, that you endorse some kind of disturbance view on quantum mechanics. But that view is still a realistic one. I try to explore, how we could imagine the world be giving up some of our realistic prejudice, without becoming totally solipsistic.

    I did not wanted to enter the discussion what qualias are. Certainly the color white has two meanings. As subjective impression and as objective property of the sheep. I discuss only the second one. Maybe you find the time to reread the essay to discuss the more interesting points, that the essay aimed at.

    Best Regards,

    Luca

    • [deleted]

    • Post #8

    Hi Lucas,

    The differentiation of realist and positivist is fundamental as per the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.

    To tried to get a background on realism and positivism. I did a Google search on realism and positivism. Oh my God! It when on and on, and I was not really capable of understanding a lot of it. I did however scan your essay. Here are my thoughts:

    1. You know a lot more of QM than I do.

    2. Is the moon there when you are not looking?

    Realist: Yes

    Positivist: No

    Neo Positivist: Maybe

    Niels Bohr: It depends

    Albert Einstein: How can you even ask such a question!

    Quantum Mechanic: Objective states do not exist prior to an act of measurement.

    Mad Max: Realism, Positivism, Gravitism... who cares! it is just more information.

    Sheep: Baaaa

    Flowers: ?

    Thanks for your essay. It made me think and opened a world I did not know existed.

    Don Limuti

      Hi Luca, sorry for misspelling your name earlier.

      here's a question: "The number of white or black flowers eaten by the sheep per time unit tells us, how many black or white sheep are in the box. Suppose at beginning there where only white sheep. With time passing the sheep change color randomly" luca. But it was earlier established that white sheep prefer white flowers. Isn't it going to happen that the sheep will eat all of the white flowers, reinforcing their white colour. Leaving black flowers. So then out of necessity eventually the black will be eaten -giving fluctuation of wool shade back and forth between white and black not random change?

      Your experiment could be done with red factor canaries. Red factor canaries fed red factor food are red. However, red factor canaries that are fed ordinary canary food become yellow. So there can be two different populations yellow red factor and red red factor. They could be trained using positive or negative reinforcement to prefer one or the other kind of food. If the food is also treated to make the kinds distinguishable. The colour change isn't quick but would take time for the birds to molt and grow new feathers. The appearance of the bird informs of its diet but is also due to its diet.

      Kind regards Georgina

      Don,

      the question is not specific enough. It could refer to the independently existing material object. Or the sensory product.

        Hi Georgina,

        Again you are missing the point here. White sheep do not change their color in reality. Nor do they prefer black sheep to make families. Ehrenfest's Urn model is just a model, that shows, that if you are in a low entropy state, with great probability you will end up in a mixed state. This is the second law of thermodynamics. The point I want to make, is that if you introduce an intermediate level, the conceptual richness increases. New structures emerges, that have not been possible in the low entropy state.

        Now if the fundamental concepts depend on the possibility of being observed. If the microstructure depends on the macrostructures: could it be that the laws change depending on the conceptual capacity to describe these microstructures?

        Luca

        Hi Don,

        Thanks, you found the way to my essay.

        What does moon mean, if it would not be observable at all? Would you still claim it exists?

        Luca

        Luca, even if not observable a prediction could be made of the moon's material existence from observed tidal forces. It does not need to be seen to have gravitational effect on the oceans.

        If it has gravitational effects on the oceans it is observable. But here lies the core of the realism positivism debate. If only coarse grained effects are operational accessible, does the moon have other hidden properties?

          Luca,

          I do think you are making an important point early on about the different way circumstances can be interpreted. Also you make good points about what can't be observed and that measurements are relative and not absolute. Mentioning the complication that implies.

          If one is only interested in flower consumption (measurement protocol) and correlated weight, for meat production then wool colour is irrelevant. The numbers matter.

          Being realistic a question is, whether to increase meat production low weight sheep should be eliminated or black flowers. Should the purchaser buy only white sheep or is the colour irrelevant. Should the farm technician feed only white flowers or is their colour irrelevant.

          The measurements can now be used together with a hypothesis to make a decision about what is happening. 1, Is sheep genetics, linked to wool colour, (predetermined) causal, or 2, is diet and behaviour (unfolding over the process/(measurement through diet in your analogy) causal. It isn't a matter of opinion. Hypothesis: weight will change if diet is altered to the opposite choice. Method: Remove all the ones that have been found to be light weight (by diet choice). Then feed the heavies black flowers and the separated light weights white flowers.

          The classical physics realist notion is more like the first case,"We have seen in the classical sheep that only the difference of the amounts of flowers is sensitive to the color of the sheep" Luca. The quantum mechanical more like the second. "The sheep flower system evolves..." Luca. Though because of the connection made between colour of wool and weight it would be necessary for the sheep to be able to change colour when their weight alters. Which is why I made the suggestion of canaries with the potential to change colour, Flamingos would work too for the same reason.

          Typo p6 "black whole",

          You do talk about how what is considered fundamental can change as conceptual capabilities grow. A good point. Quantum physics provides a good example of something considered by many to be fundamental but being a relatively recent development in physics.

          I think the question of does the moon have other hidden properties is a bit like does the tree that falls when no one is listening make a sound? It is a question of whether independent qualities of something or some happening are being considered, beables, or attributes or associated facts gleaned from the realtionship of the observer with sources of information, including effects on the environment, measurables.

          Are there vibrations from meteor impacts on the moon surface? I'd say yes and that could be detected with sensors on the surface. Impact craters tell us there are impacts, so the vibration of the impacts is a realistic assumption that can be made into measurables with the appropriate equipment and mission to place it on the surface. I'd say other physics is happening to the beables on the moon, such as due to solar radiation, that could also be investigated with apparatus allowing collection of measurables.

          Like hide and seek, whether something is hidden depends on whether you are looking for it, firstly. As the word hidden is associated with seeking. Secondly do we have the capability to conceptualize its existence, and initiate seeking? There are differences between potential knowns, 'hidden' yet find-able, or potentially find-able with development of the technology, or the desire to seek, not find-able because it is unknown and unconsidered, so there is no search and not find-able because it isn't there to be found. Like the realist presumed hidden cause of a result, when that result is only actualized by the measurement process.

          Hi Prof Luca Valeri

          wonderful OP...."As a realist I imagine the world consisting of fundamental things with properties, that are independent of whether they are observed or not. In this essay I try to defend a positivist view, where properties only exist relative to an observer. The observer must not be a human being. I will explore a toy model, where a sheep is in a box and I want to find out what color the sheep has by giving the sheep different flowers to eat."....Nice work ...

          I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

          By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

          Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

          -No Isotropy

          -No Homogeneity

          -No Space-time continuum

          -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

          -No singularities

          -No collisions between bodies

          -No blackholes

          -No warm holes

          -No Bigbang

          -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

          -Non-empty Universe

          -No imaginary or negative time axis

          -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

          -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

          -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

          -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

          -No many mini Bigbangs

          -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

          -No Dark energy

          -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

          -No Multi-verses

          Here:

          -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

          -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

          -All bodies dynamically moving

          -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

          -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

          -Single Universe no baby universes

          -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

          -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

          -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

          -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

          -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

          -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

          -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

          -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

          - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

          I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

          Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

          In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

          I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

          Best

          =snp

            Hi snp,

            I won't read your essay, because you did not read mine but just post in every blog the same comment with a citation of the abstract. Seems your are not interested in a discussion.

            Also I don't belief you will ever read this reply.

            Luca

            Luca,

            Interesting, fundamental and nicely written. But who let the sheep out of the box and into the field!?

            I confess at times, (and as it's getting late and I've been on the Bollinger), counting your sheep I often lost touch, as Georgina seemed to. I think I finally grasped it all. I still think Bohr's and the positive formulation flawed. I agree NO retro causality, but I then prefer Bells choice to the Lamb (or mutton?); A different starter, then classical beables with scattered fermions, finished with an Eton mess.

            You didn't claim you understood my essay so I'll explain. We know polarizers change polarization. So yes, ONE quality is retained, which is 'which pole? N/S (A,B) but the observer dictates the rest, including by field angle rotation (as Zielingers work confirms). Pairs then have Maxwell's 'curl' AND (orthogonally) linear momenta, changing inversely by cos latitude, so by rotational velocity (right the way through)! imparted from the field fermions by absorption /emission. A,B can then 'flip' polarity. Now follow that carefully through, including the 3 rotational axes and two orthogonal measurement angles then CosLat again at the photomultiplier. You'll find all Beables and no non-locality needed to reproduce the interpretational mess at the end.

            I use logic & geometry not algebra or maths (despite top score of the Wigner essays!) so the ontological mechanism does need a formulation check. You seem good at that. Any chance of help? Declan Traill's short essay gives the computer code & Cos^2 plot.

            So do properties ONLY exist relatively to observers? I suggest Yes & No. All do but many not determinable as changed by observation.

            Nice description, argument and writing generally. Well done. Expect a score boost. I hope you have time to study mine in more detail and discuss.

            Very best

            Peter

              Luca,

              This is a well-written essay that would be a nice chapter in an intro to quantum book. The "fundamental " for this essay seems to be quantum mechanics. Only problem with this essay is a style and editing choice, I feel the theme of this essay is buried. "The rules of quantum mechanics are the rules of the universe and now I will show you an example of why that is possible." Or similar statement would be a nice place to start and end this essay. The wonderful thing about fundamental is that it is what it is and a statement like I suggested is as good as any.

              Hope you do well,

              Jeff Schmitz

                Dear Peter,

                Thanks for reading and replying. I certainly will read again more carefully your essay, as I also want to apply my interpretation to EPR.

                As you ask: "So do properties ONLY exist relatively to observers?" Well I don't know.

                The great simplicity of the known fundamental laws suggests that nature is fundamentally simple, mathematical.

                As religious person and as a atheist I find that not satisfying. So I came to belief that the math is brought in by the relation of things, by their interactions. By simple operations of putting one ruler after the other and counting how many I need to come from one point to another.

                In my essay I discuss what the consequences could be if properties are defined by such simple operations and under what condition such operations can successfully define these properties. I find that the consequences of such a thinking could be quiet fantastic. Without trying a bit to hard to find the underlying reality, that explains these quantum phenomena by introducing any ad hoc mechanism that does the job.

                You'll hear soon from me.

                Luca

                Dear Jeff,

                Thanks for the "well written". To write in English is very hard for me.

                For the editing choice you're certainly right. The essay is surely very dense and touches to many topics.

                Now after reading also some other essays I found that I expect the reader (that does not know me) to trust me to much and to follow me in my thoughts. That is to much to expect.

                Also I trust the reader to make the right connections to debates in the history of science or in the discussions of quantum mechanics. Next time I surely will guide the reader much more and not let him alone in the jungle of connections.

                Best regards,

                Luca

                I want to make some things clear in my essay, that apparently have not been clear enough.

                The sheep that has only the properties white or black stands for a particle having the properties up or down. Or having the property of being somewhere in space. The use of the sheep is just to be able to imagine something as real as possible. The sheep has not even the properties of being in space. And I even don't know how to put the sheep in a box, if it has no properties of being in space. But this is exactly the situation we have in experiencing the outside world. We only know things from this world through interaction with the outside world.

                The measurement system is modelled as a field of flowers over the colors. It is meant to be a mathematical field over the colors, as the electro magnetic potentials are fields over space and time. That the words 'field of flowers' has a real meaning is just a nice - although confusing - coincidence.

                In the essay I explore, what can be known about the properties of the sheep, given the laws of interaction. And postulate in positivist faction (and I would say in accordance to the Copenhagen view), that only properties relative to the measurement system are real. I also explore, what could be the epistemological consequences of such a view.

                However: Contrary to Copenhagen the measurement system is treated as quantum system.

                Contrary to many worlds and Rovelli's relational view, this relative view is objective.

                Objectivity is achieved not as in the decoherence view by losing the phase information in the environment, but on the contrary, by postulating that the measurement/definition of the properties is only well defined if it the object measurement system is separable from the environment and hence the evolution on that subsystem is unitary.

                These are the main ideas concerning the measurement problem in my essay. I hope these explanations facilitates the reading.

                Dear Luca,

                Thankfully I was drawn to your essay by the comments that you made to others. However, I found your deep essay to be heavy-going with the sheep; possibly because I believe that quantum-analogies do not help. Thus, as a true local realist, I prefer to deal with the quantum settings themselves. Hence my essay: More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss

                [nb: contrary to the view of some, "premiss" is a valid spelling in logic.]

                Thus I'm hoping that my essay might have some appeal for you, given your comment to Ian Durham: "What a nice idea to use Bell's theory of beables to discuss, what is fundamental. Bell's view of beables - I believe - is how most of us think about how the universe looks like."

                For on this we agree: "The EPR reality criteria has to be given up."

                Also, I believe Bell used "beable" to represent whatever exists in "the universe of discourse". Thus, for me: "superimposed quantum states exist in quantum theory" -- being epistemic and not ontological. All my beables are therefore existents (ontological) in spacetime; spacetime being my universe of discourse.

                Alas, going beyond some shared beliefs, I suspect we share this defect: "Now after reading also some other essays I find that I expect the reader (that does not know me) to trust me too much and to follow me in my thoughts. That is too much to expect." In my case, I expected my readers to follow some elementary math and draw some interesting conclusions without prompting. [nb: to partially remedy my defect, and to help you, I will add a brief BACKGROUND note to my thread. I'll let you know when it's up.]

                However, modifying one of your comments to fit my case: I tried hard to find the underlying reality, that explains these quantum phenomena WITHOUT introducing any ad hoc mechanism that does the job.

                Also, you say: "I always liked Bohr." I say: I always liked Einstein.

                However, as you say: "Bell and Einstein are the ones that are nearer to our thinking on what is real [imho, because Bohr is often hard to fathom]. So when I try to defend Bohr, I always have in mind Bell and Einstein, to explain how Bohr could have been right."

                But note here (re the disposition of the whole apparatus; and without any nonlocality), I think that Bohr was right. Since interactions perturb sensitive objects, what we learn will be contextual because the context (eg, the paired-test-settings in EPRB = the disposition of the apparatus) will determine what we learn: HENCE (and critically) what we can reliably infer. BUT, relatedly, in my essay I show that Bohr was also right with his all-too-often-neglected "disturbance dictum".

                Such a small comment by Bohr: BUT, as I show, THUS does Bohr eliminate many naive interpretations that talk of nonlocality or instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction!

                And I agree with this: "As a realist I imagine the world consisting of fundamental things with properties, that are independent of whether they are observed or not." But I amend this next: "Of course some properties need to be inferable [not necessarily observable] in order to build the basis of a scientific theory."

                Also: It looks to me that some of the math that you brought to your sheep would not be out of place with my essay.

                With my thanks again, and best regards: Gordon

                PS: Luca, if/when you reply to my post, please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise.

                Many thanks; Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

                  Dear Luca

                  If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

                  Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

                  My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

                  Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

                  For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

                  My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

                  By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

                  To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

                  Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

                  Kind regards

                  Steven Andresen

                  Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin