I did that. I just get the David Mermin abstract that you have already written here. Clicking DOI takes me to a subscription page or option to buy the article. I am not affiliated with any organization. I don't have spare money to use purchasing journal papers.

Why not share briefly here your 'takeaway' from the D. Mermin paper, and your own ideas and terminology re. Now and the present moment.

Georgina: I think it works if you click on the PDF. I'm like you and can't afford paywalls.

Yes, thank you. Was there something in particular in that article that you wanted to discuss? I think the approach D. Mermin sets out puts too much emphasis on the subjective. While a probability is a subjective expectation it does also have a component that belongs to the material world outside of the mind. The probability of an individual die roll is different from the probability of heads or tails of a coin. Not because the actor thinks so but because of difference in 'pluripotency' of the objects. (Borrowing a word from biology meaning here the ability to give all possible outcomes). A pluripotent die has 6 outcome possibilities a coin only two. The outcome depends on how the method and the particular object (independent of the actor's subjective 'world') work together. Just saying the outcome is how the world responds to the actor skips over that.

I think that pluripotent quality of independent (of the mind) existing objects, being all that they are, having potential,as sources, to lead to different observations is an important difference compared to seen (manifestations of) objects, the space-time observation products of observers; not having pluripotency but limited or partial likenesses within subjective experience. It can also be thought of as the difference between what can be described as a quantum system, with uni-temporal(same time everywhere) time, and a classical (space-time) one.

Consciousness forges our perception of the universe, not the universe itself.

"the quantum physicist's radical new take on reality seems to suggest that the world we see emerges from our observations." This is not new. It was obvious to the ancient Greek philosophers. The problem is, physicists have failed to grasp the distinction that the "world we see" is not the same sort of thing as the "world as it is."

"Our theory says that only observations are fundamentally 'real'." I think, therefore I am: Our thoughts are the only thing that we ever perceive. But what we think nature is, and what it actually is, are two very different things.

"questioning one of our most basic assumptions that we operate on as human beings: that reality is objective and pre-dates us." Our reality is entirely subjective - a virtual reality created entirely by our brain - that, among other things, attempts to construct models of reality, that physicists subsequently confuse for reality itself.

"For example, before we measure a quantum system, it can hold contradictory properties" No. It merely seems contradictory, because the constructed model fails to correctly account for the behavior of entities that manifest only a single-bit-of-information.

"When we observe it, we force the system to assume a particular state" No. We only force our model of it, not the thing itself, into a particular state. A coin does not suddenly become one-sided, simply because an observer "calls it" either "heads" or "tails".

"Can that give you something that allows you to predict what you'll see" No. Deductive logic can only derive conclusions that follow from some premises. But it cannot establish the validity of the premises. Information, in Shannon's Information Theory, is, in essence, defined to be "that which is not predictable."

"algorithmic information theory will find many applications in physics in the future" True. But it is Shannon's original Information Theory, that really explains the nature of quantum theory, not the later-developed, algorithmic information theory.

"Surely the defining feature of agents should be that they act?" And the most fundamental possible action, is to simply detect the existence of something else- by interacting with it. That is what single-bit detection, is all about.

"Choosing one's actions is a secondary notion that should not be a fundamental part of any physical theory" No. You do not get to choose to act with something, until AFTER that something has been detected. "choosing" what to detect in the first-place, DEFINES the things you can interact with.

"radically different approaches are, in my opinion, desperately needed." I agree. But this one is not radical enough.

Rob McEachern

    To be even more useful I'd like to adopt the terms plupotoent and multipotent. An embryonic human stem cell can form all kinds of tissue. That is called being pluripotent. An older stem cell can only form some tissue types and that is called being multipotent. An existing object with no context, such as orientation or method by which it will be observed, is pluripotent. Rather than providing just 6 outcomes possibilities as I said in previous post,the pluripotent die has potential for more. Such as all the possible outcomes should it be thrown into partially set jelly rather than onto a flat surface.When the method has been chosen an artificial constraint has been applied; only the probability of some allowed outcomes are considered. There has been a change from considering a 'wild' multipotent object to considering a context limited multipotent one.

    What do people think of

    https://philpapers.org/rec/MERTIN-4

    ?

    Hi Georgina. What do you think of https://philpapers.org/rec/MERTIN-4 ?

    • [deleted]

    Tom Campbell has a book based on this. Check "My big toe"

    Like.

    "For example, before we measure a quantum system, it can hold contradictory properties" SH. I think the contradiction comes from labeling the object or phenomenon with the possible outcome states which can not be found simultaneously, only one. Rather than allowing it the potential to manifest different states according to the unfolding of the circumstances of the test that is carried out, and the condition of the test subject entering the test. It is contradictory to say a coin is heads outcome and tails outcome prior to testing but not to say it has the potential to manifest either outcome. (A coin unlike a subatomic particle that can only give one result, can give more than one outcome- if tossed onto a glass table both outcomes could be seen if allowed by the chosen method at the outset.)

    "A coin unlike a subatomic particle that can only give one result" Not "unlike".

    Subatomic particles behave the same way. That is what the Stern-Gerlach experiments revealed.

    Rob McEachern

    Robert, sorry my statement in brackets was ambiguous. I meant a single coin could potentially, if the chosen method allowed, be seen as both outcomes simultaneously. The method is imposing the constraints. But the single sub atomic particle can only be seen as one outcome. It was just a thought that popped into my mind, not important, but I thought you might like it as you so frequently mention quantum systems only being able to give 1 bit outcomes

    We are conscious.What is this consciousness? we are Inside a physicality in improvement, in optimisation of matters and consciousness. Why ? why all these codes of evolution.Must we consider an infinite Eternal consciousness creating this physicality? it seems that the answer is rational , yes for me,we are still youngs universally speaking

      "I meant a single coin could potentially, if the chosen method allowed, be seen as both outcomes simultaneously." Exactly. That is what a superposition is.

      "But the single sub atomic particle can only be seen as one outcome." No. It is exactly like the coin. That is what a superposition is.

      A bit only has one value AFTER something has made a decision. But prior to that decision, it has the potential to be either of two values, depending entirely on how the decision is made. That is what a superposition is - the value is a "property" of the decision process. It is not a property of the coin, particle or bit, which merely have the property of being in a superposition, which thereby enables such two-state decisions to be made.

      Rob McEachern

      I wrote 'can only be seen as one outcome" i.e.the result. It can't be measured twice at the same time. Re. coin: I think the outcome is in part the coin's orientation on landing and part the choice of how to call the result. Same orientation on landing could be called by exposing the coin as it lies or it can be flipped over onto the other hand and then called. With the Stern Gerlach apparatus used for particle pairs; each of the partners can not be giving a truly random outcome as it has to be opposite to its partner making half of the outcomes that could happen with superposition of all outcomes prohibited. I think the condition of the particle at outset challenged by the environment of the apparatus generates the outcome ie. not pre-existing as a superposition. How it is seen depends on the condition of the particle and choice of X Y or Z orientation of field.

      Forget about "landing" - the coins and particles are drifting through space - they never land. You are confusing entanglement with Stern-Gerlach. There are no entangled pairs involved in a Stern-Gerlach experiment; There are no pairs at all - there is just a set of particles, like random-oriented coins, such that half appear "heads or up" and the other half "tails or down". They are not "paired" in any way.

      Rob McEachern

      But aren't two sets of the apparatus used to test each of the partners of a pair? Else how do we know they retain their opposite-ness for the same orientation test, whatever the separation?

      There are no "partners of a pair" because there are no pairs. Stern-Gerlach experiments have nothing to do with entangled (paired opposites) particles. There are two SETS of unrelated particles, not one set of paired-particles, as would be the case in Bell tests and the EPR paradox.

      Imagine having one set of coins that are lying on a table, with about half Heads-up and the other half Tails-up. Then ask someone to slide them around, in order to separate them into two sets; one that is entirely heads-up and the other entirely tails-up. That is the first step in the experiment. Now ask the same person to reexamine the two sets, to see if anything has changed. Nothing has; there are still two sets, one all heads and the other all tails. Now ask another person, who has never seen the coins before, to get down on his or her knees and examine the two sets from ONLY a perfectly edge-on angle, and try to "call each coin" - they are likely to incorrectly call each set as approximately 50% heads and 50% tails, since they cannot actually see what they are at all, and are consequently likely to, in effect, simply guess that they are randomly oriented. That is all that is happening in Stern-Gerlach experiments.

      Rob McEachern