Essay Abstract

This paper outlines how the unpredictability in quantum mechanics points to an abstract reality, of the sort delineated by the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Author Bio

Self taught.

Download Essay PDF File

As you say in your last paragraph "If...". Copenhagen Interpretation has been rejected by experiment. Bohm Interpretation suggest probability results from limitation of measuring ability.

    13 days later

    Which experiment has disproven the Copenhagen Interpretation? Also the aim of this essay was to demonstrate that it is possible to experimentally distinguish between the different interpretations of QM by using well established philosophical principles, such as the principle of contradiction. For instance I tried to demonstrate that it would be a contradiction for reality to be simultaneously physical and genuinely unpredictable. This would therefore give more credence to the Copenhagen Interpretation, if it could be experimentally substantiated that the randomness in quantum mechanics is pure. I believe that this methodology, of experimentally testing philosophical principles in light of quantum mechanics, could be used to scientifically distinguish between the varying interpretations of it.

    12 days later
    7 days later

    --- I appreciate that you chose to read my paper and provide a strength of interest in your response.

    Abstract reality seems meaningless. It occurs since the analysis of Copenhagen needs particles to be separate from waves.

    I don't know if my 'Universe is otherwise' helps answer your question. I have everything in the universe flows and thus is flowing beams (rather than waves which are within the beams). Anyway all is real. The particle is just a higher level, a packet of waves. Actually the closest I come to particles is beam crossings which are the electrons around which the particle is defined.

    So a cow might jump over the moon or the Covid-19 virus might arise if an infinite series of flows merge at unexpected times and ways. Re cause and effect, two birds fly by. The rock hits and kills the first bird and the second bird flies into the window.

    A level of abstract when looking at a particle is that it's wave contents don't stop and we cant define all spherical flow inputs.

    Your paper leads me to contemplate reality as a definition of beams.

    Paul Schroeder

    a month later

    throw a rock into a window pane... Be Ready to pay.very well stated in simplicity.I presume it explains the notion in classical physics of cause and effect. Quantum mechanics is a bit strange and very true if I state is observer dependent. Quantum particles are sort of in "jumbled state" so an observation May mirror my Intention.In QM,1.i may still pay for unbroken window panes 2.pay for broken panes.. it all depends on my bias.i have done something simple on bias here -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.pls tell me your bit of the story.i rated you accordingly.Good work. all the best.

    7 days later

    Dear John Joseph Taylor,

    Thank you for your interesting essay.

    I'm absolutely agree with your essay. John Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle may be relevant here.

    In my essay (Toward A General Theory of Reality), I reach a similar conclusion. I conclude that reality is identical to V (John von Neumann universe). V is an abstract reality. However, unlike a standard view, I view V as dynamic, not static. V is evolving, just like us human. I think Whitehead's process philosophy is relevant.

    I just gave you a high rating (a 8).

    Best regards,

    Agus

    Hi,

    I just thought of expressing a view.

    You state, "Predictability is the ability to know with certainty an event in the

    future. This potential, to have certainty of a future event is something that

    can always be achieved with material objects, as material objects always

    follow the pattern of cause and effect."

    Is it? Consider a physical entity spread over a continuum of space of

    some causal function that superposes with other entity to make interaction

    possible, but transitions can occur only in quanta. That is, such entities

    have infinite degrees of freedom internally, but a change can occur only in

    discrete values. Infinity is mapped onto finite number of discrete values.

    How do you make such measurements predicatble with certainty? As a simple

    example, one can think of a system having three possible internal states,

    but a measuring device maps the state to two distinguishable states.

    Can the outcome of a measurement be always predicted with certainty?

    May be after multiple measurements, one can model how the internal states

    change among three values and how the internal states is mapped to two values;

    a cross product gives six possibilities. But what if the internal state space

    is a continuum with truly infinite variations possible?

    Rajiv

    Dear John,

    You can also turn your argument around and make the point, moving from large causal objects down to the microscale, that microscale must be deterministic too, and hence by your argument something is wrong with the interpretation of Bell's inequality. ie. quantum probabilities are deterministic. (see Barry Gilbert's essay).

    I, on the other hand, believe free will breaks the bonds of determinism.

    Regards

    Lockie Cresswell

    Dear John Joseph Taylor!

    Your essay deserves maximum appreciation, in our opinion. We set 10. You have very precisely formulated the problem. This is the very "incompleteness of quantum mechanics," about which Albert Einstein and many physicists spoke. Until the problem is resolved, it must be pointed out. Thank!

    Truly yours,

    Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

    Siberian Federal University.