a month later

Giving up spacetime local realism. Re. the ERP argument that predicted variables are elements of reality:---

Finding the state or measurement of a variable is not like pulling a 'magic' existing rabbit from a hat. Such a rabbit must be in the hat prior to extraction. Instead it's more like determining (or predicting) how long the rabbit remains calm or how long it struggles upon removal. The two determinations are mutually exclusive. Like position and momentum. Calm is not struggling. Struggling is not calm. The descriptions of the rabbits behaviour are new observation products. They are not the same as a material existing rabbit.

Experiments could be conducted using pairs of tame rabbits put into two hats and likewise pairs of untamed rabbits likely to struggle. (Ignoring the freeze response . This is analogy, not about real rabbit behaviour.)-------------In a uni-temporal existential reality there is no after extraction state prior to extraction happening. There is not a prior to extraction post extraction observation product in the universe. ( Unlike in the space time continuum model.) -----That does not mean there is no existing rabbit in Object reality. A prediction of what the result would be if measured is not an observation product. The prediction (A would if) depends upon there being an existing rabbit of a like pair. The observation product depends on the extraction and behaviour determination. The prediction is neither existential noumenal rabbit nor observation product phenomenon. It is a maybe, imagined. Not an element of either reality.

    Calm/struggling analogy:

    Position/location of a moving object is an ideal instantaneous measure. Arguing against Einstein: An instantaneous stationary location is incompatible with simultaneous possession of momentum.

    Momentum is a measurement that involves a sequence of time. If moving, the existing thing does not have a stationary position/location. If it has stationary position the existing thing does not have momentum. They are mutually exclusive; These can not be co determined. Which is not the same as denying underlying existence and motion of the noumenal particle.

    To clarify " The ERP paper describes an 'element of reality' thusly- "IF an observable property of a system could be predicted with absolute certainty (100%) without disturbing that system, THEN it must correspond with an element of reality." Bell's Theorem with Easy Math By David R. Schneider www.DrChinese.com

    This statement does not define 'reality. It tacitly assumes reality of the spacetime continuum idea. No speculation that elements of reality could exist elsewhere.

    Using a spacetime continuum as model of the universe: A 100% certain prediction does correspond to an element of reality . As the future is as real as the present. Using a uni-temporal 'evolving' model there is no real future. So the prediction, However certain is only maybe. There could be unforeseen circumstances that prevent the measurement being made.

    Unforeseen circumstances can apply to both models of the universe. The difference: 1. Spacetime continuum -most likely a corresponding element of reality is part of the continuum. 2. Uni-temporal 'evolving" universe -no correspondence to an element of reality until the necessary evolution has occurred. I,e. The predicted is manifest as present.

    Demise of the counterfactual: Following location / momentum argument. This indicates the unreality of counterfactual measurement results. (Might have beens.) Firstly, considering phenomenal reality, the not measured/observed does not qualify as an observation product reality. Secondly, undertaking one kind of measurement prevents taking another different kind as well.. Noumenal reality can not support simultaneous existence of both conditions giving both results. There is just one configuration of all existence at any time. Like in the double slit experiment; a choice must be made. Detect individual particles at the slits, or have a screen. Choosing one noumenal reality prevents the other possibility. And with that exclusion, exclusion of the possibility of obtaining its corresponding observation product/measurement result.

    A coin toss : For the observation product (H) to be generated (single sided, corresponding to just the EM radiation reflected from the coins exposed material surface, when the coin toss protocol is carried out) the configuration of the existing elements of noumenal Object reality must be such that material observer and exposed surface of the coin object (H) are in unimpeded alignment that allows Emr transfer.--An alignment with surface (T) requires a different configuration of the uni-temporal universe. i.e. it can only be at a different configuration of the universe; a different time, if at all.

    The possibility of a different outcome because of a second side is not enough for the counterfactual result to be considered real. (Requiring that not realized relation with the observer, that would result in manifestation of (T) observation product )

    Prior to evolution of the universe into a configuration that provides a singular sided observation product, either is a possibility. In this scenario, due to the two sided material, noumenal double-sided template.

    Different 'quantum spin outcomes: Each requires a different evolution of the universe.

    That is addressing-'Where are the results ( Observation products/ measurements)) not obtained, that could have/might have been?

    About representation. Re. the measurement problem: when should the template potential (for alternative outcome products) due to existing, material, noumenal Object reality, be given up prior to manifestation of a singular observation/ measurement result (phenomenal product)?

    Superposition of outcome states has neither noumenal nor phenomenal reality. It can be considered a place holder for unknown evolution of the configuration of the uni-temporal universe; A 'black box' happening.

      Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit, It is struggling and being calm; mutually exclusive states. In a uni-temporal universe one state evolves as there is only one configuration of existing noumenal reality from which the observed/measured result (phenomenon) is produced. The 'picture' of a superposition of outcome states taking both branches of an apparatus, for example, should not be taken literally/exactly. It is representing a situation where there is or was potential for a system to evolve in different ways, that would produce different outcomes. Yet it is not known when exactly the system has moved such that one particular outcome becomes inevitable. It remains as an abstract place holder (for a representation of what is actually happening- that we don't have) until the observation/measurement is produced. State production (preceding observation) is enough to know the former duel potential is lost

      Re. the measurement problem What/when is the physical happening that corresponds to wavefunction collapse?

      Reply: Superposition of outcome states has neither noumenal nor phenomenal reality. Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit, It is struggling and being calm; mutually exclusive states. This means a superposition can not be interacting with the existing environment, causing collapse to a singular state. Therefore perhaps a different question should be asked. It can be considered a place holder for unknown evolution of the configuration of the universe ,A 'black box' happening. When should the template potential (existing, material, noumenal Object reality) be given up prior to manifestation of a singular observation/ measurement result (phenomenal product)?

      Since I previously used the calm /struggling dichotomy to represent different properties, it would be better to consider behaviours that are a division of each one. Calm: 'Frozen' vs limp and Struggling: trying to burrow away in place vs trying to run away. These are mutually exclusive pairs of observations that could be analogy for superposition. I.e. Frozen/ Limp and Burrowing/ Running

      Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit. As the state has not yet been observed or measured it is not an observation product. So not a phenomenal reality either.

      As the superposition is neither type of reality, it can not interact with the environment, leading to collapse.

      Conclusion---Within the explanatory framework considered, encompassing both noumenal uni-temporal existence and phenomenal emergent observation products:

      Predictions, counterfactual outcomes, superposition, wavefunction are /are about abstract ideas that can be imagined and represented but are not in themselves elements of reality

      Sequential Stern Gerlach experiments show up or down result propensity is not maintained across tests at different detector angles. It is not a fixed property

      Spin correlation and anti correlation of entangled particle pairs seems to show the particles come with a temporarily maintained relationship (relative orientation). And while preserved can be regarded as one system, rather than two independent particles. However the relation between them is maintained/ lost according to local conditions encountered; not inter-particle (super-luminal) communication.

      There is no actual wavefunction collapse but evolution of noumenal reality into a condition from which one outcome state and not the other previous possibility can be generated.

      The result not found-where does it go? It is never produced, so can't go /be anywhere. Occam's razor casts doubt (a great deal) upon a multiverse explanation.

      .

        4 days later

        Quantum Mechanics and reality ------------ Georgina Woodward 20/2/2020

        Giving up spacetime (continuum) local realism, for source uni-temporal noumenal reality allowing emergent phenomenal reality (that can be detected or sensed)

        Superposition- unreal In a uni-temporal evolving universe; what will be/what is imagined as possible is not Noumenal or phenomenal reality.----Singular evolution of existing noumenal reality is actualizing a result.(R)= Noumenal/Object reality-----Observation product generated -manifestation whereby known or recorded (R*)= Phenomenal reality.---Let the superposition represent not knowing; that becoming actual from that just imagined-until the actualizing of one result.---Use manifestation of result to retrospectively cull the imaginary branch from the evolution history (past unreal in this model).No wavefunction collapse affecting which reality is actualized but evolution according to individual absolute relations (involving noumenal existentia; esse(ntia-situs, esse(ntia)-motus, esse(ntia)-orientum, esse(ntia)-Energia,) to local environmental conditions.--No need for Many worlds as other possibilities have not been actualized.

        Occham's razor suggests Many worlds, requiring a great many extra universes is highly unlikely to represent reality.

        Evidence in favour of uni-temporal model as proposed . (Woodward, G., 12. 12. 2021) https://vixra.org/abs/2112.0057 ---;provides sequential time, allows relativity of observed, dispels the paradoxes of Relativity.

        Hydrodynamic analog of quantum behavious shows there may be some likeness to noumenal of the wave representation of particles. (NB) differences.

        To clarify: Hydrodynamic analog of quantum behavious, [oil droplets bouncing on vibrating oil pool], shows there may be some likeness to the noumenal [reality] of the wave representation of particles. (NB) differences.

        (past unreal in this model) is referring to there being no existing, noumenal, material future or past, only uni-temporal Now.

        noumenal existentia; esse(ntia-situs, esse(ntia)-motus, esse(ntia)-orientum, esse(ntia)-Energia,) Can't have a "property without what possesses it.

        Questions?