Wave function collapse demystified

Hi

When people explore the nature of consciousness in an attempt to resolve the weirdness of QM, they are making an implicit assumption about the scope and structure of the theory we have built -- namely, that the theory itself represents something more than an elaborate Turing machine which we have constructed to allow us to model phenomenon on the level of detail beyond our senses.

As I mentioned in my prior post, the mathematical structure and formalism of QM was something forced upon us by the nature of our observations. Such a construct is logically necessary. The variants of QM(e.g. Canonical, Path Integral, Field Theory) represent the only systematic ways one can construct a formal mathematical structure that takes into account the quantization of observables. We have carried over some of the the basic principles and structures from Classical Mechanics, such as the implicit notions of least action present in the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dyanmics. We have also carried with it the ontological notions about casualty that have arisen from our intuitive understanding of the world of our senses. In other words,we have taken along with us the philosophical baggage we have intuitively derived from our sense experiences and this the reason for our cognitive dissonance.

The fundamental question is not what QM is describing as it relates to our intuitive understanding of the world of our senses, as this picture will always be incomplete given that we are mixing categories. In my opinion it makes no sense whatsoever to assign properties like 'partlecness' or 'waveess' to things like electrons or photons. Intuitive concepts like 'particleness' and 'waveeness' have arisen from the intuitive concepts we have formed from our sense experiences of the world in which we live.

In other words, from my perspective, we cannot retain any logical consistency in our world-view if we employ intuitive constructs such as an electron being either a particle or a wave -- or anything resembling the structures we assign to things in our world. These only represent neat and abstract mathematical constructs that allow us to explain in a stochastic fashion, the behavior of the systems under scrutiny.

I liken this to being at a party and playing charades with your friends. Your form solutions to the problems of identification by trying to relate abstract clues in a game of association. You rely on your memory and intuitive understanding of relations, causal structures, and imagery. You form a set of al possible things which could account for the clues and then narrow them down to form an identification by selecting one member from the set. You come up with an answer -- you are a cow ! Woohoo -- pass me a beer !

When we speak of substance on the level in which we apply QM, what are we really talking about? When trying to answer this question, we can only form the answer using, as a basis, our intuitive understanding of phenomenon gleaned from our classical sense-experiences of the world around us, on the scale in which we live. Like charades, we form the set of all possible things which can account for the clues. The problem is, there are no members of the set which can account for the things we are describing in QM. We have no intuitive or sense-experience information in our thought processes for an entity called a 'wavicle'. A wavicle is not a member of the set of things formed by our experience and intuition. We would never be able to intuit an object with such properties from the sense-impressions we have formed through our existence.

Take, for example, a physical system whereby we might model an electron conconfined to a potential. First of all, we are assuming that there is an entity which corresponds, in a classical sense, to something being confined -- like confining a pool ball to the confines of a table. IMO, this notion is FUBAR to begin with. We are mixing ontological categories of being and structure. There is no direct map to the set of all our sense to the set of all properties and behaviors observed on the QM level. We just try to play the game assuming there are. That's when things go haywire.

It is much more logically sound and consistent to speak instead not of substance as something fundamental to a phenomenon, but as a fundamental process that determines the changes any arbitrary system will undergo when we think of in the classical sense. In a classical sense, strip a particle of it's properties then what is it? What is left of an electron if you take away its properties of charge, mass, and energy? Nothing. You could not identify such a thing --there is no substance left. The properties themselves ARE the substance. They define the substance in a classical intuitive sense, not the QM sense. In other words, there is nothing there in the classical sense of a point-like particle running amok like pool balls flying about on a table.

It is more consistent and sane to think of something like an electron not as substance but as an emergent feature of some fundamental underlying process that is beyond our ability to comprehend or intuit. Thing such as the appearance of an electron, photon, etc represent the possible degrees of freedoms of such a fundamental system. Interactions,forces, fields, in the classic sense, represent the possible degrees of freedom.

Hi Bubba,

I agree with what you say. Heisenberg said the same: "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however. Bohr said the same, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

I agree that what we have is a hard won formalism, that is brilliantly constructed and we can get on with the business of Techne, but Scientia, as approached via materialism is at an end. We still have our "paradoxical" experimental results to think about in terms of what they might be telling us about self/world. Let's stick with the double slit experiment, and variations such as 'Delayed choice quantum eraser". What's paradoxical to us is that the state of knowledge of the experimenter and the experimental results are correlated, entangled. In other words, the categories of 'mind' and 'matter' that are separable at the human sensory level are not separable when we look as deeply as we have with QM. Now this is not a surprise to either Vedanta nor Yoga. If a culture does not get stuck at the Cartesian division, then its not so difficult to deduce that its impossible to even conceive of phenomenon without consciousness in place... ergo, consciousness and phenomenon are a unity; or, mind and matter are a unity. How could it be otherwise?

As seekers of ourselves, we can take other lessons from what QM has shown us too, and this has got nothing to do with the formalism which includes the "wave function collapse". We have, in the West, considered ourselves as material beings with an emergent consciousness added on sometime during evolution. This picture is under great stress because now we have seen that matter and mind are inseparable. Given this, how would consciousness arise some time later than matter? Phenomenon and mind cannot be separated. There was no Cartesian split. It was only the Cartesian Spell that we were under. Our modern ideas about cosmology will not survive this either. But no matter, what survives or doesn't survive is irrelevant to someone actually interested in finding out about self/world. We have tried to study matter to its depth. We have chased it down and it is not a self-existent category apart from consciousness. Many cultures had already figured this out. So now what? The other pole, mind, turns out to not be an emergent property of matter, but just as primary, maybe more so, and that deserves our attention. It turns out it is very, very accessible... thus the recourse to Yoga now would seem to fit our prescription.

Hello again.

It is an interesting to offer our philosophical musings but it won't supply much assistance once we go into the laboratory. We will still find the same results for our experiments. I simply take an instrumentalist view when it comes to intepretaitons and believe that it really makess no sense to try to even comprehend the subject of QM in a clssical reconstructionist way.

I say we blame all the confusion on Planck. If Planck's constant was zero, we wouldn't have needed to create this whole mess and would be able to envision atomic structure as tiny little marbles orbiting an Aggie.

If planck's constant was zero, then we would have found ourselves to be automatons in a massive machine. We have found ourselves at the doorstep of knowing ourselves a lot more deeply... I think as time goes by, more and more persons will walk through... the West will follow at some point.

We need to make a distinction between Philosophy and Physics. What you are proposing is certainly open to philosophical discussion but it is neither falsifiable nor verifiable in the realm of scientific inquiry.

Science does not concern itself with questions of teleology. I am not saying such questions are not important, but they do not fall under the magisterium of the scientific method. Questions of teleology have preoccupied the mind of man since we developed the ability to form the abstract thought that allows us to form such questions.

As interpretations of QM are not currently subject to empirical verification or negation, it's pretty much a free-for-all out there. It can be easy to go overboard with the speculations and we are given a license to let our imaginations run wild. Again, it proves to be an interesting exercise but we should caution against equating our own interpretations as facts.

I remember back in the 80's when popular accounts of QM such as, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters' and "The Tao of Physics' came out. Scientists realized that lack of empirical verification essentially handed them a 'get out of jail free' card when offering their own interpretations to the public.

The result is that authors of these popular accounts of modern physics ran amok with wild and often bizarre stories that border on the nonsensical. They took ideas like the MW interpretations and turned them into fanciful stories that sound more like they were stolen from the script of an Episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine rather than from a science textbook. People liked to hear that in an alternate reality they were filthy rich and drove a Jag. The public forgets that we have no way of proving such wild takes and it is nothing but fanciful speculation at this point. In fact, some current contemporary theories haven't even been verified empirically, yet textbooks and popular accounts often portray reality as if multiverses and the like are real.

Yes, we need to be careful... but who exactly denies that we have found a non-separability of the 2 categories termed 'mind' and 'matter'? Does anyone question this anymore? This is not in the realm of speculation and philosophy, but empirical fact. This does not have to do with which interpretation of QM one wishes to believe.

There is all this bravado about following where the evidence leads us, but instead there is a profound stuckness in materialism still, and dualism still. On the one hand we talk about the need to move beyond the 17th century worldview of Newton and Descartes, and on the other hand there is fear at moving on. Why are we still attached to pictures of self and world that do not fit the facts? We no longer have the evidence to believe in determinism. Why should we believe that we are automatons without free will, and the world is a great big wind up clock? Time to move on.

Within us, thought has seen its limits, and that's just how it is... its not speculation or philosophy... now what? We can keep making more models, but they will *never* be complete. Even in principle, they can never be complete. The quest for knowledge through the exclusive use of the sensory and cognitive modes has come to an end. Now what? Should we just quit, or find something more within us to keep going?

These people are helping us move ahead... one will need to argue against them.

Anton Zeilinger in http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html



Q: So there is in fact something that exists independently of us. And the moon is also there when I'm not looking at it.



AZ: Something exists, but it is not directly accessible to us. Only indirectly. And whether this thing must really be called the "moon" is another question. That is also a construct.



Q: But there is something up there...



AZ: ... the word "there" is yet another construct. Space and time are concepts aimed at giving meaning to our world of appearances. So they are entirely reasonable constructs. By no means do I want to give the impression that I believe everything is just our imagination.



Q: The world as a huge theatre that only plays in our heads.

AZ: That is certainly not my view of things.

Q: Then what would you call it, this something that you can't call moon or space or time - this something that exists independently of us?



AZ: Wouldn't I be making another qualification if I tried to give it a name? Isn't it enough if I just say it exists? As soon as you use words like "world" or "universe", you start lugging about all that conceptual ballast again.

Q: But you defend the thesis that there is an "original matter of the universe": information. 



AZ: Yes. For me the concept of "information" is at the basis of everything we call "nature". The moon, the chair, the equation of states, anything and everything, because we can't talk about anything without de facto speaking about the information we have of these things. In this sense the information is the basic building block of our world.



Q: But just now you spoke of a world that exists independently of us.



AZ: That's right. But this world is not directly ascertainable or describable. Because every description must be done in terms of the information, and so you inevitably get into circular reasoning. There's a limit we can't cross. And even a civilisation on Alpha Centauri can't cross it. For me that's something almost mystical.

I'm tired of believing in fairy tales, even if they are told by persons called "Scientists". If we don't like words like "Mysticism" or "Yoga", we don't have to use them.

Paul Davies: "the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships."



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

I think its an exciting time... time for a change, but we should move carefully... and discussions like these can be very helpful. Thanks.

Hi Pankej,

With the advent of QM, I agree that determinism and classical constructionism are no longer tenable; however, that does not infer that nature is structured in a way that defies some semblance of casual explanation that necessitates the introduction of a 'ghost in the machine.'

Science is not concerned with establishing truths and the questions and opinions you are presenting fall under the purvue of Philosophy. Science cannot arrive at truths as science relies on inductive inference, not deductive reasoning that starts with a set of axioms and ends up with proofs. The final judge of any proposition in science is not a deductive proof, but an observation. No matter how certain we are of our present theories, all it takes is a single observation to throw a monkey wrench into the picture. Theories are amenable to change, truth is not.

The Q&A you supplied, although interesting, simply represent opinions that represent the philosophical ideations of a particular individual. This does not mean such opinions are false simply because someone does not agree with them. It simply means that for a scientist, there is no way to empirically confirm or falsify any of these opinions as they are not subject to testing. In a practical sense, they serve no operational purpose to a scientist -- they represent background noise that can be ignored.

Now, I have already stated that our philosophical ideology may determine how we proceed when constructing testable hypothesis,;but, the hypothesis must be testable, or it is not science.

We need to be very cautious about confusing science with philosophy, especially when the subject of QM comes up. The Internet is full of the crazy crackpot theories when it comes to this subject. Just as with politics, everyone seems to have an opinion on what QM is really telling us. I am certainly not calling your position crazy and I am not implying that philosophy is not important, as it surely is. I greatly enjoy philosophy. It's just that we can get ahead of ourselves and scientists can end up sounding like snake-oil salesmen instead of scientists. I think the scientific community as a whole needs to calm the hell down about Quantum weirdness.

The position you hold is one that an individual is forced to either accept or deny, largely based on their own philosophical bias. Nobody has any way to deductively prove or empirically verify any such position.

We have probed the depths and have come face to face with the Quantum. This has led to terrible weapons as well as communications technology which can make the whole world as One. The Quantum has also led us to a deep reflection, and has pointed the attention back onto ourselves, to our own inner depths, towards an illumination we always wanted but didn't know how to approach.

The surface looks into the depths and receives all these possibilities. In Taoism, extreme Yin turns into Yang, extreme Yang turns into Yin. We have looked outwards as far as possible and have been led back to ourselves. We have been taught by the Quantum, that an objective stance eventually requires the exploration of our own subjectivity. Therein lies our next adventure where we shift from asking "What is the World?", to "Who asks that question?".

There is a mystical tradition in India known as "Spanda Karika" translated as "The Doctrine of Vibration". It states that at the depth of experience is a vibration, a discontinuous change, a flickering, which from an objective stance can be appreciated as an external existent that one can watch, but also that this flickering is the depth of oneself, the subject. This flickering is the coming and going of the world, but an even deeper understanding is that it is the self-movement of consciousness, of reality. There can be a looking upon this, or an identification with it. The former is a distant knowledge in the form of the subject-object distinction. The latter is the experience of the flickering reality to itself, which can be experienced as one's own deep nature. This self-experience is termed "Samadhi" meaning the non-distinction of subject and object. This is, finally, a self-illumination of the world, through any and all subjects in the world. This is also called "Moksha", meaning "The end of the road", or "Finishing up", or "Liberation/Freedom". It is said that this is what we crave, or that this is the movement of reality towards itself, that plays itself out in all subjects.

"Nothing perceived is independent of perception and perception differs not from the perceiver, therefore the universe is nothing but the perceiver."

"[This] Bliss", writes Abhinava, "is not like the intoxication of wine or that of riches, nor similar to union with the beloved. The manifestation of the light of consciousness is not like the ray of light from a lamp, sun or moon. When one frees oneself from accumulated multiplicity, the state of bliss is like that of putting down a burden; the manifestation of the Light is like the acquiring of a lost treasure, the domain of universal non-duality."

The Doctrine of Vibration: An analysis of the doctrines and practices of Kashmir Shaivism

Mark S. G. Dyczkowski - State University of New York Press, 1987

http://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Vibration-Doctrines-Practices-Traditions/dp/0887064329

Hi,

The experimental study of radioactivity and fission led to the development of fission weapons. We could have built a bomb without any knowledge of QM whatsoever. All you need is the ability to produce enriched uranium and the technological capacity to bring two parts together into a critical mass without fizzling out.

Quantum teleportation and communication are still highly theoretical developments that have yet to bear any fruit. These are highly speculative subjects and researchers are really not sure to what extent we can make practical use of properties such as entanglement. The most promising area so far seems to be in quantum computing. As far as everything else, most experimentation to date has really not been that successful in doing much of anything other than dealing with systems of single pairs of entangled photons. IMO, the popular notion of Quantum Teleportation transporting humans and such is simply a wild fantasy, unless proven otherwise. So far, this idea has only been successful in selling pop-sci books to people who watch too much Star Trek.

Hi Bubba,

Re: Tool Making

In the West, the Cartesian dualism still persists. It is believed that mind looks upon a reality that exists independently of it. This is a metaphysical stance, rather than something disclosed by empiricism. This dualist position is not "Science", but "Metaphysics". A scientific position, given by empirical evidence is that "Nothing perceived is independent of perception."

The Kantian formulation of "Phenomenon-Noumenon" is also not a scientific position, given by empiricism. In fact, this is simply another dualism, a more subtle version of the Cartesian split, which cannot be supported by evidence either. We hope to say something about a "Veiled Reality", that exists independently of the perceiving subject, that exists outside of sentience, but we have no empirical basis to support such a position. It is a metaphysical position masquerading as a Scientific stance. The only thing that empiricism discloses, the only thing that there is evidence for is "Nothing perceived is independent of perception." This is a non-dualism, which is not a metaphysical stance, but an empirically derived and thus Scientific position.

The Cartesian stance, and even the Kantian stance are just that, stances, which are useful positions to take so as to get a particular sort of view, one that avails itself to a type of investigation we call "Science". And this is very powerful, gives us the ability to model the sensory display as mechanism, which has led to marvellous technological innovation. But if we do not step out of these stances, we might get lost in them, even losing ourselves, and ourselves and others as "mechanism".

Tools are great, but forgetting oneself is not. Thus, the Quantum, the flickering of the sensory display at its depths brings us back to "Scientia" (KNOWLEDGE), rather than getting lost within the models we make towards the pursuit of "Techne" (TOOL MAKING).

Hi Pnakjaj,

This Web Site, I assume, is devoted to the discussions of issues related to the advancement of our scientific knowledge. I would therefore assume that most people who visit a board that falls under the auspices of science would be visiting to discuss various aspects of knowledge and theory-making that fall within that context. Debating the truth or falsehood of such an esoteric topic as mind/body dualism is not something that would be of value to someone who visits a web domain that is dedicated to discussion scientific theories. A neurologist might be interested in the subject, but probably not physicists.

Again, I am not saying such questions are not important -- they are. But everything has it's place. Discussing such topics on a board dedicated to physics is kind of like going to a Chinese restaurant and ordering a hamburger and fries.

What you are proposing is interesting to discuss but I am not sure how it adds to the goal of advancing our scientific understanding of nature. You obviously adhere to some form of idealism. But what practical value does such an opinion have for science? We will still measure the same mass for the hydrogen atom, the Earth will continue in it's orbit and we still will have no verified theory that unifies gravity with QM.

Hi Bubba,

Let me point out that this portion of the forum is called "Ultimate Reality", and there are other portions where discussion should indeed be limited to whatever is suggested by their titles.

The words "Science" "Physics" and "Nature" have a long history, and what is meant or encompassed by these words has changed over time. This process of change continues even today. We are not at some end point of knowledge. Without discussion of foundational issues, as is the goal of this website, we will become ossified.

The Greek "Scientia" means knowledge, and the modern rendition "Science" is limited in its meaning when compared against the original. The Greek "Physis" is translated as "Nature", and it encompasses more than the modern use of the word "Physics" connotes. I believe that we have ample reasons, which I have stated in earlier posts, to revisit the meaning and use of these words. These are very, very important foundational issues, though they are less important to someone who has an instrumentalist approach. However, it was due to persons like Bohr, Heisenberg, Shrodinger and Einstein, who were certainly not instrumentalists, that we have made very hard won advances in our knowledge of nature, and as it turns out QM is telling us something very important about nature, including our own nature; this is bringing us back to the older, wider meanings of 'Scientia' and 'Physis'. There is change afoot, and I am a harbinger of that change, as are many others.

I would prefer to discuss the arguments that have been put forward, so as to test their veracity. But you have raised questions which are also important and in fact allow us to go further in our relationship to the very deepest foundational issues, as is the goal of this website. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(disambiguation)

Hi,

I was not suggesting that the questions should not be discussed. I was just pointing out that such philosophical opinions are ultimately of no value to science. Such opinions will not make any new predictions about the universe that can be measured or tested in a laboratory.

Science relies on empirical evidence gathered through observation. That's just the way it is. Philosophy relies on deductive reasoning that starts with premises or axioms and uses these as a basis to form an argument that necessitates a conclusion. Too often, people skip this part when stating their position. They simply state their own opinions without offering the rational justification they used to reach the conclusions that they hold. The opinions end up sounding more like something that appealed to emotions and desires, rather than reason -- i.e. wishful thinking.

Basically, I really don't understand what you are proposing and how it relates to furthering progress in science or philosophy. There is no way to empirically measure the veracity of the arguments you are putting forth regarding the nature of consciousness. There is no way to prove or disprove such a position rationally without making assumptions regarding the truth of religious traditions as they are present in Eastern mysticism.

To me, it sounds like esoteric musings on a theme. The onus is not on me to show your position to be false. I simply have no reason to accept it and nobody has supplied me any rational reason why I should accept it. In the absence of evidence to prove your position, it is on you to provide some rational basis for why I should accept your position and why your position offers more intrinsic value to a scientist than any of the other myriad of interpretations for QM.

Hi Bubba,

The modern, fragmented version of "Scientia" known as 'Science' makes many, many "is" statements. We are presented with many ontological claims, but Relativity and QM have shown us that it would be more accurate to state many of these claims as being phenomenological. This is a very, very important point. Ontological statements stand upon thin air, unless the underlying epistemology is also clearly stated. That is, it is salutary to say "Such is the case, when examined from this particular epistemic mode, or point of view". This removes ambiguity, which otherwise can and has caused us to become lost to ourselves, and the world to be inaccurately portrayed. This is the case, for example, with what is called the "Newtonian Worldview". Because we were not clear in stating our epistemological stance, we considered Newtonian statements as ontological. The advent of Relativity and QM have caused us to see our error, and we are now trying to correct our course. We are still stuck, there is resistance to change, but we must move ahead towards recognizing and shedding our errors. In the modern world, those who call themselves "scientists" and "philosophers" too often work apart from each other. Because of the dominance of the instrumentalist approach in modern science, foundational issues are weakly addressed, and thus the change required is needlessly slow. Rare are those persons who are scientists and philosophers both, and such persons have generally been at the forefront of our advancements of knowledge; Bohr and Heisenberg come to mind here. Instrumentalism is certainly a valuable approach and those so inclined should adopt it, but then we move from "Scientia" to "Techne". Instrumentalism can give us technological innovation, but is not nearly as strong as concerns understanding. We need both. Since it is obviously more difficult to be scientist and a philosopher, such persons are rare. However, it is such rare persons who best resolve epistemic, ontological and phenomenological issues. Without these persons, we would still be enmeshed in a Newtonian worldview, which actually we are still too much in. Ideally, we need the lead of persons who are a combination of scientist, philosopher, Artist and mystic. The Artist and the Mystic open up epistemic modes/approaches that would cause for a near complete approach to knowledge, when added to Science and Philosophy.

Modern physics is a human activity, and philosophical discussions allow us to stay away from becoming trapped in our own models, thus losing our true selves. Thanks.

Hi Bubba,

I agree with you when you say, "Science relies on empirical evidence gathered through observation. That's just the way it is.'

But then we must interpret these facts and try to make a coherent picture of self and world... and not just coherent, but also in a way that does not turn us into algorithmic computers and the world as a giant chain of cause-effect dynamics (mechanism). There is more to reality than these sorts of pictures, which in fact are still too common. Once the fact gathering has been done (a scientific endeavour), then the Art aspect of the process must be conducted... that is, to bring together all the little bits of facts back into a whole. If this is done poorly, then we have the position of thinking about self/world, for example, as in the Newtonian Worldview, which we are still caught up in. And this is where instrumentalism does not even know how caught it is in a false picture of the self/world, with dramatic effects on the self/world. How we envision ourselves and nature is too important to be left to the instrumentalists, and even to Physics... we need everyone's help here... the scientist, the philosopher, the priestess, the skeptic and the mystic. Thus this type of discussion must never stop.

PHYSICIST Anton Zeilinger @ http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/

"In the history of physics, we have learned that there are distinctions that we really should not make, such as between space and time... It could very well be that the distinction we make between information and reality is wrong. This is not saying that everything is just information. But it is saying that we need a new concept that encompasses or includes both." Zeilinger smiled as he finished: "I throw this out as a challenge to our philosophy friends."

A few weeks later I was looking around on the IQOQI web- site when I noticed a job posting for a one-year fellowship at the institute. They were looking for a philosopher to collaborate with the group."

I am not stating Philosophy is not important. It is very important as it can determine the direction one chooses to head when proceeding with theory-making. The Philosophy of Physics is indeed an important undertaking. One should go about it in a systematic way, however.

You are proceeding with a philosophical discourse and are doing so by making statements without qualifying them with arguments as to how you arrived at your position. You seem to be stating a position then referring to Eastern mystical traditions as a means to justify that position(correct me if I am wrong.) Nobody can really discuss the validity of your position(s) without considering the arguments and reasoning you used to form them. The validity or relevance of a conclusion is not established by examining the conclusion but by considering the merits and validity of the premises used to infer a conclusion.

What are the premises and assumptions you are using to arrive at your position?

Hi Bubba,

My assertion is that modern physics has an unexamined metaphysical bias, which cannot be supported by any empirical findings. If my assertion is true, then it would mean that modern physics has already entered the realm of metaphysics, instead of sticking to empiricism, as a modern Science should, and claims to do. In modern physics, it is thought that mind stands apart from the material reality which it tries to model. Thus we think that one day, we will derive the 'theory of everything'.

However, in QM, irrespective of which interpretation one favours, the findings are not controversial, since they are there for anyone to see. In the double slit experiment, it can seen by anyone that the state of knowledge of the experimenter is entangled with how "elementary particles" *behave*. This is not in dispute. However, it is seen as a great mystery, a paradox even. We even ask ourselves how Nature can be so strange.

The Eastern source that I quoted says, in part, "Nothing perceived is independent of perception". In other words, all we can empirically verify is that whatever is seen, is see via the agency of consciousness. We cannot say that there is something 'out there', *outside of sentience*. We have no empirical basis to say that the material reality exists apart from consciousness. If we wish to say that the material reality does in fact exist apart from consciousness, then we have left empiricism/science and have entered metaphysics. There is no basis to say this. If there is, what is it? Could you or anyone else state what this basis is?

We have brought along an unconscious metaphysical bias in our scientific endeavours and we have seen in QM, that Nature says 'No!, here your bias is exposed.' Mind and matter cannot be ultimately separated... this is a key finding in QM that we have been perplexed by.

I am not proposing an Idealism, but a non-dualism... that is, it is not cogent to think that mind and matter are separable. What are the implications? This we have to sort out yet, and an instrumentalist approach will not be enough, as that is what made the metaphysical bias unthought and thus unconscious.

This is a very exciting time in the West... a whole new paradigm, a new way of envisioning/thinking about self/world is about to be born. Our conceptions of the human condition will change a lot too... that process is now underway. Thanks.

Physics does not hold a bias, people do. Every thinking individual holds a metaphysical bias of some kind. Most follow a general theme but there are probably few that are exactly alike.

Regarding QM, current theory does not concieve of electrons or photons to be particles or waves. This only was an issue back in the 20's when there were only two or three formulations of the subject. The wave-particle paradox is not an issue in QFT. An electron represents a quantized energy fluctuation in a quantized field which permeates all of spacetime. The 'thing' that we associate with a discreet particle simply corresponds to a ground-state energy of such a field fluctuation -- the rest mass-energy of an electron. Such fluctuations are propagated as waves in the field.

Likewise, the quantum field associated with the classical electromagnetic field is also quantized and a photon represents a quantized energy fluctuation in the field. These two fields, along with the vacuum field, interact and gives the impression of electromagnetic forces. The same applies for other classes of particles as well. Each has it's own field and fields interact, particles don't.

In the double-slit, neither a particle nor a wave belonging to an electron is going through the slits. The only thing going through the slit is a propagation of the fluctuation. The field permeates all of space and the energy fluctuations of the field we associate with the electron is the reason for the behavior. The 'electron' field contains many fluctuations but they belong to the same field.

That's the world according to QFT, at least.

Hi Anonymous,

Your description contains a lot of concepts we have invented and utilized to frame something empirically found. This conceptual ballast is constructed after the observation to try to frame what is observed. If not waves and particles, then fields and vacuum etc.

What exactly is observed? We aim tiny pulses of light at the double slit apparatus and *depending* upon whether or not the experimenter can have certain information, one or the another distribution pattern is seen on the photographic plate. We have done controlled experiments to rule out potential mechanical explanations, but the behaviour persists. This is what is "paradoxical". Even Feynman wrote "This is the only mystery."

I ask a very specific question: Would you agree that it is empirically established that the state of knowledge of the experimenter is correlated/entangled with what ends up occurring on the photographic plate?