Wave function collapse demystified

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).

Forgot to put my name in above post... though you probably would've guessed. Thanks again.

Pankaj

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.

.

No, I would not aggree that it is emperically established. Such an interpretation cannot be emperically established. If it was, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing whether it has been emeprically established. I have already laid out the reasons why I do not hold such an intepreation in my earlier posts.

also,

I think what you are asking is, "If I did not observe the pattern on the plate, would it be there anyways, in a real physical sense?"

My answer to that is yes. We have set up the apparatus so that the source interacts with a target.

Please don't bring up Shcrodingers cat. My answer will be the same.

You said, "If I did not observe the pattern on the plate, would it be there anyways, in a real physical sense?" My answer to that is yes. We have set up the apparatus so that the source interacts with a target."

I agree with you on this one. I am not advocating solipcism.

Nice talking to you.

What is your intepretation?

Interpretation of what? I'm sorry, I don't know what exactly you are asking. Please be more specific.

Thanks,

Pankaj

Your interpretaion of QM in regards to Wave Function collapse(or lack thereof.)

It signifies the end of the Cartesian, Newtonian, Kantian Worldview. If we had not needed a formalism such as wave function collapse, then the former three would still apply. It might take a while to let this sink in... but the implications I think would take us towards something like Buddhism. it will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the context of the modern Western culture. Good things are ahead... the self-created prison is destroyed.

This is a good read... http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/VerhoevenBuddhismScience.htm

"Western interest in Eastern religions, especially Buddhism, historically coincided with the rise of modern science and the corresponding perceived decline of religious orthodoxy in the West. Put simply: Modern science initiated a deep spiritual crisis that led to an unfortunate split between faith and reason--a split yet to be reconciled. Buddhism was seen as an "alternative altar," a bridge that could reunite the estranged worlds of matter and spirit. Thus, to a large extent Buddhism's flowering in the West during the last century came about to satisfy post-Darwinian needs to have religious beliefs grounded in new scientific truth."

Hi Bubba,

You might want to join the discussion here...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/

"One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics." - This is a blog post on the NPR website written by Adam Frank, Astrophysicist, University of Rochester, and a writer for Discover Magazine.