BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... de-history
Quantum measurement precede history?

I'm trying to unpack this statement. Could this be related to the Wikipedia entry where it says that "a photon in flight is interpreted as...something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither." So upon flight the photon has a potential state but upon 'decoding' we deduce a history to say that it held an actual state (of a particle or a wave)? If so, the deduction of history follows the measurement, which is what I'm positing.

I don't think my current understanding assumes retrocausality since I'm not claiming that any information is being sent back in time. — keystone

I find that the terms "potential" and "actual" make more sense to me, as a layman, than "superposition" and "collapse". From that perspective, an unmeasured (undefined) Photon does not exist as a particle, but only a propagating "wave" of Possibility in an oceanic (holistic ; entangled) system of Potential Energy. When traveling at light-speed, It has no mass (matter) because it's not yet "manifest" as an individual "thing". Only when something slows down the quantum wave, by interference from the classical (macro) environment, does the wave begin to show specific properties, such as heat & mass.

The "interference" is like a pier post in the water (or a slit in a barrier) , it disturbs the incoming general (holistic) waveform, forcing it to take-on a specific (particular) form (i.e. disentanglement). In Beyond Weird, by Phillip Ball, he says, "we destroy the quantumness [entangled potential state] in proportion to the amount of information [energy] we import from the system [undefined state] into the environment [actual matter]". [my brackets]. When a massless photon smacks into a hunk of enformed matter, it transforms potential Energy into actual Force, causing changes in its structure.

Ball goes on to say that "the more information the environment 'absorbs' about a dust grain in superposition of position states, the more the grain becomes localized". Hence, Potential is non-local, and Actual is localized. In visual terms, the "grain" becomes less entangled in the oceanic system, and stands-out from the background as an individual object. However, we "deduce" that the particle was there all along, even before it became visible. You could say that it was there "in principle" (ideally ; theoretically) but not actually, until an observation reveals its location. This is the counter-intuitive Observer Effect, that Einstein questioned, by asking if the moon is still there even when no-one is looking at it.

You know the moon, or particle is there now, during the observation, but where was it in the past, unobserved? And what is the temporal relation between Actual "Now" and Potential "Then" ( a future state)? From a classical viewpoint, it's an apparent paradox. But in terms of abstract principles (potential & actual) it makes sense. That may be why Einstein proposed the counter-intuitive notion of Block-Time, in which all temporal states exist simultaneously in a static timeless eternity. Hence, "retro-causality" is not Actual, but merely Ideal (a mental image).

So, it's all relative. From one point-of-view, "history follows the measurement", as meaning follows a query. But from another angle, the pre-measured object was there all the time; you just didn't know it. The Greek root (metr- to measure) meant to extract information into a mind (L. mensura- to measure, from mens- mind or intention). In Quantum Theory, to extract information is equivalent to removing some matter/energy stuff from the thing observed (to abstract). Yet like pressing a rock into clay, the concave impression is not the thing, but it contains information about the thing. Ball calls that extracted information an "imprint" or a "replica". But that abstract knowledge is not the ding an sich.

PS__My conclusion is that "reality" is both Potential and Actual. But we only know the actual stuff by means of our physical senses. The Potential stuff is only known by Reasoning backward from Actual Effects to Potential Causes. The relationship is similar to Plato's Ideal (mental) Form and Real (physical) things.

The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. ___Wikipedia


PPS__The Observer's Choice "frames" reality as a personal interpretation of what's out there.
Einstein once said: “Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one ”. So, what we think of as reality is, in fact, just a local-personal-relative interpretation of it. In society, and in science, we share our particular frames in order to create a general conventional view of the world.

It is not that QM is not mysticism that interests me; it is that they seem to be so easily conflated with each other that I find so intriguing! — Agent Smith

Many of the pioneers of Quantum Theory -- (cat-killer) Schrodinger ; (buddha) Heisenberg ; Pauli ; Bohr ; Bohm ; Wigner ; Capra ; Seife ; etc. -- were slandered as "mystics", in part due to the mental metaphors (observation, choice, etc.) they used to explain & understand the "spooky" quantum paradoxes compared to "realistic" Classical science. Ironically, realist Einstein was proven wrong, and Quantum Queerness came to be taken for granted, as the weird way of the underworld. Perhaps, "lucid mysticism" is the "conflation" you had in mind.

Quantum Mysticism :
Does mysticism have a place in quantum mechanics today, or is the idea that the mind plays a role in creating reality best left to philosophical meditations? Harvard historian Juan Miguel Marin argues the former - not because physicists today should account for consciousness in their research, but because knowing the early history of the philosophical ideas in quantum mechanics is essential for understanding the theory on a fundamental level. . . . .
Pauli favored a hypothesis of “lucid mysticism,” a synthesis between rationality and religion.
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-m ... otten.html

Quantum Quacks :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

Potential vs Actual :
In his earlier work, Stapp (1993) started with Heisenberg’s distinction between the potential and the actual (Heisenberg 1958), thereby taking a decisive step beyond the operational Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. While Heisenberg’s notion of the actual is related to a measured event in the sense of the Copenhagen interpretation, his notion of the potential, of a tendency, relates to the situation before measurement, which expresses the idea of a reality independent of measurement.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

It seems the association between QM and mysticism was merely an accident - QM heavyweights like Heisenberg, etc. were drawn to Hindu mysticism and people jumped to conclusions ( ). This QM-Mysticism link was reinforced by "coincidental similarities of language rather than genuine connections". — Agent Smith

The primary difference between Classical and Quantum physics is that on the sub-sensory level (e.g sub-atomic) your physical senses can't detect objects smaller than the wavelength of the the visible spectrum. An optical microscope is useless for viewing atomic-scale objects -- it's all just an undifferentiated blur; like the surface of the ocean concealing the myriad lifeforms in the deep. Consequently, scientists were forced to view their minuscule subjects Holistically (entangled in a group) instead of in the Classical Reductive manner (chop the system into its constituent parts). Coincidentally, Eastern philosophy -- which was just-then entering the consciousness of the colonizing West -- had, long before modern technology, already developed techniques of dealing with whole systems, in which the parts are unknown, hence mysterious.

So, the pioneers of Quantum physics merely borrowed some of the Hindu & Buddhist metaphors to describe the quirky quantum behaviors of entangled particles. To paraphrase the spoon-bender in The Matrix, a particle can pass through a barrier, because "there is no wall". The "wall" and the "particle" are One. When the Buddha said there is "no self" he probably meant that your personal "self" is an integral part of a larger system (the world soul). Again, coincidentally, those spiritual Eastern concepts were found to be useful for dealing with physical Quantum concepts. There was "no genuine connection" though, because you didn't have to become a practicing Buddhist or Transcendental Meditator to appreciate the value of a holistic perspective.

However, those same concepts were adopted by New Agers, who were looking for a "genuine connection" (spiritual instead of physical). They were tired of the fragmentation of Western societies, and the reduction of Capitalism to "cash is king" as a tool for exploitation. Unfortunately, my own application of Holism in the Enformationism worldview is often dismissed, by loyal believers in reductive Scientism, as New Age woo-woo. However, rather than rejecting Western Science or adopting Eastern Religions, I merely try to have the best of both worlds : Hence, the BothAnd philosophy. There's nothing inherently mystical in Holism, unless you want to worship the Mystery of Oneness. For me, Holism & Reductionism are merely two sides of the single coin of philosophical Wisdom.