TPF : Quantum Physics and Philosophy

[Gnomon]

Quantum Physics and Classical Physics — A Short Note
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... rt-note/p1

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Yes. That's why the quantum pioneers concluded that the conscious mind doing the sub-atomic measuring may have deterministic physical effects*1. Not due to Magical powers, but to something they have in common. Today, that something is typically known as "Information", especially in the form of causal Energy*2 and mental Entention*3. That notion is still in the early stages, and has not yet become scientific doctrine. But it is interesting fodder for philosophical speculation.

For those who are not afraid to conjecture into the unknown, such explorations may be called "quantum mysticism" or "quantum philosophy", depending on your attitude toward projecting what we know into the unknown. Nobel physicist Roger Penrose*1 is just one of many theorists who are pushing the boundaries of physics & psychology & math into uncharted territory, perhaps harboring strange "influences".


*1. Quantum mind :
Eugene Wigner developed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind. He proposed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness . . . .

These scientific hypotheses are as yet unvalidated, and they can overlap with quantum mysticism. . . .

Penrose suggested that objective reduction represents neither randomness nor algorithmic processing but instead a non-computable influence in spacetime geometry from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension, consciousness derives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

*2. Information is Energy :
This book defines a dynamic concept of information that results in a conservation of information principle. Just as the principle of conservation of energy is essential to understanding energy, the principle of conservation of information leads to a deeper understanding of information.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/ ... 58-40862-6[/i].

*3. Entention : an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action

[Gnomon]

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Many thinkers have pondered "what causes the difference" between Classical (deterministic) Mechanics and Quantum (probabilistic) Statistics? The Quora explanation below*1 --- probably unintentionally --- suggests that the "non-traditional" difference may lie in a Holistic vs Particularistic*2 approach to understanding. My peculiar (philosophical) interpretation of the paradox is that the elusive quantum particle is normally "entangled" in a functional integrated System, which must be forced to "collapse" in order to reveal one isolated part of the whole complex.

But what is it about Measurement that pops the balloon? My personal unorthodox guess is that Measurement (root : mensura ; mens = mind) is an extraction of Information, which as noted in my previous post, is a form of Energy/Force*3. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) postulates that real world objects are collections of particles that are held together by some "force" similar to Gravity (gluons?) into a cohesive organization : a whole system with new functions in addition to those of the constituent parts*4. If that is the case, and if Information is a form of Energy (causation), then probing a sub-atomic system looking for particular answers, may disrupt the structural unity of the system --- like removing a single card from a card tower --- and reveal its components as they fall apart.

You may be able to suggest a more statistical analogy pointing to the same "collapse" effect. For me, this is just a philosophical footnote on the broader application of Holistic (general to specific) Deduction.



*1. Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic because it has to incorporate two incompatible properties into one whole.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-quantum-ph ... erministic

*2. Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology. ___Oxford Dictionary

*3. Information is Energy :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics

*4. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. ___Wikipedia

360_F_124732622_I19K6vaQK1oKgQJlHypRuBFd2eqt1Bc9.jpg

[Gnomon]

In sum, quantum mechanics is a math based on limitations in measurements and probability. As you noted a "field" or "wave" is a mathematical entity that is often confused with a physical reality. Its a metaphor in English. When examining the ocean, we don't calculate every single molecule of water. Its unnecessary. Does that mean that ocean waves are not made up of molecules? No. But for what we're calculating, its easier. This is the same thing as measuring light as a wave vs as a particle. For some experiments and circumstances, its better to calculate light as particles than waves. Are waves of life comprised of particles? Of course. But in those circumstances in math, its just better to calculate it as a wave. — Philosophim

That's a good summary of the quantum quandary. The arcane math accurately predicts the results of chemical processes, but the "reality", of both the invisible particles and the intangible waves, is hard to imagine. As you noted, both are analogies to common sense experience on the macro level of reality. And even the notion of Entanglement may be simply an analogy to the well known Holistic functions of complex systems*1. Metaphorical analogies are too often "confused" with the Material objects they refer back to.

The Santa Fe Institute*2 for the study of Complexity was established by quantum scientists (e.g. Murray Gell-Mann) among others, specifically to research the mysteries of complex physical systems, in which the contributions of parts may be subordinated to those of the system as whole. As you noted above, it's sometimes easier to calculate the behavior of a whole system than to track the zillions of dissolved parts (e.g. sea water & salt). The system label (e.g. cellular automata*3) may be an as-if metaphor to cover the interactive functions of uncountable physical elements.

I mention the use of holistic methods by scientific experts, because my philosophical use of the term "Holism" on this forum is often confused with, and condemned as, New Age religious beliefs about unseen spiritual realities. Despite that Reductive defense against Holistic models, we need to emulate the quantum pioneers --- who at first were baffled by the counter-intuitive, and contra-classical, evidence of quantized systems and entangled behaviors --- but eventually got on with their job of revealing the underlying roots of Reality.


*1. Holistic view in Complex Systems :
By adopting a holistic perspective of complex systems, the system rule enables us to navigate the intricate interdependencies and dynamics within them.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/system-t ... complex-m/

*2. Santa Fe Institute :
. . . . the scientific knowledge that is associated with dynamic processes contains an amazingly rich variety of interconnections, involving distinct forms and levels of understanding. This variety of forms of dynamic knowledge, which is presently largely unrecognized, will be demonstrated via recent specific technical examples. It will be seen in these examples that the understandings (relationships) that have been discovered all have holistic characteristics. Moreover, their holistic qualities are unique in each case---in this sense, they are “emergent discoveries.” This suggests the future understanding of complex systems will involve the common activity of discovering new holistic forms of relationships.
https://www.santafe.edu/research/result ... omena-anal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

*3. Automata :
a moving mechanical device made in imitation of a human being.
___Oxford

[Gnomon]

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Yes. The calculation is intentionally deterministic, but when scientists observe (measure) what actually happens, it doesn't make sense*1. Measurement is an attempt to make observations consistent with our expectations. Schrodinger's half-dead Cat is an illustration of the problem of how to interpret the results of calculations that don't conform to our deterministic prejudices.

Newtonian mechanics presumed a divinely-designed deterministic world. But Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix". So the question arises : is that exception to the deterministic rules due to the vagaries of Nature, or to deficiencies in the Observer, or to whims of the Designer/Programmer? Schrodinger inferred that the "deficiency"*2 was in the Materialistic/Deterministic presumptions of their scientific methods.


*1."In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic."
___Google AI overview

*2. "I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity."
___Erwin Schrodinger

[Gnomon]

↪Wayfarer

Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix" — Gnomon

Did scientists "catch god with his pants down", or are they too far from the measured "forest" (quantum field) to clearly see the statistical "trees" (fluid/solid wavicles)? Unlike yes/no mathematics, probabilistic Statistics must be interpreted in a specific context, and from a personal perspective. Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science.


"Statistics topics are often discussed in math classes or taught within a math department. However, statistics arguably is not a branch of mathematics. It is a mathematical science, built upon the mathematical discipline of probability. . . . . Statistics is not meaningful without context though mathematics generally is."
https://www.usu.edu/math/schneit/StatsS ... sMath.html

"A philosophical interpretation is the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... hilosophy)

"Does probability measure the real, physical, tendency of something to occur, or is it a measure of how strongly one believes it will occur, or does it draw on both these elements?" ___Wikipedia
Note --- Probability is not deterministic computation, but stochastic guessing. Not true/false, but 50/50.

[Gnomon]

"Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science." — Gnomon

It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer. Understanding what the mathematical concepts mean at root takes quite a lot of effort and study, and I fear most philosophers want to give their philosophical take on quantum physics without having done the prerequisite work of actually understanding the physics.
It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer. — flannel jesus

Who, then, do you trust to answer "philosophical questions" of meaning? Feynman gave-up on trying to understand quantum reality in non-mathematical terms : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, unlike most American scientists, the European pioneers of quantum physics were trained in both Science and Philosophy*1.

So, many philosophers today yield to the published opinions of the pioneers on the interpretation of quantum math into human meaning. Unfortunately, we Ordinary Language amateurs have to accept some ambiguity of understanding. Does Schrodinger's equation*2 mean anything to you? Fortunately, there are a few philosophically inclined physicists today, such as Paul Davies, that we can trust to interpret the math into words that forum posters can understand.

Materialistic philosophers typically have trust issues on metaphysical questions. So perhaps they shouldn't get involved in philosophy forum discussions of Quantum Physics, which is inherently immaterial and metaphysical*3. It's true that most philosophers, especially forum amateurs, are not equipped to answer . . . . in mathematical terms. Fortunately few do. So what's your point?


*1. Heisenberg later stated that "My mind was formed by studying philosophy, Plato and that sort of thing" and that "Modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Note --- Is his "prerequisite work" good enough for you?
The interpretations of Ordinary Language philosophers may be somewhat less ambiguous than those of laymen; but they are always debatable, especially on internet forums.

*2. Schrödinger's equation in mathematical symbols is written as: "Hψ = iħ ∂ψ/∂t"
Note --- Does that foreign expression mean anything to you? Would you like a translation into English?

*3. Quantum physics can be considered metaphysical in a few ways:
# Quantum physics can force a rethinking of metaphysics :
The radical nature of quantum physics can lead to a rethinking of metaphysics. For example, quantum physics can imply that the world is fundamentally indeterministic, or that causes aren't always local to their effects.
# Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities :
Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities that pure rational reflection can't. For example, quantum mechanics can reveal that things can be fuzzy at the quantum level, or that space-time can be curved.
# Quantum entanglement has metaphysical consequences :
Quantum entanglement has been thought to have deep metaphysical consequences. For example, it has been claimed to show that Humean supervenience is false.
___Google AI overview

[Gnomon]

Wayfarer
*1. Heisenberg later stated that "My mind was formed by studying philosophy, Plato and that sort of thing" and that "Modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Note --- Is his "prerequisite work" good enough for you? — Gnomon

Wayfarer :
To me, he's the most congenial of the Copenhagen scientists, and yes, he was a lifelong Platonist (in fact, a Christian Platonist, unlike Neils Bohr, who professed no religion.) Heiseberg was philosophically both deep and adept, and I think his Physics and Philosophy is still well-regarded. Here's an excerpt from a public lecture of his delivered in the 1950's:

...the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory...has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically-formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts (such as 'it exists' - wf) cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use them of elementary particles. I cannot enter here into the details of this problem, which has been discussed so frequently in recent years. But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.

During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?

I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or — in Plato's sense — Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. — Werner Heisenberg, The Debate between Plato and Democritus


Regardless, it is a sad but unavoidable fact that Heisenberg's association with Hitler's nuclear program has tarnished his name. I did read an OP many years ago, which I can't re-locate, to the effect that he was less than a willing participant in this effort, and may even have surreptitiously stalled the program by directing it in ways that he knew would prolong the amount of time necessary to develop it. But the fact still remains.

[Gnomon]

Quantum Physics and Classical Physics — A Short Note

Folllowing this and his awakening, he rejected scientific materialism as an inadequate foundation for exploring and understanding the nature of consciousness, which has significance for both AI and the relationship of the quantum and classical physical domains. In the new book he takes the next step and attempts to articulate a fully-formed idealist philosophy of quantum and classical physics, consciousness, computers and meaning - technically known as the whole enchilada. — Wayfarer

I've never had anything close to an "awakening" or "mystical experience", but like Faggin, I did have a sudden insight --- upon reading a quantum physicist's unexpected conclusion, while trying to make sense of enigmatic sub-atomic reality --- into the Life & Mind problem of modern physical science and metaphysical philosophy. Speaking of aethereal Photons and other Leptons, he concluded, "it's all information". To which I might add : "all the way down". Or as you said : "the whole {holistic} enchilada".

After further investigation, my subsequent thesis, Enformationism, is a mashup of Materialism and Idealism, based on Einstein's equation of Matter & Energy, and later conclusions of physicists that Energy is a physical form of Causal Information : what I call Entention. Physicists can't say what Energy is in material terms, but only what it does : Cause change (action) in the material world. For sentient humans, Information is whatever causes a change in their mental state : e.g. Knowledge.

Although Isaac Newton assumed that God was the ultimate cause of all change, his Classical Physics was generally compatible with a materialistic worldview. But Quantum Physics introduced some concepts, such as Fields and Entanglement, that don't fit the materialist model. Nevertheless, I try to avoid the trap of Quantum Mysticism, by assuming that both Materialism and Idealism are true, in their appropriate contexts. That's what I call my BothAnd philosophy. Why can't I have it both ways?


"Driven to understand consciousness, Faggin realized that “if we hypothesized that consciousness and free will are irreducible properties of nature, the scientific vision and narrative of reality would radically change and legitimize a profound spirituality, with unexpected consequences for both science and spirituality.”
____Amazon review of Irreducible
In my own thesis, all matter & mind in the world reduces down to causal EnFormAction (power to cause changes in form), as the precursor to physical Energy and to mental Information (meaning). Ultimately, fundamental EFA might be related to what we call Free Will or Schopenhauer's Will as the causal force in the world. My motivation for the thesis was mainly scientific and philosophical, but I suppose you could also call it "spirituality" by contrast with monistic materiality.

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
I read Federico Faggin's 'Silicon' last year, and have started his 'Irreducible'. This last one is difficult material and there's a lot about it I don't understand, but there are some elements beginning to crystallise. — Wayfarer

Since you have already started, maybe I should leave it to you to digest the book into its fundamental elements, and then post your understanding on the forum, for those of us less erudite.

Ancient Atomism postulated that everything in the world can be reduced down to a fundamental/elemental particle of matter. Yet modern Quantum Theory assumed that everything could be reduced down to an irreducible mathematical measurement (quantum)*1 : e.g. a bit of energy (photon)*2. But Planck attempted to define mathematically the smallest "irreducible" units on the quantum scale*3. The quote below says that the lowest limit of measurement is mental not material.

So it shouldn't be surprising that scientists have not been able to "touch bottom" in the ocean of matter. Eventually, they temporarily gave up on the search for an irreducible particle of matter, and instead postulated the Quantum Field as the fundamental element of reality --- so they could "shut up and calculate". Ironically, that "field" is a mathematical construct, not a material object, and the dimensionless "points" are imaginary locations in space, with no material extension --- nothing physical to measure; only metaphysical math.

Since the Irreducible "Atom" of physics turns out to be Immaterial, it's understandable that such ghostly concepts are difficult to understand, and to translate into our materialistic language*4.


*1. What is a Quantum? :
In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Quantum is a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents. ___Wikipedia

*2. Photons are light quanta that do not have mass or a size because they are neither a wave nor a particle, but both. However, the size of a photon perpendicular to its velocity is constant and is expected to be as small as 10−20 meters. {Meters??? 65 feet!}
___Google AI overview

*3. Is there anything smaller than the Planck scale? :
It is not impossible for anything to be smaller than the Planck length. It is impossible for the laws of physics as we understand them today to describe anything smaller than the Planck length. That is a limit of our ignorance, not a limit of the Universe.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything ... k-length-1

*4. Irreducible Mind :
Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms.
___Amazon Books