Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

#41

Post by phayes »

ThomPete wrote: post #40
phayes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that is what I said: non-locality is just an artifact "of certain interpretations / modifications of QM" . Bell's theorem doesn't prove non-locality; what it proves is that no (alternative) theory (of mechanics) that's both classical, aka naively realist, and local could reproduce QM's successful predictions (of those experimental results).

Which must lead us to conclude non-locality unless we can come up with a better explanation. I've seen a few alternatives like electrical universe theory which tries to take the spookiness out of QM but so far no other theory reconsile both clasically and QM and the two are proven to the extent that anything can be proven. Classical physics is not proven more than QM. You could easily reverse your argument starting w…

No, it mustn't! The logical negation of the conjunction "classical* and local" is "non-classical or non-local". Electrical universe theory"?! Please stick to standard and generally accepted quantum foundations / interpretation. There's no (non-local) spookiness to be taken out of QM in the first place - except for those who choose to reject the non-classical option. %

* Your last remarks suggest you haven't read those Werner refs and don't know what is meant by the term "classical" as I've used it here - it's a reference to the structure of (general) probability state spaces, not to classical physics per se - and you should substitute "(naively) realist" for "classical" in the above.

% And those familiar with the probability theoretic aspects (see my links in a comment in a different thread here, or Tom Banks's teaser: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/2011/... ), probably won't want to do that. For example, the reason violations of Bell-type inequalities occur in QM is mundane from this perspective: "What on earth did you expect?! You have observables that don't commute! Use the appropriate inequality." https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0375-9601(87)90075-2

Re: Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

#42

Post by zwkrt »

phayes wrote: post #34
zwkrt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wittgenstein teaches us that we invented language to solve a particular set of problems. Depending on which book of his you read, language is designed to either: - talk about the configuration of objects in relation to each other in space and time. - perform social functions and to describe the actions humans take in the social world. In either case, I think it is totally clear that you are right and there are just c…

> If foundations of QM are non-local They're not. Non-locality is an artifact of certain interpretations / modifications of QM (where it isn't simply a misconception). See e.g. https://sci-hub.tw/10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424011 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2120 or the QBism intro https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5253 or Ray Streater's old EPR webpage https://web.archive.org/web/20151117174141/http://www.mth.kc... or Gell-…

Thanks for the links, they helped clarify my thoughts.

Re: Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

#43

Post by natalyarostova »

colordrops wrote: post #36
natalyarostova wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying a physical phenomena is 'humanities rather than science' is such a stupid statement. Reality is just a complex computer.

> Reality is just a complex computer. > stupid statement.

Humanities is distinct from science, to the extent that it's information generated by a specific life-form (humans), and is specific to our specific language and hardware we evolved and implemented.

Studying a great novel, or moral dilemmas, are ultimately about how we process, transmit, and infer information generated by other humans, and shared through extremely high-dimensional, but less structured, contexts, such as language, novels, literature, etc.

To say a physics phenomena is more 'humanities' is a strange statement, and it's hard to understand what they are getting at.

Re: Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

#44

Post by scottlocklin »

gotocake wrote: post #29
scottlocklin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New Scientist is pretty bad; sort of the weekly world news of science. I completely agree with you about SciAm. I like quantamagazine myself. Though most science journalism is very, very bad these days. I'm guessing because not much is going on in the sciences; most of the research is pretty bad as well.

Man I wish that I could disagree with you, but... yeah. At least the long overdue “come to Jesus” moment is slowly arriving for theoreticians. Maybe we’ll see another golden age of experimentalism, that would be nice! Slow and solid is after all, better than quick and inconsequential.

My depressing theory is that "actual science" aka the good stuff that moves the needle, can only be done by some small and fixed number of people, and they're being drowned out by not-so-good people who are just running a career algorithm. Aka, if someone bombed the Solvay conference humanity would have been set back by 50 years, but if someone nuked an APS meeting, humanity might not even notice, or worse, immediately start doing better at physics.

Re: Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

#45

Post by colordrops »

natalyarostova wrote: post #43
colordrops wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reality is just a complex computer. > stupid statement.

Humanities is distinct from science, to the extent that it's information generated by a specific life-form (humans), and is specific to our specific language and hardware we evolved and implemented. Studying a great novel, or moral dilemmas, are ultimately about how we process, transmit, and infer information generated by other humans, and shared through extremely high-dimensional, but less structured, contexts, such…

I'm just referring to the statement that "reality is just a complex computer". That's nonsense.

Re: Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

#46

Post by ThomPete »

phayes wrote: post #41
ThomPete wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which must lead us to conclude non-locality unless we can come up with a better explanation. I've seen a few alternatives like electrical universe theory which tries to take the spookiness out of QM but so far no other theory reconsile both clasically and QM and the two are proven to the extent that anything can be proven. Classical physics is not proven more than QM. You could easily reverse your argument starting w…

No, it mustn't! The logical negation of the conjunction "classical* and local" is "non-classical or non-local". Electrical universe theory"?! Please stick to standard and generally accepted quantum foundations / interpretation. There's no (non-local) spookiness to be taken out of QM in the first place - except for those who choose to reject the non-classical option. % * Your last remarks suggest you haven't read thos…

You are the one who seems to be using esoteric interpretations of language to come to a conclusion that you have yet to provide any argument or evidence for.

The problem of interpretation is at the reconciliation phase that's what I care about.

Re: Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

#47

Post by natalyarostova »

colordrops wrote: post #45
natalyarostova wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humanities is distinct from science, to the extent that it's information generated by a specific life-form (humans), and is specific to our specific language and hardware we evolved and implemented. Studying a great novel, or moral dilemmas, are ultimately about how we process, transmit, and infer information generated by other humans, and shared through extremely high-dimensional, but less structured, contexts, such…

I'm just referring to the statement that "reality is just a complex computer". That's nonsense.

Is it tho? It's so far the best model we have of how ~reality~ forms and molds around us.

Re: Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

#48

Post by colordrops »

natalyarostova wrote: post #47
colordrops wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just referring to the statement that "reality is just a complex computer". That's nonsense.

Is it tho? It's so far the best model we have of how ~reality~ forms and molds around us.

> It's so far the best model we have

Is it? According to who?

Post reply on HN