Reality seems to be Quantum Probabilistic

#1
Since it is impossible to know the location of a particle precisely as the wavefunction travels along a straight path while having equal amplitude everywhere, this means it could literally be anywhere! This would mean that the particle is undetermined and that its future location is unknown! Reality hence would be Quantum probabilistic.
Reply
#2
(Apr 14, 2019 02:29 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: This would mean that the particle is undetermined and that its future location is unknown! Reality hence would be Quantum probabilistic.


Things are adequately determined at the macroscopic level -- there's no significant chance of an automobile teleporting even a few meters, much less to China. Technically however, researchers simply measuring an event at the subatomic scale is introducing a trivial degree of non-predictability (that's predictability in a specific rather than a general, statistical context) to our World Of The Big. With respect to their documentation of that "randomness", and thinking slash talking about it -- circulating a value around which did not fall out of strict macroscopic affairs. There is a trickling up in various ways from that non-classical realm of the small, which is again why such undermines the lofty claims of absolute determinism.

Added to this is the elephant in the room of experience itself, which many eggheads step around and pretend isn't there because of the embarrassment. Those extrospective and introspective manifestations are not causal role players in explanations outputted by the physical sciences. "It must be kept in mind that qualitative values find no place in physical mathematics for the simple reason that they (e.g., odors, tastes, etc.) are not reducible to mathematical formulae. Hence it becomes necessary to distinguish between quantitative elements (expansion, weight, motion) and qualitative elements (odors, tastes, etc.). The first are called objective, having a reality distinct from the subject; the second will be called subjective, being modifications of the subject and devoid of any objective reality. This theory, proposed by Galileo and afterwards followed by John Locke in his noted distinction between primary and secondary qualities, was to become part of modern thought." (Primary/secondary quality distinction ... Galileo Galilei)

That causal impotency of phenomenal consciousness is also what classic PoM stances like epiphenomenalism and the thought experiment of philosophical zombies rest upon. As well as the phenomenal nihilism subsets of eliminative materialism that declare consciousness other than outward behavior to be an illusion of language. (Or whatever _X_ is appealed to, if the assertion of "illusion" is to remotely have any shot at being nonsensical. Due to "illusion" usually entailing experiential appearances or an being an example of such itself, albeit an inaccurate perception.)

But since we do acknowledge and talk about having experiences, then that exhibition of qualities in various modes actually does (somehow!) have an effect upon the body, and yet officially does not. So there's that unaccounted-for influence upon the system. In theory, "how/why" you're talking about all the glorious sensations of a Spring day could be correlated to neural correlates of consciousness (NCCs) and what they exert down the chain of mechanistic body interactions. But those NCCs lack the very phenomenal properties you're experiencing, so there's still no satisfactory (mainstream) explanation of the manifestations and resolving how they conflictingly must "cause" and yet do not make a causal contribution. Experience is a backdoor left open in the physicalist account of reasons.

###
Reply
#3
Come on now, CC. I want my teleporting car, and I want it now.
Reply
#4
(Apr 15, 2019 01:17 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: Come on now, CC. I want my teleporting car, and I want it now.

Damn right!

Where the hell is Elon Musk when you need him?

(Apr 14, 2019 02:29 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Since it is impossible to know the location of a particle precisely as the wavefunction travels along a straight path while having equal amplitude everywhere

Does the wave function really have the same amplitude everywhere? I'd always heard that it has different amplitudes in different locations, corresponding with the likelihood of the particle being observed there. But quantum mechanics is well above my pay-grade.

Quote:this means it could literally be anywhere!

Maybe.

Quote:This would mean that the particle is undetermined and that its future location is unknown! Reality hence would be Quantum probabilistic.

Yes, I agree that quantum mechanics doesn't seem (to my layman's eye) to be consistent with classical-style determinism, on the microscale anyway. It introduces a probabilistic element.

(Apr 14, 2019 06:04 PM)C C Wrote: Things are adequately determined at the macroscopic level -- there's no significant chance of an automobile teleporting even a few meters, much less to China.

Yes.

Quote:Technically however, researchers simply measuring an event at the subatomic scale is introducing a trivial degree of non-predictability (that's predictability in a specific rather than a general, statistical context) to our World Of The Big. With respect to their documentation of that "randomness", and thinking slash talking about it --  circulating a value around which did not fall out of strict macroscopic affairs. There is a trickling up in various ways from that non-classical realm of the small, which is again why such undermines the lofty claims of absolute determinism.

Schrodinger's Cat.

What accounts for the microscale/quantum/macroscale/classical divide is an interesting question. I don't think that it has anything to do with consciousness. I'm more inclined to see it as a function of microscale physical interactions. Observing or measuring a particle demands that it interact with something, with a measuring instrument or whatever. Which seemingly forces it to assume a more defined state that's observed. Bulk matter is composed of countless little sub-atomic particles all forced by the nature of their situation to interact with each other, which (arguably) reduces the range of possibilities that they can assume. By the time we ascend to objects on our scale, almost all of that undefined-states stuff is gone.

That's my layman's-eye view, anyway.
Reply
#5
Quote:What accounts for the microscale/quantum/macroscale/classical divide is an interesting question. I don't think that it has anything to do with consciousness. I'm more inclined to see it as a function of microscale physical interactions. Observing or measuring a particle demands that it interact with something, with a measuring instrument or whatever. Which seemingly forces it to assume a more defined state that's observed. Bulk matter is composed of countless little sub-atomic particles all forced by the nature of their situation to interact with each other, which (arguably) reduces the range of possibilities that they can assume. By the time we ascend to objects on our scale, almost all of that undefined-states stuff is gone.

That's my layman's-eye view, anyway.

I like that BtD. Not sure if any of it is correct but I like it nonetheless. 

My worthless take on it is that if I were to measure the location of a particle in 3D +1 space time then I'm thinking I would need the particle motionless and time stopped in order to establish all 4 coordinates. Since I have to shine light on it in order to find the particle then it won't be still and because me & it are moving then running time is necessary. So overall I'm f**ked, particle location measurement is never going to happen and no sense worrying about it. It is what it is.
Reply
#6
Quote:What accounts for the microscale/quantum/macroscale/classical divide is an interesting question. I don't think that it has anything to do with consciousness. I'm more inclined to see it as a function of microscale physical interactions. Observing or measuring a particle demands that it interact with something, with a measuring instrument or whatever. Which seemingly forces it to assume a more defined state that's observed. Bulk matter is composed of countless little sub-atomic particles all forced by the nature of their situation to interact with each other, which (arguably) reduces the range of possibilities that they can assume. By the time we ascend to objects on our scale, almost all of that undefined-states stuff is gone.

That's my layman's-eye view, anyway.

It seems as though mixed states (as in superposition) can occur on the macroscale as well. But it would require consciousness to behave to unusual and interesting ways. It has been said that the brain resonates between spiritual and material levels of reality. This would account for its ability to entangle itself with its environment during sleep.


Quote:Does the wave function really have the same amplitude everywhere? I'd always heard that it has different amplitudes in different locations, corresponding with the likelihood of the particle being observed there. But quantum mechanics is well above my pay-grade.

I admit I wasn't well informed about Quantum Mechanics to begin with. However, I am currently reading the book Quantum Physics: An Idiot's Guide. It explores the Copenhagen Interpretation as well as Heisenberg's, Einstein's and Schroedinger's formulation of Quantum Physics. The elusive nature of Quantum Physics seems to be a function of consciousness as CC noted above. When on scales down to the microscopic level, consciousness affects the system. I don't know why it took science decades to see that QM implies a universal mind.
Reply
#7
(Apr 16, 2019 04:18 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: The elusive nature of Quantum Physics seems to be a function of consciousness as CC noted above.


I didn't say anything about consciousness in the first paragraph related to QM and determinism. The latter paragraphs were just exploring non-absolute determinism further with regard to how experience would throw a monkey wrench into any hand-waved account of brain causality being complete.

No proto-consciousness is attributed by mainstream physics to any level of the universe from macrocosmic stratum to planck-scale stratum (going back to Galileo). Thereby no non-fringe phenomenal attributes or generative principles are posited in sub-atomic affairs anymore than biology for phenomenal manifestations to incrementally develop from. Again, officially experience is causally impotent (that perverse, insanely ironic elephant in the room), the same as if it weren't privately present at all (what epiphenomenalism and philosophical zombie thought experiments depend upon --> that lack of causal contribution).

###
Reply
#8
(Apr 16, 2019 05:03 PM)C C Wrote:
(Apr 16, 2019 04:18 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: The elusive nature of Quantum Physics seems to be a function of consciousness as CC noted above.


I didn't say anything about consciousness in the first paragraph related to QM and determinism. The latter paragraphs were just exploring non-absolute determinism further with regard to how experience would throw a monkey wrench into any hand-waved account of brain causality being complete.

No proto-consciousness is attributed by mainstream physics to any level of the universe from macrocosmic stratum to planck-scale stratum (going back to Galileo). Thereby no non-fringe phenomenal attributes or generative principles are posited in sub-atomic affairs anymore than biology for phenomenal manifestations to incrementally develop from. Again, officially experience is causally impotent (that perverse, insanely ironic elephant in the room), the same as if it weren't privately present at all (what epiphenomenalism and philosophical zombie thought experiments depend upon --> that lack of causal contribution).

###

Regrettably, human beings were at a very underdeveloped stage of evolution to attribute consciousness to any kind of phenomenalism. This was partly due to the fact that we were cut off from the metaphysical world. But experience would entail a lack of causality in determining reality. Or will. That is correct.
Reply
#9
(Apr 16, 2019 06:49 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Apr 16, 2019 05:03 PM)C C Wrote:
(Apr 16, 2019 04:18 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: The elusive nature of Quantum Physics seems to be a function of consciousness as CC noted above.


I didn't say anything about consciousness in the first paragraph related to QM and determinism. The latter paragraphs were just exploring non-absolute determinism further with regard to how experience would throw a monkey wrench into any hand-waved account of brain causality being complete.

No proto-consciousness is attributed by mainstream physics to any level of the universe from macrocosmic stratum to planck-scale stratum (going back to Galileo). Thereby no non-fringe phenomenal attributes or generative principles are posited in sub-atomic affairs anymore than biology for phenomenal manifestations to incrementally develop from. Again, officially experience is causally impotent (that perverse, insanely ironic elephant in the room), the same as if it weren't privately present at all (what epiphenomenalism and philosophical zombie thought experiments depend upon --> that lack of causal contribution).

###

Regrettably, human beings were at a very underdeveloped stage of evolution to attribute consciousness to any kind of phenomenalism. This was partly due to the fact that we were cut off from the metaphysical world. But experience would entail a lack of causality in determining reality. Or will. That is correct.
CC,

What do you mean no proto-consciousness is attributed to mainstream physics? The latest idea, if I am not mistaken, is that there is a universal consciousness.
Reply
#10
(May 23, 2019 04:09 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: CC, What do you mean no proto-consciousness is attributed to mainstream physics? The latest idea, if I am not mistaken, is that there is a universal consciousness.


Physics certainly doesn't endorse cosmopsychism (top-down), and (the bottom-up of) Christoff Koch's micro-panpsychism is just another fringe ripple that gets both press exposure and abundant criticism.

No, it is not mainstream: Electrons don't think.

As you can see, many physicists suffer the same cognitive impairment as much of the general population when it comes to distinguishing between intellect and experience, or language-based activity and manifestation slash feeling. Efforts to help individuals make the distinction can often fail because they're simply unable to stop conflating the two, or it's caused by another more fundamental understanding roadblock (more on that in the last paragraph).

In Sabine's particular case, she may not be familiar with the Hard Problem of Consciousness (HPC) or is literally taking the "panpsychism" approach to remedying it as what the term etymologically implies -- concerning the complete faculties of mind (both rational/conceptual and phenomenal properties). She wouldn't realize it's the latter which is largely emphasized by those often using the term, which in an ideal or less sloppy world would be properly narrowed down to labels like panexperientialism, pan-proto-psychism, proto-consciousness, etc.

Or she might be familiar with HPC, but again like much of the general population simply cannot grok it. Most people are naive or commonsense realists, so they don't know that secondary qualities don't exist in a scientific depiction of an objective external world.

Since they reflexively believe that the cosmos or matter is "showing itself" outside their head like it it does inside, they thereby can't understand why there would be a problem with manifestation in a physical (physics) account. The latter actually historically eliminated it and provides nothing for experience to incrementally emerge in complexity from. Ironically, the "can't apprehend HPC" folks are actually like a subspecies of panpsychists who are unaware they are such. That is, there's no impetus for associating their "common sense of experiences universally occurring" to an "-ism", or a stimulus to recognize how bizarre it is in a scientific realism and brain-science context (which usually favors indirect perception or manifested "simulation in the head" built from the processing of sensory information).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)