Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Quantum theory and Reality.

Quantum theory and Reality.
==========.
" Physicists have traditionally expected that science should give
an account of reality as it would be in our absence. . . . . . . . .
It cannot be that reality depends on our existence,
. . . . .
Philosophers call this view realism.
. . . the real world . . . must exist independently of us. It follows that
the terms by which science describes reality cannot involve in any
essential way what we choose to measure or not measure."
/ The trouble with physics. page 6 - 7.
Lee Smolin. /

It cannot be that reality depends on our existence and or on our measurement
What was before the man began its measure?
What was in the beginning ?
Socratus.

Quantum mechanics, at least in the form it was first proposed,
did not fit easily with realism. This is because the theory
presupposed a division of nature into two parts.
On one side of the division is the system to be observed. . . . . . .
.. . on the other side . . . .
/ The trouble with physics. page 7.
Lee Smolin. /

Quantum mechanics, at least in the form it was first proposed,
did not fit easily with realism. This is because the theory
presupposed a division of nature into two parts.
These two parts are Material and Vacuum worlds.
On one side of the Material system we can observe.
On the other side . . . . quantum theory tells us that the
Vacuum world exist even in our absence.
Can my opinion be right?
It is right because QED says when electron interacts with Vacuum all its parameters
became infinite. But this is forbidden by the law of energy conservation and transformation.
So, what is Vacuum?
It is new Physical Reality.
So, what is problem?
The problem is that we know the law of electron conservation,
but we don't know the law of electron transformation?
==========================.
Israel Socratus.

Perhaps quantum theory gives us a small window into infinity. It may not be meaningful to ask what happened before we started to measure things(i.e. to make observations). In infinity (=eternity) nothing can happen, because there can be no change. It could be that what we perceive as time, stretching back to the Big Bang, or whatever, is simply a feature of our limited perception.

In the measurement process, a chain of events is created in which 'something out there' gets interfered with and through the mediation of scientific measuring instruments and indeed, our nervous system, a 'measurement' is deemed to have been made. In the absence of the forgoing how would 'reality be the same when undisturbed? In my view, we and all other living things are 'participants' in creating new patterns in nature, and if you think about it a little, this is really equivalent to saying that we, as a conscious part of the universe, is the universe redefining itself via consciousness.

The old question of whether a tree makes a sound in a forest when there are no 'ears' about seems pertinent here.

. Were you asking, here, who/what did the observing before we were around to do it? If so, abacus9900's response to the question "how would 'reality be the same when undisturbed?" addresses the same point, but still does not answer the original question.

.

As long as one interprets the “no-ears” as meaning no creature capable of hearing, then the answer must be “no”. Sound waves are vibrations; they become sound only when interpreted by the appropriate auditory organs. No ears, no sound

It may be the case that reality does not have the same meaning for all observers. For example, could we really say that reality for, say, an earthworm is to be considered the same as it is for us? I don't think so and it seems to be closely related to the complexity of the observer. I'm not saying there is no reality in the absence of observers (more specifically us) but what kind of reality? It seems nonsense to me to assert that reality is always fixed and unchanging regardless of who or what is observing it, or, if you like, 'measuring' it.




Yes, sound waves are a form of energy, however, can we really say that sound waves alone, without interacting with the delicate structures of a human ear and the central nervous system, constitute sound?

The same energy, when interacting with a piece of rock, cannot be compared to the same 'experience' as a person has.

Sure, why not? We certainly each perceive reality differently but that doesn't change what it is. It just means we aren't all omniscient.


I used to have an idea about different realities a bit like Schrodinger's cat. When you have some random event, like an atomic decay, any 'stuff' that recieved information about that event would count as an observer, and would cause the wave function collapse for just that observer. Other 'observers' who had no information exchange with the first one, would experience their own version of reality - maybe one observer sees the dead cat an the other a living cat.

Well haha maybe it's not my idea at all but just Schrodinger's one. Tho my spin on it was that for two different observers to see different realities, they have to be unable to share information. Say the decay bumps a neighboring atom, that atom bumps its neighbors, etc. All those atoms have to experience the same reality. And if they're all part of the same macroscopic machine/lab/room then eventually they'll all communicate the event to each other, so they must all agree. If we ever try to seperate them, and take measurements from different observers. That act of reading the dials will communicate information between the two observers and force them to have agreed all along.

Well, there are animals that can sense certain information that humans cannot. Certain frequencies of light and sound aren't available to human senses but are to some animals. True, we can measure these frequencies but is that the same as really 'sharing' direct information?

Also, how could we possibly share scientific information with an earthworm? This is what I meant by different realities.

I feel sure we cannot say that, but I would not agree that the human ear etc. is a necessity, there are plenty of other creatures that must be able to convert sound waves into sound.

This is a bit of a diversion, though, as is sharing information with earthworms. The central question seems to be something like this:

Is there an objective reality "out there", or is it all in the minds of observers? Whichever side of that fence one comes down on, one must land on a multitude of other questions.

Bill, maybe you could rephrase your question as: "Is there a reality 'out there', or is there only (my) mind?". Does it make a difference to you? I think not. Either way you are aware of a self-consistent universe.

Yes, but all you're doing here is posing the question of whether living things with ears are a necessity for sound.
It seems to me it is a question of how 'simple' you want to make an 'observer' to test whether reality is very different for them in comparison to us and other higher animals.

I think the most reasonable position to take is that there is a reality out there but that we are compelled to interpret it in terms of our mental 'lens'; we have no choice. Our species has evolved over time to deal with the everyday world of 'big' objects and this is reflected in our psychological make-up. We use concepts in science which originate from our set of mental skills shaped by evolution but the problem is we will always be constrained by our limited ability to 'map' reality. Even maths is a kind of analogy, when you think about it.

Just a quick review this, for the sake of adding my two cents worth. Certain ranges of frequencies of compression and sheer waves, occurring in various transmitting media, can be detected by the auditory apparatus of living organisms. We call these waves 'sound waves' simply because when they are thus detected, they create a sensation that we call 'sound'. In the absence of suitable detection apparatus there is, of course, no perceived sound. In other words, in the absence of ears, or the equivalent, there is no sound, since sound is the subjective sensory interpretation of sound waves, not the actual waves themselves.


That's a conclusion hard to refute.

I deliberately avoided saying "my" mind, as I thought this might lead to a digression into solipsism.



This is a fact that is all too easily overlooked. Such is the power of maths that it is easy to mistake it for reality.

Yes, if you think about it, where did maths originally come from? It came from attempts to keep track of things in our four dimension spacetime world. So, whatever kind of maths is employed with which to try to understand the quantum world it will be like using a spanner to loosen a screw; it is simply incompatible with the strange world of quantum mechanics. The fundamental problem is maths is a symbolic reflection of the way the mind works (OK, some very clever minds, I grant you) but, nevertheless, if you look upon maths and indeed language as a kind of 'mind stuff' then it will always be struggling to describe a world that might even exist in other dimensions. Who can experience other dimensions? Nobody that I know of!

That's a perfect example of where math can easily describe things that our minds can't do directly. I don't think it's fair to say math is limited too much by our minds.

I think too many people say "oh it's just math you can use it to prove anything, it's not the real world".

But if the real world follows some mathematical description, then it doesn't matter what clever math tricks you use, you'll always still be describing the real world.

The problem comes when it turns out the real world never perfectly followed that mathematical description in the first place, and using extreme extrapolations led to big errors. But that's not a problem with math, it's a problem with not knowing the true behavior of nature in the first place.

One example might be black holes. They say, oh when you have very dense matter it's constrained from collapsing by the chemical bonds. Then if you make it denser it's bashes through them and is constrained again by nuclear forces, then you make it denser still it overcomes those and is now constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle or something. Then you increase the density more and it overcomes that but now there's nothing to constrain it so it collapses all the way to a singularity.

It may turn out that there really is something to catch it again and prevent a true singularity. If we find that, it'd be wrong to say "we were misled by out limited math". We would only have been misled by not knowing about that extra 'force' holding it apart.

I'm no mathematician, but I do know some of them have made geometric models which are supposed to incorporate extra dimensions into them but nobody can actually 'see' extra dimensions - we evolved in a three dimensional world so our brains are designed that way. I think we would need a brain that existed in extra dimensions to appreciate them.

In some ways this is true, but maths, as we use it, is a tool created by the human mind, and its use, if not its potential, is limited by our minds. It might be argued that because maths describes the universe so well, the universe must be mathematical, but this can be a circular argument. One could say that Constable's paintings depicted the Suffolk countryside extremely well, but I think it would require a particular degree of madness to extrapolate from that that the Suffolk countryside was composed of canvass and paint.

I accept that maths can be used to produce representations of more dimensions than our minds can readily visualise, so to that extent maths is not restricted by the limitations of our minds, but what we do with those representations, and how we interpret them is strictly limited by our mental capabilities.

Bill, I like to think of it as the universe that has attained consciousness (us) on a quest to define itself. I cannot offer any scientific validation of this but I feel that mind has a central role in the definition of reality. Roger Penrose has hinted at this but has been guarded about his views due to the negative reactions of the scientific establishment. I believe Roger has suggested a study of human consciousness as a legitimate field of study and I think this might be the way forward to gaining a deeper understanding of our relationship with 'reality.' Perhaps if and when we do attain a better knowledge of the ways our brain and mind work we might be in a better position to move on and reconcile our relationship with the universe.

Yes, consciousness gives meaning to the cosmos.

So, abacus, are you saying that you believe the universe was programmed to attain consciousness for the specific purpose of defining itself? If it is a 'quest', then that requires a pre-existing intelligence/consciousness, right?

Presumably this would indicate that there was consciousness in the cosmos before life as we know it appeared. Perhaps even the suggestion that the cosmos itself is a conscious entity.

Sorry, Bill, I edited just as you posted.

Yes, if abacus is right, I'd say that would have to be true.

It seems to me that in the absence of a consciousness, either pre-existing or evolved, a universe could have no meaning, direction or purpose.

- and focusing on the topic, perhaps science will reveal that consciousness has a fundamental and essential role in all physical processes, beyond that observed in the aforementioned experiments.

Not necessarily. The complexity of matter has reached a stage where it can think and reason, that is all.

Well, put is this way: How could a universe consisting of just dumb matter understand or be aware of itself?

Well, we need to remember that when human beings conduct experiments probing the incredibly small we are an unavoidable part of the situation. The traditional view of science is that the observer has no special significance in scientific experiments, however, any experimental results obtained represent the totality of any set-up because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, nature unobserved is not the same as nature observed.

It couldn't, of course, but would it matter? I mean, from the cosmic viewpoint, so what?


Yes, it's essential to emphasise that the significant factor in the mentioned experiments is not the physical presence of the experimenter, but the observing consciousness, capable of gaining information. That's the key - whether or not it happens to be the consciousness of the human beings conducting the experiment.

Surely we can only theorise about what "nature unobserved" might be like.

Even in an experiment such as the DS, only part of the experiment is unobserved. The outcome must always be observed, or the experiment is not conducted. Can we be sure that that outcome would have been the same had we not observed it?

I think the crucial question here is: what universe?

Could the universe as we perceive it really be said to exist in any meaningful way in the absence of observers?






Many, if not most physicists, would take the view that the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of whether there was a 'consciousness' present or not. They maintain that the device used to collect the data from the experiment is sufficient to produce the same result. You could arrange to have a computer that makes a random decision as whether to erase the 'which-path' information or not.

What do you think?

Would we have to have a human being acting as observer or could we use something else?

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? If we insist that the observer be human, then we are a step closer to saying that nothing existed before humans were around to do the observing.

On the other hand we might extend the role of observer to possible pre-human observers: God, Boltzmann brains, intelligent cosmos etc etc, but it all seems to reduce to what we believe.

Not necessarily pre-existing, if the cosmos is infinite, then the "intelligence/consciousness" has always been a feature of it.

You used the word 'intelligence' there.


If the experiment was performed and then all human life was suddenly wiped out would the meaning of the experiment any longer have any meaning? I can't persuade myself that it would. OK, you could automate the whole thing and, as mentioned, pre-program a computer to stand in for the experimenter and randomly erase/not erase info, but what would be about to interpret the results?

So, the question now becomes: does reality for it to exist need an agency to interpret it?

It doesn't seem to matter if there's a human observer on the scene, or whether the human obtains the information via a non-conscious system. Either way, the information becomes accessible to consciousness. The cat is out of the bag (or the box ) I wonder how the universe 'knows' that the cat is out of the bag!!!



John Wheeler suggested something that more or less amounts to that: - that the act of observing 'creates history'. There are better explanations on the net. But, as you can imagine, his peers thought that was going too far.

I guess any consciousness capable of comprehending the observable event will suffice, be it in the form little green men or whatever.

If the "universe" is infinite it must "know" anything that is known by any conscious being.

Shouldn't that be "little green people" in these days of PC?

Whether or not the universe is infinite, it can be said to possess knowledge in the sense that a fraction of it consists of conscious entities; but what's elusive is an explanation of how that part of the universe which is not comprised of conscious entities can know, or be aware of, anything at all - unless it has, in its entirety, a form of consciousness independent of those entities.


Oops

When the spell checker points out our mistakes we say "The computer knows it's spelt wrong" I think this is getting to the distinction between "knowing" and "having information". What's the difference? Obviously the universe is chock full of information about itself. Isn't that suffucient?



I don't think there's the faintest shred of evidence to suggest that consciousness has any effect on reality, apart from the direct effects of us deciding to do things.

It sounds more like that philosophy of how do we know the world exists? We can only perceive things. We might be brains in jars with computers feeding our senses. Totally pointless thing to discuss because it's been thrashed to death and isn't scientific.

"Totally pointless thing to discuss" etc, etc.

kallog, why be such a bore? I'm afraid you're developing an attitude signature

- which is a pity, since you make some interesting contributions.

Yes, but the point I was making was if no human or any other comparable life form in the universe was ever able to examine the data, would such data have any meaning? If yes, then reality carries on without conscious observers; if no, reality needs conscious observers to exist.






Again, I am posing the question in the context of no intelligent observers. For example, how could scientific experiments of the kind we have been discussing be made in a universe of dumb matter? There would be no such thing as quantum mechanics, spacetime or anything else! It seems to be that for knowledge to increase you have to produce scientific experiments in order to improve scientific understand and effectively reveal new realities. Now, I accept that the potential for new knowledge is there, but you need consciousness in addition to that because consciousness has the ability to gain knowledge, hence, in my view reality consists of potential and consciousness.

You have to remember that our minds/brains are part of the universe, so it reduces to the universe studying itself and I think there exists a kind of 'feedback' effect where what happens is whatever input conscious observers put into matter produces some kind of 'response', which in turn produces a response from consciousness and so on. It's like a kind of 'dance' between mind and matter and I think this is what I would define as 'reality.'

Back to the tree in the forest. When the tree falls, information is produced in the form of sound waves but what if there are no ears about to hear the sound? Can the information then be said to really exist?





Well, if you take that part out of the equation, what's left? Answer: Unobserved reality, and then you have to decide whether unobserved reality is equivalent to observed reality.






I think science and philosophy have always been intertwined and without philosophy how would science know what to study? I don't think any unresolved question is pointless to discuss because if you take that road progress stops.

If I keep bringing infinity into the picture, I suppose I shall develop some sort of signature.



If the cosmos is finite then fractions of it can possess knowledge that the rest does not possess. However, if it is infinite, the entire cosmos must possess the knowledge of every fraction. How does the cosmos know the outcome of a particular experiment? The experimenter knows, so the cosmos knows. Thus, the "form of consciousness" of the cosmos does not have to be "independent of those entities", in fact, it is entirely dependent on those entities.

I use "cosmos" rather than "Universe" to avoid diversions into the possibly demonstrably finite nature of the Unuverse.

I wasn't having a go at anyone. I've just seen so many discussions degenerate into things like that which can go nowhere. It's a bit like trying to deduce the color of the eyes of aliens living in another galaxy. I suppose if you enjoy philosophy then that could be fun too :P

Absolutely. But the thrashed to death part means ordinary people without any special discoveries/etc. havn't got a hope.

It kind of irritates me that people are talking about conciousness as if there was any evidence it might be a special thing for the operation of entanglement experiments. It's as good as trying to figure out if God exists or not. Sure people try it all the time, and they all get the same result - nothing. That's why they invented FiLCHeRS, to keep us on productive or at least interesting paths.

You don't think scientists should have wasted their time setting up experiments like this?

No, that's not what I said.

If one accepts that in this scenario the meaning is lost, would you re-establish the meaning in the future if beings capable of interpreting the meaning evolved and found the experimental results?

If reality depends on consciousness, do we say that reality is suspended during this interim period, or that reality continues because, somehow, the cosmos "knows" that the necessary level of consciousness will re-emerge?

Impossible to say Bill, and if I gave an answer I would just be speculating.


Now, the Large Hadron Collider is up and running and, in time, might produce some results of experiments that provide information about various aspects of the universe. If this information is useful it might, one day, allow science to make great strides into gaining a much deeper insight into nature and reality but let us pretend that the LHC was never built, OK?


In this scenario science would not be able to progress because science needs to do experiments in order to gain knowledge. So, assuming at some point in the future (and I realize this is just an assumption) the whole nature of human civilization had been changed by the discoveries of the LHC in ways we can only speculate about would this not represent an alternate reality to the one in the scenario where the LHC never existed? In fact, it might be a drastically different alternate reality to the one without the LHC, not just more or less the same!

It's difficult to say, but the way I would put it is that no information is lost because it is the potential of the universe in terms or producing consciousness, sooner or later, that ensures the universe itself 'evolves' to recover information. We are that part of the universe that is 'knowing' and this seems to be an inevitable development in universes like ours.

Scientists need to do experiments in order to progress something they call "science". It is difficult to imagine science as some objective thing that might be out there stagnating if there were no scientists.

This is a little bit like the exchange that Kallog and I had over the difference between mathematical facts and reality.

Here, though, aren't you making a false dichotomy between maths and reality as if maths can never really be a part of reality? To me, what maths represents is 'observed' reality, so here, are we really talking about the difference between 'observed' and 'unobserved' reality and if we are, which is the 'real' reality?

I have never thought of maths as being anything other than part of reality. You are probably aware that the main thrust of our discussion was the distinction between mathematical infinity and physical infinity, which will probably take "infinite time" to resolve.

I just wonder if infinity is a useful concept.

If you accept that there can never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing, then infinity is an indispensable concept; but perhaps you don't accept that.

According to QED when electron interacts with
vacuum its parameters becomes infinite.
It is possible only when vacuum is itself an infinite space.
So, we can be wondered or not, but vacuum as infinite space exists.
Questions:
Can infinity be a useful conception?
Does vacuum ( with its infinite space) have any utility?
And if vacuum is an useful space then . . . .
How can electron be reborn from infinite vacuum?
============
S

Are you saying that its parameters are finite, then they become infinite?

This may be mathematically possible, but I see no way in which any finite thing can become infinite. It may continue to increase endlessly, but there can never be a point at which an observer could say "that is now infinite".

Parameters of electron are finite and then they become infinite.
Nobody knows that to do with infinite sizes and
therefore physicists have invented mathematical method –
‘a method of renormalization ‘, a method
‘ to sweep the dust under the carpet ‘ / Feynman./
#
Is it possible what electron in interaction with vacuum
becomes infinite? No, it is impossible. It is against
‘ The law of conservation and transformation energy ‘.
It is only from our human physical point of view the
electron’s parameters become infinite.
What it means?
It means that we cannot reach the vacuum’s condition T=0K
and we cannot reach the vacuum’s background energy and
we cannot reach vacuum’s density.
And we cannot reach the density of particles there.
Therefore we give them different names:
virtual, dark mass and dark energy, antiparticles, . . . etc
Different names . . . but all agree that in vacuum space
must be something . . .
#
So,
can we have finite particle – electron from infinite space?
Dirac said that we can have it.
How can this be?
Maybe Higgs boson will give answer.
================.
S

Isn't it difficult (impossible?) to talk about infinity without constraining it within finite terminology. To convey our meaning we have to use terms like "infinite space" and "infinite time"; yet space and time are incompatible with infinity. We try to get our heads around the concept, but we will always be like flatlanders trying to describe a passing spider.

Of course, to explain infinity we need finite terminology
#
We have two conception on space and time:
Newtonian and Minkowski.
The space around us is Newtonian –
Descartes coordinates plus time ( 3D+ time).
Minkowski space is negative 4 – dimensional,
( Pseudo – Euclidian space ).
This space is absolute different from Newtonian space
because there the time cannot be separated from the space.

Herman Minkowski said about this spacetime continuum:
“ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will
preserve an independent reality.”
#
So, ‘ space by itself, and time by itself ‘
( it means Newtonian space and time) are shadows.
Why?
What ‘only a kind of union of the two’ is reality?
What does union of spacetime mean?
Why only this union of spacetims is real factor in Universe?
Nobody knows what Minkowski space really is,
nobody has answers to these questions.
Maybe because we cannot answer to these questions our
finite terminology, trying to explain infinity, doesn’t work.
===.
S.

This sounds more like dogma than science. Could it be that a scientist who is not able to explain a concept to a lay person does not really understand that concept?

I agree that trying to explain infinity in finite terminology does not work. There are plenty of examples of that on this Forum.

This sounds more like dogma than science.
???
Could it be that a scientist who is not able to explain a concept
to a lay person does not really understand that concept?
!!!
‘ The trouble with physics’
/ Lee Smolin /
==.

Space in SRT.
===.
Sometime Minkowski space is described as a ‘Light Cone’.
Nobody knows if this ‘ Light Cone’ really exist.
Sometime Minkowski space is described as a
‘ Pseudo – Euclidean space’.
Euclidean space is two dimensions space.
Pseudo – Euclidean space is negative two dimensions space.
Why is it negative?
Because Euclidean space has only two space dimensions.
It has not conception of time in its structure.
The Pseudo – Euclidean space is absolutely different.
Why?
Because physicists / mathematicians put negative time ( -t )
into Euclidean space and then named it ‘Pseudo – Euclidean space’.
Later this space was named as ‘negative Minkowski 4D spacetime’.
Where is this spacetime in the Nature, in the Universe?
Nobody gives exact and concrete answer.
===.
S

That's misleading. Both 2D and 3D spaces can be Euclidean. 3D Euclidean space is the most useful way of modelling the world as we experience it, even though pseudo-Euclidean spaces (Minkowski space, in the case of SRT) provide scientists with a better understanding of the large scale universe.

I don't know, many cosmologists consider that before the BB nothing existed and that space and time only got going after the BB.

Back to square 1! Is this because it is a mathematical concept that may or may not be relevant to reality; or because nobody actually knows?

You see, call me a fool, but having discussed and thought about the knowledge we gain through scientific discoveries for some time I have concluded that John Wheeler was onto something when he suggested that it is the questions we put to nature that 'shape' it. I cannot offer any solid, scientific testable evidence for this assertion but it is just a strong intuition I have formed over the years. It sounds crazy to suggest that we, Homo-Sapiens, can be the architects of reality, but I think that essentially we live in our own minds and as such have to 'model' reality in a way our brain's structures can handle.

This idea would explain why we have all the problems associated with infinity and what came before the big bang and indeed the queer world of quantum mechanics. In other word, there is no 'ready made' reality out there just waiting to be discovered in the manner a new country awaits discovery. No, it is as if our consciousness is somehow intrinsically involved in the fabric of reality. I don't know.

This, perhaps, could be the solution to your questions about infinity. Infinity only exists as an idea so no idea, no infinity! (Back to the falling tree in the forest again!).

Is this going too far?

I'm not at all sure that it does sound crazy. One question we may have to accept that we will not answer, though, is: if we are the architects of reality, was there any reality before we were around to do our "architecting"? (I bet there's no such word).

The answer I would give would be that yes, 'unobserved' reality was about but, as I do not think myself that observed/unobserved reality are equivalent, due to the central role observers play, I would not say the reality we know of today could possibly be the same before we were around. One way to put it might be that the reality we take for granted today was 'hidden' before intelligent observers existed. It is all very well for people to say oh, but all the things that exist today would still have been around for millions or billions of years before we came on the scene, however, what meaning can this really have when it was all unexpressed at the time? Religion used to be the predominant way of explaining existence and reality and science did not count for much for many centuries so I guess times change and so does what we consider to be reality. Some serious physicists are suggesting not just one universe but a 'multiverse' consisting of innumerable different kinds of universes with their own laws of physics, so here we have an example of the evolving definition of reality into 'higher' realities emerging as a result of consciousness/matter interaction. In fact, one can visualize this process continuing until, perhaps, one day (if we keep evolving) we become godlike, in which case what what reality appear to be like then?

Do we have to distinguish between "what we consider to be reality" and what reality might actually be? For example: when educated observers believed the Earth was surrounded by crystal spheres; was that just their subjective reality, or where the spheres actually there? The same question has to be asked of the ether.

Then again, what happens if different cultures believe different things, at the same time?


Enter the Omega Point!

Well, what we do nowadays is to conduct scientific experiments, which is really asking questions of nature and, as I alluded to earlier, the questions we pose will determine what kind of answers we obtain, which leads to theories of what reality is. So, we can see that the kind of reality we experience today is science based, which is fine because science has achieved so much to alleviate suffering and made life much more bearable and enjoyable for many people, however, I have to wonder whether if science is pushed too far it kind of loses its effectiveness in attempting to underpin the deepest mysteries of life. Perhaps religious belief is more of an answer to the latter than science because the more questions science tries to answer, the more questions it throws up.

This seems to fit well with at least some of quantum theory's "realities", but takes us no nearer to deciding if there is any sort of objective reality.



So was the ether, but does that mean it existed until scientific investigation made it redundant?

Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?



The ether was more of an idea than a scientific fact. Experiment dispensed with it.

When you consider how many versions of quantum reality there may be, they are probably all in the eye of the beholder.

Are you saying that all "reality" is subjective?



What is a scientific "fact", and how does it differ from a widely accepted idea that might be dispensed with at any time?

Try this:

Scientific facts are a tentative class of 'truth' (or widely accepted idea) verifiable by repeatable experiment/observation, and which - although they may turn out to accurately describe reality - usually prove to serve as approximate descriptions of reality, subject to modification.

A popular example of modified scientific truth/fact is the transition from Newton's 'rational mechanics' explanation of planetary motion to Einstein's General Relativity theory. The 'celestial mechanics' of Laplace and Newton provides a very accurate prediction of planetary motion, but GR correctly accounted for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which was "anomalous" according to Newton. GR may yet prove to be inaccurate. Scientists would no doubt welcome such a new scientific 'truth', as a landmark breakthough.

I did...it seemed good...thanks.

Yes, but such facts do not come into existence without the aid of conscious intervention by people; this is the point I have been making, ie, 'observed' versus 'unobserved' reality.

Yes, because we, or rather our minds, are an intrinsic part of reality creation. We use things like language and mathematics to describe reality (I'll discount emotions) to 'model' our experiences in terms of scientific observations, but such observations always involve us in interacting with and therefore disturbing nature. Again, we are back to 'observed' reality and 'unobserved' reality.




A scientific fact is information that has been acquired through repeated experimentation that has be repeated to such an extent that it has become predictive. However, the question is, did such a scientific fact exist before somebody decided to 'model' it? It seems to me that the more one tills a particular furrow, in terms of asking nature questions, the deeper and more enduring the furrow becomes, eventually attaining the status of a scientific fact.

Wow, at least three of us agree, broadly, on the definition of a scientific "fact".

We seem to have a similar triumvirate agreement on the "different take on gravity" thread.

I hope this doesn't mean we are going soft!

Well, Bill S, if I was to put it in a nutshell, I would say that any scientific experiment is an exercise in revealing the relationships between life and non-life. We are life contemplating non-life. The question, of course, is where does one end and one begin?

This begins to look more like philosophy than science, but QT does blur the boundaries there as well. For some time now I have felt that everything could make more sense if we live in an infinite cosmos in which everything is everything else. It's not easy to fit all the bits together, though. The danger is ending up trying to find evidence to justify an idea, rather than just looking at the evidence dispassionately.

I don't see how it applies to just "any scientific experiment". For example, adding salt to water to check for a change in boiling point - how does that apply? Can you elucidate?

Well, just ask yourself who wants to know?

You say dispassionately as if we had no input, but the fact is we are always going to be part of any experiment. It is absolutely impossible to completely separate observer from that which is observed; I'd go as far as to say it is an unwritten law.

Sure, the experimenter/observer is part of the experimental process, and we've already covered some ground regarding the double-slit and its variations. But those are quantum events. Lets take a specific macro event: what, precisely, does observing a pot of boiling water reveal about "the relationships between life and non-life"?

It has been argued that in order for water to change from non-boiling to boiling it must undergo a phase change, and that a phase change is a quantum action which requires superposition. It would follow that this would not take place if the water was being observed; hence the old saying that a watched pot never boils.

Well I'll be phased! That explains why the milk boils over as soon as you take your eyes off it.

Joking aside, abacus, it would be helpful if you could support the idea with an explanation of exactly what is revealed, and how - preferably using the example I proposed, to keep things simple.

What I am saying is that whether quantum events are being considered or macro events, it's all a question of interpretation . The one thing that all such 'events' have in common is that an interpretation is attached to all of them which is mediated through human consciousness. Personally, it is my view that the level of quantum 'events' has forced us to confront our input in relation to the 'experiences' we 'manufacture' in terms of scientific experiments. This is the reason why quantum mechanics has proved so elusive so far - because the impact of our 'interference' with the micro-world has a much larger effect than with ordinary, everyday objects. With the macro-world, our interrelationships do not appear to affect, to any significant degree, our relationships with them because everything seems stable and predictable; not so with the quantum world where making a measurement actually defines where a particular quantum object will probably appear. This happens on the large scale as well but because it is a much more predictable process than the sub-atomic world, we take it for granted that our relationships with big objects have no special significance. The everyday world of ordinary experience is also made of quantum objects, something we need to remember, and therefore, there exists a deep and mysterious 'connection' between the 'outer' world of familiar objects and an 'inner' world of our thoughts and ideas which are all mediated by the 'quantum connection' but how exactly, still remains a profound mystery. The discovery of the quantum world has changed that view drastically and shown us appearances are simply wrong.

The problem is, we are increasingly finding, through scientific methods, that things are far from simple and I think the real answer is that the universe is far more subtle than we used to think.