Quantum Weirdness: What we Call 'Reality' is Just a State of Mind

[Zeno Swijtink]

Bernard d'Espagnat is a theoretical physicist, philosopher and winner of the Templeton Prize 2009. He is the author of On Physics and Philosophy, Princeton University Press, 2006

Nothing particularly new here, nor a point of view I can embrace, but remarkable that this appeared last week in a mayor British newspaper. Why now? Maybe the economic collapse, with some people bailed out, others bailing themselves out, but most left dry and hanging - is just a "state of mind"? :):

On a more serious note: even if this view on the interpretation of the "entanglement algebra" is getting us in the right direction, mapping the usual suspects of "spirituality" on this entanglement needs more argument.

Zeno

****

Bernard d'Espagnat: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind | Science | guardian.co.uk (https://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-entanglement?commentpage=1)

I believe that some of our most engrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered. Anyone who takes quantum mechanics seriously will have reached the same conclusion.

What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects - the particles, electrons, quarks etc. - cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".

This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.

How did I arrive at this conclusion? My interest in the foundations of quantum physics developed at quite an early stage in my career, but I soon noticed that my elders deliberately brushed aside the problems the theory raised, which they considered not to be part of physics proper. It was only after I attained the status of a fully-fledged physicist that I ventured to take up the question personally.

To put it in a nutshell, in this quest I first found that whatever way you look at it the quantum mechanical formalism, when taken at face value, compels us to consider that two particles that have once interacted always remain bound in a very strange, hardly understandable way even when they are far apart, the connection being independent of distance.

Even though this connection-at-a-distance does not permit us to transmit messages, clearly it is real. In other words space, so essential in classical physics, seems to play a considerably less basic role in quantum physics.

I soon found out, as often happens, that these things had been known for quite a long time. Schrödinger had even given them a name: entanglement, and had claimed entanglement is essential. But strangely enough he had not really been listened to. Indeed he had been unheard to the extent that the very notion of "entanglement" was hardly mentioned in regular courses on quantum physics.

And in fact most physicists felt inclined to consider that, if not entanglement in general, at least the highly puzzling 'entanglement at a distance' was merely an oddity of the formalism, free of physical consequences and doomed to be removed sooner or later, just through improvements on the said formalism. At the time the general view was therefore that if any problems remained in that realm these problems were of a philosophical, not of a physical nature so that physicists had better keep aloof from them.

I was not convinced I must say, and in the early sixties I wrote and published a book and some articles developing physical arguments that focused attention on such problems by showing that entanglement is truly something worth the physicist's attention.

And then a real breakthrough took place in that John Bell, a colleague of mine at Cern, published his famous inequalities, which - for the first time - opened a possibility of testing whether or not entanglement-at-a-distance had experimentally testable consequences.

The outcome confirmed my anticipations. Entanglement-at-a-distance does physically exist, in the sense that it has physically verifiable (and verified) consequences. Which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of our most engrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered.

[babaruss]

Now be damned if this time I actually understood ever word in this piece.
No rushing for the dictionary at all.

But, having read it, and having understood each and every word, I still don't know what the hell is being said.

Years ago I used to complain that a scientist, or philosopher, used language beyond the average man's ken just to sound learned.

Today it would seem they use the common tongue, and still say nothing intelligible to the common man.
Russ




On a more serious note: even if this view on the interpretation of the "entanglement algebra" is getting us in the right direction, mapping the usual suspects of "spirituality" on this entanglement needs more argument.

Zeno

[Skook]

Like math or chemistry or computer science, physics has a foundation and a language and layers of concepts that we need to familiarize ourselves with before we can enjoy reading about current advances. It sounds like you see this as a shortcoming.


Now be damned if this time I actually understood ever word in this piece.
No rushing for the dictionary at all.
But, having read it, and having understood each and every word, I still don't know what the hell is being said.
Years ago I used to complain that a scientist, or philosopher, used language beyond the average man's ken just to sound learned.
Today it would seem they use the common tongue, and still say nothing intelligible to the common man.
Russ

[babaruss]

No my smugly educated friend, it sounds like I didn't understand what he was saying !!
Obviously I have an educational 'short coming' or I wouldn't have made that comment in the first place.
And with all your education... you were slow to note that obvious fact.
Babaruss



Like math or chemistry or computer science, physics has a foundation and a language and layers of concepts that we need to familiarize ourselves with before we can enjoy reading about current advances. It sounds like you see this as a shortcoming.

[Skook]

It's obvious you didn't understand what he was saying, I'm just wondering why you think you should?


No my smugly educated friend, it sounds like I didn't understand what he was saying !!
Obviously I have an educational 'short coming' or I wouldn't have made that comment in the first place.
And with all your education... you were slow to note that obvious fact.
Babaruss

[babaruss]

Perhaps I was hoping someone would enlighten me instead of taking the obvious cheap shot.
Babaruss



It's obvious you didn't understand what he was saying, I'm just wondering why you think you should?

[bluwizz]

Yes, this human experience is just an illusion. Each one of us creates our own reality. Those who consciously play with Quantum physics realize that what we look at is effected by being looked at, or viewer and viewee are connected. This is part of the entanglement experience.

This is all as a result of our consciousness interacting with the zero point field to create our life experience.

A good book to read in this area is Lynne McTaggert's "the Field", published by Harper Collins. Another excellent read along this line is "Busting Loose form the Money Game" by Robert Sheinfeld, publisher = Wiley.
Two very different books that compliment each other, check them out.

[Skook]

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I've read your diatribes against science before.

I know nothing about chemistry, it would be silly of me to complain that a prominent chemist didn't explain advanced theories in language I could understand, or expect that someone on a bulletin board would come along and give me chemistry 101 in a few sentences.

You might try this instead;
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html


Perhaps I was hoping someone would enlighten me instead of taking the obvious cheap shot.
Babaruss

[MsTerry]

Perhaps I was hoping someone would enlighten me instead of taking the obvious cheap shot.
Babaruss

OK
in a nutshell;
You don't exist
therefore;
I am

[Mallory]

Hi Babaruss,

Understanding that I'm not a physicist, my lay understanding is that what we experience as reality is a construct or an agreement. As humans, this construct is limited to our senses and sensing devices. This is the construct that we test and expound upon AS reality.

The entanglement issue is brought by scientists who note that some areas of physics demonstrate aspects of reality that do not conform to this construct which is, in fact, why Shroedinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time and why the act of observation changes the state of very small structures i.e. LOOKING at something causes it to change state and it is only in this state WHILE you are looking at it.

It is also helpful to consider that our sensory array is actually not very good. Although we continue to develop tools to improve some of our senses in terms of observation it is probably also useful to remember that these tools may be equally poor in the grand scope of things. When you consider that a dog can SEE through odor you must begin to ask what that vision might look like and/or could we make the translation?

At the moment, our perception of reality is bounded by the limitations housed in this physical form.

Mallory :fairy:

[babaruss]

You've been proven wrong.
Your clinging to what seems to me to be an elitist attitude your idea that years of study makes you know what I can't know without doing the self same thing.
A couple simple private emails came to me from members of this board explaining in simple term that which I was having trouble grasping.
Please send those diatribes of mine against science..I'd love to read them.
I doubt such things were ever written...just more of your clinging to an elitist attitude one which does not become you.
Babaruss


Perhaps, but I doubt it. I've read your diatribes against science before.

I know nothing about chemistry, it would be silly of me to complain that a prominent chemist didn't explain advanced theories in language I could understand, or expect that someone on a bulletin board would come along and give me chemistry 101 in a few sentences.

You might try this instead;
NOVA | The Elegant Universe | Watch the Program | PBS (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html)

[Skook]

You say 'proven wrong' like it's a bad thing.

Now that you understand the issues, perhaps you can help me. Let's assume we develop the technology that allows us to track entangled particles at will. At some point in time we change the spin of one of a pair. An observer of the other particle will instantly know when our particle's spin has changed, no matter how much distance between the two - even light years. Einstein famously described himself as 'spooked' by this instantaneous action at a distance.
https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p15s1-stss.html
I can't understand why instantly knowing when the other particle changes spin is not transmitting information, can you?



You've been proven wrong.
Your clinging to what seems to me to be an elitist attitude your idea that years of study makes you know what I can't know without doing the self same thing.
A couple simple private emails came to me from members of this board explaining in simple term that which I was having trouble grasping.
Please send those diatribes of mine against science..I'd love to read them.
I doubt such things were ever written...just more of your clinging to an elitist attitude one which does not become you.
Babaruss

[babaruss]

You say 'proven wrong' like it's a bad thing.

Here you have made a very good point.. one I do intend to think more about.
It would seem that I have a serious shortcoming in this area.




I can't understand why instantly knowing when the other particle changes spin is not transmitting information, can you?


I'm inclined to suspect that at that particular moment time the White House Press Secretary's mike has been shut off !
Babaruss

[Edited by Barry to fix quoting]

[Skook]

Please don't misquote me, the way you edited your post makes it look like your statement is mine.



Quote:
Skook wrote:
You say 'proven wrong' like it's a bad thing.

Here you have made a very good point.. one I do intend to think more about.
It would seem that I have a serious shortcoming in this area.


I can't understand why instantly knowing when the other particle changes spin is not transmitting information, can you?


I'm inclined to suspect that at that particular moment time the White House Press Secretary's mike has been shut off !
Babaruss

[babaruss]

My god man not only are you an smug, elitist S.O.B....you're paranoid as well
Babaruss


Please don't misquote me, the way you edited your post makes it look like your statement is mine.

[Skook]

You're welcome, and, I must say, far more gracious than I had given you credit for.


Thank you for your thoughtful and patient contributions to this thread.

[Philip Tymon]

No one needs to understand what he said to understand this (though I will explain to you what he said, if you like):

People who want to engage in magical thinking will often try to use science to justify their belief system, rather than really understanding how the scientific method really works. It's like trying to use science to justify your belief in Santa Claus. But scientific understanding is always changing, deepening, and developing. Einstein's relativity did not prove that Newton was wrong, quite the opposite, it expanded on Newton and deepened and broadened our understanding of basic physics.

Einstein, one of the discoverers of quantum mechanics, said that quantum mechanics is an "incomplete theory" because it presents us with so many seeming paradoxes, like "spooky action at a distance" and "entanglement" and other issues. Einstein once said to Bohr "You mean if I'm not looking at it, the Moon isn't there" and Bohr said "yes". Einstein had trouble believing this was true and, therefore, felt that there were still things about quantum mechanics that we didn't understand. Come back in 1,000 years and I think you will find that we have very different understanding of what quantum mechanics is trying to tell us.

So-- bottom line-- trying to base your philosophical system on the CURRENT state of science is not a very firm foundation. Science keeps developing and you may find that your philosophy will be totally undermined with the next scientific discovery or theoretical insight.

[ICPP]

It's my understanding that one of the foundations of the philosophy of science is the recognition that all knowledge or theories are subject to revision or abandonment as new information comes to light. That's okay with me, but I think lots of folks who don't quite understand the scientific method are very uncomfortable with it.


So-- bottom line-- trying to base your philosophical system on the CURRENT state of science is not a very firm foundation. Science keeps developing and you may find that your philosophy will be totally undermined with the next scientific discovery or theoretical insight.

[JuliaB]

you make some good points. I think a worthwhile philosophical pursuit is more based on the methodology and the foundations in science, which are not likely to change any time soon. This extends to those things we call "laws" in science--a label given only when we are convinced of its consistent, predictable accuracy.
But basing one's philosophy on the latest findings is building one's house on sand, indeed.
in addition, I do grow a bit weary of the new age adoptions of science, such as the word "quantum" for example. Now they use it for everything--it's lost it's real meaning in the process. sigh. (I guess its the same with the label "all-natural" and I wonder if its happening to "organic" now--dam marketing--I could go into a rant about the dumbing down of our consumer culture but I'll spare you)

Julia

Julia



No one needs to understand what he said to understand this (though I will explain to you what he said, if you like):

People who want to engage in magical thinking will often try to use science to justify their belief system, rather than really understanding how the scientific method really works. It's like trying to use science to justify your belief in Santa Claus. But scientific understanding is always changing, deepening, and developing. Einstein's relativity did not prove that Newton was wrong, quite the opposite, it expanded on Newton and deepened and broadened our understanding of basic physics.

Einstein, one of the discoverers of quantum mechanics, said that quantum mechanics is an "incomplete theory" because it presents us with so many seeming paradoxes, like "spooky action at a distance" and "entanglement" and other issues. Einstein once said to Bohr "You mean if I'm not looking at it, the Moon isn't there" and Bohr said "yes". Einstein had trouble believing this was true and, therefore, felt that there were still things about quantum mechanics that we didn't understand. Come back in 1,000 years and I think you will find that we have very different understanding of what quantum mechanics is trying to tell us.

So-- bottom line-- trying to base your philosophical system on the CURRENT state of science is not a very firm foundation. Science keeps developing and you may find that your philosophy will be totally undermined with the next scientific discovery or theoretical insight.