I am surprised that Flavio is of the opinion that decoherence (presumably without the necessity of a measurement interaction) leads to quantum collapse because there is no evidence for this. It is purely speculative.
More importantly, I am surprised that you, Matt, think that quantum mechanics is complete.
Both quantum mechanics and Whitehead's organic philosophy represent attempts to describe the physical universe, right? The difference is that Whitehead views feelings and inclinations as factors influencing instances of coming-into-being of form
Quantum mechanics, therefore, appears to be incomplete because if does not recognize the possible importance of feelings when form comes into being and physical trajectories are established..
I should clarify that when I suggested that QM is "complete" I meant only in the context of the debate between Einstein and Bohr, in the sense that it turned out nonlocality is real and so Einstein's reductio ad absurdum about distantly correlated particles was turned on its head.
I made clear that there are still major inconsistencies in physics between QM and relativity, so obviously I don't think it is "complete" in any more general sense, though it may be "more complete" or fundamental than relativity.
We could conceivably have a "complete" physics that still presupposed a metaphysics. For example, I do not expect physics to ever be able to explain why there should be feelings or inclinations in the universe. If we have oriented ourselves metaphysically in the proper way, we would see that physics in fact presupposes prehension as well as aims in nature. Physics can mostly ignore at least conceptual feelings and aims in its morphological descriptions and coordinate divisions of the external world. But since physicists themselves as sentient, deliberately thinking beings exist, when we step back from our physical descriptions of external nature to reflect metaphysically on the conditions of the possibility of science itself, it should become clear that at least the germ of feeling and purpose must be there even in the highly repetitive physical world. But affirming these is a metaphysical and not a physical claim.
Hi Darran. Thank you for responding. In terms of question (i), yes, by ‘measurement’ I mean recognition of a fact by a subject with a measuring apparatus. Question (ii) is a bit more complicated in my view.
When it comes to histories of physical systems and their unobjectified potentialities and probabilities (present and past) there are correlations and dynamic, often retroactive, causal effects. On pages xii and xiii of his introduction, Epperson introduces an example of a comet that interacts with a passing asteroid, changing its course slightly such that it is now (possibly) aimed to impact Earth in 2 years. This interaction by the comet results in the history of the asteroid being tied to the potentials and histories of many living terrestrial entities.
Now suppose the asteroid, after impact with the comet, was left with a somewhat indefinite, uncertain trajectory such that there was a possibility of hitting the Earth and a possibility of it not hitting. To make it simple, let us suppose there are six potential trajectories of the asteroid after interaction, all with equal probability, one of which results in impact. If, two years later, entities on Earth experience catastrophe then the ‘objective’ and ‘factual’ trajectory of the asteroid two years before would be established retroactively as the one trajectory leading to impact.
Accordingly, the face of the die in a casino will be established as a fact virtually instantaneously, both because of the multiple witnesses who care enough to ask the question and find out the result, but also because of tight correlations between multiple, highly objectified trajectories of local, terrestrial events involving entities with agendas and measuring instruments.
If, on the other hand, the die were dropped inside a relatively lifeless spaceship 10 light years away from Earth there would presumably be no witnesses who cared enough to find out and the resolution of the fact would likely be suspended indefinitely (though its trajectory will be increasingly implicated in local environmental histories)…until someone sees it, or until an experienced event somewhere in the universe correlates with and determines it.
And furthermore, I do think there is often more going on in quantum mechanical wave function collapse than random selection of possibilities according to probabilistic calculation.
Darran, I would like to continue this most interesting conversation especially because it leads directly to a larger, rarely discussed perspective on physics and living organisms. My email, if you wish to respond to me there, is pjtryon@yahoo.com.
In terms of objectification, collapse of the wave function, experience, and decoherence, it seems to me there is another issue to consider. In q.m., whenever a 'measurement' leads to the production of facts there must be a measurement apparatus which determines what sort of facts are established. In the case of an electron, for example, the facts could denote spin relative to a given axis, or position, or velocity. . . Clearly a given measurement cannot establish all facts relative to a given system because there are always complementary variables that cannot be simultaneously established. So if it is the case that decoherence leads to some 'objective state' without any experience of measurement, then which facts about the system are established?
In decoherence there is no selection or implementation of a measurement apparatus as far as I can see so this becomes a problem, right?
This apparently represents another reason to doubt Omnes proof of actualization type (ii),
In terms of sentence 1: Is this purported “reduction of the space of observables to a single one” a random process like reduction of the sphere of potentiality to a single outcome, as in a measurement interaction?
If so, then it seems a new function of Nature is being invented or speculated upon: Ongoing, external interactions between physical systems—presumably bumping together or otherwise interacting relatively locally—lead somehow to random selection of a basis for reduction of the wave function. If not, then what serves to determine the basis? Why one variable/observable instead of the complementary one?
Sentence 2: Thank you very much for this reference.
Sentence(s) 3: I cannot make sense of sentence 3(a). You basically say “Omnes proof only (fully) makes sense in a setting in which there is (or is not?) denial of the experiencing subject as a presupposition of science.”. . . I am going to make a stretch here and say that experiencing subjects do exist, so it would make sense that science best recognize and explicitly assert their presence, if not their importance.
Proving objective situational facts exist—are actualized—in the absence of experience and without influential connections that matter, with other events that were/are experienced, still seems speculative to me.
If, as you say in sentence 3(b), “It (Omnes proof) is simply a proof that measurements become objectified” then we have no disagreement, except perhaps, in terms of what actually constitutes a measurement. According to your view, and presumably Omnes proof, there can be measurements made without measuring devices or any related experiences of measurers. In this light, what is being proven here isn’t all that simple.
Thank you for responding Darran. I feel this is a key issue in the philosophy of physics, as did Ronald Omnes.
In the abstract of his 2017 paper, "Is Uniqueness of Reality Predicted by the Quantum Laws", Omnes writes "The standard interpretation of q.m. takes for granted an impossibility of deriving wave function collapse from the Schrodinger equation. One raises an opposite possibility, which would make collapse one of the major predictions of this equation..." He goes on to say that his position - essentially that decoherence ("strong incoherence" as he puts it) leads to collapse - is proposed ONLY AS A CONJECTURE which he sees as 'bringing more harmony into this essential part of the philosophy of physics."
Furthermore, in "Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of ANW", Michael Epperson contends that facts are produced when the wave function collapses. I asked him whether facts are ever produced through a process of decoherence. He said NO.
One would think that Whiteheadian's, especially, might take the position that without experience of an event, there is no collapse, no actualization, and no facts about the universe are established.
I do not understand how anyone could prove, mathematically or otherwise, that facts are established in the world (spin up or down) while the phenomenon (spin up or spin down) remains unexperienced and therefore 'unmeasured'.
I have continued to consider and look into the distinction you are making though I do not have Omnes book so cannot look at his proof.
Perhaps this example can make the point more concrete:
Lets start with a double slit setup with a low intensity beam of electrons (such that one goes through at a time) creating the familiar interference pattern. Now, if the vacuum is gradually corrupted then electron wave functions would presumably become increasingly decoherent through collisions with gas molecules seeping into the apparatus until the point that the striped interference pattern would eventually disappear altogether.
Given such decoherence (and subsequent lack of interference pattern) it seems apparent that such electrons would be 'objectified' (through decoherence), in your terms, as they passed through the apparatus
So your position, as I understand it, is that the fact is established regarding which slit a given electron has passed through, even though no one in the world knows this fact, which can only become known via measurement.
From my perspective it is far from clear that facts such as this (which slit an electron went through) can exist without anyone knowing about them. Nor does it seem clear that the existence of such facts can be proven mathematically or otherwise.
So I am doubting whether this is what Omnes has proven.
Hello. Good conversation. Thank You.
I am surprised that Flavio is of the opinion that decoherence (presumably without the necessity of a measurement interaction) leads to quantum collapse because there is no evidence for this. It is purely speculative.
More importantly, I am surprised that you, Matt, think that quantum mechanics is complete.
Both quantum mechanics and Whitehead's organic philosophy represent attempts to describe the physical universe, right? The difference is that Whitehead views feelings and inclinations as factors influencing instances of coming-into-being of form
Quantum mechanics, therefore, appears to be incomplete because if does not recognize the possible importance of feelings when form comes into being and physical trajectories are established..
Hi Philip,
I should clarify that when I suggested that QM is "complete" I meant only in the context of the debate between Einstein and Bohr, in the sense that it turned out nonlocality is real and so Einstein's reductio ad absurdum about distantly correlated particles was turned on its head.
I made clear that there are still major inconsistencies in physics between QM and relativity, so obviously I don't think it is "complete" in any more general sense, though it may be "more complete" or fundamental than relativity.
We could conceivably have a "complete" physics that still presupposed a metaphysics. For example, I do not expect physics to ever be able to explain why there should be feelings or inclinations in the universe. If we have oriented ourselves metaphysically in the proper way, we would see that physics in fact presupposes prehension as well as aims in nature. Physics can mostly ignore at least conceptual feelings and aims in its morphological descriptions and coordinate divisions of the external world. But since physicists themselves as sentient, deliberately thinking beings exist, when we step back from our physical descriptions of external nature to reflect metaphysically on the conditions of the possibility of science itself, it should become clear that at least the germ of feeling and purpose must be there even in the highly repetitive physical world. But affirming these is a metaphysical and not a physical claim.
ps- I know I owe you an email!
Hi Darran. Thank you for responding. In terms of question (i), yes, by ‘measurement’ I mean recognition of a fact by a subject with a measuring apparatus. Question (ii) is a bit more complicated in my view.
When it comes to histories of physical systems and their unobjectified potentialities and probabilities (present and past) there are correlations and dynamic, often retroactive, causal effects. On pages xii and xiii of his introduction, Epperson introduces an example of a comet that interacts with a passing asteroid, changing its course slightly such that it is now (possibly) aimed to impact Earth in 2 years. This interaction by the comet results in the history of the asteroid being tied to the potentials and histories of many living terrestrial entities.
Now suppose the asteroid, after impact with the comet, was left with a somewhat indefinite, uncertain trajectory such that there was a possibility of hitting the Earth and a possibility of it not hitting. To make it simple, let us suppose there are six potential trajectories of the asteroid after interaction, all with equal probability, one of which results in impact. If, two years later, entities on Earth experience catastrophe then the ‘objective’ and ‘factual’ trajectory of the asteroid two years before would be established retroactively as the one trajectory leading to impact.
Accordingly, the face of the die in a casino will be established as a fact virtually instantaneously, both because of the multiple witnesses who care enough to ask the question and find out the result, but also because of tight correlations between multiple, highly objectified trajectories of local, terrestrial events involving entities with agendas and measuring instruments.
If, on the other hand, the die were dropped inside a relatively lifeless spaceship 10 light years away from Earth there would presumably be no witnesses who cared enough to find out and the resolution of the fact would likely be suspended indefinitely (though its trajectory will be increasingly implicated in local environmental histories)…until someone sees it, or until an experienced event somewhere in the universe correlates with and determines it.
And furthermore, I do think there is often more going on in quantum mechanical wave function collapse than random selection of possibilities according to probabilistic calculation.
Darran, I would like to continue this most interesting conversation especially because it leads directly to a larger, rarely discussed perspective on physics and living organisms. My email, if you wish to respond to me there, is pjtryon@yahoo.com.
Thank you for this, Darran.
In terms of objectification, collapse of the wave function, experience, and decoherence, it seems to me there is another issue to consider. In q.m., whenever a 'measurement' leads to the production of facts there must be a measurement apparatus which determines what sort of facts are established. In the case of an electron, for example, the facts could denote spin relative to a given axis, or position, or velocity. . . Clearly a given measurement cannot establish all facts relative to a given system because there are always complementary variables that cannot be simultaneously established. So if it is the case that decoherence leads to some 'objective state' without any experience of measurement, then which facts about the system are established?
In decoherence there is no selection or implementation of a measurement apparatus as far as I can see so this becomes a problem, right?
This apparently represents another reason to doubt Omnes proof of actualization type (ii),
Hi Darran,
In terms of sentence 1: Is this purported “reduction of the space of observables to a single one” a random process like reduction of the sphere of potentiality to a single outcome, as in a measurement interaction?
If so, then it seems a new function of Nature is being invented or speculated upon: Ongoing, external interactions between physical systems—presumably bumping together or otherwise interacting relatively locally—lead somehow to random selection of a basis for reduction of the wave function. If not, then what serves to determine the basis? Why one variable/observable instead of the complementary one?
Sentence 2: Thank you very much for this reference.
Sentence(s) 3: I cannot make sense of sentence 3(a). You basically say “Omnes proof only (fully) makes sense in a setting in which there is (or is not?) denial of the experiencing subject as a presupposition of science.”. . . I am going to make a stretch here and say that experiencing subjects do exist, so it would make sense that science best recognize and explicitly assert their presence, if not their importance.
Proving objective situational facts exist—are actualized—in the absence of experience and without influential connections that matter, with other events that were/are experienced, still seems speculative to me.
If, as you say in sentence 3(b), “It (Omnes proof) is simply a proof that measurements become objectified” then we have no disagreement, except perhaps, in terms of what actually constitutes a measurement. According to your view, and presumably Omnes proof, there can be measurements made without measuring devices or any related experiences of measurers. In this light, what is being proven here isn’t all that simple.
Thank you for responding Darran. I feel this is a key issue in the philosophy of physics, as did Ronald Omnes.
In the abstract of his 2017 paper, "Is Uniqueness of Reality Predicted by the Quantum Laws", Omnes writes "The standard interpretation of q.m. takes for granted an impossibility of deriving wave function collapse from the Schrodinger equation. One raises an opposite possibility, which would make collapse one of the major predictions of this equation..." He goes on to say that his position - essentially that decoherence ("strong incoherence" as he puts it) leads to collapse - is proposed ONLY AS A CONJECTURE which he sees as 'bringing more harmony into this essential part of the philosophy of physics."
Furthermore, in "Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of ANW", Michael Epperson contends that facts are produced when the wave function collapses. I asked him whether facts are ever produced through a process of decoherence. He said NO.
One would think that Whiteheadian's, especially, might take the position that without experience of an event, there is no collapse, no actualization, and no facts about the universe are established.
I do not understand how anyone could prove, mathematically or otherwise, that facts are established in the world (spin up or down) while the phenomenon (spin up or spin down) remains unexperienced and therefore 'unmeasured'.
Hello Darran,
I have continued to consider and look into the distinction you are making though I do not have Omnes book so cannot look at his proof.
Perhaps this example can make the point more concrete:
Lets start with a double slit setup with a low intensity beam of electrons (such that one goes through at a time) creating the familiar interference pattern. Now, if the vacuum is gradually corrupted then electron wave functions would presumably become increasingly decoherent through collisions with gas molecules seeping into the apparatus until the point that the striped interference pattern would eventually disappear altogether.
Given such decoherence (and subsequent lack of interference pattern) it seems apparent that such electrons would be 'objectified' (through decoherence), in your terms, as they passed through the apparatus
So your position, as I understand it, is that the fact is established regarding which slit a given electron has passed through, even though no one in the world knows this fact, which can only become known via measurement.
From my perspective it is far from clear that facts such as this (which slit an electron went through) can exist without anyone knowing about them. Nor does it seem clear that the existence of such facts can be proven mathematically or otherwise.
So I am doubting whether this is what Omnes has proven.
This is very clear and so helpfully articulated.