Quantum: rethinking our notion of objectivity

[ant0n]

Alternative facts are spreading like a virus across society. Now, it seems they have even infected science — at least the quantum realm. This may seem counter intuitive. The scientific method is after all founded on the reliable notions of observation, measurement and repeatability. A fact, as established by a measurement, should be objective, such that all observers can agree with it.

However, this experiment shows that, at least for local models of quantum mechanics, we need to rethink our notion of objectivity. The facts we experience in our macroscopic world appear to remain safe, but a major question arises over how existing interpretations of quantum mechanics can accommodate subjective facts.

https://www.space.com/objective-reality-not-exist-quantum-physicists.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dlvr.it

[+Desertrat56]

Perhaps there is a data element missing, like consciousness.  Since things change based on the observer, maybe that observer needs to be factored in somehow.  A different observer may get different results because of perspective/perception/consciousness.

[zep73]

This is old news, but repetition in science is very welcome 

[zep73]

5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Perhaps there is a data element missing, like consciousness.  Since things change based on the observer, maybe that observer needs to be factored in somehow.  A different observer may get different results because of perspective/perception/consciousness.

Or, we need to rethink what the universe is.

[XenoFish]

I don't exist.

[zep73]

53 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I don't exist.

Welcome to the club! 

[quiXilver]

As awareness continues to unfold in basic presence...

The area of life covered by the 'part of living which is voluntary' diminishes steadily, while the involuntary, co-arising nature of (phenomenal) reality becomes more experientially palpable.

 

Wherever i shine the flashlight like beam of my conscious attention in this moment.  I by the very nature of that act, consciously tune out, all that lies outside that beam.  Conscious awareness, my senses, leave out far more than they take in. 

 

Decision, Choice, to me, is experienced as arising at a deeper level of awareness than conscious and is almost entirely involuntary.  Response to stimuli determines action taken.  Rationalized Explanation after an event is represented as memory of the event.  Choice for me, is a mental designation applied to a process already unfolded unconsciously, and usually in hindsight.

Definitions of self have dissolved into miasma of former notions of 'other'.  Where do i end and 'the rest of it' begin?  When the Chili digesting involuntarily in my system, contains vegetables, spices and meat that spans thousands of miles of terrain.  All comingling in my body into human body parts.  Soil from Mexico to British Columbia are dissolving into my blood stream and being incorporated into every aspect of my body that is currently in a state of replenishment. 

On the quantum scale my pattern of physical phenomenon as a human, is a nebulous field of energetic perturbations, unrecognizable as human by any means I have of sensing the universe.  On the galactic scale, my human form is a microscopic speck, moving about a moist speck of dust, orbitting an insignificant point of light.

 

Look at your fingernails under a microscope.  What is smooth at one level of awareness, becomes revealed as strata of crags and ravines at another.

 

The battle being waged on the molecular scale in my intestines... entirely supports the harmony of my mood, good health and vitality from a different level of awareness.

 

As Above, So Below. 

As Within, Without.

[The Eternal Flame]

I dont exist.

[zep73]

16 minutes ago, debra odem said:

I dont exist.

You too?

We're gonna gave to demand members fees soon!

[lightly]

I exist.

[XenoFish]

17 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I don't exist.

I wish I didn't exist. 

[quiXilver]

I won't comment on whether 'i' exist.

But one certainty abides, when most other's have melted...

 

there is awareness...

here

[danydandan]

5 hours ago, lightly said:

I exist.

Pretty sure do also. 

[danydandan]

23 hours ago, ant0n said:

Alternative facts are spreading like a virus across society. Now, it seems they have even infected science — at least the quantum realm. This may seem counter intuitive. The scientific method is after all founded on the reliable notions of observation, measurement and repeatability. A fact, as established by a measurement, should be objective, such that all observers can agree with it.

However, this experiment shows that, at least for local models of quantum mechanics, we need to rethink our notion of objectivity. The facts we experience in our macroscopic world appear to remain safe, but a major question arises over how existing interpretations of quantum mechanics can accommodate subjective facts.

https://www.space.com/objective-reality-not-exist-quantum-physicists.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dlvr.it

What would you like to discuss.

[ant0n]

32 minutes ago, danydandan said:

What would you like to discuss.

If there's no objective reality in the nanoscopic world, can we still consider there exists an objective reality in our macroscopic world?

Edited November 21, 2019 by ant0n

[+Desertrat56]

24 minutes ago, ant0n said:

If there's no objective reality in the nanoscopic world, can we still consider there exists an objective reality in our macroscopic world?

Since we don't take all the variables into account how do we know there is "no objective reality in the nonoscopic world"?

[ant0n]

5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Since we don't take all the variables into account how do we know there is "no objective reality in the nonoscopic world"?

Also, since you're talking about variables, I don't quite get what an 'observer' can be in quantum physics.

Edited November 21, 2019 by ant0n

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, ant0n said:

Also, since you're talking about variables, I don't quite get what an 'observer' can be in quantum physics.

I believe it is the person or consciousness.  I am not sure how they determine that the protons act differently only when observed since any experiment requires and observer.  I think it hasn't been explained very well and only physicists could explain it but they don't want to go into years worth of physics to explain it to the layman so the explanation becomes simplistic.

[ant0n]

9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I believe it is the person or consciousness.  I am not sure how they determine that the protons act differently only when observed since any experiment requires and observer.  I think it hasn't been explained very well and only physicists could explain it but they don't want to go into years worth of physics to explain it to the layman so the explanation becomes simplistic.

I'm wondering... Could a dog be an 'observer'? Could an 'extraterrestrial' be an 'observer'? Could a slug be an 'observer'? Could a blind human be an 'observer'? Could a human in a coma be an 'observer'? Must an 'observer' necessarily be a human? Is there any 'ultimate observer'?

Edited November 21, 2019 by ant0n

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, ant0n said:

I'm wondering... Could a dog be an 'observer'? Could an 'extraterrestrial' be an 'observer'? Could a slug be an 'observer'? Could a blind human be an 'observer'? Could a human in a coma be an 'observer'? Must an 'observer' necessarily be a human? Is there any 'ultimate observer'?

I think you would have to ask the physicists that who have used that description to explain what they are investigating.

[ant0n]

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

I think you would have to ask the physicists that who have used that description to explain what they are investigating.

Yes, sure. I suppose quantum physicists refer to an accurate and flawless definition of 'observer'. Who am I to doubt that, right?

Also, who am I to doubt the experiment mentioned in the article I posted?

The 'observer' thing is intriguing. Simplistically, the 'observer' and the 'observed' (which can be an 'observer') are two domains more or less arbitrarily defined. Do they preexist their being defined?

Is 'observer' the appropriate word? (I don't necessarily expect an answer but questioning can be interesting too).

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, ant0n said:

Yes, sure. I suppose quantum physicists refer to an accurate and flawless definition of 'observer'. Who am I to doubt that, right?

Also, who am I to doubt the experiment mentioned in the article I posted?

The 'observer' thing is intriguing. Simplistically, the 'observer' and the 'observed' (which can be an 'observer') are two domains more or less arbitrarily defined. Do they preexist their being defined?

Is 'observer' the appropriate word? (I don't necessarily expect an answer but questioning can be interesting too).

No, that is not what I meant, what I meant is they are the ones to ask.  Maybe there is a physist on this forum that can answer.  You should question everything.  Why are you getting p***y? 

You have good questions.

[ant0n]

23 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

No, that is not what I meant, what I meant is they are the ones to ask.  Maybe there is a physist on this forum that can answer.  You should question everything.  Why are you getting p***y? 

You have good questions.

I tend to take the topics that intrigue me too seriously but that has nothing to do with you or anyone here

I thank you for expanding the reflexion on those interesting topics.

I plan to ask specialists. I'll let you know in a new topic here, possibly.

Edited November 21, 2019 by ant0n

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, ant0n said:

If there's no objective reality in the nanoscopic world, can we still consider there exists an objective reality in our macroscopic world?

Are we talking about the MIT experiment that 'suggested' that a photon in a superposition isn't objective.....well that really doesn't prove or suggest much to be honest. It's a cool experiment but I'm not sure how useful it is. 

59 minutes ago, ant0n said:

Also, since you're talking about variables, I don't quite get what an 'observer' can be in quantum physics.

An observer is anything used to measure or interact.

So a detector, a microscope etcetera is an observer.

Edit: No; observer isn't the appropriate word. It's a word people who don't understand QM use to describe a philosophical view point.

Edited November 21, 2019 by danydandan