siti
Well-Known Member
Quantum mechanics.What is the "physical" (your definition) mechanism that causes the correlations found in the tests of the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Quantum mechanics.What is the "physical" (your definition) mechanism that causes the correlations found in the tests of the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities?
Quantum mechanics is a theory, not a mechanism.Quantum mechanics.
...that explains how physical reality works at sub-atomic levels. But the position you seem to be taking here is philosophically unsound on at least two grounds:Quantum mechanics is a theory...
How ridiculous. I did not perpetrate any logical fallacy by pointing out the fact that what you define as "physical" ("matter/energy") does not account for the correlations that violate the postulates of local realism....that explains how physical reality works at sub-atomic levels. But the position you seem to be taking here is philosophically unsound on at least two grounds:
1. You are committing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of the exact kind you railed against in another thread recently. You are making the assumption that correlation implies causality by claiming that the experimenter's 'choice' IS the cause of the correlation between "Alice" and "Bob's" observations. There is correlation and that is very intriguing. It does appear that there is a non-local collapse of the wavefunction that simultaneously manifests in instruments in spatially separated 'labs'. It is not possible to explain this in terms of classical models of physical reality - that is true - and is the point of the experiment in fact. The results correspond to the predictions of quantum mechanics, but exactly how that works (in this kind of experiment) nobody knows and that brings us to the second ground...
2...You are also arguing ad ignorantium... you are suggesting that because we (currently) know of no physical model of reality that can explain this, there must be a non-physical explanation. But it may simply be that there is an as yet unknown physical model that will ultimately provide a perfectly good explanation. It may not be "classical", "local" or "determined" - but does that mean it is not "real" or "physical"?
Just because our predefined limits of "real" and "physical" are "violated" doesn't mean we have entered an entirely new realm of a-physical unreality. Its like the old maps - where it used to say "here be dragons" or when that naughty little pup "Toto" pulled back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz - well - there weren't really dragons or wizards after all - it was just more of the same only different.
The fallacy is in the underlying assumption that just because there is a gap in our understanding of physical reality, reality must be unreal or non-physical. You were arguing against the idea that physicalism should be the default position in the search for a solution to the "mind-body problem". If that is not what you meant then your comments are irrelevant to this discussion, it that is what you meant then they are fallacious in the context of this discussion. If my comment is "ridiculous" feel free to demonstrate that - by ridicule if you must - I have a thick skin - I shan't be offended.I did not perpetrate any logical fallacy by pointing out the fact that what you define as "physical" ("matter/energy") does not account for the correlations that violate the postulates of local realism.
The fact that the correlations of entangled particles violate the postulates of local realism is not due to some "gap in our understanding". It's an empirical fact. The scientific evidence consistently substantiates this fact. Neither matter nor energy propogates at superluminal speeds so as to account for these correlations. That's also a well established empirical fact, not a claim made based on a "gap in our understanding".The fallacy is in the underlying assumption that just because there is a gap in our understanding of physical reality, reality must be unreal or non-physical.
Correct - the gap in our understanding is our inability to explain the correlations.The fact that the correlations of entangled particles violate the postulates of local realism is not due to some "gap in our understanding".
Correct again - so does that suggest that reality is not physical or that we just don't understand physical reality well enough to explain it? Does it suggest that whatever it is that causes "information" (whatever that is) to manifest itself at the "other side of the universe" (as it were - as it is even a few meters away if we are talking about requiring superluminal velocity to get there in time) instantaneously is nothing to do with matter or energy at all even though there is no way (as far as we know) to initiate such an "event" that does not depend on the physical manipulation of matter/energy?Neither matter nor energy propogates at superluminal speeds so as to account for these correlations. That's also a well established empirical fact, not a claim made based on a "gap in our understanding".
What? The correlations found in the tests of Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities are explained as the product of the quantum properties being entangled in a world that is nonlocal and nonrealistic.Correct - the gap in our understanding is our inability to explain the correlations.
Nothing in any of those experiments or any other experiments suggests that either matter or energy causes effects nonlocally. Therefore the correlated properties are not explained as the effects of matter or energy.Correct again - so does that suggest that reality is not physical or that we just don't understand physical reality well enough to explain it?
Quantum mechanics is a theory, not a mechanism.
My question was in response to your claim that it seems undeniable to you "that the world is physical (i.e. composed of matter/energy) in nature." Obviously "matter/energy" do not account for the correlations found in the tests of Bell and Legget-Garg inequalities, in which the postulates of local realism are violated.
No, it is local but non-realistic. The correlations propagate in a local fashion.What? The correlations found in the tests of Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities are explained as the product of the quantum properties being entangled in a world that is nonlocal and nonrealistic.
Nothing in any of those experiments or any other experiments suggests that either matter or energy causes effects nonlocally. Therefore the correlated properties are not explained as the effects of matter or energy.
Again, the thesis of physicalism that you describe was empirically refuted long ago. You need a new religion. You need to update it at least to the early part of the 20th century.
Prove it.Of course matter and energy explain such correlations!
Prove it. What are "the properties of the classical viewpoint"? Provide references.But matter and energy don't have the properties of the classical viewpoint.
Prove it.QM is a local theory
Be sure to prove all of your claims here.No, it is local but non-realistic. The correlations propagate in a local fashion.
On he contrary, matter and energy are described via quantum mechanics, not via classical mechanics. And in quantum mechanics, the properties of matter and energy are probabilistic, not realistic. But the probabilities propagate locally.
Well, physicalism *today* means that the quantum properties of matter and energy are included.
Correct - the gap in our understanding is our inability to explain the correlations.
Correct again - so does that suggest that reality is not physical or that we just don't understand physical reality well enough to explain it? Does it suggest that whatever it is that causes "information" (whatever that is) to manifest itself at the "other side of the universe" (as it were - as it is even a few meters away if we are talking about requiring superluminal velocity to get there in time) instantaneously is nothing to do with matter or energy at all even though there is no way (as far as we know) to initiate such an "event" that does not depend on the physical manipulation of matter/energy?
Prove it.
Prove it. What are "the properties of the classical viewpoint"? Provide references.
Prove it.
Be sure to prove all of your claims here.
Be sure to prove all of your claims here.
And you claim that "matter and energy don't have the properties of the classical viewpoint". Prove your claim that matter and energy do not propogate at finite speeds.The classical viewpoint has matter made of particles with unique properties where the forces are propagated at finite speeds
Then how do you account for the correlations that violate the postulates of locality and realism as defined by Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities?You ask me to prove that QM is a local theory. Well, what does that mean? It means, in this case, that the probabilities and correlations propagate at a finite speed that is less than the speed of light.
Yes, cite every scholarly reference you know of claiming that quantum mechanics is a local theory.What would you consider to be proof?
A reference to a quantum field theory book?
So what (if not matter or energy) was measured and how? How (without the physical manipulation of matter or energy) was the experiment - any experiment - performed? Can you cite a single experiment that has ever been done that did not depend on physical measurements?What? The correlations found in the tests of Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities are explained as the product of the quantum properties being entangled in a world that is nonlocal and nonrealistic...Nothing in any of those experiments or any other experiments suggests that either matter or energy causes effects nonlocally. Therefore the correlated properties are not explained as the effects of matter or energy.
What is measured in the tests of the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities is whether the results are consistent with or violate the inequalities.So what (if not matter or energy) was measured and how?
Do you understand that the correlations between Alice's findings and Bob's findings are not the effect of matter or energy?How (without the physical manipulation of matter or energy) was the experiment - any experiment - performed? Can you cite a single experiment that has ever been done that did not depend on physical measurements?