contradiction, dialetheism & religion

[Kapalika]

So I often see arguments against what certain religions believe about the attributes of god(s) based on the idea that those qualities contradict.

However contradiction doesn't necessarily disprove anything. We would have to prove an axiom to prove that, and you can't do that. To partially quote the post that gave me the idea for this topic:

How can we know for certain that the law of non-contradiction is true? To prove it it would have to use itself.

Or at least that is what this told me:

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/AristotlePNC.pdf

The law of non-contradiction does not describe anything in the real world and is only a property of certain systems of math.

For example classical logic is incompatible with what we know of quantum mechanics and so there is a different set of logic for it: Quantum logic - Wikipedia

If something can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, or be in two places at once, then I don't see how the law of noncontradiction can be true:

If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You? | DiscoverMagazine.com

https://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

It's worth mentioning that the quote there also gives examples of real phenomena that contradict, giving at least some evidence for dialetheism. With that in mind, what use is it in trying to disprove a religious belief through contradiction if it is possible for real, natural world contradictions to exist in physical phenomena?

To be more explicit, while non-contradiction says something can't contradict by being true and false at the same time, the superstate of a particle doesn't enter a state of non-contradiction until it's been measured. In the above article in the quote Roger Penrose proposed that we can't contradict butt hat quantum phenomena can because of microgravity. That could be one possibility but really no one knows why quantum phenomena behaves differently but the fact is that these phenomena prove that contradiction can exist physically.

If the religion regularly employs contradictions as if it is a non-issue you won't convince anyone not because they are stupid, or uneducated, but because you are coming from a different set of assumed axioms. By definition these cannot be falsified or verified by logic alone, let alone ignoring there is more than one rule set of logic. Ultimately the truth of noncontradiction or dialetheism will come down to evidence, not logic and so far I think that the evidence is in favor of dailetheism being at least partly true.

So ya, maybe Shiva can be formed and unformed at the same time. And maybe some other gods could be all loving and all powerful at the same time. We don't need to accept every contradiction though (I reject that latter one about all powerful/love), but the matter of what contradictions can be true and which ones can't is probably a whole topic onto it's own, but I'm sure people will debate that anyway as the topic unfolds.

 

[Audie]

So much talk when it is so simple.
You could have said it all with one word-

Women.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If we are going to entirely dismiss the law of contradiction when it comes to beliefs about the metaphysical or religious, then I think we might as well relax our standards of skepticism and logical analysis enough to believe in dragons, fairies, and a little demon that causes us to be able to talk. After all, the fact that we know the mechanisms underpinning speech doesn't mean the little demon doesn't exist--the law of contradiction only holds true in some areas of math!

I don't subscribe to the above argument, though. I find it compromising to the point of allowing superstition.

 

[Polymath257]

So I often see arguments against what certain religions believe about the attributes of god(s) based on the idea that those qualities contradict.

However contradiction doesn't necessarily disprove anything. We would have to prove an axiom to prove that, and you can't do that. To partially quote the post that gave me the idea for this topic:



It's worth mentioning that the quote there also gives examples of real phenomena that contradict, giving at least some evidence for dialetheism. With that in mind, what use is it in trying to disprove a religious belief through contradiction if it is possible for real, natural world contradictions to exist in physical phenomena?

To be more explicit, while non-contradiction says something can't contradict by being true and false at the same time, the superstate of a particle doesn't enter a state of non-contradiction until it's been measured. In the above article in the quote Roger Penrose proposed that we can't contradict butt hat quantum phenomena can because of microgravity. That could be one possibility but really no one knows why quantum phenomena behaves differently but the fact is that these phenomena prove that contradiction can exist physically.

If the religion regularly employs contradictions as if it is a non-issue you won't convince anyone not because they are stupid, or uneducated, but because you are coming from a different set of assumed axioms. By definition these cannot be falsified or verified by logic alone, let alone ignoring there is more than one rule set of logic. Ultimately the truth of noncontradiction or dialetheism will come down to evidence, not logic and so far I think that the evidence is in favor of dailetheism being at least partly true.

So ya, maybe Shiva can be formed and unformed at the same time. And maybe some other gods could be all loving and all powerful at the same time. We don't need to accept every contradiction though (I reject that latter one about all powerful/love), but the matter of what contradictions can be true and which ones can't is probably a whole topic onto it's own, but I'm sure people will debate that anyway as the topic unfolds.

The problem with thinking QM allows for contradictions to exist physically is that this *always* follows from an attempt to apply classical notions of particles to quantum particles. And that is problematic.

The point is that quantum particles are NOT in two places at one time. In all cases, the probability of, say, the position of the particle being in two disjoint sets at the same time is zero. But, it is possible for the probability of being in either one individually is non-zero.

But that isn't a contradiction!

In every case where there is a claim of 'being in two places at one time', there is a fundamental lack of understanding of what that phrase means in a quantum context. There is no internal contradiction in quantum mechanics! But there *is* a contradiction between quantum mechanics and classical notions of particles. And it is the latter notions that are wrong.

As for Penrose's questions, the investigations into decoherence and how it happens has shown how macroscopic objects will naturally decohere to have specific positions just from the background flux of photons interacting with them. This doens't happen for microscopic objects because of their zie and the size of Planck's constant.

 

[Kapalika]

If we are going to entirely dismiss the law of contradiction when it comes to beliefs about the metaphysical or religious, then I think we might as well relax our standards of skepticism and logical analysis enough to believe in dragons, fairies, and a little demon that causes us to be able to talk. After all, the fact that we know the mechanisms underpinning speech doesn't mean the little demon doesn't exist--the law of contradiction only holds true in some areas of math!

I don't subscribe to the above argument, though. I find it compromising to the point of allowing superstition.

Neither dialetheism nor my position state that we relax skepticism. Rather dialetheism is coming from a point of skeptism and logic: Dialetheism - Wikipedia

The argument is that since there is physical phenomena that violates the law of noncontradiction, it can't always be true, so there might be an implication on religion.

I think your mistake is not recognizing there there is more than just classical logic, and that there are possibly valid positions that vary off of the standard rules. The wiki article gives some advantages of dialetheism which is one such variation.

The problem with thinking QM allows for contradictions to exist physically is that this *always* follows from an attempt to apply classical notions of particles to quantum particles. And that is problematic.

The point is that quantum particles are NOT in two places at one time. In all cases, the probability of, say, the position of the particle being in two disjoint sets at the same time is zero. But, it is possible for the probability of being in either one individually is non-zero.

But that isn't a contradiction!

In every case where there is a claim of 'being in two places at one time', there is a fundamental lack of understanding of what that phrase means in a quantum context. There is no internal contradiction in quantum mechanics! But there *is* a contradiction between quantum mechanics and classical notions of particles. And it is the latter notions that are wrong.

As for Penrose's questions, the investigations into decoherence and how it happens has shown how macroscopic objects will naturally decohere to have specific positions just from the background flux of photons interacting with them. This doens't happen for microscopic objects because of their zie and the size of Planck's constant.

Okay! Good post. But it's worth mentioning that your argument that it's not in two places at once is only correct in certain interpretations.

The Copenhagen Interpretation [EDIT; explained in post #12 but I mixed up Copenhagen with another interpretation but the main point still stands] (mentioned in the Penrose article) DOES say that they are in two places at once. I suppose if you hold a "hidden variable" interpretation there is no contradiction.

But then we would have to prove one interpretation over the other. So far that's never been done.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay! Good post. But it's worth mentioning that your argument that it's not in two places at once is only correct in certain interpretations.

The Copenhagen Interpretation (mentioned in the Penrose article) DOES say that they are in two places at once. I suppose if you hold a "hidden variable" interpretation there is no contradiction.

But then we would have to prove one interpretation over the other. So far that's never been done.

Not true. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is literally meaningless to ask about the position in the absence of an observation. And any observation gives a unique position. So, in no case is a particle in two places at one time.

As for hidden variable theories, all have issues with special relativity and are excluded by Bell's inequalities for that reason. The problem is that realism (the idea that particles have definite properties at all times) is false.

 

[Kapalika]

Not true. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is literally meaningless to ask about the position in the absence of an observation. And any observation gives a unique position. So, in no case is a particle in two places at one time.

As for hidden variable theories, all have issues with special relativity and are excluded by Bell's inequalities for that reason. The problem is that realism (the idea that particles have definite properties at all times) is false.

I'm no physicist and it's been a few years since I've read any book in depth on QM but I've never once heard anyone say that the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't take the superstate literally. [EDIT; I was mistaken, in my huge post below #12 I realized I confused two different interpretations and give relative sources]

But you are right in that it would be kind of meaningless in a practical sense to ask about the position before observing, in that we can't know where it is. But it's not meaningless to ask about what's going on before the observation as there are ways to infer that and they are always working on getting to a point to test that (technology ain't quite there yet).

I also double checked a bunch of sources and the said as much as well that Copenhagen interpretation is actually sying it has multiple locations/spins/qualities ect until observed... since we brought up Penrose if I can find a copy of one of his books around my house somewhere I can see what specifically he said about it if this is a point of disagreement.

But my main point was that just the fact that it could possible be in multiple positions at once means that contradiction might be possible in physical phenomena. But ya, it's only in one place *after* it's observed. It might be meaningless to ask about the superposition in a practical sense but that doesn't mean it's not in a superstate before and that the nature of that might have philosophical implications. And I think it isn't even meaningless in a scientific way to ask, since it seems a ton of physicists have been grappling with the question for decades.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm no physicists and it's been a few years since I've read any book in depth on QM but I've never once heard anyone say that the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't take the superstate literally.

But you are right in that it would be kind of meaningless in a practical sense to ask about the position before observing, in that we can't know where it is. But it's not meaningless to ask about what's going on before the observation as there are ways to infer that and they are always working on getting to a point to test that (technology ain't quite there yet).

I also double checked a bunch of sources and the said as much as well that Copenhagen interpretation is actually sying it has multiple locations/spins/qualities ect until observed... since we brought up Penrose if I can find a copy of one of his books around my house somewhere I can see what specifically he said about it if this is a point of disagreement.

But my main point was that just the fact that it could possible be in multiple positions at once means that contradiction might be possible in physical phenomena. But ya, it's only in one place *after* it's observed. It might be meaningless to ask about the superposition in a practical sense but that doesn't mean it's not in a superstate before and that the nature of that might have philosophical implications. And I think it isn't even meaningless in a scientific way to ask, since it seems a ton of physicists have been grappling with the question for decades.

The Copenhagen doesn't say the particle *has* more than one value for a property at one time. It says that the value is *undetermined* and *can* have one of those values.

There is a difference.

If you actually go to the probability from the wave function and do it via the rules of QM, the probability of being 'at the same place at a given time' is zero.

Yes, it is possible for a particle (or pair of particles!) to be in a superstate. But that only means it isn't in an 'eigenstate', which are the only states with definite values. When that happens, the wave function is a sum of two or more eigenstates. But the particle itself doesn't take on all values for the variable. The superposition only determines the probabilities of the various possible measurement values--all of which are single valued.

It is important to be *very* careful when discussing QM because there are a LOT of very poor popular treatments out there. The *only* way to really understand what is going on is to learn the math and do the calculations.

 

[Kapalika]

The Copenhagen doesn't say the particle *has* more than one value for a property at one time. It says that the value is *undetermined* and *can* have one of those values.

There is a difference.

Are you saying it has a certain actual, determined state that we just are not aware of before it's observed? I double checked and that view is the "De rogle-Bohm theory" if I understood correctly what I read (I'm not too familiar with it, but that view if true would get around physical contradictions). Or did you just mean that the Copenhagen is more about what we know or don't know rather than what's actually there before the waveform collapse?

Since this is obviously a key point of the debate we are going to have to back it up with some sources but my main point was that there is an interpretation that has the superstate as it being in two places at once/two states at once. I'll find the book later and do a bit' more research to make sure; I'm about to go to sleep but I'll follow up tomorrow.

EDIT: I believe that Penrose actually made a case for the waveform collapse being an actual physical process before, hence why I linked that article. I thought the Copenhagen did too but that he just built off of it with his gravity idea but I ain't no expert lol. I could be wrong about the Copenhagen interpretation at least.

It is important to be *very* careful when discussing QM because there are a LOT of very poor popular treatments out there. The *only* way to really understand what is going on is to learn the math and do the calculations.

Since I volunteered my familiarity with the subject, would you be willing to say what yours is, given your emphasis on the math? Do you work in physics or mathematics as a living?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you saying it has a certain actual, determined state that we just are not aware of before it's observed? I double checked and that view is the "De rogle-Bohm theory" if I understood correctly what I read (I'm not too familiar with it, but that view if true would get around physical contradictions). Or did you just mean that the Copenhagen is more about what we know or don't know rather than what's actually there before the waveform collapse?

The problem with the Bohm theory is that it doesn't generalize well to relativistic quantum mechanics. So, for example, it doesn't do well with spin or, more importantly, anti-matter and particle physics. Most physicists do not take it seriously any longer.

In the Copenhagen interpretation, it literally does not mean anything at all to ask what is going on with the particle when it is not being measured. The wave function is used to compute probabilities of the various possible measured values.

It isn't simply a matter of ignorance (that would be some version of a hidden variable theory--eliminated by other considerations). It is that it literally is meaningless to say what values for, say, position and momentum the particle has when not measured.

Since this is obviously a key point of the debate we are going to have to back it up with some sources but my main point was that there is an interpretation that has the superstate as it being in two places at once/two states at once. I'll find the book later and do a bit' more research to make sure; I'm about to go to sleep but I'll follow up tomorrow.

Well, a typical eigenstate of, say, energy, does not have a specific position determined: there are probabilities for the various positions. This does NOT mean that the particle is in two positions at once. What it means is that the particle does not have a meaningful position, but that measured values will follow the probabilities given by the wave function.

EDIT:

I believe that Penrose actually made a case for the waveform collapse being an actual physical process before, hence why I linked that article. I thought the Copenhagen did too but that he just built off of it with his gravity idea but I ain't no expert lol. I could be wrong about the Copenhagen interpretation at least.

There is a fair amount of evidence for the wave function to have some sort of 'physical meaning'. But in context that means that we can use it to make predictions for all the physical variable we want and it will give probabilities for the various values of the measurements. Those probabilities change over time according to the dynamics given by the Schrodinger (or, for relativistic electrons, the Dirac) equation.

Since I volunteered my familiarity with the subject, would you be willing to say what yours is, given your emphasis on the math? Do you work in physics or mathematics as a living?

Yes, I am a professional mathematician (got my PhD in Harmonic Analysis 32 years ago) and have done all the coursework and have passed the qualifying exams for a PhD in physics. The issues we are talking about are ones I have been interested in for the last 40 years or so.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm no physicist and it's been a few years since I've read any book in depth on QM but I've never once heard anyone say that the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't take the superstate literally.

Imagine you have *truly* random dice. Each side can come up with exactly the same probability. Just after a throw, the value that will come up is not determined. But that doesn't mean the dice has two values at the same time.

 

[Kapalika]

Imagine you have *truly* random dice. Each side can come up with exactly the same probability. Just after a throw, the value that will come up is not determined. But that doesn't mean the dice has two values at the same time.

Okay, so I couldn't sleep as this kept bothering me lol. I found the book and digged through it some... this is the book btw: https://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311

Anyways as far as Copenhagen, ya I was wrong and was confusing it with a different interpretation. Penrose said elsewhere in the book that he has his own alternative view (of course involving the gravity).

However I will link later on this in this post things I think might weaken the Copenhagen Interpretation if I understood what it said correctly (experiments involving superstates in particular) and thus your point about dice (since it seems to be the same/similar position at least to me). But just to be clear, this is what I found on the Copenhagen Interpretation in the book: (links are to pics of the quoted parts)

Page 783:

The viewpoint (a) is basically the ontology of the Copenhagen interpretation. as expressed specifically by Niels Bohr, who regarded |?) as not representing a quantum-level reality, but as something to be taken as merely describing the experimenter's 'knowledge' of a quantum system. The 'jumping', according to R, would then be understood as the experimenter's simply acquiring more knowledge about the system, so it is the knowledge that jumps, not the physics of the system. According to (a), one should not ask that any 'reality' be assigned to quantum-level phenomena, the only acknowledged reality being that of the classical world which the experimenter's apparatus finds it's home."

But he said a page before, in page 782

"It is a common view among many of today's physicists that quantum mechanics provides us with no picture of 'reality' at all! The formalism of quantum mechanics, on this view, is taken as just that, a mathematical formalism. This formalism, as many quantum physicists would argue, tells us essentially nothing about actual quantum reality of the world, but merely alows us to compute probabilities for alternative realities that might occur. Such quantum physicists' ontology - to the extent that he would be worried by matters of 'ontology' at all - would be view the (a): that there is simply no reality expressed in the quantum formalism."

But he goes on to say,

"At the other extreme, there are many quantum physicists who take the (seemingly) diametrically opposite view of (b): that the unitarily evolving quantum state completely describes actual reality with the alarming implication that practically all quantum alternatives must always continue to coexist (in superposition)."

So I did kinda goof by mixing up some of them, he went on to give an a, b, c, d, e and f interpretations (copenhagen, many worlds, ect ect pilot wave, decoherence ect). He holds his own version he went into length about in the following chapter involving a ton of gravity stuff much like the original article I posted but much much more involved.

He is firmly though in the camp against the Copenhagen interpretation that it's just a mathematical description, and that something "real" is going on.

He says as much on page 520

"It seems to me to be clear that the wavefunction mus be something a good deal more 'real' than would be the case for merely 'a probability wave'. the schrondinger equation provides us with a percise evoluton in time for this entity (wheher it i charged or not), as evolution that depends critically upon how the phase indeed varies from the place to place."

He also described a single electron being in two places at once on page 512:

"For if the emission of a single electron at the source could result in a pair of electrons arriving at the screen, even if only very occasionally, then we should have a violation of the law of conservation of change. The same would apply to any other conserved particle 'quantum number' such as baryon conservation (?25.6), for example, if we were to use neurons.[21.12] Such non-conservation behavior would be in gross contradiction with an enormous amount of experimental evidence. Yet, electrons and neutrons do exhibit the kind of self-interference that results in a two slit experiment behavior as I have just described!"

Also, apparently a few years ago two physicists got the Nobel Prize for observing atoms in a superstate:

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2012/popular-physicsprize2012.pdf

A Nobel prize for being in two places at once

How could they observe this superstate, if it's just a mathematical description?

Likewise, in addition to that article from Discover, pretty much everything I've found has described phenomena of electrons being in two places at once.

Here are a few examples of what came up, referring to actual experiments:

Atoms can be in two places at the same time — Universität Bonn

Quantum superposition at the half-metre scale

A Schrödinger cat living in two boxes

There was a ton more but those were the most "legit" ones I found first on the first page (as opposed to a layman talking about it).

In any case, I think given that there is experimental data for particles literally being in two places at once, combined with no single interpretation of what is going on being proven, it is fully within the realm of possibility of dialatheism having a real chance of being true for physical phenomena even if in limited situations.

In any case this is the kind of information I am finding both online and in the books I have access to at the moment. I have some other physics books (none as technical as Penrose's book however) and all basically say the same thing when I glanced at them. As far as I can tell and my mixing up the interpretations aside, there is real experimental instances of particles occupying more than one place at the same time, *and* plenty of interpretations which say the phenomena is real.

I've spent like 2-3 hours reading for, and then writing this post so I hope you read it at least xD ( and the articles I linked to )

Also, since you said you've worked with the subject as part of your job could you tell me what you think about coherence and

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, so I couldn't sleep as this kept bothering me lol. I found the book and digged through it some... this is the book btw: https://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311

Anyways as far as Copenhagen, ya I was wrong and was confusing it with a different interpretation. Penrose said elsewhere in the book that he has his own alternative view (of course involving the gravity).

However I will link later on this in this post things I think might weaken the Copenhagen Interpretation if I understood what it said correctly (experiments involving superstates in particular) and thus your point about dice (since it seems to be the same/similar position at least to me). But just to be clear, this is what I found on the Copenhagen Interpretation in the book: (links are to pics of the quoted parts)

Page 783:

The viewpoint (a) is basically the ontology of the Copenhagen interpretation. as expressed specifically by Niels Bohr, who regarded |?) as not representing a quantum-level reality, but as something to be taken as merely describing the experimenter's 'knowledge' of a quantum system. The 'jumping', according to R, would then be understood as the experimenter's simply acquiring more knowledge about the system, so it is the knowledge that jumps, not the physics of the system. According to (a), one should not ask that any 'reality' be assigned to quantum-level phenomena, the only acknowledged reality being that of the classical world which the experimenter's apparatus finds it's home."

But he said a page before, in page 782

"It is a common view among many of today's physicists that quantum mechanics provides us with no picture of 'reality' at all! The formalism of quantum mechanics, on this view, is taken as just that, a mathematical formalism. This formalism, as many quantum physicists would argue, tells us essentially nothing about actual quantum reality of the world, but merely alows us to compute probabilities for alternative realities that might occur. Such quantum physicists' ontology - to the extent that he would be worried by matters of 'ontology' at all - would be view the (a): that there is simply no reality expressed in the quantum formalism."

But he goes on to say,

"At the other extreme, there are many quantum physicists who take the (seemingly) diametrically opposite view of (b): that the unitarily evolving quantum state completely describes actual reality with the alarming implication that practically all quantum alternatives must always continue to coexist (in superposition)."

So I did kinda goof by mixing up some of them, he went on to give an a, b, c, d, e and f interpretations (copenhagen, many worlds, ect ect pilot wave, decoherence ect). He holds his own version he went into length about in the following chapter involving a ton of gravity stuff much like the original article I posted but much much more involved.

He is firmly though in the camp against the Copenhagen interpretation that it's just a mathematical description, and that something "real" is going on.

He says as much on page 520

"It seems to me to be clear that the wavefunction mus be something a good deal more 'real' than would be the case for merely 'a probability wave'. the schrondinger equation provides us with a percise evoluton in time for this entity (wheher it i charged or not), as evolution that depends critically upon how the phase indeed varies from the place to place."

He also described a single electron being in two places at once on page 512:

"For if the emission of a single electron at the source could result in a pair of electrons arriving at the screen, even if only very occasionally, then we should have a violation of the law of conservation of change. The same would apply to any other conserved particle 'quantum number' such as baryon conservation (?25.6), for example, if we were to use neurons.[21.12] Such non-conservation behavior would be in gross contradiction with an enormous amount of experimental evidence. Yet, electrons and neutrons do exhibit the kind of self-interference that results in a two slit experiment behavior as I have just described!"

Yes, such interference is predicted and explained via the wave function. No electron is in two places at one, though. The wavefunction does go through both slits.

Also, apparently a few years ago two physicists got the Nobel Prize for observing atoms in a superstate:

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2012/popular-physicsprize2012.pdf

A Nobel prize for being in two places at once

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...g-in-two-places-at-once-idUSBRE8980V620121009

This is known as a weak measurement and is, once again, completely predicted by the wave function of QM. There is a lot of hype around this, but the basic science is solid. Don't trust the popular press, though (and that includes pretty much anything other than an actual peer-reviewed scientific article).

How could they observe this superstate, if it's just a mathematical description?

Well, closer to the truth is that weak measurements allow probing of the wave function values, but the results are still described in the same ways as for others via QM.

Also, since you said you've worked with the subject as part of your job could you tell me what you think about coherence and

This seems to have been cut off. Zurek and company have done a lot with decoherence and how quickly quantum states decay from superpositions into individual eigenstates. The details of how this happens and why is very relevant to the development of quantum computers. Essentially, entangled states or non-eigenvalue states are *incredibly* sensitive to outside influence. It doens't take a consciousness to 'collapse a wave function'. Simple photons from the environment will do so nicely.

 

[Kapalika]

Yes, such interference is predicted and explained via the wave function. No electron is in two places at one, though. The wavefunction does go through both slits.

This is known as a weak measurement and is, once again, completely predicted by the wave function of QM. There is a lot of hype around this, but the basic science is solid. Don't trust the popular press, though (and that includes pretty much anything other than an actual peer-reviewed scientific article).

Reuters???? Popular press? Don't trust? wut lol. The other I linked was Nobel organization's site about the prize winners' experiment.

And Penrose and others have said yes they think they literally are in two places at the same time until the waveform collapses from all I've read and I think the abstracts n the experiments say they observed a quantum superstate. I could reasonably suspect that you dismissed them as being similar to experiments in past years as it's not clear if you read the articles/abstracts or just skimmed them. As far as I can tell it was done in a way to observe something that was a real physical phenomena not just a mathematical description like the Copenhagen interpretation and they did so in a ground breaking way.

I admit though I'm not totally sure what your point was, that it could still be explained by Copenhagen ect? Would it still stand then that if it's open to interpretation that it's possible that dialetheism is true since no one interpretation is proven?

This seems to have been cut off. Zurek and company have done a lot with decoherence and how quickly quantum states decay from superpositions into individual eigenstates. The details of how this happens and why is very relevant to the development of quantum computers. Essentially, entangled states or non-eigenvalue states are *incredibly* sensitive to outside influence. It doens't take a consciousness to 'collapse a wave function'. Simple photons from the environment will do so nicely.

I was trying to ask what you thought of a couple of interpretations (decoherence and pilot-wave). Got distracted and am tired I guess.

 

[Polymath257]

Reuters???? Popular press? Don't trust? wut lol. The other I linked was Nobel organization's site about the prize winners' experiment.

If you read the one article, you will find that that the particles are NOT in two places at one time: there is a non-zero *probability* at two locations at the same time. Again, particles do not have definite locations between measurements: only probabilities.

And Penrose and others have said yes they think they literally are in two places at the same time until the waveform collapses from all I've read and I think the abstracts n the experiments say they observed a quantum superstate. I could reasonably suspect that you dismissed them as being similar to experiments in past years as it's not clear if you read the articles/abstracts or just skimmed them. As far as I can tell it was done in a way to observe something that was a real physical phenomena not just a mathematical description like the Copenhagen interpretation and they did so in a ground breaking way.

A wave function is a probability wave. You can determine the probability of measuring a particle in some region by integrating that wave function over that region. So, two be in two places (disjoint regions) at the same time has probability zero. Now, it *is* true that the probabilities can both be non-zero in two different locations. And that is the *only* sense in which the particle (the wave function) is in two places at once.

No 'superstate' is required for this to be the case, b the way. Most wave functions are distributed over a largish region.

Next, a superposition of states is just another state, not *two* states. It is a single state that gives a probability of measuring either of the two values, but it is a single state in and of itself. This is similar, in mnay ways, to what happens with light and polarization.

Light has a property called polarization. If you get polarized sunglasses, they work by filtering out the light polarized in one direction. If you turn them 90 degrees, they filter out light from the perpendicular direction. This is called linear polarization.

But it is possible for light to be circularly polarized, and that either in a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction. It turns out that for either type of circular polarization, a linear filter will filter out exactly half the light (so we say half is polarized horizontally and half is polarized vertically). But, if you put horizontally polarized light through a filter for circular polarization, half will go through: so that horizontally polarized light is 'half clockwise polarized and half counter-clockwise polarized).

So both types of polarization are 'superpositions' of the other type of polarization. Circular polarization has indeterminate linear polarization and linear polarization has indeterminate circular polarization. But both types are just a state for light. Being in a definite linear polarization means you are completely indefinite in circular polarization and vice versa.

In this way, the two types of polarization act like quantum variables like position and momentum. But being circularly polarized does NOT mean you are linearly polarized in both directions at the same time.

Generally speaking, wave functions for a single particle are separated into eigenfunctions for some observable (where that observable has a definite value) and 'mixed' or 'super' states that are combinations of eigenfunctions.

One of the aspects of the uncertainty principle is that eigenfunctions for one observable (say position) are not eigenfunctions for other observables (say, momentum). So, even if one observable has a definite value, others will not. Furthermore, even in mixed states, the degree of 'spread' between the two will be correlated with more 'certainty' in position leading to more 'uncertainty' in momentum and vice versa.

Bit this does NOT mean any particle is in two locations at a time or that it has two different momenta at a time. It means there is more than one location where the *probability* of being detected is non-zero (similarly for momenta).

I admit though I'm not totally sure what your point was, that it could still be explained by Copenhagen ect? Would it still stand then that if it's open to interpretation that it's possible that dialetheism is true since no one interpretation is proven?

I was trying to ask what you thought of a couple of interpretations (decoherence and pilot-wave). Got distracted and am tired I guess.

The pilot wave thoery is only of interest historically. It doesn't generalize well to relativistic settings and cannot deal with spin well or anti-matter at all.

Decoherence is a useful way to get a bit more information in some situations that people had thought possible (using what are called weak measurements).

 

[Kapalika]

If you read the one article, you will find that that the particles are NOT in two places at one time: there is a non-zero *probability* at two locations at the same time. Again, particles do not have definite locations between measurements: only probabilities.

Again, that comes down to interpretation.

A wave function is a probability wave.

Again, not according to Penrose:

He says as much on page 520

"It seems to me to be clear that the wavefunction mus be something a good deal more 'real' than would be the case for merely 'a probability wave'. The Schrodinger equation provides us with a precise evolution in time for this entity (whether it is charged or not), an evolution that depends critically upon how the phase indeed varies from the place to place."

Next, a superposition of states is just another state, not *two* states.

A few pages after the above quote, Penrose talks about particles with "two-state" systems in chapter 22 of the book and goes more in depth in 22.9 (on page 553).

So again, isn't your assertions going to come down to the interpretation?

You are avoiding my question that if we take Penrose's positions that contradiction can be possible on a quantum scale. In addition to the parts I quoted, there is a bunch of parts in the book he addresses the nature of it in no uncertain terms.

Make no mistake; I'm not saying that any of what I am arguing for would make all contradictions are possible. Obviously on the scale of living things and historical events the law of non-contradiction would still hold since it is ridiculously larger than the quantum phenomena.

Actually, Penrose's model reinforces that the law of non-contradiction would hold on our scale due to gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, that comes down to interpretation.

Not on this point. This is simply being clear about what the math is saying.

Again, not according to Penrose:

A few pages after the above quote, Penrose talks about particles with "two-state" systems in chapter 22 of the book and goes more in depth in 22.9 (on page 553).

And, unfortunately, this is where he does more hype than follow what QM actually says. In QM, when a particle 'is in two states', iti means that the state of the particle is not an eigenfunction for whatever observable you are considering. It may well be an eigenfunction for some other observable.

Generally, we use energy as the observable because it relates directly to the Schrodinger equation. But, for example, it is possible that a state with a definite energy does not have a definite spin, or vice versa.

So again, isn't your assertions going to come down to the interpretation?

No. The math gives a definite answer to the question 'what is the probability of a particle being in two places at one time?' And that probability is zero *even if* the wave function for that particle is nonzero at two different points. In popular treatments, unfortunately, the distinction isn't well presented or is ignored.

You are avoiding my question that if we take Penrose's positions that contradiction can be possible on a quantum scale. In addition to the parts I quoted, there is a bunch of parts in the book he addresses the nature of it in no uncertain terms.

Make no mistake; I'm not saying that any of what I am arguing for would make all contradictions are possible. Obviously on the scale of living things and historical events the law of non-contradiction would still hold since it is ridiculously larger than the quantum phenomena.

Actually, Penrose's model reinforces that the law of non-contradiction would hold on our scale due to gravity.

So, for example, when light is circularly polarized, there is a sense in which it is 'both polarized vertically and polarized horizontally'. But that is a *very* imprecise sense. And individual circularly polarized photon will only be measured to be one or the other. But a *collection* of circularly polarized photons will have half horizontally polarized and half vertically, with nothing to distinguish them prior to measurement.

The point is that a particle doesn't have two different values. It's value isn't determined and is purely probabilistic. Having a 50% change of being in place A and a 50% chance of being in place B is NOT the same sa being in both places.

 

[Kapalika]

And, unfortunately, this is where he does more hype than follow what QM actually says.

I find it extremely hard to believe that a world renowned mathematician and physicist who teaches at Oxford and who's worked closely with people like Hawking would get such a basic aspect about Quantum Mechanics wrong so consistently over the years. At the very least I would think that one of his peers would of corrected him by now.

I'm have no doubt that you are a great mathematician, but you must understand that as a layperson being told that everything I've ever read on the topic (even in several books by different physicists although the one I sourced above is the most technical I own) is wrong is rather jarring.

From where I'm standing, I have to make an informed decision about if you are correct or not, and without you even sourcing any of your claims I'm left having to conclude that you are framing everything under whatever view you personally fancy in such a way to not allow the views that the experimenter's said they were testing for in the first place.

I had hoped you might provide me with some kind of source or something so I could compare it instead of just asserting the same thing. At the very least I can say that you caused me to double check some things but I've yet to see how my understanding of Penrose's position is wrong. You claimed he "hypes" it and yet from all indications I've seen that isn't so much the case.

 

[Polymath257]

I find it extremely hard to believe that a world renowned mathematician and physicist who teaches at Oxford and who's worked closely with people like Hawking would get such a basic aspect about Quantum Mechanics wrong so consistently over the years. At the very least I would think that one of his peers would of corrected him by now.

His work with Hawking was in the early 70's and was about general relativity, not quantum mechanics.

I'm have no doubt that you are a great mathematician, but you must understand that as a layperson being told that everything I've ever read on the topic (even in several books by different physicists although the one I sourced above is the most technical I own) is wrong is rather jarring.

I'm hardly that great as a mathematician. But I do know the size of Planck's constant and what is required to keep quantum coherence. And high temperatures (like in a human body) with large amounts of interaction (even with water in the environment) will randomize things and destroy the entanglements. That is one of the *big* issues with quantum computers: even very small environmental effects destroy entanglements.

From where I'm standing, I have to make an informed decision about if you are correct or not, and without you even sourcing any of your claims I'm left having to conclude that you are framing everything under whatever view you personally fancy in such a way to not allow the views that the experimenter's said they were testing for in the first place.

Look at any graduate level text in QM.

I had hoped you might provide me with some kind of source or something so I could compare it instead of just asserting the same thing. At the very least I can say that you caused me to double check some things but I've yet to see how my understanding of Penrose's position is wrong. You claimed he "hypes" it and yet from all indications I've seen that isn't so much the case.

Well, that does appear to be Penrose's position. But, from what I can tell by talking to other physicists, it is seen as evidence that he has lost his marbles. This is something that happens, unfortunately, with many aging physicists.

 

[Kapalika]

His work with Hawking was in the early 70's and was about general relativity, not quantum mechanics.

There was also in the late 80's when he worked with him on singularities. He also co-authored with him in the mid 90's a few times. I don't know enough specifics to say to what degree QM was involved.

But I do know the size of Planck's constant and what is required to keep quantum coherence. And high temperatures (like in a human body) with large amounts of interaction (even with water in the environment) will randomize things and destroy the entanglements. That is one of the *big* issues with quantum computers: even very small environmental effects destroy entanglements.

I'm not sure if this is brought up in relevance to contradiction or just as an aside. If the former, ya, that's why the law of contradiction would hold on our scale anyway.

Look at any graduate level text in QM.

What constitutes as graduate level text? The book I gave goes well into a very advanced level math. Actually on Amazon, some of the reviewers were (or at least claimed) to be varying levels of professors and weighed in the book being beyond an undergrad in various respects.

I only mention that as I want to ask if you be inclined to recommend a specific book? Particularly one good at dispelling misconceptions if not just a solid graduate level text?

Well, that does appear to be Penrose's position. But, from what I can tell by talking to other physicists, it is seen as evidence that he has lost his marbles. This is something that happens, unfortunately, with many aging physicists.

Like, the evidence is his view on a particle being in two places at once specifically, or just in general his ideas? Sure, he can be a pariah at times, and he's in a minority in his views on consciousness. But so far as any of his physics ideas I'm familiar with he's presented feasible ways to falsify his hypotheses, something a lot of 'cutting edge' physics can't do (looking at you, M-Theory).

Anyways, my entire point is that it's possible that non-contradiction may be allowable by physical laws as we know it, even if in very specific circumstances. Perhaps though that isn't the best way to go about arguing for dielatheism if not just because that argument cascades into becoming very... esoteric... for lack of a better word.