There's No Objective Reality

[ChristineM]

Apparently physics and mystics agree - there is no 'objective reality' or some other root assumption upon which physics is based such as locality is not true. Or maybe we don't have freedom of choice.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.

Back in 1961, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Eugene Wigner outlined a thought experiment that demonstrated one of the lesser-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics. The experiment shows how the strange nature of the universe allows two observers—say, Wigner and Wigner’s friend—to experience different realities.
...
And today, Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and a few colleagues say they have performed this experiment for the first time: they have created different realities and compared them. Their conclusion is that Wigner was correct—these realities can be made irreconcilable so that it is impossible to agree on objective facts about an experiment.
...
But there are other assumptions too. One is that observers have the freedom to make whatever observations they want. And another is that the choices one observer makes do not influence the choices other observers make—an assumption that physicists call locality.

If there is an objective reality that everyone can agree on, then these assumptions all hold.

But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.

See what happens when you let philosophers lose on the quantum domain

 

[sun rise]

Not sure I really understand that or what they mean, does it only apply to quantum mechanics?

Lets say there is an apple on the table then what these people are saying is, that the objective reality of the apple being on the table is not really the case, for some people the apple is a banana?

You can invoke lack of free will instead since that is one of the possible explanations

 

[Nimos]

In the relational interpretation of QM, the apple, the table, you the observer, and I, the interlocutor of the observer, have properties only in relation to each other. None of the qualities any of us exhibit in relation to the other, exist independently of the web of interactions.

That's one interpretation of QM. There are others, equally weird, equally incomplete, equally pointing to the insubstantiality of all natural phenomena. In the super determinist interpretation, espoused by David Bohm, you can conduct experiments to objectively establish the existence and nature of the apple, but the results of the experiments were predetermined from soon after the Big Bang, when every particle of every atom in existence interacted and became entangled with every other particle, in accordance with the immutable laws which determine the outcome of every eventuality; including your experiments with the apple.

So basically its an experiment to validate whether Determinism is true or false?

Do you know how they or on what they did the test?

 

[sun rise]

Refutation: Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that “Suggests There’s No Such Thing As Objective Reality” | Daily Nous

If I'm asked to choose between physics and philosophers, I choose physics every time.

But since one point was science journalism, let's go to the paper itself, at least the abstract Experimental test of local observer-independence The obvious and to be expected response is "that can't possibly be true" which is a normal response to the challenge that this (and other) results makes.

The obvious followup beyond replicating the experiment is to examine the question: "Is the result proof of observer dependency, lack of free choice or non-locality". From a lay perspective, I'd choose non-locality because of the results of other experiments.

The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner's eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner's friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner's friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.

 

[Magical Wand]

If I'm asked to choose between physics and philosophers, I choose physics every time.

Great! So you'll love Sean Carroll's response in the post I've sent you.

 

[Nimos]

See what happens when you let philosophers lose on the quantum domain

Seems like it is some "sales" way of putting it and not exactly what is meant.

From the article post here.

Refutation: Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that “Suggests There’s No Such Thing As Objective Reality” | Daily Nous

Of course there is not a new experiment that suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality. That would be silly. (What would we be experimenting on?)

There is a long tradition in science journalism—and one must admit that the scientists themselves are fully culpable in keeping the tradition alive—of reporting on experiments that (1) verify exactly the predictions of quantum mechanics as they have been understood for decades, and (2) are nevertheless used to claim that a wholesale reimagining of our view of reality is called for. This weird situation comes about because neither journalists nor professional physicists have been taught, nor have they thought deeply about, the foundations of quantum mechanics. We therefore get situations like the present one, where an intrinsically interesting and impressive example of experimental virtuosity is saddled with a woefully misleading sales pitch.

Trying to read most of the article, but honestly it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but probably its good for something... scientifically. Once they get some hard facts, they can call me

 

[Colt]

God is the greatest of objective reality.

 

[RestlessSoul]

See what happens when you let philosophers lose on the quantum domain

It’s the physicists themselves who are turning to (ancient Vedic) philosophers to help them conceptualise the Quantum world.

 

[Wandering Monk]

God is the greatest of objective reality.

LOL. Prove it objectively.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So basically its an experiment to validate whether Determinism is true or false?

Do you know how they or on what they did the test?

Not sure about the experiment in the OP.

Quantum Physicists have been wrestling with the ‘spooky’ behaviour of sub atomic particles since first conducting double slit experiments almost 100 years ago.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

Seems like it is some "sales" way of putting it and not exactly what is meant.

From the article post here.


Of course there is not a new experiment that suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality. That would be silly. (What would we be experimenting on?)

There is a long tradition in science journalism—and one must admit that the scientists themselves are fully culpable in keeping the tradition alive—of reporting on experiments that (1) verify exactly the predictions of quantum mechanics as they have been understood for decades, and (2) are nevertheless used to claim that a wholesale reimagining of our view of reality is called for. This weird situation comes about because neither journalists nor professional physicists have been taught, nor have they thought deeply about, the foundations of quantum mechanics. We therefore get situations like the present one, where an intrinsically interesting and impressive example of experimental virtuosity is saddled with a woefully misleading sales pitch.

Trying to read most of the article, but honestly it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but probably its good for something... scientifically. Once they get some hard facts, they can call me

The quantum domain is strange and does not follow general scientific rules. The biggest problem i see with any such experiment is getting all observers to observe a specific action at precisely the same instant... Otherwise, yes, there will be different observations.

 

[RestlessSoul]

LOL. Prove it objectively.

You can’t (prove anything objectively)

 

[Secret Chief]

Where's @mikkel_the_dane when you need him?

 

[ChristineM]

It’s the physicists themselves who are turning to (ancient Vedic) philosophers to help them conceptualise the Quantum world.

Yes, i was just having a joke, see my post #31, for further rambling

 

[Martin]

Not sure I really understand that or what they mean, does it only apply to quantum mechanics?

Lets say there is an apple on the table then what these people are saying is, that the objective reality of the apple being on the table is not really the case, for some people the apple is a banana?

The experiment is about measuring the polarisation of photons. I don't know how this relates to the human scale, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean one person seeing an apple and another seeing a banana.

 

[Nimos]

Not sure about the experiment in the OP.

Quantum Physicists have been wrestling with the ‘spooky’ behaviour of sub atomic particles since first conducting double slit experiments almost 100 years ago.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

Im definitely not an expert on QM, but I seem to recall that the double-slit experiment is about how the observer influence the observation, it have a fancy name, if I recall correctly, which I forgotten and don't care to look up

But basically, what is going on in the double slit experiment is the same that happens if you try to measure the pressure in a tire. As you do that, you let out a bit of air, which affects or influence the experiment so you don't really get the correct air pressure, meaning the observation causes changes to what you are trying to observe. And if I recall correctly that is the issue with the double slit experiment. But that is not something "spooky" or weird about QM, its pretty common in experiments.

I don't know if this experiment that the OP is talking about is of the same nature or if its something else.

 

[Martin]

Not sure about the experiment in the OP.

Quantum Physicists have been wrestling with the ‘spooky’ behaviour of sub atomic particles since first conducting double slit experiments almost 100 years ago.


Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

I think it's a question of scale. Quantum mechanics applies at the sub-atomic scale, but Newtonian mechanics applies at our human scale.
The way I understand it, reality is more objective at larger scales

 

[Martin]

One thing that comes to mind when looking at this example is the imperfection of human language and how it structures the way we think. In another language, the same idea might be expressed ("the apple is on the table") but using different vocabulary, sentence structure, and other variations. Someone who didn't know what an apple or a table was, they might say "the thing is on the thing."

Sure, but generally people describe those things in the same way.

 

[Martin]

For some both the apple, banana and tables are just dreams; "real" only in dream-state.

There are levels of reality; a hierarchy. When discussing metaphysics, we need to specify which reality we're referring to, or confusion and contradiction will result.

According to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta, there exists only a single, unitary consciousness, dreaming the universe. This, though, has always been a personal revelation; unevidenced, hence, outside the purview of science and apologetics.
Now, physics is catching up. Evidence is appearing.

I don't think quantum mechanics supports the idea of a single unitary consciousness dreaming the universe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Seems like it is some "sales" way of putting it and not exactly what is meant.

From the article post here.


Of course there is not a new experiment that suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality. That would be silly. (What would we be experimenting on?)

There is a long tradition in science journalism—and one must admit that the scientists themselves are fully culpable in keeping the tradition alive—of reporting on experiments that (1) verify exactly the predictions of quantum mechanics as they have been understood for decades, and (2) are nevertheless used to claim that a wholesale reimagining of our view of reality is called for. This weird situation comes about because neither journalists nor professional physicists have been taught, nor have they thought deeply about, the foundations of quantum mechanics. We therefore get situations like the present one, where an intrinsically interesting and impressive example of experimental virtuosity is saddled with a woefully misleading sales pitch.

Trying to read most of the article, but honestly it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but probably its good for something... scientifically. Once they get some hard facts, they can call me

It reminds me of cosmologists and other scientists who notice something odd going on in far away system and many times they claim aliens. That prediction has always failed, but it does happen.
This is why science deals with the objective. Humans are a bundle of a subjective life, so much so we necessitated replication for science just because it's acknowledged our own subjective views are notorious for skewing our views and interpretations. But we have fine tuned a language over thousands of years that is well understood by people around the world and is so powerful at describing the world that it--math--accurately predicted the existence of an entire planet.
Such as, electricity. Getting shocked is very subjective in how it feels. Some like it. Some hate it. It can be therapeutic or torture. But we have Ohm's Law and Watt's Law to objectively describe what is happening with the electricity itself. We have neurology, brain scanners, and other means to objectively describe what the body is doing and going through as it is shocked. Those things do not change. They apply equally. But, subjectively, how these shocks are felt will vary.