From what I've read – No. This has been Tested for (EPR has been experimentally checked) – i.e. the state has not been determined yet - its not a case of we just can't see exactly/clearly which state the quantum system is in - it just isn't in 'a state' - its in a 'mixture' of states - which at the macro size seems absurd but this is how reality really seems to work at the smallest levels.
My understanding of quantum superposition is that as the size of the particle increases the wave function decreases, meaning that it has fewer options for superposition.
it sounds like seeing quantum particles is akin to seeing a very low resolution picture. Nothing has a defined edge and its all kinda blurry and hazy and you can't be sure where something actually is, especially very small items in the picture, but once observed it becomes higher res.
The point of Schrödinger’s cat is to demonstrate the disjunction between the macroscopic world and the quantum world. In the quantum world phenomena require that two, several or many states co-exist, not merely that there is only one state really and we just can’t see it. Your thought experiment is essentially denying the validity of quantum mechanics.
"In the quantum world phenomena require that two, several or many states co-exist"
Then we would have to adjust our understanding of quantum mechanics, since that would break the third law of logic. Thats pretty much the point. Therefore I proposed an alternative explanation. If superpositions are impossible, then their existence must in fact be merely apparent but not factual. The coin was to demonstrate how such a contradiction could be explained.
@KnownNoMore The contradiction cannot be explained in the way that you have put forward. Phenomena on a quantum scale quantum require superimposed inseparable states. Your thought experiment is merely saying that such states 'in reality' do not exist. These co-existent states have been confirmed in many ways since Schrodinger, they are used in modern technology, they give the most accurate predictions in physics through QED and QCD. I don't think that you quite understand the paradox.
You're missing the point, it doesnt matter how great the experiment results are. Thats all fine. The problem is explaining how these co-existents states are even POSSIBLE in the first place. So why is an epistemic problem so far fetched? You cant really rule that out and its infinitely more justified than saying that a law of logic is in fact broken.
@KnownNoMore No I think that you are missing the point. If your thought experiment were truly analogous to reality quantum mechanics couldn't work. You make the mistake common to the non-physicist of thinking that your macroscopic conscious experience must be a dominant paradigm. It is the nature of quantum mechanics that standard logic does not apply.
"you make the mistake common to the non-physicist of thinking that your macroscopic conscious experience must be a dominant paradigm"
No the laws of logic would be the paradigm to any question. The laws of logic are necessarily true facts of existence and therefore cannot be broken by definition, no matter what scale. So if any experiment in any field would come to the conclusion that square circles could exist, the experiment is wrong no matter how well it works or how useful it is
@KnownNoMore 'The laws of logic' have been derived from man's observation of the macroscopic realm. They are not universal and cannot define themselves as necessarily true. They do not hold in dreams for example. Your claim that they must hold in the quantum realm is merely an assumption. I recommend that you get a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman's 'QED The strange theory of light and matter' is an excellent introduction for the layman.
"The laws of logic' have been derived from man's observation of the macroscopic realm."
They are not, they are simply formulations of axioms, statements which are necesarily true since the their truth need to be assumed even when trying to deny them. The law of identity for example justifies itself since if A is not A.... its not A to begin with. An entity cannot be anything other than itself. This has zero to do with observation. They are necessary truths
yes they do, square circles cannot exist in dreams either. Dreams may be very weird but cannot defy logic itself. I dare you to come up with an example.
@KnownNoMore 'Dare' is a curious emotional response when having a discussion. However, I can 'dream' of both being a thing and not being for example. I can dream of being simultaneously a wave and a particle for example with contradictory properties or that I am both a butterfly and a man. You are merely asserting that the 'laws of logic' are universal you cannot 'prove' it. You assume the 'laws of logic' as an axiom. They do not necessarily apply to the world of experience.
I'm dutch so maybe dare was the wrong word. But no you cant dream of being both a butterfly and a man, at least not at once, or else it would be a mix. But not 100% man 100% butterfly at the exact same time.
"You are merely asserting that the 'laws of logic' are universal you cannot 'prove' it."
They prove themselves, thats what an axiom is. A fact which automatically has to be assumed even when trying to negate it. no assumptions here
@KnownNoMore As axioms they are merely statements that cannot be proven and yet you continue to assert that they are fundamentally true. This is merely an assertion on your part. Correct there are no 'necessary facts' that apply to the real world.
@KnownNoMore No there are no necessary facts, including this one, i.e. it is a fact but not necessary. I am using logic, not to argue with the validity of logic but merely to accept its own limitations. Just as one may use maths to demonstrate that maths is imperfect. All of this is irrelevant to the point. You cannot demonstrate that logic necessarily applies to the real world. Quantum mechanics apparently demonstrates that it does not. That is sufficient (if not necessary).
@KnownNoMore However you thought experiment does not address Schrodinger's paradox. Until you learn more about quantum mechanics you will not be able to appreciate this. Read Feynman's book. It will only take a few hours, it's quite a slim volume. You will learn something to expand you horizons even if you don't agree with me. I would also recommend his undergraduate lectures on Physics; a bit more of an undertaking but worthwhile, even so long after they were written.
@KnownNoMore Your ‘square circle’ example is illuminating. A square circle is not a logical contradiction it is a flawed definition. Be that as it may, the concepts of circles and squares are extrapolations of real world experience but neither can exist in the real world, they are idealisations.
@KnownNoMore I don't know about your dreams but mine are filled with logical contradictions. I can be male and female at the same time. I can be in two places at once. I can be both child and man. I can perform actions without reactions. I can be large enough to reach across a table and small enough to walk under it all without transformation. I can also assert anything about my dreams without having to 'prove' it and without you being able to 'disprove' it.
Since one is never under any circumstance whatsoever justified to claim that a law of logic is broken, an alternative explanation is necessary to explain what ACTUALLY takes place and makes it SEEM as if a law of logic is broken. Even if such an explanation is not found, it will have to remain an unknown. The conclusion that a law of logic is broken is by definition unjustifiable since those are the standards of all knowledge. They are necessarily true axioms after all.
cool notion, and there's no reason to suggest that it is not a reasonable one should the conditions you suggest regarding the observasion of quantum mechanics be true.
If your thought experiment was how the quantum world functioned, then the double slit experiment showing a wave function result until one sets up a detector to test which slit the particle is going through would cease to work. the way that it does. The double slit experiment seems to demonstrate quite convincingly that particles behave in exactly the manner the Copenhagen Interpretation indicates.
you mean the idea that a particle can pass in its entirety through two slits at once? I could think of numerous alternative explanations for that. An epistemic problem of both measurement and the atual "shape" of particles being the most obvious one.
@KnownNoMore It is not only that, but the wave function vs particle function that is displayed on the board behind it. If it was simply a case of epistemic problems, then one or the other would always show. However, this is an ontic issue (i.e. that is how things actually are).
watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
I do not see how your analogy of the coin fits this experiment.
It could still be explained by an epistemic problem, namely that the initial measurement (the interference patern) is wrong and that only when you measure the slits itself up close you see what actually happens, namely that there never was any interference patern to begin with. Other than that, it could be that the scenario with and without the measurement tool at the slit are two different scenarios and therefore have different results. Those are possible alternatives
But there could be alternative explanations even if the measurement itself is correct. The particles might be able to pass through two slits at onces exactly because they are not point particles, but have a different shape which under closely measured scenarios act like point particles.
It could be that particles are 4 dimensional and therefore only appear to be in two different places from a 3D perspective.
It could even be that particles are conscious and are just fucking with the scientists. Or that the particles are controlled from beings from a different universe or something farfetched like that.
Or better yet, we could conclude that we dont understand yet what actually occurs during the double slit experiment and will have to wait until more is discovered until we can draw conclusions
This is very interesting..I don't have time to study the issue, but I hope you will post a follow up video to summarize the thoughts of your viewers and yourself..and hopefully reach some conclusion on the matter. ;)
Logical absolutes arent contradicted by indeterminacy because they dont claim something must be X or Y, they simple claim that something is X or NOT X.
Law of Identity- X is indeterminate(in a superposed state)
Non contradiction-Nothing can be indeterminate and not indeterminate
Excluded middle- Everything is either indeterminate or not indeterminate
Quantum indeterminacy deals with definitions. If we define something poorly, that doesn't mean we've found a problem with the logical absolutes.
I didn't really watch SR or HD's videos cuz Idc about TAG, but this is an interesting thought experiment. ;)
I don't really buy into the multiverse hypothesis, so I think I would lean more towards your explanation. But quantum physics is pretty damn wacky, so who knows?
That is quite an interesting thought experiment, I must say. In addition, I think you described the implications of my thought experiment better, or at the very least more concise, than I did. Bravo.
I've asked myself this question before and like you, I find the explanation that this is merely an epistemic problem more appealing. But then I'm a layperson. I have in fact recently asked a physicist whether there is good reason to believe that the quantum world is indeed probabilistic rather than deterministic (as that seems to be the majority opinion), but as of now I'm still waiting for a reply.
Well, this doesnt actually have anything to do with the quantum world being probabilistic or deterministic. Both are at least straightfoward possibilities. Whether or not the quantum world is probabilistic or deterministic, neither case would violate any law of logic. Yet in the case of superpositions, if they are real a law of logic would be violated. So in that case we should believe that there is some epistemic problem going on, in my opinion.
@KnownNoMore Superpositions are one interpretative result of a probabilistic quantum world, are they not? "The atom has a 50% chance of being decayed bay now, so until we look, we interpret it as being in a superposition."
If the quantum world was deterministic, the atom would either be decayed or not, leaving no room for superpositions.
"Superpositions are one interpretative result of a probabilistic quantum world, are they not? "The atom has a 50% chance of being decayed bay now, so until we look, we interpret it as being in a superposition."
Its weirder than that, a superposition isnt merely a interpretation but the idea that there truly is no fact of the matter in which of the two states the particle is. Its simultaneously in both states at the same time.
Are you suggesting 'hidden variables'. I think Bell's inequality dealt with that. In addition, I don't see how this relates to other issues, 2 slit and reflection for instance.
I'm suggesting any unknown factor which could give the mere appearance of superpositions when none actually occurs. The exact example I used here may not fit the 2 slit experiment, but the point is the same. I could also think of an alternative scenario to the slit experiment. Just because a particle may appear to be at two place at once, that doesnt mean it actually is, no matter how well it may fit the data.
I think you should have used a + and - sign on the coin seeing how by rotating the coin either side can be vertical or horizontal. The only thing is the - sign would have to be lined up with one of the lines of the + sign so that when viewed from above it always looks like a + sign. Other than that I dont think what happens at a quantum scale is only a matter of perspective its my understanding that only very small things can be in superpositions and it has to be in a very controlled setting
"I think you should have used a + and - sign on the coin seeing how by rotating the coin either side can be vertical or horizontal."
woops, thats true, hadnt thought about that. So lets say for sake of argument that the coin doesnt get rotated.
"Other than that I dont think what happens at a quantum scale is only a matter of perspective its my understanding that only very small things can be in superpositions"
Ofcourse the question is, are superpositions even possible
@KnownNoMore From what little I have read (brian greene fabric of the cosmos) yes they are. What stops superpositions from occurring is the decoherence theory. "...decoherence suggests that long before you open the box the environment has already completed billions of observations that...turned all mysterious quantum probabilities into..classical counterparts." The only time superpositions occur is in experiments like the double slit where "the environment" can be tightly controlled.
Yes but what I'm suggesting here is that actual superpositions (which I define here as an actual occurrance of 1 entity being in two opposing states at the same time) are in fact impossible and something else must be going on, just like with the glass coin. So it may appear in experiments that superpositions occur, but in fact they dont. Thats basically what I'm suggesting with this thought experiment
@KnownNoMore Ok I could accept something else is going on and I wouldn't expect you to be able to give a solid hypothesis as to what it may be. However given what I understand about the double slit experiment, as strange as it may be, one electron being in a superposition seems to explain the data well. We would need PHD's in mathmatics to fully understand this im gueesing but it is my understanding that this is the conclusion many in this field have come to.
I definitely accept that this is going over our heads and I know next to nothing about mathematics and such. However, the fact that superpositions explain the data well is no excuse in my opinion. Because an unknown epistemic problem also accounts for it. It just has the undesirable effect of not being able to actually explain what IS going on, but when a law of logic is violated it would be the most justified position to simply say that we dont understand it yet.
Is for example the testsubject justified in believing that the coin is in two states at the same time? I would say, absolutely not. Just because an explanation of what actually was going on is available in THIS case, changes nothing in my opinion. For me, having a law of logic broken in an experiment is a big red flag that something is wrong.
@KnownNoMore I'm glad that we both see our limited knowledge on this. In situations such as this I don't think it is a bad thing to appeal to an authority. As I said before, physics authorities have settled on superpositions as being valid (at least as Im aware admittedly I dont know a lot), and this is why I dont see your thought experiment with a lot of weight behind it. It is however, interesting.
@KnownNoMore Speaking to this experiment breaking a law of logic, why do you question the experiment not the law? I dont think i can explain this sufficiently but ill try. I see logic and mathematics on much the same level of, authority. Excluded middle makes sense to me working with large things. I have no experiance with very small things, at first I would assume small things work like large things but with no way to verify its just an assumption.
@KnownNoMore So when scientists use mathematics (quantum theroy is largely supported by mathematical proofs) to show small objects act very differently from large objects I see this as a good reason to drop my previous assumption that small objects behave the same as large ones. Even though this goes against excluded middle. This I know is a huge appeal to authority but I think it is justified given just how complex this is.
oh en btw, its not really that important that the sides are interchangeable because you can still make a distinction since if the front is the horizontal line, the back will have to be vertical, even if you rotate it 90 degrees, it will always have one side horizontal and one side vertical
It's an interesting thought experiment, but I'll have to do a bit more research. Could this be applied to wave-particle duality?
I agree that the workings of quantum mechanics do not necessarily interfere with our system of logic (including the law of the excluded middle), but I see no reason to believe that they necessarily adhere to those laws.
Logic is a framework to conceptual language. It is possible that the foundation of that language does not reflect true reality. To paraphrase Einstein: 'as far as concepts refer to reality, they are uncertain, as far as they are certain they don't refer to reality.'
I believe the law of the excluded middle is not necessarily true in every case. I don't see any reason why it ought be necessary, but I'm willing to change my mind if I come across the right argumentation.
In that case we are using a different definition for logic here. When I refer to logic, I'm refering to the necessary facts of existence. Things which cannot be not true and which are true in every possible way reality could have been. And laws of logic would be descriptions of those necessary facts.
"It is possible that the foundation of that language does not reflect true reality."
Wittgenstein wrote: The limits of my language means the limits of my world. The problem isn't that language doesn't reflect 'true reality', it's your misuse and wordplay on 'true reality'. This is the true reality; there is none other.
After thinking about it for another moment, I see what you mean by transparency, if memory serves, there was a theoretic model in QM that incorporated the idea that superposition wasn't actual (in the same fashion as your video depicts).
If I remember the name of the model I'll throw it your way, but I'm going on a hunch that you're already aware of this?
Still, I see both models (the one that adheres to and the one that rejects the law of the excluded middle) as valid modes of perception.
From what I've read – No. This has been Tested for (EPR has been experimentally checked) – i.e. the state has not been determined yet - its not a case of we just can't see exactly/clearly which state the quantum system is in - it just isn't in 'a state' - its in a 'mixture' of states - which at the macro size seems absurd but this is how reality really seems to work at the smallest levels.
Artifactorfiction 6 months ago
My understanding of quantum superposition is that as the size of the particle increases the wave function decreases, meaning that it has fewer options for superposition.
it sounds like seeing quantum particles is akin to seeing a very low resolution picture. Nothing has a defined edge and its all kinda blurry and hazy and you can't be sure where something actually is, especially very small items in the picture, but once observed it becomes higher res.
vesman81 1 year ago
The point of Schrödinger’s cat is to demonstrate the disjunction between the macroscopic world and the quantum world. In the quantum world phenomena require that two, several or many states co-exist, not merely that there is only one state really and we just can’t see it. Your thought experiment is essentially denying the validity of quantum mechanics.
herbiepop 1 year ago
"In the quantum world phenomena require that two, several or many states co-exist"
Then we would have to adjust our understanding of quantum mechanics, since that would break the third law of logic. Thats pretty much the point. Therefore I proposed an alternative explanation. If superpositions are impossible, then their existence must in fact be merely apparent but not factual. The coin was to demonstrate how such a contradiction could be explained.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore The contradiction cannot be explained in the way that you have put forward. Phenomena on a quantum scale quantum require superimposed inseparable states. Your thought experiment is merely saying that such states 'in reality' do not exist. These co-existent states have been confirmed in many ways since Schrodinger, they are used in modern technology, they give the most accurate predictions in physics through QED and QCD. I don't think that you quite understand the paradox.
herbiepop 1 year ago
@herbiepop
You're missing the point, it doesnt matter how great the experiment results are. Thats all fine. The problem is explaining how these co-existents states are even POSSIBLE in the first place. So why is an epistemic problem so far fetched? You cant really rule that out and its infinitely more justified than saying that a law of logic is in fact broken.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore No I think that you are missing the point. If your thought experiment were truly analogous to reality quantum mechanics couldn't work. You make the mistake common to the non-physicist of thinking that your macroscopic conscious experience must be a dominant paradigm. It is the nature of quantum mechanics that standard logic does not apply.
herbiepop 1 year ago
@Herbiepop
"you make the mistake common to the non-physicist of thinking that your macroscopic conscious experience must be a dominant paradigm"
No the laws of logic would be the paradigm to any question. The laws of logic are necessarily true facts of existence and therefore cannot be broken by definition, no matter what scale. So if any experiment in any field would come to the conclusion that square circles could exist, the experiment is wrong no matter how well it works or how useful it is
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore 'The laws of logic' have been derived from man's observation of the macroscopic realm. They are not universal and cannot define themselves as necessarily true. They do not hold in dreams for example. Your claim that they must hold in the quantum realm is merely an assumption. I recommend that you get a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman's 'QED The strange theory of light and matter' is an excellent introduction for the layman.
herbiepop 1 year ago
@herbiepop
"The laws of logic' have been derived from man's observation of the macroscopic realm."
They are not, they are simply formulations of axioms, statements which are necesarily true since the their truth need to be assumed even when trying to deny them. The law of identity for example justifies itself since if A is not A.... its not A to begin with. An entity cannot be anything other than itself. This has zero to do with observation. They are necessary truths
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@herbiepop
"They do not hold in dreams for example."
yes they do, square circles cannot exist in dreams either. Dreams may be very weird but cannot defy logic itself. I dare you to come up with an example.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore 'Dare' is a curious emotional response when having a discussion. However, I can 'dream' of both being a thing and not being for example. I can dream of being simultaneously a wave and a particle for example with contradictory properties or that I am both a butterfly and a man. You are merely asserting that the 'laws of logic' are universal you cannot 'prove' it. You assume the 'laws of logic' as an axiom. They do not necessarily apply to the world of experience.
herbiepop 1 year ago
@herbiepop
I'm dutch so maybe dare was the wrong word. But no you cant dream of being both a butterfly and a man, at least not at once, or else it would be a mix. But not 100% man 100% butterfly at the exact same time.
"You are merely asserting that the 'laws of logic' are universal you cannot 'prove' it."
They prove themselves, thats what an axiom is. A fact which automatically has to be assumed even when trying to negate it. no assumptions here
So you think there are no necessary facts?
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore As axioms they are merely statements that cannot be proven and yet you continue to assert that they are fundamentally true. This is merely an assertion on your part. Correct there are no 'necessary facts' that apply to the real world.
herbiepop 1 year ago
"Correct there are no 'necessary facts' that apply to the real world. "
So this statement is necessarily true either?
Is it necessarily true that ANY statement is true?
Is it possible that literally nothing exists?
Could it be true that no statement including this one, is true?
Is it possible that there are no possibilities?
Could it be true that you don't exist from your own perspective?
there are obviously necessary truths. You are arguing with logic itself... using logic
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore No there are no necessary facts, including this one, i.e. it is a fact but not necessary. I am using logic, not to argue with the validity of logic but merely to accept its own limitations. Just as one may use maths to demonstrate that maths is imperfect. All of this is irrelevant to the point. You cannot demonstrate that logic necessarily applies to the real world. Quantum mechanics apparently demonstrates that it does not. That is sufficient (if not necessary).
herbiepop 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore However you thought experiment does not address Schrodinger's paradox. Until you learn more about quantum mechanics you will not be able to appreciate this. Read Feynman's book. It will only take a few hours, it's quite a slim volume. You will learn something to expand you horizons even if you don't agree with me. I would also recommend his undergraduate lectures on Physics; a bit more of an undertaking but worthwhile, even so long after they were written.
herbiepop 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore Your ‘square circle’ example is illuminating. A square circle is not a logical contradiction it is a flawed definition. Be that as it may, the concepts of circles and squares are extrapolations of real world experience but neither can exist in the real world, they are idealisations.
herbiepop 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore I don't know about your dreams but mine are filled with logical contradictions. I can be male and female at the same time. I can be in two places at once. I can be both child and man. I can perform actions without reactions. I can be large enough to reach across a table and small enough to walk under it all without transformation. I can also assert anything about my dreams without having to 'prove' it and without you being able to 'disprove' it.
herbiepop 1 year ago
@herbiepop
Since one is never under any circumstance whatsoever justified to claim that a law of logic is broken, an alternative explanation is necessary to explain what ACTUALLY takes place and makes it SEEM as if a law of logic is broken. Even if such an explanation is not found, it will have to remain an unknown. The conclusion that a law of logic is broken is by definition unjustifiable since those are the standards of all knowledge. They are necessarily true axioms after all.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
cool notion, and there's no reason to suggest that it is not a reasonable one should the conditions you suggest regarding the observasion of quantum mechanics be true.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
So its all down to our limited senses and limited functionality of our physical brains?
RentTheSpokeMan 1 year ago
If your thought experiment was how the quantum world functioned, then the double slit experiment showing a wave function result until one sets up a detector to test which slit the particle is going through would cease to work. the way that it does. The double slit experiment seems to demonstrate quite convincingly that particles behave in exactly the manner the Copenhagen Interpretation indicates.
balanceseeker 1 year ago
@balanceseeker
you mean the idea that a particle can pass in its entirety through two slits at once? I could think of numerous alternative explanations for that. An epistemic problem of both measurement and the atual "shape" of particles being the most obvious one.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore It is not only that, but the wave function vs particle function that is displayed on the board behind it. If it was simply a case of epistemic problems, then one or the other would always show. However, this is an ontic issue (i.e. that is how things actually are).
watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
I do not see how your analogy of the coin fits this experiment.
balanceseeker 1 year ago
@balanceseeker
It could still be explained by an epistemic problem, namely that the initial measurement (the interference patern) is wrong and that only when you measure the slits itself up close you see what actually happens, namely that there never was any interference patern to begin with. Other than that, it could be that the scenario with and without the measurement tool at the slit are two different scenarios and therefore have different results. Those are possible alternatives
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore
But there could be alternative explanations even if the measurement itself is correct. The particles might be able to pass through two slits at onces exactly because they are not point particles, but have a different shape which under closely measured scenarios act like point particles.
It could be that particles are 4 dimensional and therefore only appear to be in two different places from a 3D perspective.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@balanceseeker
It could even be that particles are conscious and are just fucking with the scientists. Or that the particles are controlled from beings from a different universe or something farfetched like that.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@balanceseeker
Or better yet, we could conclude that we dont understand yet what actually occurs during the double slit experiment and will have to wait until more is discovered until we can draw conclusions
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
This is very interesting..I don't have time to study the issue, but I hope you will post a follow up video to summarize the thoughts of your viewers and yourself..and hopefully reach some conclusion on the matter. ;)
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
@bdwilson1000
I probably will
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
This is VERY interesting....and something I'm going to take some time to think about.
Hereticbooks 1 year ago
Logical absolutes arent contradicted by indeterminacy because they dont claim something must be X or Y, they simple claim that something is X or NOT X.
Law of Identity- X is indeterminate(in a superposed state)
Non contradiction-Nothing can be indeterminate and not indeterminate
Excluded middle- Everything is either indeterminate or not indeterminate
Quantum indeterminacy deals with definitions. If we define something poorly, that doesn't mean we've found a problem with the logical absolutes.
FaisalLasiaf1 1 year ago 2
I didn't really watch SR or HD's videos cuz Idc about TAG, but this is an interesting thought experiment. ;)
I don't really buy into the multiverse hypothesis, so I think I would lean more towards your explanation. But quantum physics is pretty damn wacky, so who knows?
jcrebel18 1 year ago
That is quite an interesting thought experiment, I must say. In addition, I think you described the implications of my thought experiment better, or at the very least more concise, than I did. Bravo.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
I've asked myself this question before and like you, I find the explanation that this is merely an epistemic problem more appealing. But then I'm a layperson. I have in fact recently asked a physicist whether there is good reason to believe that the quantum world is indeed probabilistic rather than deterministic (as that seems to be the majority opinion), but as of now I'm still waiting for a reply.
thalamay 1 year ago
@thalamay
Well, this doesnt actually have anything to do with the quantum world being probabilistic or deterministic. Both are at least straightfoward possibilities. Whether or not the quantum world is probabilistic or deterministic, neither case would violate any law of logic. Yet in the case of superpositions, if they are real a law of logic would be violated. So in that case we should believe that there is some epistemic problem going on, in my opinion.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore Superpositions are one interpretative result of a probabilistic quantum world, are they not? "The atom has a 50% chance of being decayed bay now, so until we look, we interpret it as being in a superposition."
If the quantum world was deterministic, the atom would either be decayed or not, leaving no room for superpositions.
Or is that a wrong reading of quantum mechanics?
thalamay 1 year ago
@thalamay
"Superpositions are one interpretative result of a probabilistic quantum world, are they not? "The atom has a 50% chance of being decayed bay now, so until we look, we interpret it as being in a superposition."
Its weirder than that, a superposition isnt merely a interpretation but the idea that there truly is no fact of the matter in which of the two states the particle is. Its simultaneously in both states at the same time.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
Are you suggesting 'hidden variables'. I think Bell's inequality dealt with that. In addition, I don't see how this relates to other issues, 2 slit and reflection for instance.
hilbert54 1 year ago
@hilbert54
I'm suggesting any unknown factor which could give the mere appearance of superpositions when none actually occurs. The exact example I used here may not fit the 2 slit experiment, but the point is the same. I could also think of an alternative scenario to the slit experiment. Just because a particle may appear to be at two place at once, that doesnt mean it actually is, no matter how well it may fit the data.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore
>Just because a particle may appear to be at two place at once, that doesnt mean it actually is, no matter how well it may fit the data.<
Yes, no problem with that. I would be more interested in your idea re 2 slits.
hilbert54 1 year ago
I think you should have used a + and - sign on the coin seeing how by rotating the coin either side can be vertical or horizontal. The only thing is the - sign would have to be lined up with one of the lines of the + sign so that when viewed from above it always looks like a + sign. Other than that I dont think what happens at a quantum scale is only a matter of perspective its my understanding that only very small things can be in superpositions and it has to be in a very controlled setting
samirnayanajaad 1 year ago
@samirnayanajaad
"I think you should have used a + and - sign on the coin seeing how by rotating the coin either side can be vertical or horizontal."
woops, thats true, hadnt thought about that. So lets say for sake of argument that the coin doesnt get rotated.
"Other than that I dont think what happens at a quantum scale is only a matter of perspective its my understanding that only very small things can be in superpositions"
Ofcourse the question is, are superpositions even possible
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore From what little I have read (brian greene fabric of the cosmos) yes they are. What stops superpositions from occurring is the decoherence theory. "...decoherence suggests that long before you open the box the environment has already completed billions of observations that...turned all mysterious quantum probabilities into..classical counterparts." The only time superpositions occur is in experiments like the double slit where "the environment" can be tightly controlled.
samirnayanajaad 1 year ago
@samirnayanajaad
Yes but what I'm suggesting here is that actual superpositions (which I define here as an actual occurrance of 1 entity being in two opposing states at the same time) are in fact impossible and something else must be going on, just like with the glass coin. So it may appear in experiments that superpositions occur, but in fact they dont. Thats basically what I'm suggesting with this thought experiment
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore Ok I could accept something else is going on and I wouldn't expect you to be able to give a solid hypothesis as to what it may be. However given what I understand about the double slit experiment, as strange as it may be, one electron being in a superposition seems to explain the data well. We would need PHD's in mathmatics to fully understand this im gueesing but it is my understanding that this is the conclusion many in this field have come to.
samirnayanajaad 1 year ago
@samirnayanajaad
I definitely accept that this is going over our heads and I know next to nothing about mathematics and such. However, the fact that superpositions explain the data well is no excuse in my opinion. Because an unknown epistemic problem also accounts for it. It just has the undesirable effect of not being able to actually explain what IS going on, but when a law of logic is violated it would be the most justified position to simply say that we dont understand it yet.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@samirnayanajaad
Is for example the testsubject justified in believing that the coin is in two states at the same time? I would say, absolutely not. Just because an explanation of what actually was going on is available in THIS case, changes nothing in my opinion. For me, having a law of logic broken in an experiment is a big red flag that something is wrong.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore I'm glad that we both see our limited knowledge on this. In situations such as this I don't think it is a bad thing to appeal to an authority. As I said before, physics authorities have settled on superpositions as being valid (at least as Im aware admittedly I dont know a lot), and this is why I dont see your thought experiment with a lot of weight behind it. It is however, interesting.
samirnayanajaad 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore Speaking to this experiment breaking a law of logic, why do you question the experiment not the law? I dont think i can explain this sufficiently but ill try. I see logic and mathematics on much the same level of, authority. Excluded middle makes sense to me working with large things. I have no experiance with very small things, at first I would assume small things work like large things but with no way to verify its just an assumption.
samirnayanajaad 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore So when scientists use mathematics (quantum theroy is largely supported by mathematical proofs) to show small objects act very differently from large objects I see this as a good reason to drop my previous assumption that small objects behave the same as large ones. Even though this goes against excluded middle. This I know is a huge appeal to authority but I think it is justified given just how complex this is.
samirnayanajaad 1 year ago 2
@samirnayanajaad
oh en btw, its not really that important that the sides are interchangeable because you can still make a distinction since if the front is the horizontal line, the back will have to be vertical, even if you rotate it 90 degrees, it will always have one side horizontal and one side vertical
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
"Quantum transparency"
It's an interesting thought experiment, but I'll have to do a bit more research. Could this be applied to wave-particle duality?
I agree that the workings of quantum mechanics do not necessarily interfere with our system of logic (including the law of the excluded middle), but I see no reason to believe that they necessarily adhere to those laws.
Ephemerance 1 year ago
@Ephemerance
So you dont think that the laws of logic are necessarily true?
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore
Logic is a framework to conceptual language. It is possible that the foundation of that language does not reflect true reality. To paraphrase Einstein: 'as far as concepts refer to reality, they are uncertain, as far as they are certain they don't refer to reality.'
I believe the law of the excluded middle is not necessarily true in every case. I don't see any reason why it ought be necessary, but I'm willing to change my mind if I come across the right argumentation.
Ephemerance 1 year ago
@Ephemerance
"Logic is a framework to conceptual language"
In that case we are using a different definition for logic here. When I refer to logic, I'm refering to the necessary facts of existence. Things which cannot be not true and which are true in every possible way reality could have been. And laws of logic would be descriptions of those necessary facts.
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ephemerance
"It is possible that the foundation of that language does not reflect true reality."
Wittgenstein wrote: The limits of my language means the limits of my world. The problem isn't that language doesn't reflect 'true reality', it's your misuse and wordplay on 'true reality'. This is the true reality; there is none other.
stealspell 1 year ago
After thinking about it for another moment, I see what you mean by transparency, if memory serves, there was a theoretic model in QM that incorporated the idea that superposition wasn't actual (in the same fashion as your video depicts).
If I remember the name of the model I'll throw it your way, but I'm going on a hunch that you're already aware of this?
Still, I see both models (the one that adheres to and the one that rejects the law of the excluded middle) as valid modes of perception.
Ephemerance 1 year ago
@Ephemerance
"If I remember the name of the model I'll throw it your way, but I'm going on a hunch that you're already aware of this?"
No I wasnt aware of that. But I did kind of expect that I wouldnt be the first person ever who would come up with a hypothesis like this :p
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
hey this is a pretty damn interesting thought
patienceking 1 year ago