QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe?

[Victor Pross]

QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe?

by Victor Pross

The question of Quantum physics: Recently, the concept of Aristotle’s incredible philosophic triumph has been under attack: his discovery of the laws of logic. We are now told by a “unique species of subjectivists” that A can be NON-A, that the universe is not objective; it is, after all, subjective. What is it that these modern subjectivists cling to their bosom as the final refutation of those old, moldy ideas that Aristotle discovered? QUANTUM PHYSICS!

In this article, I will briefly cover the concept of objective reality with an understanding of quantum physics. I will put to rest this emotionally charged whim-ridden notion that quantum physics supports, in any measure whatsoever, the idea of a “subjective universe.”

Perhaps it is needless to say, but my position is that all mystical interpretations of quantum mechanics are invalid. How quantum physics came to be a field of science infiltrated by subjectivists and mystics in the first place is a mystery to me. But there you have it.

I also found this perplexing as well: it seems to be an undue arrogance when physicists make claims of finality in their field of study, but there you have it. There was a time when physicists liked to rejoice that all important knowledge had been discovered, and nothing remained except the details.*(1.1) But the history of science following proved this to be an unwarranted assumption.

Quantum physics is a vast advancement of rationality and science. It has delved successfully into the fundamental secrets of nature further than anyone could have dreamed. Yet, given its limitations, it surely is presumptuous to claim that its victory is complete.*(1.2)

***

Before continuing, a few preliminary remarks about the concept of an “objective reality” needs to be outlined. Let's define our terms:

Fundamental starting point---reality is objective:

The three axioms of Objectivism are: existence, consciousness, identity. Identity is associated with existence because they both treat the same phenomena (i.e. that something exists). The concept of existence includes identity.

The two basic concepts are therefore existence and consciousness. The relationship that we attribute them is at the base of our view of reality. Whenever we attribute primacy to existence or consciousness shapes how we view epistemology and thus everything else.**(2.1)

The basic opposing concept of "objective reality" is the “primacy of existence” over consciousness. This is: consciousness exists and is therefore subject to existence, and thus identity**(2.2)--NOT the other way around. Existence comes first. Things are what they are independent of consciousness—anyone’s perceptions, feelings or wishes.***(3.1) Facts are facts.

The definition of consciousness is: "Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists". Consciousness, like any other entity, exists, or it would not be able to perceive. If consciousness exists, then it has to be subject to identity: otherwise it would be nothing in particular, which is the same as non-existence.

This is what is meant by "primacy of existence" over consciousness. Consciousness exists, thus consciousness has to reside in the realm of existence, and not the contrary.**(2.3) ["A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something"-Ayn Rand.] NOTE FROM MSK: The Rand quote is from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.

The opposing view is the “primacy of consciousness”: consciousness creates existence. This means that the mind creates matter, that the person has power over existence. Existence resides in the realm of consciousness, and is molded by it.**(2.4) This is the popular mode of “thought” among mystics and religionists and every other sundry subjectivist.

With this type of approach, consciousness cannot exist, since it is beyond existence. This leads to the view that the mind is not material, but in a state of non-existence (like the immaterial souls or the undetermined mind).

To what kind of vision of epistemology do both these beliefs lead?

Objective reality, which is based on the primacy of existence, leads to the search of truth and existence with the use of perception and reality. This is examining the exterior world as reality and guide to reality.

A concrete representation of this viewpoint is science, where the notions of hypothesis, experimentation and rejection of a hypothesis, if necessary, are acknowledgment of an objective reality that must be explored with our senses.**(2.5)

The key tenets of the Objectivist metaphysics are captured in three propositions:

*Existence exists.

*Existence is identity.

*Consciousness exists.

*Consciousness is identification.****(4)

The question to ask: does the above support or contradict the findings in Quanta physics?

An understanding of what Quanta physics is will answer the question.

Now, having said that, let’s move on to the question

of Quanta:

The claim is made that quantum phenomena have no definite values until they are observed, with the implication that the act of observation creates those values. The further implication argued by subjectivists is that objective reality is an illusion, and that “consciousness is primary.”

This is an extraordinary lapse of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured---they have indefinite values which become definite when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary--not primary.

Consider one quantum stance: the wave-particle duality of matter and energy. There is no doubt that light, for example, propagates as a wave but carries energy as particles called photons. Even if a light source is so dim that only one photon is traveling at a time, the light still produces wave diffraction patterns when split into two paths! Now, does anyone dispute that light falling on plants on a deserted island has gone there as a wave, yet is absorbed by the leaves as photons? I suppose some people clinging to subjectivism might dispute it, but quantum physics in no way supports them.

It is not observation---nor the cognizance of consciousness, which "collapses" quantum states (as in the "collapsing" of a light wave into a photon). It is the simple, 'mindless' interactions of matter and energy. Quanta act this way not by our permission, but because that is what they are: they are things whose nature is to travel as waves but be absorbed as particles, to have no fixed states until an appropriate interaction occurs. Throughout space and time, that is what they are doing, quantum states and "probability waves" collapsing willy-nilly every time energy is exchanged. They behave no differently when we observe them doing so, or when we don't. Otherwise the universe would fall apart!*(1.3)

As human beings with brains geared to our scale of things, we find it mind-bending to try to grasp how quanta can behave so, to visualize what they are. We have the same problem with things on the relativistic scale, for the same reason. But these are problems of visualization, not understanding: though their physical reality is extremely strange from our perspective, it remains an objective one, not a subjective one. And we can know it, measure it and use it.*(1.4)

Reality: subjective or objective?

There nothing within the study Quantum physics to support the idea of a subjective universe—that is, a “primacy of consciousness” orientation. There is no leap in logic to connect the two. Quantum physics has been developed by the scientific method, by the interplay of observations, hypotheses and experiments. It has achieved extraordinary success, and revealed a picture of a quantum reality so bizarre that our minds are unable to grasp it fully.*(1.5) THIS, however, is not an escape latch to a mystical or subjective universe whereby “mind” controls and creates reality.

Conclusion:

We have a new species of subjectivists who have been weaned on old fashioned religious ideas and too many repeat viewings of Matrix movies—all sprinkled with osmosis dabs of our Kantian culture.

What we have today is a continuing trend of subjectivist cry-babies who just can’t abide the FACT of a cold, hard, objective reality against which false beliefs and wishful thinking have no effects.

What quantum physics reveals is not a subjective universe somehow dependent on consciousness. What it reveals is that quanta behave in ways quite bizarre to our thinking: propagating as waves but being absorbed as particles, having no fixed states until they interact with other quanta. They always act thus, because that is their nature...and sometimes, we happen to observe it. And what quantum physics demonstrates is that reality is so uncompromisingly objective that, by testing our ideas against it, we can arrive at the truth no matter how strange or alien to our minds and preconceptions it may be.*(1.6)

The Objectivist position of existence is that no alternative to the fact of reality is possible or imaginable. All facts are necessary. In Ayn Rand’s words, the metaphysically given is ABSOLUTE.***(3.2) A is A. Facts are facts. Existence exists.

***

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

Plagiary first identified here.

* Plagiarized from Subjectivism, Reality, and Quantum Physics by Robin Craig. The original passages read as follows:

(1.1)

Beware of physicists bearing claims of finality. It seems to be an occupational habit. In the 19th century, physicists liked to gloat that all important knowledge had been discovered, and nothing remained except to dot the i's and cross the t's!

(1.2)

I regard quantum physics as one of the great achievements of rationality and science. It has delved successfully into the fundamental secrets of nature further than anyone could have dreamed. Yet, given its limitations, it surely is presumptuous to claim that its victory is complete.

(1.3)

The claim is made, based on Heisenberg's Uncertaintly Principle*, that quantum phenomena have no definite values until they are observed, with the implication that the act of observation creates those values. The further implication argued by subjectivists is that objective reality is an illusion, and that consciousness is primary.

Such claims betray a remarkable failure of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured. They have indefinite values which become definite

when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta

. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary, not primary.

Consider one quantum queerness: the wave-particle duality of matter and energy. There is no doubt that light, for example, propagates as a wave but carries energy as particles called photons. Even if a light source is so dim that only one photon is travelling at a time, the light still produces wave diffraction patterns when split into two paths! Now, does anyone dispute that light falling on plants on a deserted island has gone there as a wave, yet is absorbed by the leaves as photons? I suppose some people clinging to subjectivism might dispute it, but quantum physics in no way supports them. Nor does the existence of trees on deserted islands!

It is not the act of observation, nor the cognizance of consciousness, which "collapses" quantum states (as in the "collapsing" of a light wave into a photon). It is the simple, mindless interactions of matter and energy. Quanta act this way not by our permission, but because

that is what they are: they are things whose nature is to travel as waves but be absorbed as particles

, to have no fixed states until an appropriate interaction occurs. Throughout space and time, that is what they are doing, quantum states and "probability waves" collapsing willy-nilly every time energy is exchanged. They behave no differently when we observe them doing so, or when we don't. Otherwise the universe would fall apart!

(1.4)

As human beings with brains geared to our scale of things, we find it mind-bending to try to grasp how quanta can behave so, to visualize what they are. We have the same problem with things on the relativistic scale, for the same reason. But these are problems of visualization, not understanding: though their physical reality is extremely strange from our perspective, it remains an objective one, not a subjective one. And we can know it, measure it and use it.

(1.5)

Quantum physics has been developed by the scientific method, by the interplay of observations, hypotheses and experiments: by creativity tested with facts. It has achieved remarkable success, and revealed a picture of a quantum reality so bizarre that our minds are unable to grasp it fully.

(1.6)

No, what quantum physics reveals is not a subjective universe somehow dependent on consciousness. What it reveals is that quanta behave in ways quite bizarre to our thinking: propagating as waves but being absorbed as particles, having no fixed states until they interact with other quanta. They always act thus, because that is their nature: and sometimes, we happen to observe it. And what quantum physics demonstrates is that reality is so uncompromisingly

objective

that, by testing our ideas against it, we can arrive at the truth no matter how strange or alien to our minds and preconceptions it may be.

** Plagiarized from Objective reality by Francois Tremblay. The original passages read as follows:

(2.1)

What does it mean to say that reality is objective ?

The three axioms of Objectivism are : existence, consciousness, identity. Identity is associated with existence because they both treat the same phenomena (i.e. that something exists). The concept of existence includes identity.

The two basic concepts are therefore existence and consciousness. The relationship that we attribute them is at the base of our view of reality. Whenever we attribute primacy to existence or consciousness shapes how we view epistemology and thus everything else.

(2.2)

This is, that consciousness exists and is therefore subject to existence, and thus identity.

(2.3)

The definition of consciousness is : "Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists". Consciousness, like any other entity, exists, or it would not be able to perceive.

If consciousness exists, then it has to be subject to identity : otherwise it would be nothing in particular, which is the same as non-existence.

This is what is meant by "primacy of existence" over consciousness. Consciousness exists, thus consciousness has to reside in the realm of existence, and not the contrary.

(2.4)

The opposing view is the primacy of consciousness : consciousness creates existence. This means that the mind creates matter, that the person has power over existence.

Existence resides in the realm of consciousness, and is molded by it.

(2.5)

Consciousness cannot therefore exist, since it is beyond existence. This leads to the view that the mind is not material, but in a state of non-existence (like the immaterial souls or the undetermined mind).

To what kind of vision of epistemology do both these beliefs lead ?

Objective reality, which is based on the primacy of existence, leads to the search of truth and existence with the use of perception and reality. This is examining the exterior world as reality and guide to reality.

A concrete representation of this viewpoint is science, where the notions of hypothesis, experimentation and rejection of hypothesis if necessary, are acknowledgment of an objective reality that must be explored with our senses.

*** Plagiarized from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. The original passages read as follows:

(3.1) (p. 18)

Existence, this principle declares, comes first. Things are what they are independent of consciousness—of anyone's perceptions, images, ideas, feelings.

(3.2) (p. 23)

The Objectivist view of existence culminates in the principle that no alternative to a fact of reality is possible or imaginable. All such facts are necessary. In Ayn Rand's words, the metaphysically given is

absolute

.

**** Copied from Objectivist philosophy - Objectivist principles formerly on Wikipedia and now at several points on the Internet. The original passage reads as follows:

(4)

The key tenets of the Objectivist metaphysics are captured in three propositions:

* Existence exists.

* Existence is Identity.

* Consciousness is Identification.

(Note from MSK: The original material for (4) is in the public domain, but the text was used as if it were original writing. Within the present context of a large quantity of plagiarisms, mention was deemed merited.)

OL extends its deepest apologies to Robin Craig, Francois Tremblay and Leonard Peikoff.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Paul Mawdsley]

Victor,

A number of thoughts have been stirred in my mind by your post. Time restraints stop me from

getting too involved. There is one overriding judgement that I wanted to express. I have been

questioning whether or not it is appropriate to call myself an Objectivist-- renegade or otherwise.

There is much that is said and done under the flag of Objectivism that is so very against my view.

The treatment of Dragonfly, Jonathan, and Ellen on RoR is one such example. Your post above is

another.

Objectivism is defined not only by what it is but, also, by what it isn't. Objectivists like to assert

what perspectives of reality are unimportant and should be morally condemned. This appears to be

what you are doing in your assessments of the "undue arrogance" of physicists. Is there undue

arrogance in the field of physics? I'm sure there is. But your post is overflowing with traditional

Objectivist arrogance. You are looking at the world through a particularly narrow version of an

Objectivist lens, using only narrowly Objectivist language, and make narrow Objectivist

pronouncements on the value of other perspectives. The specific aim seems to be at devaluing

other perspectives rather than understanding and evaluating them against an objective standard–

e.g.: the evidence integrated by reason.

It is the devaluing of other perspectives, which seems to be so entwined with the Objectivist

tradition (which goes back to Rand herself), that makes me cringe at the thought of calling myself

an Objectivist. Labeling a group of individuals as "subjectivists and mystics" has only one

purpose: to devalue their perspective so the information about reality they symbolize can be

ignored. I refuse to accept Objectivist dogma and devalue information sources simply because they

do not have Objectivist approval. Does this make me not an Objectivist? I don't know. I do know

that my perspective must include an integration of perspectives Rand said we should disvalue.

I too have my disagreements with the orthodox view of quantum physics but I do not assume

possible errors are the result of evil thinking. Most times errors are due to honest mistakes in

judgement. Instead, I prefer to look for the underlying causes of possible mistakes in judgement and

try to untangle the reality that lies beneath. I often find those considered evil by orthodox

Objectivism have angles that can provide valuable insights into the nature of reality. Physicists

who accept the Copenhagen interpretation are one such group.

An interesting point to note is that it can be considered an extreme act of objectivity that has led to

the Copenhagen interpretation of Heizenberg's uncertainty principle. If we assume we cannot say

anything about reality without the evidence on which to base and support our claims, and there is a

point beyond which we are physically unable to observe events, it is the height of objectivity to

accept that reality contains an element of randomness at its root. It is a similar height to that of

Einstein accepting that time and space must be relative. Rather than pointing to physicists and

saying they are "subjectivists and mystics," we should be holding them up as the epitome of

objectivity. They have refused to apply subjectivity to go beyond the objective evidence. This has

led them to conclude that causality is illusion at the quantum level despite how this conflicts with

their intuitions about the world. My argument would be that they are not being subjective enough.

Go figure, eh!

Paul

Edited August 19, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

You are an Objectivist in my mind. Don't let self-proclaimed spokespeople for Objectivism wrench the name from you by the loudness of their speech. Many speak for Objectivism. What is important is the content of their ideas. Loud voices without content always disappear down the black hole of history. Your small quiet voice has more content about the principles of causality than most everything I have read so far.

Victor,

You made some amazing claims about people who work with quantum physics. You also say you will "put to rest" their notions. Here is a sample:

Recently, the concept of Aristotle’s incredible philosophic triumph has been under attack: his discovery of the laws of logic. We are now told by a “unique species of subjectivists” that A can be NON-A, that the universe is not objective; it is, after all, subjective.

(...)

I will put to rest this emotionally charged whim-ridden notion that quantum physics supports, in any measure whatsoever, the idea of a “subjective universe.”

(...)

There was a time when physicists liked to rejoice that all important knowledge had been discovered, and nothing remained except the details.

(...)

The claim is made that quantum phenomena have no definite values until they are observed, with the implication that the act of observation creates those values.

The further implication argued by subjectivists is that objective reality is an illusion, and that “consciousness is primary.”

(...)

The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame.

(...)

We have a new species of subjectivists who have been weaned on old fashioned religious ideas and too many repeat viewings of Matrix movies—all sprinkled with osmosis dabs of our Kantian culture.

What we have today is a continuing trend of subjectivist cry-babies who just can’t abide the FACT of a cold, hard, objective reality against which false beliefs and wishful thinking have no effects.

That should do for a start. Do you have any examples, quotes, names, etc.? I can't help it, but I am most intrigued by the idea of a cry-baby quantum physicist and how you have managed to put that cry-baby to rest.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

I love physics. I was a teen-age nerd, you know. That was way before I became the cool cat artist I am today. Aside from samples, is there anything you specifically contest in this post? Any questions? Where did I go wrong?

Oh, when I said “cry-babies”—I don’t necessarily mean all the professional scientists, but some. Also, I knew some fellow nerdy intellectual types who made it a point to use this field to support the belief in that good ol’ first cause—God---and were not against Aristotelian logic. [some were, mind you].

Don’t you meet these creatures, M? Ever?

Edited August 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Hi Paul,

You wrote: “I too have my disagreements with the orthodox view of quantum physics but I do not assume

possible errors are the result of evil thinking. Most times errors are due to honest mistakes in

judgement.”

I agree. There are honest errors. And then sometimes---not. Purposeful distortion and evasion on a grand scale is a fact. There is such a thing as evil.

You also write: “It is the devaluing of other perspectives, which seems to be so entwined with the Objectivist

tradition (which goes back to Rand herself), that makes me cringe at the thought of calling myself

an Objectivist. Labeling a group of individuals as "subjectivists and mystics" has only one

purpose: to devalue their perspective so the information about reality they symbolize can be

ignored. I refuse to accept Objectivist dogma and devalue information sources simply because they

do not have Objectivist approval. Does this make me not an Objectivist? I don't know. I do know

that my perspective must include an integration of perspectives Rand said we should disvalue.”

I’m not an egalitarian of knowledge. I don’t consider all claims worthy of consideration or of equal value. Truth and fact is the focus. Now I’m not saying you are pinning this big E tag on me, but I don’t care if some perspective has ‘Objectivist approval”---there’s a flat out slap-in-the-face as to what Objectivism stands for. You make Objectivism sound like just another brand of subjectivism. Really, who is the final authority in knowledge? Reality and the independent mind engaged in discovering it. You know what I mean.

You know, some perspectives deserve to be disvalued---either out-of-hand or after careful examination. It depends on the perspective. God is one of them. Off to the trash-heap it goes.

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I am going to give you a writer's critique on your question to me (where did you go wrong?).

I know very little about quantum physics. Someday I hope to research this, but for now, my level of knowledge is pretty primary. I think some of the stuff I have read in the popular media is kinda cool and that's about it. Well, maybe I know a bit more, but that's essentially my level as a reader.

Now the point of your article was to denounce a whole class of intellectuals as subjectivists, whim worshipers and whatnot. I have no way of judging "some people." I certainly have no crystal ball to be able to look into your head to see who you are talking about. I depend on what I read for that.

Look at Ayn Rand's essays when she went into denounce mode. She practically always provided a representative example with quotations. (Still, she could cut her own monkey-shines. For example, she once dismissed the entire field of choreography as "all but extinct" in "Art and Cognition" in The Romantic Manifesto without a single example.)

So you tell me that there is a bunch of whim-worshipping subjectivists running rampant out there and you are going to "lay to rest" all their irrational notions about quantum physics. But you don't tell me who they are. I even have to take your word for it that they said all those dastardly things you mentioned, too.

From what I have read in the popular media, I certainly have not heard of any such people among the quantum physics scientists. Some are religious, that's true. But they always come across as extremely objective and rational in discussing their work. Dragonfly here on OL once mentioned a whole slew of benefits we now enjoy because of quantum physics and the different theories behind it, including the computers we are now using.

I judge your article as more of a rant, and a very subjective one at that. It certainly did not convince me to hate anybody because I don't know who I am supposed to hate yet.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

Your writer's critique was helpful, thank you.

I’m not trashing the discoveries of QM. The reason QM is unfinished, as I said, is that physics and informatics are divided disciplines and so people trained as physicists fail to account for information [and for situations] in which information is extracted by “measurement” from a physical system. This is because, I suspect, they just don't think of information as real in the same sense that matter is real. This is an example of compartmentalization in science. It is an epistemological short-coming, and these scientists would benefit greatly from Rand’s work in epistemology. It would be revolutionary!! There is so much that could be said on this matter and with Objectivist epistemology...such as the complexity theory and emergence. The whole concern of "scientific realism" hinges on the ontic/epistemic divide with respect to reduction, bringing us back to the mind-body problem...further complicating the reductionism issue is the question of direct vs. indirect realism! After all, Objectivist ontology--existence is identity; information, having identity is real! Unfortunately, even physicists who are self-described “REALISTS” often fail to observe, in explicit terms, the very methodology they practice, and so they confine their application of deduction in physics to criticism of current interpretations---focusing on the current debates about the nature of the building blocks of “matter.”

V

Edited August 20, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Now here's the critique of the country bumpkin to all your criticism about how quantum physics scientists get reality all wrong:

From all the complicated stuff they build, they sure are getting something right. Doesn't sound like a pack of whim-worshippers at all.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I’m not trashing the discoveries of QM. The reason QM is unfinished, as I said, is that physics and informatics are divided disciplines and so people trained as physicists fail to account for information [and for situations] in which information is extracted by “measurement” from a physical system. This is because, I suspect, they just don't think of information as real in the same sense that matter is real. This is an example of compartmentalization in science.

I don't know where you got that strange notion; it's complete nonsense, whole libraries have been written about information and physics.

It is an epistemological short-coming, and these scientists would benefit greatly from Rand’s work in epistemology. It would be revolutionary!!

Rand's work on epistemology is completely useless to scientists; the latter know much better what the real problems are, which can't be solved from an armchair in an ivory tower.

[Victor Pross]

Ah, another critic. I'll post later and try to clear up some things. Anything else you wanna blast me for?

[Dragonfly]

I was pleasantly surprised by Ed Hudgins' post on RoR. At last a prominent Objectivist who isn't ranting about the "corrupt philosophies" of scientists. He surely must be despised now by the orthodox faction.

[vanvlietart]

"This is an extraordinary lapse of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured---they have indefinite values which become definite when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary--not primary."

I am new here, so bear with me if you will.

When I started painting and dealing with oil colors, I believed that color was absolute, but artists would tell me that it is relative (subjective). My brain told me a subject was wearing a white shirt, thus I wanted to paint it white. My work suffered immensely because what an observer sees is almost everything but pure white yet Our indoctrination has informed our mind to judge it white. With my simple understanding of objectivism I recoiled that my senses could be deceived. However, this is my current understanding and it came to mind from the above quote from Victor.

Color as we know it is a relationship subject to an interplay of several elements: The object observed, the observers eye and interpretation by his mind (some see red others blue), light and atmosphere between the object and observer. Sometimes (certain conditions, interplay) we may say the object is blue, then the light chances and now it is red, or in the case of a chameleon the object changes, or fog roll in and changes our observation, or we take a hit of acid and our interpretation changes. What does not change is the nature and identity of any of the elements interplaying.

When quantum theory states that quanta change due to observation, perhaps they do. Does that change their nature? Does that mean that reality is subjective and not objective. I don't think so. To me that is like saying a red object nature is changed because through interplay with an observer it now measures blue. Certainly by our language of measurement it is now blue, but that just instructs us as to its nature.

I certainly think that ones pre-disposition to philosophy influences many scientists pronouncements on the nature of the universe and nowhere as it does in Quantum Physics.

A brilliant friend of mind PhD Nuclear Physicist turn Evangelical Preacher, gave up on science because Quantum Theory instructed him that Man really at the end of the day can know nothing, because the world is all a massive illusion wielded by the Master Magician.

Again, please use patience with me if you can. I hope that this reply adds something useful to this discussion.

Edited August 20, 2006 by vanvlietart

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is this thread what happens when painters talk about quantum physics?

Michael

[vanvlietart]

Is this thread what happens when painters talk about quantum physics?

Michael

Well at least you can still smile. Perhaps we can not understand or see the world until we paint it.

Edited August 20, 2006 by vanvlietart

[Victor Pross]

"Well at least you can still smile. Perhaps we can not understand or see the world until we paint it. "

I'm with you on that, brother. Paint it, and exaggerate it.

Edited August 20, 2006 by Victor Pross

[bmacwilliam]

When quantum theory states that quanta change due to observation, perhaps they do. Does that change their nature? Does that mean that reality is subjective and not objective. I don't think so.

The exact experiment escapes me at the moment, but there's evidence to suggest that an outcome of an experiment can depend on whether or not ONLY the possibility of observation exits, not whether it is observed or not. QM has deep, strange, and other not-too-well-understood (at least by me) implications.

I have a background in physics and it makes my head ache. Although I must say there's a certain value in doing the math (literally). When I read the text-only versions of QM in popular books I wonder how totally whacky it must appear to the non-physicist. The math helps one understand a little better I'd say, but it's tough to put into words.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Here's another in the "wacky" column. Forgive me (and correct me) if my physics is rusty - it's been a while.

According to QM, an electron exists as a "probability distribution" around a nucleus. This is not like a 'normal' orbit - there's nothing round or spherical here. Think of a three-dimensional "figure 8" as an example. There is a non-zero probability of the electron existing anywhere in either lobe, but a zero probablility of it existing at the centre. That totally doesn't make sense. How can it be on either side of the bridge (and go to the other side freely) but can never actually cross the bridge?

Or a better question is: What is it that it can do this?

The lesson here is that I think it's a big mistake to assume macroscopic intuition is reliable. To assert anything is true microscopically based on macroscopic evidence (or axioms and deductions for that matter) is questionable.

Edit: To be more clear, intuition is not immutable. We can learn new truths and our intuition can grow and improve. Special relativity was just amazing, personally, for me in this regard. At first it doesn't make sense, but eventually it does and it's a moment of intellectual growth. A simpler example is Aristotelian vs Newtonian ideas of motion. What if Aristotle had got it right?

Bob

Edited August 21, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey Bob,

Welcome aboard! I hope you like it here in Objectivist civility-land.

I agree with most of what you said. On the fundamental axioms, though, I have a small comment. You will agree with me that electrons and so forth exist? If they don't exist, what are we talking about?

I have had this discussion with Dragonfly before. Too many online Objectivists use the fundamental axioms for more than they are supposed to be used. As he says, they wave "A is A" around as if it were a magic wand that explains everything. Unfortunately, this, together with a lot of obnoxiousness, pushes independent minds into a defense posture and I see many go too far the other way because of it. Some even start denying the fundamental axioms altogether.

An axiom, at the bottom, does not delimit reality. Our consciousness is only a part of reality, which is infinitely bigger and more complex than we are. This is where both sides usually get it wrong when they go into attack mode. Axioms merely validate our cognitive faculty as being a proper tool of understanding the universe. They identify a quality that is observed by human beings in everything they behold and sense. They establish a link between "out there" and "in here."

It is proper to use a fundamental axiom even with complex scientific knowledge. It won't get you very far, but it still will be observable - and necessary for the rest. For instance, it is correct to say that relativity exists. That doesn't let you understand very much about Einstein, but if you claim that relativity doesn't exist, you can't examine it. You can postulate that it doesn't exist to test it, but even then, you also have to postulate that it does exist for the testing. If you use the laws of relativity for anything practical like, say, making an atomic bomb, you must accept that those laws - and the phenomena they explain - exist. You can't build anything out of nothing. No exist, no boom.

Axioms are merely a starting point. Nothing more. I do wish more online Objectivists would understand this, especially the arrogant ones.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Hey Bob,

Welcome aboard! I hope you like it here in Objectivist civility-land.

I have had this discussion with Dragonfly before. Too many online Objectivists use the fundamental axioms for more than they are supposed to be used.

Michael

Yes, I agree with this. Also, I have seen argued that the law of causality follows directly from the law of identity. I do not accept this at this point.

Also, I have a hard time understanding how the law of identity has any real meaning at all. Since there is no restrictions on what something could be, there is nothing that something cannot be - know what I mean. If something can be anything other than what it's not, then I don't see how that's any different than saying "Something can be anything" and I get no meaning out of it.

Bob

Edited August 21, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

On identity, what is not being addressed is a delimitation of reality. What is being addressed is that we observes that all things have a separate singular essence that we can examine, being that this essence cannot contradict itself (for example exist and and not exist at the same time) without invalidating our reason. Causality merely states that we observe that things have particular aspects that behave in specific manners, thus they can be studied.

Nothing more.

Neither of these axioms puts a limit on what makes up the thing or how many aspects it has or even whether our sense limitations have led us to wrong conclusions about it. On the contrary, these axioms are merely observations about what exists by a mind that also exists - and these observations are available to all healthy cognitive minds.

(Like I said, I wish more Objectivist "preachers" understood this. Then they might fling their pronouncements around with much less arrogance.)

One of the most intelligent things I have ever heard about those two axioms was written by David Kelley. See my post here for the quote.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Thanks Michael,

I do think I essentially understand the assertion(s). Understanding, however, does not bring me into agreement. Something is not sitting well with me. I will try to explain, but am having trouble right now not coming off sounding like a hardcore skeptic. Since I am indeed not a skeptic in this way, I'll need to chew on this a bit more until I can describe my hesitations accurately.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

That sounds wonderful.

Here's another little tidbit to chew on. One of the reasons Rand put so much negative emotional fuel in stating things like "A is A" in Atlas Shrugged was that she was trying to get at faith at the root - especially a dogmatic type Christianity that permeated the culture she lived in all her life (here and in Russia).

What do you say to a person who tells you that there are two realities, but you have to deny the only one you know in order to access the other? Then you see decisions in the one you know - decisions involving guns and killing your folks and stuff like that - being made by people who say they did it because they received knowledge from the other "reality"?

She was simply trying to get people to see the obvious. But our dear Internet gladiators want to relive Rand's glory days when people actually did think things like a literal war could be won by divine intervention and prayer (or "universal brotherhood" or whatever), and without guns or killing people.

Nowadays this view is marginalized and most everybody accepts the axioms because of the tremendous advances in communications and technology. for instance, very few people would try to make a computer work by prayer alone and without electricity. Even when they posit things like an afterlife, they no longer claim you have to deny this one in order to access it. They now try to furnish proof and methods in this one.

Frankly, fundamental axioms are so obvious today they are boring. Only our loudmouthed friends use them rhetorically anymore.

(I have read some of your remarks about intuition. I am not using "faith" here in that manner. I am using it as a specific denial of what your reason tells you because of a "higher" knowledge. There is a big difference in adding to something under appropriate circumstances and denying it outright - another subtle difference our warriors often miss.)

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Hi Bob, welcome on this forum; here you won't be immediately burned at the stake if you have some disagreements with Objectivist theory, there are more heretics here.

Yes, I agree with this. Also, I have seen argued that the law of causality follows directly from the law of identity. I do not accept this at this point.

Also, I have a hard time understanding how the law of identity has any real meaning at all. Since there is no restrictions on what something could be, there is nothing that something cannot be - know what I mean. If something can be anything other than what it's not, then I don't see how that's any different than saying "Something can be anything" and I get no meaning out of it.

I agree. The Objectivist formulation of the law of causality (is there anyone else who uses this particular formulation?) is equally devoid of meaning: "a thing must act in accordance with its nature". That doesn't say anything about what "its nature" is. Usually it's tacitly implied that its nature is a deterministic nature (via "in the same circumstances it behaves in the same way"), but this is an extra assumption that in no way is contained in the law of identity. If the nature of a thing is that it behaves in a random way this doesn't contradict in any way the definition, nor the law of identity. You just can't derive any meaningful statement about the world from those two definitions, except that the world does exist, that there is "something". Well, I'd suspected that already, so what else is new?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

You merely left out one other observation about axioms and that is about the whole kit-'n-kaboodle:

... that the world does exist, that there is "something"...

And that we can know it.

Bedeh bedeh bedeh...

(pause...)

That's all, folks!

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

"Hi Bob, welcome on this forum; here you won't be immediately burned at the stake if you have some disagreements with Objectivist theory, there are more heretics here."

Although my feet are still smoking, I do think I have much to learn and hopefully something to contribute as well, so I'll try again.

I have no need, I suppose, to nag at the law of identity, so I'll let it be unless in the midst of an argument it gets pulled out in "support" or to "refute" an idea. This is when people (OK, I) get bent out of shape.

Bob

Edited August 21, 2006 by Bob_Mac