QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe?

[John Dailey]

Paul:

When you adopt another's language [or 'style'/vocabulary thereby, I presume] for describing and evaluating the world, that language is embedded with the ripples of subtle meanings and attitudes of the originator and can be adopted subliminally as one's own without knowing it (eg: the creation of the randroid.)

~ Agreed. To be sure, though, we're talking about 'adoption' without a conscious awareness of doing so...ie: 'subliminally' (akin to cults 'indoctrinating' others, like, oh, say the style of 'teaching' in the 'S'-word [or Jim Jones/Koresh/Bin Laden]), no? O-t-other-h, conscious, thinking 'adoption' is another separate...thereby irrelevent...case, no?

If you deconstruct the language to reveal its foundations in your own language, then rebuild it in your own language, you can have a fresh start with your own authentic meanings and attitudes.

~ Agreed again...er-r-r...as put (though I've acquired a prob with the term 'deconstruct', but, I get your drift.) However, a bit of a problem-set here is: 1st) assuming that one has one's own 'language' about the subjects (clearly "randroids" don't, emotionally/'attitudinally', if still otherwise, intellectually); 2nd) assuming that such analyzing ('deconstructing') is accurate, THEN that 'rebuilding' (re-translating, I'd say, but...) into one's own language, does definitely give a fresh start for/with one's own authentic meanings and (emotional?) attitudes. --- This does NOT imply, however, (as you seem to imply that it will (not 'may', but will) that the 're-build' will be necessarily different from that with which one started. Call me 'biased' (but don't even think of the 'R'-word!) , but, in my case, I see no difference in having done such. Some "Objectivists" (though I prefer 'Randite') are not necessarily "Randroids". Actually, I think that there are few Randroids around anymore. Oh yeah, they were there. Met 1 too many in IRC. Nowadays, I'd say any Randroid appearers are merely Randist-'newbies'...who fell in with the wrong crowd; you know: the 'attitude' crowd. And the latter aren't really Randroid either (beyond their complaints of even discussing the term); they're...something else. Sorry, I digress (as is my wont.)

~ After commenting on VP's post re his using AR's "tone, her meanings and her attitudes-- at least as he interpreted them" (which I clearly commented to and castigated him about 'newbie'-Emulators regarding), you continue...

(You [ie: *moi*] say without earning her status but I don't think social status justifies the dismissal of opposing perspectives.) I think this is a very common phenomenon in the Objectivist world. It is accepting Ayn Rand's system as an operating system for ones own mind.

~ I don't believe I used the term 'status'. I certainly never meant the idea of 'social'-status (but then, what other type is there?). Regardless, methinks you're misinterpreting me when I analogized to Victor about Stephen Hawking having a 'place' to be arrogant, and/or when I told *you* that D. Trump has 'right' to be so. I never referred to social status; that's not my way of thinking or arguing...anything. In such examples, I was stressing that professionals in a territory maybe (not to be confused with 'do') earn the 'right' to be so, yes, clearly including Rand. What in the world is the problem with that? And, I was using it as a counterpoint to Emulator-wannabes/Mentees who get so involved with 'CopyCat' attitudes on their admired ones that they, simply put, 'act-without-thinking'. --- Sorry my whole point got missed there. There is a place for arguing for 'justified' Arrogance, in my view; and contrasting it with superficially-based 'righteousness' (which too many Rand-Emulators are really wrapped up in more than 'arrogance', methinks, hence, maybe some confusion here.)

~ Re your last statement, you imply that accepting someone else's discovered-way-of-being is...not good (you clarify later, but, I'll get to that then). IF one find's that this 'someone else's way is better (granted, by one's OWN 'finding' thereof [Hmmm...'how?'] ), better than one's already-established general 'way', whether talking about Christ, Buddha, Rand, or (horrors! My own parents might have been right all along with what they tried to teach me!!!), short of finding reasons to evade questions therein, what in the world is 'wrong' with following such, given that such 'following' is not done 'blindly'/(evadingly)? (We're talkin' "adults", not "kids" of course.)

~ You continue...

A healthy dose of reinventing instead of adopting wouldn't hurt. Her system, or rather, her fundamental principles can still be used as a guide to building one's own system.

~ Indeed. I know of no other 'system' which CAN be used so. --- I must quibble with your implied distinction re her 'system' and her 'fundamental principles': I-see-no-'difference'. Further, why, in your view, consideration of 'adopting' NECESSITATES consideration-thence-concluding of 'instead: re-invent', I'm still at a loss in understanding...unless, by 'adopt/accept', all you only mean is 'dogmatically accept'. Sure, in THAT case, I agree; but, why not say 'dogmatically accept' as your problem-concern? Not EVERY immediate 'acceptance/adoption' of A, B, or C is inherently dogmatic.

~ And you finish (pre-Questions) with

It should just never be used instead of one's own.

~ I would re-phrase that: It should never be dogmatically accepted...as too many have non-thinkingly fooled themselves into 'thinking' that it wasn't, by them.

~ Re your 'Questions': except for the one loaded with the phrase "at the expense of developing [etc]" , my answers are --> Yes. --- "Authentic" individualism does not really require that one re-invent a wheel, re-discover fire, or start another America (or 'rational' philosophy)...until after WWIII is done. In the meantime, one 'authentically' makes use of all that still exists, including discoveries by others.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: uh-h-h...I can't think of what to 'P.S.' this time.

Edited September 27, 2006 by John Dailey

[Victor Pross]

Gentlemen,

Yikes! I haven't been able to chime in as I have been busy. Plus I didn't know I was being addressed! Dah!

Work....I have been very busy...being in love.

John, Paul et al --if there are any specific questions you have, please ask...and/or I'll read has been posted and answer that which sticks out at me. Thanks!

[BaalChatzaf]

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. A is A. Facts are facts. Existence exists.

***

Really? It is a fact that the United States consists of fifty States. Is that a necessary fact? Not at all. There was no law of nature compelling congress to admit Alaska and Hawaii as States. So the fact that the United States has fifty States is -contingent- on certain decisions having been made.

Be careful now. You are on the verge of denying free will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Victor Pross]

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. A is A. Facts are facts. Existence exists.

***

Really? It is a fact that the United States consists of fifty States. Is that a necessary fact? Not at all. There was no law of nature compelling congress to admit Alaska and Hawaii as States. So the fact that the United States has fifty States is -contingent- on certain decisions having been made.

Be careful now. You are on the verge of denying free will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

Welcome to OL.

That either Alaska and Hawaii is a state (or at one time not) of the United States is not a "metaphysically given" fact, (which there is no alternative to) but rather a man-made fact. I take it that you are not too, too familiar with Rand's work, of else you would not have presented this type of challenge to me. :}

-Victor

Edited April 15, 2007 by Victor Pross

[BaalChatzaf]

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. A is A. Facts are facts. Existence exists.

***

Really? It is a fact that the United States consists of fifty States. Is that a necessary fact? Not at all. There was no law of nature compelling congress to admit Alaska and Hawaii as States. So the fact that the United States has fifty States is -contingent- on certain decisions having been made.

Be careful now. You are on the verge of denying free will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

Welcome to OL.

That either Alaska and Hawaii is a state (or at one time not) of the United States is not a "metaphysically given" fact, (which there is no alternative to) but rather a man-made fact. I take it that you are not too, too familiar with Rand's work, of else you would not have presented this type of challenge to me. :}

-Victor

First of all, I have read Ayn Rand (AS, TF, WTL) and I used to subscribe to -The Objectivist-.,

A Fact is Fact. A Fact is that which is. The distinction between metaphysically given facts and facts arising from choices (by man, beast or plant) is nugatory. Whatever is, is a fact however it came about.

If it is facts independent of human choices then grok this. Shot an electron through a Stern Gerlach magnet. The electron will go up or down wrt. to the plane dividing the heads of the magnet. All electrons are alike being in a superposed quantum state for there spin. You have a fifty fifty chance of an up or down outcome. Now shoot a stream of up-electrons through another Stern Gerlach magnet. Lo and Behold! The stream splits again. Which way it comes out is not determined by any observable property of the electron. The same electron with spin up on one occasion will emerge spin down on another. Since no discernible factor determines the output I would say the output is happenstance.

The odds on the outcome are fixed (50 - 50) by the symmetry of the electron spins but the particular outcomes are not determined, hence are accidental, happenstantial not necessary etc. etc.

Yet another. How about your conception or mine or anyone's. Zillions of sperm racing to the egg (and which egg? I could have been one of many.). Which one gets there is a function of the when and the where of the ejaculation, not a matter of necessity. We are all accidents. So much of life is a horse-race. So much is accidental. So little is necessary.

The facts are just what happen to be the case. Which is not to deny the existence of laws governing what facts may be. But these laws are constraints, not determinants. Many outcomes are possible, but not any old outcome.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[Dragonfly]

If it is facts independent of human choices then grok this. Shot an electron through a Stern Gerlach magnet. The electron will go up or down wrt. to the plane dividing the heads of the magnet. All electrons are alike being in a superposed quantum state for there spin. You have a fifty fifty chance of an up or down outcome. Now shoot a stream of up-electrons through another Stern Gerlach magnet. Lo and Behold! The stream splits again. Which way it comes out is not determined by any observable property of the electron. The same electron with spin up on one occasion will emerge spin down on another. Since no discernible factor determines the output I would say the output is happenstance.

That is not correct. The electrons from the spin-up beam will remain spin-up if there are no other interactions, they are in a pure state, so in a second SG apparatus they'll generate only an up-beam. However, if the second SG magnet is oriented in a different direction (for example in the y direction if the first SG magnet was oriented in the z direction and x is the direction of the beam) you'll get again split beam, half of the electrons with spin in the y direction and half of the electrons with spin in the -y direction. Still strange enough for your purposes.

[BaalChatzaf]

If it is facts independent of human choices then grok this. Shot an electron through a Stern Gerlach magnet. The electron will go up or down wrt. to the plane dividing the heads of the magnet. All electrons are alike being in a superposed quantum state for there spin. You have a fifty fifty chance of an up or down outcome. Now shoot a stream of up-electrons through another Stern Gerlach magnet. Lo and Behold! The stream splits again. Which way it comes out is not determined by any observable property of the electron. The same electron with spin up on one occasion will emerge spin down on another. Since no discernible factor determines the output I would say the output is happenstance.

That is not correct. The electrons from the spin-up beam will remain spin-up if there are no other interactions, they are in a pure state, so in a second SG apparatus they'll generate only an up-beam. However, if the second SG magnet is oriented in a different direction (for example in the y direction if the first SG magnet was oriented in the z direction and x is the direction of the beam) you'll get again split beam, half of the electrons with spin in the y direction and half of the electrons with spin in the -y direction. Still strange enough for your purposes.

Thank you for the correction. Two identical measurements done real quick before decoherance indeed will be the same.

Still strange: Take an up electron out of the first S.G. magnet and put it through a right-left S.G. magnet. That same electron put through an up-down S.G. magnet again has a fifty fifty chance of coming out down.

In short, the direction of our much abused electron is not determined by any property it came to possess and what ever its final outcome is , is by chance. No necessity there. So even in the world of the inanimate and insentient you have contingent and accidental events (which are facts).

The general statement that facts are necessary has been shown to be false by counter example.

If an outcome different from the outcome observed is still -possible- then the outcome is not necessary.

In general terms necessary p => not possible not p. That is modal logic for you.

And lest we think there are hidden determinants (know as "hidden variables"), the experiments showing the failure of the Bell Inequalities throws that supposition into doubt.

Be that is it may, the last word has not been said.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe

"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!

"

Author Unknown, Subjectivism, Reality, and Quantum Physics

"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!"

--------------------

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

[Brant Gaede]

Jesus, this is incredible. I've spent a lot of time not reading Victor to begin with because his posts were too many and too long and frequently unrewarding when I did.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

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!"

--------------------

--Dan Edge

Observation requires physical interaction and energy exchange. There is not such thing as a Platonic observation. To see something the rods and cones of your retina must interact with either reflected photons or radiated photons. To see requires flying photons hitting the target.

And particles do have states, but they are superposed states. The state is made definite by the interaction. It will be one of the eigenstates and the value of the observation will be the eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenstate.

There may be some counterintuitive things going on, but there are no Mysteries.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

My sincere thanks for detecting and identifying the plagiary. I have identified the site owners where the original text was published: Sonja Bernhardt and Robin Craig. If you wish to notify them, I fully agree and I will try to do the same. If you do, please provide a link.

Michael