No. The ontology of particle wave duality is not dependent on observation.

In physics we observe things by interacting with them (hit it with a photon, hit it with a positron, hit it with an electron ect, particle interactions), and at the scale of a particle these interactions cause measurements to be skewed, its a false interpretation to say that they do not exist unless observed, there are no modern physicists worth their salt claiming this is true. Its used often to prop up new age mysticism, but that is the only place you find it.

We have gone over this in this forum sooo many times.


In fact Neils Bohr and Heisenberg didn't believe this either. The Copenhagen interpretation DOES NOT SAY that observation creates reality, in fact the interpretation specifies explicitly that its deals with observations not ontological facts about reality, its a method for extracting results from experimental results.



Please understand the distinction, this method DOES NOT DESCRIBE reality, it describes experimental results, it describes a mathematical representation of reality NOT reality itself. Taking that next huge leap is purely metaphysics, NOT physics.

If you read correspondence from Heisenberg he was vehemently against doing just that.

Give credit to Morningsong's link:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Zoeller-Greer.html.ori

This is wrong. There is only a.)

b) is really a)

the author addresses this in the parentheses, ie he knows he is being dishonest and included the parentheses as a way to be less dishonest.


Ontology = what happens regardless of what we know.

Epistemology = what we can know about what happens.

This method is epistemic as is all mathematics, its a representation of reality and what we can know is incomplete, ie the math is not actually reality, the data we get from observation is not actually reality. ie even though things are going on under that certainty limit we cannot know about them becuase the way we observe is by knocking the **** out of particles with particles which disturbs the particles.

Bohmian mechanics explains interference without backward causation hidden variables or paradox.

As soon as you see an author mish-mashing ontology with epistemology in a single concept you KNOW they either cannot grasp the concept, or are doing so on purpose to prop up an agenda.

The founders of QM, and the Copenhagen interpretation where specific about it being an epistemic representation that happens to be useful for calculation, not determining what reality actually is, in fact you can find LOTS of letters from Heisenberg and Bohr going bat **** crazy at people claiming this very thing.

Bushidobillyclub,


If there is only a, what does that mean or translate to? And how does it relate to "Copenhagen Interpretation" given by Niels Bohr?

a. There is (in reality) a definite location and an impulse below the Heisenberg uncertainty limit, but we cannot measure them simultaneously.

If that's true, then they are being utterly ridiculous.

Bohr argued with Einstein that quantum mechanics is as complete as it can be. Bohr argued against Einstein's notion that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

Therefore if Bohr argues with anyone else that there exists some sort of ontological reality beneath the epistemic description of quantum mechanics, then Bohr would be inconsistent in his own arguments and views.

So clearly Bohr can't legitimately take both positions simultaneously. His own understanding of complementarity would necessarily rule that out anyway.

What Bohr may have argued with is the notion that QM somehow "proves" that there can be no ontological basis beneath quantum mechanics.

In other words, Bohr may have been arguing with people who claim that QM 'proves' this. That would certainly be a valid position for Bohr to take since QM proves no such thing.

However, he certainly couldn't argue with anyone who wants to take the stance that since QM can only describe an epistemic view of the world and permits no further extraction of knowledge then there is truly no reason to believe that there is anything beyond this view.

He certainly couldn't argue against that.

And that's the view that Jeannie is taking.

In other words, based on all the knowledge we have to this point, an observer-created universe is really the only conclusion we can come to at this time. Albeit we have no reason to claim that any such notion has been "proved".

This isn't really any different from the secularists who claim that since we have no knowledge of "spirit" we can dismiss the concept of spirit until we have reason to believe otherwise.

In other words, Jeannie can take the stance that since QM cannot speak to any underlying ontology of the universe, and all it can address is our epistemic experience of it, then it follows that with that limited knowledge we really have no choice but to conclude that our observations create reality.



Seriously though, it's true. That's a valid conclusion to accept in the face of this scientific knowledge. Not to imply that this conclusion has in any way been 'proven', but just to recognize that it's the only option available via this theory of QM alone.

I don't think that Bohr could, or even would, argue against this.

What Bohr would argue with are those who claim that QM somehow 'proves' that this is the case. Now that can be argued against.

All QM tells us is that insofar as we can tell we will never be able to know the true ontological nature of the world (if one exists). But that doesn't prove whether such a nature exist or not.

So this is truly a very fine line.

Neither Bohr nor Heisenberg are in any position to be telling anyone was is or isn't true in terms of any underlying absolute ontology.

All they can argue against are people who are trying to use QM to claim "proof" that there can be no such absolute ontology.

So those are the people Niels Bohr would go to bat against.

I think if Niels Bohr were here right now participating in this discussion he would say, "Yes, Abracadabra is correct. We're not arguing that the universe cannot be observer-created, we're just arguing that QM can't be used as "proof" of this, or even necessarily as sound reasons why it must be so."

~~~~~~

I believe that these great scientists would go on to say, that they personally feel that there is some sort of "ontological" foundation behind all of this.

However, precisely where that "ontology" lies is anyone's guess.

I could lie "out there" somewhere.

Or it very well could lie "within" as in the mind of some creator that dreams up this reality.

QM can allow for EITHER situation to exist.

However, if the 'ontological nature' of the world lies "out there" it's just as crazy and mystical as it would be if it's source was "within".

So in the end QM doesn't "prove" anything. It simply holds that if it is to STAND as a mathematical physical theory then we cannot learn anymore about the ontology of the universe than we already know. At least on in terms of the sub-quantum realm.

In order to get "past" that, the very rules of QM must FAIL.

In other words, the only way we could ever get past QM is if QM turns out to be wrong.

I would like to say that Einsteinian physics has breaking points where it as math fails.

Einstein went out of his mind at times trying to rationalize the Unified Field Theory. In that was supposed to be the flip side of E=MC2. But one place where Einstein fell flat is the speed of light. According to Einstein the mass of an object increases as it accelerates towards C. At C an objects mass is supposed to = Infinite. That is utterly impossible save one possibility, let us say Gravity is a sort of Atmospheric Pressure rather than view it as a phenomenon. You can only push an object so fast through air before the drag and friction become too great to overcome UNLESS you can cheat the rules. Now maybe mass takes on the appearance of equaling infinite mass due to the resistance of Gravity. If you manage to become Gavieodynamic (Think Aerodynamic except you are reducing your friction and drag to gravity, not air) and have the power to push your mass to C then I think you would wind up inverting time as you go past C. As weird as this may sound you may wind up at say Alpha Proxima 9 years before you were supposed to be there becasue your speed made you travel backwards in time. So a trip at light speed that should take 4.5 light years instead takes back 4.5 years so now the trip is 9 years ahead of schedule. The longer the trip the greater the effect! Mesons do exhibit a capacity to travel backwards in time BUT we may be seeing the effect wrong.

I am barely beginning to get some vague idea of what gravity is and it isn't anything like I thought it would be. Einstein only seen part of the equation. I have a feeling the rest of the answer is right under our noses.

sorry, i think he was wrong there... you cannot go backwards in time, no matter how fast or slow you go... if that is the case, then everything in the universe is twice as far as we think it is now...

I'm trying to figure out how this discussion jumped from QM to Einsteinian physics.


AndyBgood, your point? Where does your post relate to a possible observer created reality QM theory?

"If you think you understand quantum theory, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND QUANTUM THEORY."

Richard Feyman


Although I think he probably understood it better then most people. lol

I realized that I don't know what the meaning of "quantum theory" is so I googled it. I actually found an interesting site.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/quantumtheory.html

Quantum theory evolved as a new branch of theoretical physics during the first few decades of the 20th century in an endeavour to understand the fundamental properties of matter. It began with the study of the interactions of matter and radiation. Certain radiation effects could neither be explained by classical mechanics, nor by the theory of electromagnetism. In particular, physicists were puzzled by the nature of light. Peculiar lines in the spectrum of sunlight had been discovered earlier by Joseph von Fraunhofer (1787-1826). These spectral lines were then systematically catalogued for various substances, yet nobody could explain why the spectral lines are there and why they would differ for each substance. It took about one hundred years, until a plausible explanation was supplied by quantum theory.

Quantum theory is about the nature of matter.

In contrast to Einstein's Relativity, which is about the largest things in the universe, quantum theory deals with the tiniest things we know, the particles that atoms are made of, which we call "subatomic" particles. In contrast to Relativity, quantum theory was not the work of one individual, but the collaborative effort of some of the most brilliant physicists of the 20th century, among them Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli, and Max Born. Two names clearly stand out: Max Planck (1858-1947) and Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976). Planck is recognised as the originator of the quantum theory, while Heisenberg formulated one of the most eminent laws of quantum theory, the Uncertainty Principle, which is occasionally also referred to as the principle of indeterminacy.

Planck's constant: Energy is not continuous.

Around 1900, Max Planck from the University of Kiel concerned himself with observations of the radiation of heated materials. He attempted to draw conclusions from the radiation to the radiating atom. On basis of empirical data, he developed a new formula which later showed remarkable agreement with accurate measurements of the spectrum of heat radiation. The result of this formula was so that energy is always emitted or absorbed in discrete units, which he called quanta. Planck developed his quantum theory further and derived a universal constant, which came to be known as Planck's constant. The resulting law states that the energy of each quantum is equal to the frequency of the radiation multiplied by the universal constant: E=f*h, where h is 6.63 * 10E-34 Js. The discovery of quanta revolutionised physics, because it contradicted conventional ideas about the nature of radiation and energy.

to read more:http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/quantumtheory.html

Its not a matter of complete, or incomplete. Its a matter of what it IS.

It is a way to get useful results, not a way to determine ontology. Since its not a way to determine ontology, its a metaphysical leap to do so and thus dishonest if you understand this distinction and continue to claim QM supports your leap.

If reality can only exist when observers are present, what do you think qualifies as an observer?

I think an observer does not necessarily have to have sight, but that anything that can sense the world around it is an observer.

Does a world exist apart from our (human) observation? Of course it does. Humans are not the only observers.

Not sure who you are responding to here.

Scientists themselves often make "metaphysical leaps" in an attempt to explain things.

That is true, and it doesn't make it Science, no less physics. So to say that Science or Physics supports a given metaphysics is incorrect and if the person in question understands the distinction between epistemic, and ontologic then its also dishonest.


It is what it is, and you have to support your metaphysics with faith, not science.

I agree, and I think the point I would make is not that science "supports" a certain "metaphysical" idea but that it does not rule that idea out or disprove it.

Agreed. As a skeptic I am of the mind to withhold conclusion. However I find it useful and meaningful to hold to philosophical naturalism it allows me to formulate my understanding of science on a solid platform that no other philosophy can achieve.

At all scales of inquiry we find that physical entities exist independent of awareness, that the history of the objects existence is written in its current state of existence, and I have no reason to believe this history is made up at the time of "observation". Scientific naturalism makes this assumption for good reasons the least of all is Occams razor. ie determinism hidden or otherwise.

There seems to be a huge gap between material and the emotions . Maths is part of our brain as it is partly in nature .... we have only discovered part of that maths as much as a atom compared to this universe....

Point being that as humans we also need to explore emotions since a lot of objects discovered came from feelings---

In other words creativity is bouncing around all the time just like atoms-- so if we agree that everything moves.....

Then like maths our language needs to develop more as maths can go on for ever can feelings ......

also one has to appreciate ones time line on earth compared to space time and future inventions---

Point being we need to understand clearly delusion and illusion as well as our self - ego...

So it is important to consider that no one ideology is right it has to mix with others to get best result and at the moment we are talking in the thousands of ideologies .......

all this and more is linked to all atoms and movement --

Consider the word reality it is highly subjective it is similar to truth but reality in the material is a measurement on an object to create for a human function.....

Reality in the emotion is ongoing as is love -- we all want it or desire can not do without it love an object subject a person but what is the reality or truth about this.....

Point being the subjective and objective have to work together except i believe? (broadly without reality or truth as all moves so i am not sure ) to find all to do with atoms and on going future maths ?

you see how i jump from one point to another and from one concept to another .....

creativity in nature does the same to think that language alone with maths will find answers is wrong......

We have limitations as humans the way we are made up -- interesting to me we have rely on inventions -- to gather information but these have no feelings so we are looking at what the material object looks at and we unconsciously believe that is truth and reality but it is not it is primitive.....

We will always be primitive because creativity does not stop --- consider morals -- ethics -- justice--
Now consider the computer it is global it has its own language it has movements on our brains yet it is primitive...

But consider the decline in morals and ethics--- is it because a computer which now is part of our body replacing the above since a computer at the moment has no human feelings----

so creativity and invention has to be about trying to stop sufferings but it is also useless unless we can feel that----

example we can feed the world we ca go green but to do it is to come together with a different mind higher feelings and more developed emotions -- but it is not possible because the computer in the end has declined that need and its act interaction on our self's will lead as it is doing in a change of how our brain works .....

example not long since middle ages -- false beliefs and so on-- then freud cg jung very recent showed us other ways of looking at the world -- but now we rely only on machines for future answers these do not have feelings......

point being we are back to what is reality back to what do we feel about false fixed beliefs--back to illusions-- back to trickery in language--back to our inner self-- back to ongoing creativity it can never end --- as we are all like space moving.....

see i am off again i go from one thing to another yes that is important content in this subject and being objective means nothing.... timeless

consider black matter is it over 75 % space black matter something we can not see meaning we have not simply found an instrument to conjure up some of its particles when we do we translate that into maths then measure that into physics as we know it and make up lots of concepts and so on.....

we are very good at that if we could do the same with feelings then we would be living in a different world but i can not say what that would be..... well not now any way ha.....

I feel because i jumped here and there re 'quanta' a bit more emphatic to its meaning in nature ? say about .% only ....

Steve.. i hope i am being creative?

I ascribe to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Yes, I tend to believe that when I turn my back and close my eyes, the world still exists.

I thank God someone else is observing it.


In fact, I give scientists a lot of the credit for sustaining this reality because all they do is observe things.

Welcome to Mingle goldenxxx!

Yes I think emotions are extremely important in the creative process. It is especially touted as the most important ingredient in creating reality with our minds, emotions, thoughts, intentions, etc.