(August 2, 2019 at 6:34 am)comet Wrote:

(July 30, 2019 at 7:25 am)polymath257 Wrote: Except that the results of QM specifically show that no mechanisms (hidden variables) can explain the observed phenomena.

Now, if that *isn't* what you mean by a 'mechanism', then please be more clear. What qualifies as a 'mechanism'? Can you give an example?

You say we see mechanisms all the time around us. Can you give an example and why you consider it to be a mechanism? And then tell whether you expect something similar to underly QM.

"no hidden variables" and mechanism can be/may be two different things.  I need to see more about what space/time is.  For now, our models are only based on the outcomes that we see. 

 see "how small is it 05" for what I mean as a mechanism.

A simple example would be watching a city full of cars from some altitude where you can't see people.  maybe even speed the time scale up so they are moving at a speed where we can't see people.  A math model could describe how the cars are behaving very accurately. 

The missing mechanism is people living.   The "no hidden variable" would be 'sometimes they suddenly crash into each other for no explicable reason".   We can predict the number of crashes over time but we can't predict any one crash specifically.

Keep in mind, I only say "I think there is a mechanism.".  I am not certain. 

Can you offer one piece of evidence that there is none?  Just one please?

Well, it is still far from clear what you mean by a 'mechanism'. Without understanding that, I cannot give evidence that there is none.

You say that 'hidden variables' and 'mechanisms' may be different things, yet you fail to explain how. Then you go off on spacetime, which seems beside the point to me.

How is the demonstration that there cannot be a hidden variable theory that explains the observations NOT a demonstration that there is no mechanism underlying QM?

Your city analogy *does* have hidden variables: the people and cars operating locally and causally. That is explicitly refuted by the violations of Bell's inequalities.

(August 2, 2019 at 8:11 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(August 2, 2019 at 6:34 am)comet Wrote: "no hidden variables" and mechanism can be/may be two different things.  I need to see more about what space/time is.  For now, our models are only based on the outcomes that we see. 

 see "how small is it 05" for what I mean as a mechanism.

A simple example would be watching a city full of cars from some altitude where you can't see people.  maybe even speed the time scale up so they are moving at a speed where we can't see people.  A math model could describe how the cars are behaving very accurately. 

The missing mechanism is people living.   The "no hidden variable" would be 'sometimes they suddenly crash into each other for no explicable reason".   We can predict the number of crashes over time but we can't predict any one crash specifically.

Keep in mind, I only say "I think there is a mechanism.".  I am not certain. 

Can you offer one piece of evidence that there is none?  Just one please?

Well, it is still far from clear what you mean by a 'mechanism'. Without understanding that, I cannot give evidence that there is none.

You say that 'hidden variables' and 'mechanisms' may be different things, yet you fail to explain how. Then you go off on spacetime, which seems beside the point to me.

How is the demonstration that there cannot be a hidden variable theory that explains the observations NOT a demonstration that there is no mechanism underlying QM?

Your city analogy *does* have hidden variables: the people and cars operating locally and causally. That is explicitly refuted by the violations of Bell's inequalities.

The car analogy only "does have" because we know they are there.  I said imagine if you didn't know it was people.  How would it look?  

Ok, so you do not understand why I need to know more about space/time before I change my mind.  How is it you do not understand why that is important?  As to being unclear on the mechanism after I gave you an example and a basic look at some QED stuff is confusing to me.

Oh well ... no matter.

we are at an impasse now that we will not overcome in a forum setting.  And actually, now that I think about it, its one we can't over come.   We don't know enough.  You say its due to bell inequality that you feel there is no mechanism.  I feel bells inequality works exactly how space/time allows it to work.  which neither one of us knows.

Also ... Neither one of us is dead set on our claims.  SO I say I think they are going to find out whats going on when they find more about space/time.  You say you don't this so.

ok, that's that. I don't really care either way.  You may be correct in end.  It would be really cool if you were too, it would mean we learned something very cool.

You think of the world as you deem it ought to be, not what is shown to be there and what can not be shown to be there.

When you ask “how is it that you do not understand why it is important”, the right question is “based on what do you assert it is more important than I think?”

(August 2, 2019 at 9:11 am)comet Wrote:

(August 2, 2019 at 8:11 am)polymath257 Wrote: Well, it is still far from clear what you mean by a 'mechanism'. Without understanding that, I cannot give evidence that there is none.

You say that 'hidden variables' and 'mechanisms' may be different things, yet you fail to explain how. Then you go off on spacetime, which seems beside the point to me.

How is the demonstration that there cannot be a hidden variable theory that explains the observations NOT a demonstration that there is no mechanism underlying QM?

Your city analogy *does* have hidden variables: the people and cars operating locally and causally. That is explicitly refuted by the violations of Bell's inequalities.

The car analogy only "does have" because we know they are there.  I said imagine if you didn't know it was people.  How would it look? 

Well, it would satisfy Belll's inequalities, for example. That is because there *would* be hidden variables there.

Quote:Ok, so you do not understand why I need to know more about space/time before I change my mind.  How is it you do not understand why that is important?  As to being unclear on the mechanism after I gave you an example and a basic look at some QED stuff is confusing to me.

Oh well ... no matter.

we are at an impasse now that we will not overcome in a forum setting.  And actually, now that I think about it, its one we can't over come.   We don't know enough.  You say its due to bell inequality that you feel there is no mechanism.  I feel bells inequality works exactly how space/time allows it to work.  which neither one of us knows.

Oh I see. You think that Bell's inequalities are violated because spacetime somehow allows a message to go back and forth?

Quote:Also ... Neither one of us is dead set on our claims.  SO I say I think they are going to find out whats going on when they find more about space/time.  You say you don't this so.

ok, that's that. I don't really care either way.  You may be correct in end.  It would be really cool if you were too, it would mean we learned something very cool.

Well, I am deadset on saying that QM is not a causal theory even though it is a local theory. I am deadset on saying no local, causal theory can explain the observations we have already made.

So, if a 'mechanism', whatever that means, can be non-causal or non-local, then mechanisms are allowed.

What exactly is the meaning of “mechanism”?

It seems to me a non-causal, non-local mechanism requires mechanism to describe not a “thing”, but the mere notion of a reason why things occur that remains when all specifics ways by which occurrences are shown not have been made to occur are excluded, so by definition “nothing” is a mechanism, so everything has a mechanism, just so the aesthetic sensibility that demands everything to have a mechanism is satisfied.

---

(July 30, 2019 at 6:14 am)comet Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 10:33 pm)Sal Wrote: QM model seems accurate, if you base it on the probability math behind it. Doesn't mean there are competing models, one that springs to mind is the Pilot Wave model.

It's not like we haven't had accurate mathematical models, but which were based of misconceptions before, like the whole epicircle model of planetary motion.

As to which model is more accurate, IDK.

Lee Smolin had a 1-hour lecture about why QM is incomplete and a 15 minute Q&A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L690pQhuo

this is true. for sure.  All i did was give reason as to why I lean toward QM having some mechanism.  lmao, Yes, the QM model is woefully incomplete.  Many people do not understand that. 

thanks for the link.

---

(July 30, 2019 at 12:49 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: It is not conviction.   It is being open to the most logically straight forward, albeit counterintuitive, explanation for a large body of evidence. 

Your basis of “we see mechanisms in everything else we see” is in fact wrong.    We do not see mechanism in everything.   More and more of what we see at quantum level exhibit evidence of defying even notion explanation as the effect of even some theoretical cause.    This is why I think the possibility has to be taken seriously that what we see is actually at, or at least very near, the most granular possible level of reality.   There is what reality is.  There is no deeper reason for it or smaller operation behind it.     However the property of this the most fundamental level of reality causes the emergence of the appearance of causation any less granular level.

---

This rubbish.  the notion that there may in fact be no deeper level of reality that creates the behavior modeled by math is not founded on the fact that the empirical math describes observation at this level very well.   It is founded on the fact that observation shows occurrences at this level defied any possible framework of causation.

well, you calling rubbish is the red flag.  but lets compare your claim to them side by side.  Also my conviction is exactly the same as your conviction.  I think it looks like there is a mechanism.  when I see dta that doesn't suggest one I will change my opinion.  I don't really care if there is a mechanism or not, I only think it looks like there is one.  thats all.

The claims.  

mine: I think QM has a mechanism 
your claim: QM doesn't have a mechanism.

My evidence: due to the math model making predictions and (modified to remove absolutes) everything we understand has a mechanism I lean toward a possible mechanism over no mechanism.

Your evidence to why there is no mechanism: math is not founded on the fact that the empirical math describes observation at this level very well. It is founded on the fact that observation shows occurrences at this level defied any possible framework of causation. And You also stated that not everything we see has a mechanism you pointed to QM.

we can see that your statement(s) is very accurate and true.  we also see that it is not actually a piece of evidence that says there is no mechanism.  let me explain:

a) You stated "QM defies any reasonable explanation."  thats true.  Its just not evidence for no mechanism.
b) The part about me sayig "everything we see has a mechanism" is wrong is ok.  I change it to "the standard model is based on mechanisms so i think QM has a mechanism."  be that as it may ..  QM not having a mechanism is not evidence, thats what we are talking about and isn't evidence.

conclusion, until you offer evidence to why you don't think there is no mechanism  I still lean (thats lean toward) QM having a mechanism.

Do you have any other piece of evidence to offer?

I see many red flags in the content, not just the tone of your posts.   But no matter. 

What is the basic criteria that must first be fulfilled before you might consider something to be the mechanism of something else?

(August 2, 2019 at 10:39 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: You think of the world as you deem it ought to be, not what is shown to be there and what can not be shown to be there.

When you ask “how is it that you do not understand why it is important”, the right question is “based on what do you assert it is more important than I think?”

actually no.  The correct answer is what i said.  space/time is the name that they give the fabric of space itself.   They know its something they just don't know what it is.  gravity waves and NASA's experiments show that.

so the statement that I do not understand how someone doesn't see how the fabric of space is important stands as is.

---

(August 2, 2019 at 10:59 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: What exactly is the meaning of “mechanism”?

It seems to me a non-causal, non-local mechanism requires mechanism to describe not a “thing”, but the mere notion of a reason why things occur that remains when all specifics ways by which occurrences are shown not have been made to occur are excluded, so by definition “nothing” is a mechanism, so everything has a mechanism, just so the aesthetic sensibility that demands everything to have a mechanism is satisfied.

---

(July 30, 2019 at 6:14 am)comet Wrote: this is true. for sure.  All i did was give reason as to why I lean toward QM having some mechanism.  lmao, Yes, the QM model is woefully incomplete.  Many people do not understand that. 

thanks for the link.

---

well, you calling rubbish is the red flag.  but lets compare your claim to them side by side.  Also my conviction is exactly the same as your conviction.  I think it looks like there is a mechanism.  when I see dta that doesn't suggest one I will change my opinion.  I don't really care if there is a mechanism or not, I only think it looks like there is one.  thats all.

The claims.  

mine: I think QM has a mechanism 
your claim: QM doesn't have a mechanism.

My evidence: due to the math model making predictions and (modified to remove absolutes) everything we understand has a mechanism I lean toward a possible mechanism over no mechanism.

Your evidence to why there is no mechanism: math is not founded on the fact that the empirical math describes observation at this level very well. It is founded on the fact that observation shows occurrences at this level defied any possible framework of causation. And You also stated that not everything we see has a mechanism you pointed to QM.

we can see that your statement(s) is very accurate and true.  we also see that it is not actually a piece of evidence that says there is no mechanism.  let me explain:

a) You stated "QM defies any reasonable explanation."  thats true.  Its just not evidence for no mechanism.
b) The part about me sayig "everything we see has a mechanism" is wrong is ok.  I change it to "the standard model is based on mechanisms so i think QM has a mechanism."  be that as it may ..  QM not having a mechanism is not evidence, thats what we are talking about and isn't evidence.

conclusion, until you offer evidence to why you don't think there is no mechanism  I still lean (thats lean toward) QM having a mechanism.

Do you have any other piece of evidence to offer?

I see many red flags in the content, not just the tone of your posts.   But no matter. 

What is the basic criteria that must first be fulfilled before you might consider something to be the mechanism of something else?

the bottom line is this.  For some reason you are hot on no mechanism.  Me, I don't care.  I gave my reasons and explanations for minimum requirements for what I mean by mechanisms. Recall: "how small is it 05" and my example. 

My claim stands and now we need to address your claim.

what is your evidence that how things operate are based on no mechanism or no process for behaving why they do?   You gave "bell's inequality".  thats one.  Do you have others? 

I will point out that "bell's inequality" doesn't really mean there isn't a process that is causing those observations.  But I will take it.

whats another piece of data?