[SPLIT] Quantum Physics Disproves Reality

[Kyuuketsuki]

I've decided to split this off because of the multiple conversations going on in the original thread.

Kyu

---

the assumption that reality exists (in spite of quantum physicists disagreeing!)

Quantum physicists disagree that that reality exists? Really? Let's deal with that.

I've read a bit here and there and watched a few documentaries but the fact is I don't understand quantum physics so I posted your claim over at CFI and interestingly they told me straight, neither do you! Even quantum physicists acknowledge that they don’t understand it all.

They made a couple of observations about the kind of debater you were, the kind that loves to redefine perfectly adequate words to suit their own warped worldview and then they commented on your basic argument.

The core of this particular claim seems to revolve around the idea that on the sub-atomic level matter is vastly more nothing than something so that what we perceive as real surfaces are in fact huge swathes of nothingness that people like you take to advance a view that the universe is somehow not real ... I suppose, having failed to bring your god up to the level of serious science, you do this to try and bring science down to the vaporous level of your god. It's a tactic that creationists have used before, it was a poor strategy then and, despite the apparent sophistication of your argument (and I suspect the reason you hide behind your philosophical psychobabble), it's a poor strategy now. Despite your claim quantum physics has not proven reality to be wrong simply more complicated and wondrous than we had previously envisaged.

String theory (which seems to be at the heart of your reinterpretation of the universe into fairy gah gah land) remains speculative, regarded as hypothesis rather than theory by some and more as a philosophy by others. It allows for many universes but that still doesn't mean that anything is possible or that there alternate universes some with alternate versions of us (or possibility of the same) nor does it mean that the possibility that we might live in a simulation is any more real a possibility than not, rather the opposite actually. That such a scenario cannot allow for all possibilities is fairly reasonable because there are many infinite non-repetitive numbers such as Pi and if anything can happen then we might (for example) be overrun by time-travelling, universe jumping explorers. Concluding that virtual & real universes are indistinguishable based on such shaky foundations is exactly the kind of rubbish I'd expect from you.

Then again of course there is science itself.

All ideas in science (even at the hypothesis level) must be falsifiable (Popper) and any idea that cannot be shown to be false under any circumstance (such as your virtual vs. real universe claim) is meaningless i.e. it caries no value, no information and cannot be meaningfully discussed as there can be no resolution. Maybe there are other quantum universes, maybe the sun will rise tomorrow or not, maybe ... but they cannot be demonstrated and they are therefore pointless and are just another example of, what was it Luke referred to it as? Oh yes, intellectual wankery! The same is true of the ideas raised by metaphysics ... maybe there is a heaven, a hell, a god, a devil, an overarching universal intelligence or whatever but, as I have already pointed out, there is nothing in the observable universe that we can observe that supports the claim that they exist, they carry no value beyond that of a philosophical or spiritual comfort blanket and so they are largely irrelevant top the real universe that we can observe around us.

According to Occam’s Razor any statement or claim that cannot be shown to contribute (in some fashion affect) a set of beliefs (an explanation or a worldview) should be discarded because it does nothing but add complexity which is pretty much what I was saying to you about your claim that the universe could as easily be unreal as real ... not so because (as I pointed out likening it to a real computer vs. a hosted virtual computer) it adds layers of complexity. To give you another example drawn from the computing world ... once we used to operate on DOS, then DOS and Windows 3.x, then Windows 9x, then 2000, then XP, then Vista, and now Windows 7 ... each time it is easier than last, more foolproof, better designed etc. etc. but underneath that glitz, that ease of use, that power the complexity increases (probably exponentially). A virtual universe is a more complicated beast because it has to be hosted by something and you CANNOT ignore than by making sweeping declaration such as it is self-supported ... it just doesn't work that way except in the domains of psychobabble and metaphysics (but then I repeat myself).

No one has ever been able to verifiably demonstrate the existence of any god (doesn't matter which one), no one has been able to demonstrate any metaphysical claim that can affect the real world and as one of the CFI guys says, "Declaration is not demonstration"!

You have faith; you believe what you do without evidence from the physical universe so you must accept your god by faith just as others disbelieve in a god by faith but here's the thing ... given that there is no verifiable evidence in support of your claims it is YOU that must provide the evidence and a reasonable interpretation of the same .. the rest of us can just sit here and say, "Show me the evidence!"

In conclusion ... if, as we know is true (though I suspect you won't admit), there is no way to support (evidence) or disprove (falsify) your claim of a virtual universe, further discussion is meaningless and a waste of time. Even discussing it in a philosophical sense is little more than mental masturbation. There is no way that I can prove (or disprove) the universe is real so that argument is also meaningless and ideas from quantum physics on the sub-atomic world are not relevant so, again, it is a waste of time in a physical world discussion.

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

The following is a summary of what has been discussed in a completely different thread ... if you (Jon Paul) disagree with this summary or reckon I've missed somethign important PM me and I will change it.

Kyuuketsuki:
Quantum physics does not disprove reality

Jon Paul:
I've never said it does. I've specifically defended the marginalised, realist Bohmiam interpretation of quantum mechanics in this very thread. But the prevailing Copenhagist orthodoxy is far more radical, to the point of arealism in many cases.

Kyuuketsuki (quoting Jon Paul):
"It's not me making assumptions; I am only pointing out that you are yourself making assumptions, such as the assumption that you are conscious, the assumption that reality exists (in spite of quantum physicists disagreeing!), the assumption that other minds exists, etc."

Jon Paul:
I said quantum physicists disagreeing. Not me (I am not a quantum physicist), and not Bohmists, but specifically Bohrists/Copenhagists.

Kyuuketsuki:
Yes you did but you specifically used it in such a way as to imply (more than imply IMO) that those who assume reality is the default state are wrong. Are you now retracting that? Do you accept that quantum physics in no way demonstrates reality to not exist?

Jon Paul:
No, they are not wrong. I stated from the beginning in that discussion that I am a realist. What quantum mechanics demonstrates depends on the interpretation, arealist/acausalist (Copenhagen orthodoxy) or realist/causalist (Bohm).

Kyuuketsuki:
A realist would assume that reality exists ... you live in a metaphysical fantasy world.

Jon Paul:
I do assume it to exist, but I am able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it, to a great length, and to the length of defending it from errorneous criticism, while I am only really trying to understand how and why I know it is wrong, rather than immediately dismissing it as unworthy of examination.

Kyuuketsuki:
No, it doesn't because quantum mechanics describes physical reality, how matter is composed of molecules & atoms and how they are composed of yet smaller particles still.

Jon Paul:
You are presenting the classical Einsteinian view. You clearly haven't observed the Kantianist direction physics has taken since Bohr.

Quantum mechanics is not in itself physicalism or realism, only the largely rejected Bohmian interpretation is. Quantum mechanics in itself, is a theory of observation, and specifically in the standard interpretation, namely the Copenhagen interpretation, a highly subjectivist and aphysicalist one, which maintains that the quantum realm we know is fundamentally unreal and aphysical because as soon as we have information about it, that information has changed according to our observational acts, in Kantian style with the inacessibility of the thing-in-it-itself; the Copenhagen interpretation largely makes this a fact.

Why do you think such great minds as Einstein, Karl Popper, Bohm, etc, worked hardly against the Copenhagen interpretation? Because of the radical character of it's findings, revising the entire classical view of the world.

There is a book I can recommend which tries to fight the bitter fight of realism, entitled "Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics". But you should note that this is not representative of a standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves fundamental quantum arealism, aphysicalism, unknowability outside of the unrealistic observationally modified information and even then, quantum nonlocality, quantum indeterminacy, quantum acausality, uncertainty, and other things in stark contradiction to classical, Einsteinian metaphysics, and in Einstein's words, a "spooky" picture of the universe.

Note: This discussion is ongoing and I am considering my response.

Kyu

[dagda]

I think you misunderstood the original purpose of my thread. I set out to show that there is no solid scientific evidence for the existence of a 'real' universe. That is all. Any speculation of a virtual universe is entirely your own. I set out to see if anyone could provide the evidence for their faith in a 'real' universe. Instead you have screamed that you do not need to.

'the rest of us can just sit here and say, "Show me the evidence!"'

Show you the evidence for what? You are the one making the claim-that the universe is as we percive. I am the one asking for the evidence to back up your claim.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think you misunderstood the original purpose of my thread. I set out to show that there is no solid scientific evidence for the existence of a 'real' universe. That is all. Any speculation of a virtual universe is entirely your own. I set out to see if anyone could provide the evidence for their faith in a 'real' universe. Instead you have screamed that you do not need to.

'the rest of us can just sit here and say, "Show me the evidence!"'

Show you the evidence for what? You are the one making the claim-that the universe is as we percive. I am the one asking for the evidence to back up your claim.

Dagda ... I think you miss why I split it. It was no longer directly relevant to the original thread, that's why it says "[SPLIT]" and effectively the base (the first post) of this thread now becomes what Jon Paul first claimed.

Now if you have something relevant to say, please do so, otherwise do be a good chap and stay clear

Kyu