A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question

[RHC]

https://theconversation.com/a-new-quantum-paradox-throws-the-foundations-of-observed-reality-into-question-144426

[Eugene I]

<<1. When someone observes an event happening, it really happened.

2. It is possible to make free choices, or at least, statistically random choices.

3. A choice made in one place can’t instantly affect a distant event. (Physicists call this “locality”.)>>

I thinks they got #2 wrong, it should be not just a statement of free choice as a negation of determinism, but rather a negation of superdeterminism. Superdeterminism is not only to suggest that the measurement decisions of all quantum experiments are pre-determined at the beginning of the universe, but also that they were pre-manipulated to result in the correlated decisions of independent observers in the future.    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Also, the entanglement phenomenon only requites the violation of ether #2 or#3, but not #1. So, combining the Wigner's friend and entanglement experimental results, we are only left with the negation of either #2 or #3, and discarding the possibility of superdeterminism, we are now left with #2. It's still possible that both #1 and #2 are violated, but more likely that only #2 is violated. But also, combining the special relativity with the violation of #2 also results in the violation of causality (assuming that the special relativity is still correct), which means that in some circumstances the effect may precede its cause (for example in the entanglement experiment in some moving frames of reference the measurement result may precede the decision to make a measurement). So, it looks like locality and causality are doomed, and if there is still such thing as objective material reality, it has to be non-local and non-causal (or alternatively non-local and non-relativistic).      

On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-5 RHC wrote:

https://theconversation.com/a-new-quantum-paradox-throws-the-foundations-of-observed-reality-into-question-144426

[RHC]

Very interesting food for thought Eugene!

[David Sundaram]

On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 8:35:46 AM UTC-7 Eugene I wrote:

 

I thinks they got #2 wrong, it should be not just a statement of free choice as a negation of determinism, but rather a negation of superdeterminism. Superdeterminism is not only to suggest that the measurement decisions of all quantum experiments are pre-determined at the beginning of the universe, but also that they were pre-manipulated to result in the correlated decisions of independent observers in the future.    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Kafkaesque 'nightmares' that some people are caught/stuck in because of their own e-motion-al 'creations'. You've had 'dreams' in which you can't because of slow-motion get away from something 'dread'full, right?

[Santeri Satama]

Eugene,

Four decades of Bohmian influence makes me go wah, non-locality still problem for some people? Sounds like you use 'causality' in technical Einstein meaning, but as a general philosophical problem that e.g. Buddhism is dedicated to, non-locality doesn't make the Wild Fox koan go away.  As quantum theory does not have any specific notion of causality, AFAIK, the idea of physicalist closure seems still dependent from Einstein causality, which has been rather silly postulate from the beginning. But does non-locality mean that the physicalist closure really becomes invalid?

[Eugene I]

<<Four decades of Bohmian influence makes me go wah, non-locality still problem for some people? >>

All Bohmian interpretations deny special relativity, which is a problem for many people. But in addition to that, they are all hidden-variable interpretations, and the Bohmian class of non-local hidden variable interpretations have been recently refuted based on the approach similar to Bell's theorem, so we can finally put all hidden variable interpretations to rest. I can try to find the reference if you need it.  

<<  But does non-locality mean that the physicalist closure really becomes invalid? >>

 You are right, non-local and non-causal physicalist closures are possible and have been proposed. Space and time is also doomed. But this makes one wonder what "matter" means at all if stripped from such properties as space, time, causality and locality. Added to that, the QBism and relational interpretations of QM do not refer to any "matter" at all and operate with only information or "correlations without correlata".  

The concept of matter traditionally emerged from our naive realistic perception of the world of "objects" made of "solid stuff" that exist objectively "out there" in space-time and obey causality laws. As it turns out, none of these naive ideas and perceptions are true and the concept of "matter" simply looses any ground in our human habitual perception of the world.   

[Eugene I]

Here is the reference for closing the loop-hole of the non-local hidden variable a-la-Bohmian interpretations:

 Undecidability and indeterminism

[Brad Walker]

Superdeterminism should be the default theory until one of the dozen plus QM interpretations are validated. Simulation makes superdeterminism a centralized algorithm, not "conspiracy theory". Sabine has a video on superdeterminism being the "forgotten option".

On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 8:35:46 AM UTC-7 Eugene I wrote:

[Santeri Satama]

Eugene,

Thanks for the article. How well do you comprehend it, e.g. the philosophical intricacies of how ZFC relates Martin-Löf? My own understanding is still very superficial. The article is really about philosophy of mathematics, with question and presupposition of mental causation hidden in it.

What I can comment, is that the basic assumption that Ontological interpretation is deterministic, is wrong. AFAIK, Bohm dropped the name "Causal interpretation" to avoid that false perception. I've shown that ZFC is not only paraconsistent, but also formally inconsistent, but the basic argument doesn't really depend from assuming ZFC. There's vital reference to proof by Martin-Löf Intuitionistic Type theory, which contains an intuitionistic version of Axiom of Choice, which implies idealist ontology. The language of Martin-Löf is philosophically obfuscated, because it tries to bridge intuitionistic logic with ZFC and not get into metaphysical commitments debates. In genuine intuitionist-idealist setting the notion "pre-mathematical" would be mathematically ontological and primary intuitive side, and "mathematical" as a linguistic construction of types etc. is secondary to idealist ontology of mathematics. 

Seen in this light, the article does not close the "loop hole" of non-local hidden variables, on the contrary it helps to show and clarify that idealist, intuitive (and pre-constructive) ontology of mathematics is very much part of the "non local hidden variable". Which is what Bohm himself has at least hinted towards. For Bohm's non-determinism, see e.g. https://casinoqmc.net/tti_talks/deBB_10/pylkkanen_tti2010.pdf

[Santeri Satama]

Brad,

Here's the video. Sabine is not exactly correct claiming that there is no non-reductionistic theory. Bohm's theory is holographic and holonomic in process philosophical sense. At that level it's natural philosophical and (meta)physical theory, but not fully mathematical theory in the sense of mathematical construction. The most natural metaphysical and empirical interpretation of of Bohmian Mechanics is idealism and intuitionist philosophy of math. Sabine's question about the foundations and the phenomenology between experimentation and interpretation is really about philosophy of mathematics.

As she says, non-local ontology does solve the measurement problem, and as for QFT and GR, empirical evidence is actually more on the side of ether-type inertia. But doesn't violating statistical independence also lead to rejection of reductionism?  By trying to minimize entanglement (ie. non-local holism!) you are just intentionally trying to create a more accurate local (but not global!) oracle machine.

[Eugene I]

Thanks guys, excellent video, Sabine is right about the measurement problem. Physicists grew tired of the measurement problem and are ignoring it because noone could find any solution to it so far (including none of the so far known QM interpretations). And she is also right in saying that the Bohmian mechanics does not solve it either.

Now, regarding superdeterminism in general, of course it remains a possibility, the question is to find a math formulation of QM to back it up, and that is what she is trying to do in her particular variant of the theory. My gut feel is that her path integral approach will run into serious problems when applied to the entanglement measurements, because the "collapse" of the path integral would have to be statistically dependent on the state of the Bob's apparatus, but statistically independent on the state of the Alise's apparatus, so somehow the path integral would "know" that B already made his measurement and immediately "cancel" the statistical dependence of the outcome of the Alice's measurement on the Alice state. And when you hear the word "immediately" you immediately know that it's going to contradict the special relativity. And that s because upon which apparatus (B or A) the integral needs to be dependent also depends on the choice of the moving frame of reference: in one FR B's measurement will be the "cause" and the integral will be statistically dependent on the state of B, and A's measurement will be the "effect" and has to be statistcally independent on the state of A , but in other FR it will be the opposite. So, I don't see a way to make superdeterministic description of entanglement to be relativistic and Lorentz invariant. So, unless we also want to give up on the relativity, I think this will still be a problem. I think it might be possible to prove in general that any superdeterministic QM, when applied to entanglement measurements, will contradict the special relativity.   

[Santeri Satama]

Lorentz invariance does not depend from SR, it's just basic math. It can be and has been argued, that Einstein made awful mess of Lorentz invariance.

To my naive comprehension, to make Lorentz invariance work, all is needed is that observers share a common metric. Well, that kinda means you can't make it really universal, but so what. Why should it be? 

[Eugene I]

<< Lorentz invariance does not depend from SR, it's just basic math. It can be and has been argued, that Einstein made awful mess of Lorentz invariance.
To my naive comprehension, to make Lorentz invariance work, all is needed is that observers share a common metric. Well, that kinda means you can't make it really universal, but so what. Why should it be?  >> 

What is needed to make Lorenz invariance work is simply formulating the physical laws in a way that they become invariant to Lorenz transformation. Lorenz invariance is a necessary condition to make SR and GR valid. You can still only keep Lorenz invariance and drop SR/GR, in which case you necessary need to assume the existence of the absolute FR in the universe. That would save causality in the entanglement measurements, but still would not save locality. 

The bottom-line is: even superdeterministic QM theories when applied to entanglement measurements (EPR) lead to non-locality (instantaneous interactions across long distances). If you give up on SR than the EPR does not necessarily refute causality. But the consensus among physicists so far is that we have to explore all possible ways to keep SR, locality and causality before we give up on them. But so far nobody could figure out how to do that, and my gut feel is that it is not possible (but of course I may be wrong).    

[Rober...@msn.com]

What I like about this article is that it is written in simple language that even I can almost understand.  Therein lies a paradox.  Can something involving a truly complex subject be expressed simply?  Okay, E equals M times C-squared seems simple enough, but if that is as far as one goes, he has not understood relativity.  Can anyone?  Or more precisely, can anyone ever adequately understand nature?  The deeper we dig, the more abstract our conclusions become.  Reality is not just abstract theory, it is what we experience.

The article mentions that some theories of reality do not require (or even exclude) free will.  But the absence of free will introduces insurmountable paradoxes, one of which was alluded to by JBS Haldane, when he pointed out that, if materialism is true, we could never know that, because our brains would be material.

Therefore, at the basis of any adequate theory of reality, there must be the fundamental property of free will (and therefore, consciousness, and therefore life).  Once we understand that we cannot understand, we will have a basis for making the most of what we do understand.

[Santeri Satama]

keskiviikko 23. joulukuuta 2020 klo 15.35.02 UTC+2 Eugene I kirjoitti:

You can still only keep Lorenz invariance and drop SR/GR, in which case you necessary need to assume the existence of the absolute FR in the universe.

What's "FR"?

 

That would save causality in the entanglement measurements, but still would not save locality.

You can't save what's already gone, or never was. Delayed choice etc. make pretty clear that Einstein causality has no physicalist foundation. . QM is rather ambiguous about nature time. AFAIK the standard formalism just says that time is palindrome (which made Wheeler go, "Ok, let's test that...), which, if I understand correctly, makes Rovelli say that time (Einstein time) doesn't exist, and all there is, is geometry or what ever.

Generally, since we approach this stuff from idealist frame - I assume - and accept that current physics is in dead end (by their own word), I feel we could have much more creative and radical approach, instead of staying in these fossilized theory frames of physicalism.

 

 

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

If you read this take on it by Lee Smolin then #3 is false.

For example, let us pick just two elementary events, one in the cup of coffee you are now drinking and the other in a cup of whatever it is they drink on one of the planets of Proxima Centauri. These events may be separated by four light-years—but nothing prevents one from being an elementary cause of the other.  

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/space-the-final-illusion/

On the other hand, time loops and retrocausation would call into question #2.

[Eugene I]

<< Generally, since we approach this stuff from idealist frame - I assume - and accept that current physics is in dead end (by their own word), I feel we could have much more creative and radical approach, instead of staying in these fossilized theory frames of physicalism. >>

Right, and IMO physics should be actually metaphysically agnostic rather than biased toward materialism or idealism, or even realism in general. In that sense I like the QBit and relational interpretations that are metaphysically agnostic. But still, they do not solve the measurement problem either. 

<< if I understand correctly, makes Rovelli say that time (Einstein time) doesn't exist, and all there is, is geometry or what ever.>>

Well, Rovelli said that the absolute time does not exists, which is simply the same as to say that the SR/GR is true and the absolute FR in the universe does not exist (which absolute time is part of). There are still fringe physicists that believe in the existence of the absolute FR, but th erecent proof of the gravitational waves and black holes makes it harder to defend such contra-SR/GR theories. The consensus is that we should try to keep the SR/GR until we experimentally detect the absolute FR or run into irresolvable contradiction with SR/GR. Yet, the EPR/entanglement is still a good candidate for such contradiction.    

So, there are currently two big challenges in the foundations of modern physics:

- solve the measurement problem by re-formulating the QM (using superdeterminism idea or may be something else)

- at the same time make it such that it does not break SR and locality+causality in the EPR/entanglement scenario

To my knowledge, no one has even a slightest idea how to solve both puzzles with one theory. Addressing just the first one seems more doable though.

[Eugene I]

<< What's "FR"? >>

Frame of reference (sorry :) 

[Eugene I]

<<If you read this take on it by Lee Smolin then #3 is false.>>

Jim, that's right, many physicists are prepared to give up on locality/causality, at least on the macroscopic level (like Smolin). Smolin is absolutely right: "all the results show that entangled pairs violate that concept of locality"". Smolin is a proponent of the "quantum foam" approach that breaks the SR on the fundamental level (because the quantum foam itself becomes the absolute FR). But he's been working on it for decades and still haven't advanced very far, there are still mostly promises but not many results to show how to derive the QM or GR laws or explain entanglement from his quantum foam. And for his theory to be comprehensive, he has to address the measurement problem as well.  

[Eugene I]

I think I should explain abbreviations so that people can understand:

SR - Einstein theory of special relativity 

GR - Einstein theory of general relativity   

FR - frame of reference

EPR - Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox which entails in the contradiction with locality in entanglement experiments

[Santeri Satama]

You can still only keep Lorenz invariance and drop SR/GR, in which case you necessary need to assume the existence of the absolute FR in the universe.

keskiviikko 23. joulukuuta 2020 klo 17.29.26 UTC+2 Eugene I kirjoitti:

<< What's "FR"? >>

Frame of reference (sorry :) 

OK then. 

You can still only keep Lorenz invariance and drop SR/GR, in which case you necessary need to assume the existence of the absolute FR in the universe.

 First, even though coordinate invariance is a sound principle, it remains just a nice wish that has never actualized in relativity and QM. Lorentz invariance as such is does not need any absolute FR, ie. coordinate system, relativist observers with internal clocks in sync can generate mutually invariant vector space, a Lorentz consensus. 

Even partially/minimally entangled systems, then, should have similar enough metrics internally and even non-locally available to do their Lorentz consensus, without thinking universe as some absolute cartesian grid?

[Santeri Satama]

... if we then think/accept idealist observers (Markow blankets?!) having at least minimal entanglement, and potential (but no obligation!) to generate Lorentz type consensus realities, quantum potential/active information could play scale invariant role from local to universe size to non-local consensus realities...

Sorry, just thinking aloud... :)

[Eugene I]

<< Lorentz invariance as such is does not need any absolute FR >>

Exactly, that was the Einstein's argument: once we have physical laws (mechanics) re-formulated to be Lorenz-invariant, we do not need to keep the hypothesis of the absolute FR anymore. Now, the SR mechanics (time dilution and length shortening in moving FRs) was proven experimentally, so there is no doubt that SR mechanics equations are correct. Still, this does not prove that the absolute FR does not exists, it just makes it undetectable and unnecessary, and by using the Occam's razor, as Einstein argued, the idea of the absolute FR can be dropped.     

<< Even partially/minimally entangled systems, then, should have similar enough metrics internally and even non-locally available to do their Lorentz consensus, without thinking universe as some absolute cartesian grid? >>

The problem is that in the entanglement measurement scenario we can experimentally prove by multiple measurements that in a certain FR1 where Bob's measurement precedes the Alice's measurement in time, the Bob's measurement is the cause (because the outcome is statistically dependent on the Bob's apparatus) and Alice's measurement is the effect (because it is no longer dependent on the Alice's apparatus and is totally pre-determined by the outcome of the Bob's measurement). However, if Bob and Alice are separated by a long distance, in a different moving FR2 (even if it's metrics is in Lorentz-consensus with FR1 metrics), then in the local time of FR2 the Alice's measurement will precede the Bob's measurement, while Alice's measurement still remaining the effect and Bob's remaining the cause. This breaks the causality principle that the cause always precedes the effect in time. 

[Eugene I]

<< Seen in this light, the article does not close the "loop hole" of non-local hidden variables, on the contrary it helps to show and clarify that idealist, intuitive (and pre-constructive) ontology of mathematics is very much part of the "non local hidden variable". Which is what Bohm himself has at least hinted towards.  >>

Going back to your question, yes, if you drop ZFC, then the theorems of the article do not hold as well, and the Bohmian mechanics (BM) is not yet refuted. But note that, as Sabina rightly said, BM does not solve the measurement problem and in that sense it is still incomplete. 

[Santeri Satama]

keskiviikko 23. joulukuuta 2020 klo 18.50.55 UTC+2 Eugene I kirjoitti:

Now, the SR mechanics (time dilution and length shortening in moving FRs) was proven experimentally, so there is no doubt that SR mechanics equations are correct.

You get those Lorentz mechanics (time dilution etc.) also with with 2D newtonian bats doing echolocation, it's just math mechanics that don't depend from Einstein's postulates of causality and speed of light. Empirical proof is a contested area, revision of old experiments has been seen by some giving support to ether theory, and also some new experiments have suggested going back to square one of Mickelson-Morley. The standard interpretation of SR is also problematic, as some mechanics are defined rather artificially as one sided instead of genuinely relativistic and mutual. If there really was not any doubt, that would be most alarming!

Still, this does not prove that the absolute FR does not exists, it just makes it undetectable and unnecessary, and by using the Occam's razor, as Einstein argued, the idea of the absolute FR can be dropped.  

I was already trying to move the discussion from "absolute" to the level of whether coordinate systems as such exist, and if they do, how? :)

To clarify the intention, let's call observers in idealist world "alters". Alters with minimal entanglement, or some effective analogy of that that allows them to share a common metric, can mutually create Lorentz-consensus coordinate systems/vector spaces/matrixes, ie. spatial localities (when space is defined as a mathematical construct of a sort). There's no need to start from postulation of any coordinate system aka FR as ontological primitive. SR implicitely postulates at least some coordinate system as ontological primitive, and that sounds kinda silly to me.

 

 

<< Even partially/minimally entangled systems, then, should have similar enough metrics internally and even non-locally available to do their Lorentz consensus, without thinking universe as some absolute cartesian grid? >>

The problem is that in the entanglement measurement scenario we can experimentally prove by multiple measurements that in a certain FR1 where Bob's measurement precedes the Alice's measurement in time, the Bob's measurement is the cause (because the outcome is statistically dependent on the Bob's apparatus) and Alice's measurement is the effect (because it is no longer dependent on the Alice's apparatus and is totally pre-determined by the outcome of the Bob's measurement). However, if Bob and Alice are separated by a long distance, in a different moving FR2 (even if it's metrics is in Lorentz-consensus with FR1 metrics), then in the local time of FR2 the Alice's measurement will precede the Bob's measurement, while Alice's measurement still remaining the effect and Bob's remaining the cause. This breaks the causality principle that the cause always precedes the effect in time. 

Teleological causality is not philosophically problematic as such. Physicalists have strange aversion towards it, even though most of their business is driven by teleological cause of technology. A version of fine-tuning: what kind of universe do we need to make this technomagic stuff work? 

[Eugene I]

<< I was already trying to move the discussion from "absolute" to the level of whether coordinate systems as such exist, and if they do, how? :)

To clarify the intention, let's call observers in idealist world "alters". Alters with minimal entanglement, or some effective analogy of that that allows them to share a common metric, can mutually create Lorentz-consensus coordinate systems/vector spaces/matrixes, ie. spatial localities (when space is defined as a mathematical construct of a sort). There's no need to start from postulation of any coordinate system aka FR as ontological primitive. SR implicitely postulates at least some coordinate system as ontological primitive, and that sounds kinda silly to me. >>

No, there is nothing ontological in FR even in Einstein's formulation, those are simply math-abstracted references to alters' experiences of conscious phenomena of perceptions of the time and coordinate measures (like seeing rulers and watches). Einstein described it in his "Physics and reality" paper.   

[Eugene I]

Another relevant video:

The crisis of particle physics

Philosophy for our times

[Eugene I]

<< Therefore, at the basis of any adequate theory of reality, there must be the fundamental property of free will (and therefore, consciousness, and therefore life).   >>

Robert,

Ironically, the free will is exactly what superdeterminism (Sabine's theory included), and other hidden variable deterministic theories (Bomhian included) are trying to refute. However, we can argue that since the free will belongs to consciousness only and not to the realm of the "physical" phenomena, and consciousness is irreducible to matter anyway, then no physical theory can refute free will. The trouble for physics, however, is that once the "observer" with his free will is included in the measurement system (as a decision maker for when and what measurements to make) it automatically breaks the determinism of the "physical" realm. 

[Eugene I]

PS to that:

QM and free will

[Eugene I]

And finally:

Have we reached the end of physics?

[Simon Adams]

"Ironically, the free will is exactly what superdeterminism (Sabine's theory included), and other hidden variable deterministic theories (Bomhian included) are trying to refute. However, we can argue that since the free will belongs to consciousness only and not to the realm of the "physical" phenomena, and consciousness is irreducible to matter anyway, then no physical theory can refute free will. The trouble for physics, however, is that once the "observer" with his free will is included in the measurement system (as a decision maker for when and what measurements to make) it automatically breaks the determinism of the "physical" realm. "

This is the paradox science finds itself in.  If it doesn't accept free will, then science is meaningless as there is no choice in how experiments are set up.  However there is clearly nothing in the materialist worldview that can be free will.  This is as expected from a religious/spiritual perspective, but that doesn't help science...

[Santeri Satama]

perjantai 25. joulukuuta 2020 klo 1.00.29 UTC+2 simongr...@gmail.com kirjoitti:

This is the paradox science finds itself in.  If it doesn't accept free will, then science is meaningless as there is no choice in how experiments are set up.  However there is clearly nothing in the materialist worldview that can be free will.  This is as expected from a religious/spiritual perspective, but that doesn't help science...

Materialistic worldview is methodological choice to avoid introspective methodology, because more holistic and honest scientific methodology which includes introspection, tends to lead to deep questions of responsibility and freedom, which can become overwhelmingly meaningful rather easy. 

[Brad Walker]

If scientific consensus rejects free will, all technology will spontaneously vanish?

[Eugene I]

<< If scientific consensus rejects free will, all technology will spontaneously vanish? >>

It's just that their free will freely chose to reject itself. And it can certainly do that exactly because it's free :-)

[Santeri Satama]

Exactly. Freedom of will includes freedom not to choose.

[Brad Walker]

Criticism of free will is ontology independent. It's an incoherent notion with any account of causality. People are "free" to believe in their minor woo for whatever desired psychological effects.

On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 6:38:23 PM UTC-7 Eugene I wrote:

<< If scientific consensus rejects free will, all technology will spontaneously vanish? >>