Schrödinger proposed this thought-experiment only to show that the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of quantum mechanics is, at best, paradoxical (i.e. does not make sense). — 180 Proof

Of course I understand that. It’s an ironic way of illustrating the anti-realist implications of the very principles that he discovered.

Incidentally apropos the question you asked about the independent reality of the wave function, QBism says definitely not.

:zip:

OK I did a bit more research and uncovered this: that Schrödinger intended the famous Cat thought-experiment to highlight the paradoxes and limitations of the Copenhagen interpretation. He found the idea that a macroscopic object like a cat could be in a superposition of being both alive and dead to be absurd. The thought experiment was meant to provoke deeper consideration and debate about the implications of quantum mechanics and to question the completeness and coherence of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Schrödinger's overall attitude towards quantum mechanics was complicated. While he was one of its founding figures and developed the Schrödinger equation, he was also troubled by its philosophical implications and sought alternative interpretations that could provide a more intuitive and realistic understanding of the quantum world. His engagement with these questions reflects his desire for a theory that could reconcile the quantum and classical worlds in a more satisfactory manner.

This was the context:

the object neither exists nor doesn't exist in the absence of the observer. Nothing can be said about it.
— Wayfarer
So the cup ceases to exist when you put it in the dish washer? We can't say that it is being cleaned? — Banno

Banno always returns to homely examples like kitchen utensils, not that there's anything the matter with that. In this context, 'cups' are just a stand-in for 'the object'.

Anyway, I merely said 'this was the precise point that Schrodinger was making with his famous cat'. So you're correct in saying that Schrodinger was sceptical about the Copenhagen interpretation, but I wasn't really appealing to Schrodinger for support of a particular view, only remarking that it is basically the same question. And hence the relevance of physics!

My understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation is that it's not a scientific hypothesis, nor a fully worked out philosophical framework. It's more like various aphorisms and writings of Heisenberg and Bohr on the interpretation of quantum physics. But I think it can't be disputed that it calls realism into question. Einstein's objections were not against the predictive powers of quantum mechanics, which are unarguable, but against its philosophical implications. He believed that quantum mechanics must be incomplete and that there must be underlying hidden variables that could restore a deterministic and objective reality. This viewpoint is encapsulated in his famous thought experiments, such as the EPR paradox (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox), which aimed to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality. However the Alain Aspect experiments confirming the 'Bell inequality' went against Einstein's realist views (even though, of course, he didn't live to see that.)

Bohr emphasized the role of the observer and the fundamental limits of what can be known. Bohr argued that quantum mechanics does not describe an objective reality but rather deals with the probabilities of different outcomes of measurements. He maintained that questions about the underlying reality were not meaningful within the framework of quantum mechanics, as the theory only provides information about observations. I think he kind of 'bracketed out' questions about what it ultimately meant or pointed to. It is sometime said he was a positivist, but he didn't agree with positivism either. His quote 'if you're not shocked by quantum mechanics then you can't have understood it' came from a lecture he gave to the Vienna Circle positivists, who all applauded politely and nodded sagely at the conclusion of his lecture on quantum physics. (As told in Heisenberg's Physics and Beyond.)

The point I was arguing about was against the contention that the type of idealist view I'm advocating must imply that the world doesn't exist in the absence of the observer. I said that any statement of, or knowledge about, the object's existence or non-existence can only be made by an observer. Science has no trouble depicting the world as it was before the evolution of h.sapiens, for instance - an empirical fact - but the interpretive framework within which that description is meaningful, is still provided by the mind - which is transcendental idealism. That's the sense in which I think there can be a kind of Kantian attitude to the Copenhagen interpretation. If you or anyone is interested, Michel Bitbol has a lecture on that, Bohr's Complimentarity and Kant's Epistemology.

Science has no trouble depicting the world as it was before the evolution of h.sapiens, for instance - an empirical fact - — Wayfarer

And that suffices, the rest is derivative (pace Kant) or superfluous. A more cogent and parsimonious description is, imo, more or less this one: "observers" are any aspects of the world interacting with – abstracting stochastic patterns from – any other aspects of the world.

Because of its various failures, too: colonialism, racism, and the atom bomb come to mind. The ideas about appropriation of land and the need to civlize the lesser races are part of the Enlightenment as much as the romantic vision of the Human Being. It has good and bad, like everything.

Up next:

God does not play dice. — Einstein

Because of its various failures, too: colonialism, racism, and the atom bomb come to mind. The ideas about appropriation of land and the need to civlize the lesser races are part of the Enlightenment as much as the romantic vision of the Human Being. It has good and bad, like everything. — Moliere

I find the dichotomy interesting because "colonialism, racism" and the science for the "atomic bomb" were terms invented by (people of the) Enlightenment (or derived from Enlightenment thinking) in order to (self) critique their own practices.

That is to say, yes you had pseudo-science social darwinism, for example, leading to racist theories, but the very mechanisms to call this into question and the idea that theories are wrong and not just "tradition" or "the way of things" or simply "because power and our people want it", is itself from the Enlightenment. You cannot displace the wrongs of the Enlightenment from the self-criticism that is part-and-parcel of its ethos. For all intents and purposes it is literally the basis for "modernity" in that self-critique is built into the framework.

A tribal society conquering another one and destroying the village and taking wives doesn't generally have the language of social self-critique. Even the Aztecs, with all its mathematical and engineering feats and other amazing features, didn't necessarily have the self-critique of the Enlightenment thinking. Greece and Rome had nascent satire and cynical commentary, but it wasn't yet part of the ethos of the political and social fabric to have massive self-critique in a way whereby the political body itself was questioning its dialectic of conquering other tribes, and taking over massive regions, often wiping out cultures or force assimilating them.

One has to laugh. Astrobiology - NASA’s fund-raising publicity department - reinvents the wheel. A new law that no one ever thought of. — apokrisis

Ha! You got something against the science of Astrobiology*1? Do you think Carl Sagan was looking through his telescope for little green men? Do you think NASA is a public relations tool for some nefarious evil-genius who wants to dominate the world? Well granted, Donald Trump or Elon Musk may want to put his name on the next rocket to Mars. And, Skepticism of "new" ideas is a truth filter. But, Scoffing is a creativity suppressor.

Dr. Michael Wong is indeed an astrobiologist, but the team included scientists from other specialties.The NASA article was just one of dozens of positive reviews of this proposed law. Besides, the linked publication doesn't mention Astrobiology. And the appellation of "new law" was applied by other science news publications. What "wheel" do you think is being re-invented here? What old law explained how Mind Functions and Human Purposes could emerge from purely materialistic evolution?

One reason I mentioned this particular scientific theory --- in this way-off-topic thread --- is that the postulated anti-entropy arrow-of-time puts Evolution in a new light. For years, scientists were able to picture Darwinian evolution as meandering, aimless, and ultimately doomed to a pathetic meaningless Heat Death. But now we have reasons for a more optimistic perspective : "his idea suggests that while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder"*2. This notion is also in opposition to the presumptions of Materialism, which focuses on the Randomness & Chaos of the universe, instead of the Order & Organization that makes Science & Philosophy possible.

The other reason is that "renowned mineralogist" Robert Hazen refers to this second arrow of thermodynamics as “the law of increasing functional information”. Which dovetails into my own personal information-based worldview. Moreover, it expands Darwin's notion of biological evolution to include non-living aspects of the universe*3. Which may help to explain how the hypothetical quark-gluon Plasma of the Big Bang was able to develop into living & thinking lumps of matter, not by divine creation, but by natural processes. How could Mechanical Evolution produce creatures concerned about Fairness & Justice in the world? :nerd:


*1. Astrobiology is a scientific field within the life and environmental sciences that studies the origins, early evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe by investigating its deterministic conditions and contingent events. ___Wikipedia

*2. Is there a second arrow of time? New research says yes
At Big Think, we introduce you to the brightest minds and boldest ideas of our time, inviting viewers to explore new ways to work, live, and understand our ever-changing world.
"Big Think challenges common sense assumptions and gives people permission to think in new ways.”
https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-second-arrow-of-time/

*3. New Law :
The core of everything we've been thinking about, in terms of the missing law, is evolution. When I say the word "evolution," you immediately think of Darwin, but this idea of selection goes much, much beyond Darwin and life. It applies to the evolution of atoms. It applies to the evolution of minerals. It applies to the evolution of planets and atmospheres and oceans. Evolution, which we see as being an increase in diversity, of patterning, in complexity of systems through time.
https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-second-arrow-of-time/

https://www.sci.news/physics/law-of-increasing-functional-information-12369.html

https://www.space.com/scientists-propose-missing-law-evolution-of-everything-in-the-universe

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/22/evolution-complexity-law

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/law-of-nature-research-selection-evolution-function-fittest-cornell-carnegie

https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IngBEkg61_E
Three new laws of Nature, to account for complexity. Sabine is skeptical.

Is There a Second Arrow of Time?

So we have a universe that, as it slides inevitably towards thermodynamic equilibrium, contains pockets of ever increasing complexity.

Is the argument then that this complexity somehow implies (leads to, causes...) a fair and just universe?

The difference between how things are and how they ought be remains.

Presumably, if you give Wigner's friend a gas mask and put her in the box with the cat, the situation for Schrödinger, outside the box, remains unchanged... the cat is alive and dead; yet the situation for Wigner's friend is different - they can see the cat.

And crucially, Wigner's friend and Schrödinger will agree that this is the case. The rules of physics remain the same for both observers.

I'm not keen on philosophers indulging in speculative physics, but it's worth pointing out that "Shut up and calculate!" is itself a worthy metaphysical option:

To shut up and calculate, then, recognises that there are limits to our pathways for understanding. Our only option as scientists is to look, predict and test. This might not be as glamorous an offering as the interpretations we can construct in our minds, but it is the royal road to real knowledge. — Quantum Wittgenstein

Ha! You got something against the science of Astrobiology* — Gnomon

No. I'm pointing out how the sociology of science operates. NASA wants to remain employed by the US taxpayer. The cold war arms race is over. The Mars colony or even Moon colony is no go. So it sponsors the new field of astrobiology because US taxpayers love aliens and their flying saucers.

I'm all for spending taxes on basic science research. But this Big Science story is also a problem.

Astrobiology has given some good researchers a new platform for working on the problem of abiogenesis. I follow this work closely. But that means also knowing what the field of abiogenesis had achieved before the tacit question – how is this going to make folk want to fund another mission to Mars or a next generation space-scope? – was hanging over its head. And a publicity department existed to make a rehash of old ideas sound all sparkly and new.

One reason I mentioned this particular scientific theory --- in this way-off-topic thread --- is that the postulated anti-entropy arrow-of-time puts Evolution in a new light. For years, scientists were able to picture Darwinian evolution as meandering, aimless, and ultimately doomed to a pathetic meaningless Heat Death. But now we have reasons for a more optimistic perspective : "his idea suggests that while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder"*2. This notion is also in opposition to the presumptions of Materialism, which focuses on the Randomness & Chaos of the universe, instead of the Order & Organization that makes Science & Philosophy possible. — Gnomon

Sorry @Gnomon, I don't fathom how your brain works. What else have I been telling you for at least a decade?

I said that any statement of, or knowledge about, the object's existence or non-existence can only be made by an observer. — Wayfarer

Were this the limit of your claim, no one would be objecting. This is entirely compatible with hard realism.

But you take this as somehow demonstrating idealism. It just doesn't.

To be candid, I should point out that the arguments here against idealism should not be taken as implying realism. It's not the case that one or the other must be the "true" description of how things are. It's more that each is a "way of talking about how things are", each with its own merits. I don't think a definitive case can be made either way, but realism aligns better with "homely examples like kitchen utensils". Keeping this in mind can prevent our discussions from going on holiday.

It's more that each is a "way of talking about how things are", each with its own merits. — Banno

So a dialectic.

but realism aligns better with "homely examples like kitchen utensils". — Banno

And a resolution that is comfortably within reach of its lasagne. :clap:

So a dialectic. — apokrisis

Well, ok, that's a way of describing it. So what. More Wittgenstein than Hegel. And the resolution is not a third option, not a synthesis, but adopting the thesis, so it's not a very good example of dialectic at work.

My suspicion is that dialectic is a way of narrating the way things are, of sense-making. As such it's post hoc. The argument agains dialectic that I presented above shows how it is that dialectic methods serve to choose the option preferred by the narrator. That critique stands.

so it's not a very good example of dialectic at work. — Banno

Oh the irony!

The argument agains dialectic that I presented above shows how it is that dialectic methods serve to choose the option preferred by the narrator. That critique stands. — Banno

It stands against a person and so also the method. Your suspicion has thus been justly confirmed?

Sounds legit, but what would Wittgenstein have said? “See me after class, boy, for a good slap around the ears.”?

Back to spitting, I see. Fine. A change from your name-calling.

I'll put the point more forcefully: Dialectic has more of rhetoric to it than of logic.

One might be hard pressed to find a case where dialectic cannot be applied. That's not a good thing.

One might be hard pressed to find a case where dialectic cannot be applied. That's not a good thing. — Banno

Yet you seem to claim that for “classical logic”?

And just to remind, in case you really did miss it, I don’t defend Hegel as the final word here. I defend the Peircean triadic systems view as the best metaphysical logic or model of causal being.

But keep on stabbing away at your straw man until it is time for lunch. Straw men are always a safer target than the real thing.

Yet you seem to claim that for “classical logic”? — apokrisis

Well, no - see my thread on logical nihilism. The "Peircean triadic systems view" is, so far as it is comprehensible, just more Hegel.

It certainly is not physics.

The "Peircean triadic systems view" is, so far as it is comprehensible, just more Hegel. — Banno

What am I supposed to do with your solipsistic pronouncements? If you have comprehension failures then that’s on you. I’ll get out the world’s smallest violin if it might help.

More spit. Cheers.

:up:

Presumably, if you give Wigner's friend a gas mask and put her in the box with the cat, the situation for Schrödinger, outside the box, remains unchanged... the cat is alive and dead; yet the situation for Wigner's friend is different - they can see the cat.

And crucially, Wigner's friend and Schrödinger will agree that this is the case. The rules of physics remain the same for both observers.

I'm not keen on philosophers indulging in speculative physics, but it's worth pointing out that "Shut up and calculate!" is itself a worthy metaphysical option:
To shut up and calculate, then, recognises that there are limits to our pathways for understanding. Our only option as scientists is to look, predict and test. This might not be as glamorous an offering as the interpretations we can construct in our minds, but it is the royal road to real knowledge.
— Quantum Wittgenstein — Banno

I think this is very useful advice and well framed.

Cheers. .

I said that any statement of, or knowledge about, the object's existence or non-existence can only be made by an observer.
— Wayfarer

Were this the limit of your claim, no one would be objecting. This is entirely compatible with hard realism. — Banno

On the contrary realists insist that the object is as it is irrespective of the presence or absence of an observer. And that the understanding we hold of a world with no observers truly describes a mind-independent reality.

The reason 20th c physics undermined realism is precisely in respect of those claims. That is why books about it refer to ‘arguments about reality.’ That is not a figurative description.

To shut up and calculate, then, recognises that there are limits to our pathways for understanding. — Banno

…in respect of what is ultimately real.

…in respect of what is ultimately real. — Wayfarer

Or let the maths decide what we might believe about that. Hence ontic structural realism as the new Platonic sounding metaphysics that has arisen out of a contemplation of gauge symmetry and quantum field theory.

Dissipative structure theory applied at the level of cosmology and particle physics in other words.

The fact we can calculate general particle properties to 15 decimal places, and also not measure everything about some particular excitation in the one act of measurement, ought to tell you something about how well we are in fact doing.

We can reach ridiculous levels of accuracy about the electron's dipole moment from just first principles. And we know why it has to be the case that you can't measure the two poles of a dialectic relation – such as position and momentum – in one go. Each variable is only quantifiable to the degree it is not its other.

But that's OK. We can capture all the information in a wavefunction. And then add in thermal context to narrow the probabilities to the point that they become pragmatically a classical description. A weak measurement gets close enough to certainty concerning one pole without driving its other pole to a reciprocal state of Planckscale uncertainty.

But instead of celebrating this quite remarkable success in fundamental science, you ... complain we're "not there yet".

Just as Bert does about an account of life and mind as biosemiosis in action.

Hence ontic structural realism as the new Platonic sounding metaphysics that has arisen out of a contemplation of gauge symmetry and quantum field theory. — apokrisis

I’ve read about those guys but I really don’t like them so far.

But instead of celebrating this quite remarkable success in fundamental science, you ... complain we're "not there yet". — apokrisis

Complaint?

On the contrary realists insist that the object is as it is irrespective of the presence or absence of an observer. — Wayfarer

I said that any statement of, or knowledge about, the object's existence or non-existence can only be made by an observer. — Wayfarer

The Statement can only be made by an observer. That's quite compatible with realism -at least, those realists who do not believe in disembodied statements.

Again, there is a difference between how things are and how we believe they are. A difference between how they are and how we say that they are. A difference that tends to dissipate in idealism. A difference that explains what it is to be mistaken.

The Statement can only be made by an observer — Banno

I said ‘any judgement regarding what exists’. The position I’m defending is near to Berkeley’s esse est percipe, but the way I put it is that nothing exists outside a perspective.

Optical illusions and mistaken perceptions such as ‘the bent oar’ are discussed by Berkeley. I’ll dig up the ref although not right now.

Why do you think there is and has been an argument in physics as to ‘what is real’, were the issue so simple as you appear to believe? What is the argument about, do you think?