It made me wonder if things like mass, and position are not truly the fundamental building blocks of existence, but are only derived phenomena from something even more fundamental — Brendan Golledge

How would we even be able to know what state or lack of states quanta has apart from measurement?

Suppose spacetime is fundamentally entangled ... — 180 Proof

From what I gather it doesn't mean much for our day to day lives, but for quantum cryptography maybe.

So you are trying to find the right terms to interpret a mathematical model. Language games again. — substantivalism

Not language games, just that translating the math is hard because quantum physics isn't exactly intuitive.

These mental tools do not need a degree for someone to fully analyze it or get it on first viewing. — substantivalism

Yes they do, otherwise you end up with people like you talking about things they don't understand.

When a scientist has constructed explanations of phenomena they make use of something other than purely descriptive or mathematical terms. They use an assortment of analogies to other phenomenon — substantivalism

No they're not. We have data and then determine what that data means. If you put sodium in water and it explodes you can reason that sodium and water create that reaction.

Usually going along the same lines as saying 'let us treat light as if it were a wave', 'imagine that the electron is small ball and the nucleus is a dense collection', or 'pretend that atoms in lattices are balls connected by springs'. — substantivalism

Not language games and not what they do.

These are analogue modeling which is extremely prevalent and a fundamental fiction creating tool which physicists use all the time. — substantivalism

Not fiction.

I'd say that is all that the majority of what a scientific interpretation of a theory is composed of.

How else would you explain to someone what a mathematical model even means when there are no familiar, direct, and meaningful concepts? — substantivalism

Easily, we do it every day. Math is part of how we get the result but that's not all physics is. You're just making shit up that scientists don't do to try to justify that philosophy has some use when it's long been obsolete in navigating the world apart from ethics and morality.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe position and momentum aren't really the fundamental building blocks of existence, but maybe the wave function itself (which describes a probability distribution of position or momentum) is the true existence of the particle. — Brendan Golledge

They are and it's not.

Not language games, just that translating the math is hard because quantum physics isn't exactly intuitive. — Darkneos

Your acting as if there is some clear god given manner in which you translate the math into ordinary language. The fact that we do disagree on how to do so means that it isn't so much a revelation to a scientist as much as it is a long drawn out unending debate that has numerous subjective threads.

Such as appeals to: Empirical adequacy, simplicity, unificationism, counterfactual restriction of physical possibilities, conceptual pragmatic utility, etc. There are many other such subjective meta-criteria that scientists appeal to all the time especially when falsifiability fails to be able to yield any useful or clear answer.

No they're not. We have data and then determine what that data means. If you put sodium in water and it explodes you can reason that sodium and water create that reaction. — Darkneos

What you just stated is a description NOT an explanation nor is it how this would be explained regardless.

Where are the talk of atoms? Subatomic or atomic interactions? Fields of force? Quantum fields? Talk of little billiard balls or liquid wave functions?

I don't see those in the reaction as those are terms and stories meant to refer to something not in the description you just gave. They are meant to REFER to something UNSEEN and what is truly responsible for the reaction that took place. I was talking about EXPLANATIONS and not MERE DESCRIPTIONS.

Not language games and not what they do. — Darkneos

Then give me an example of how a scientist explains something using quantum mechanics that doesn't make use of math, descriptive language, or uses any form of metaphor/analogical speech. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Not fiction. — Darkneos

Is the Rutherford model of an atom meant to be taken as how atoms actually are or merely a useful fiction?

Easily, we do it every day. Math is part of how we get the result but that's not all physics is. You're just making shit up that scientists don't do to try to justify that philosophy has some use when it's long been obsolete in navigating the world apart from ethics and morality. — Darkneos

Making it up!!

Read a scientific journal on the topic matter. . . a quick search got me this paper on hydrodynamic analogue modeling for gravitational modeling (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511105). Clearly, a hydrodynamical analogy is much more amenable to investigate or wrap your head around than talking about the forest of pure math approaches to quantum gravity along with the unclear, vague, or esoteric language that accompanies it. This is a valid approach.

Here is an entire 452 page textbook collection of articles on analogue models just for understanding gravitational phenomenon or as it puts it 'analogue gravity phenomenology'. Which is a deeply rich text which can only speak for itself:

Reasoning by analogies is a natural inclination of the human brain that operates by associating new and unknown situations to a series of known and previously encountered situations. On the basis of these analogies, judgements and decisions are made: associations are the building blocks for predictive thought. It is therefore natural that analogue models are also a constant presence in the world of physics and an invaluable instrument in the progress of our knowledge of the world that surrounds us. It would be impossible to give a comprehensive list of these analogue models but a few recent and relevant examples are optical waveguide analogues of the relativistic Dirac equation (linking optics with quantum mechanics), photonic crystals (linking optical wave propagation in periodic lattices with electron propagation in metals) or, at a more profound level, the Anti-de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory correspondence (linking quantum systems in D dimensions to gravitational systems in D+1dimensions). The purpose of this book is to give a general overview and introduction to the world of analogue gravity: the simulation or recreation of certain phenomena that are usually attributed to the effects of gravity but that can be shown to naturally emerge in a variety of systems ranging from flowing liquids to nonlinear optics.

This isn't only limited to gravity as here is a huge plethora of quantum analogue models along with well needed discussions as to the place or importance of them. Happy reading!

Do you believe quantum particles can be in multiple statea at once, and why believe that?

Do you believe quantum particles can be in multiple statea at once, and why believe that? — Gregory

Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle.

Read a scientific journal on the topic matter. . . a quick search got me this paper on hydrodynamic analogue modeling for gravitational modeling (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511105). Clearly, a hydrodynamical analogy is much more amenable to investigate or wrap your head around than talking about the forest of pure math approaches to quantum gravity along with the unclear, vague, or esoteric language that accompanies it. This is a valid approach — substantivalism

I have read some but to use the word analogy means you don’t understand what is going on and what they’re doing.

You think the math is the pure data and it has to be translated to language and that’s just not what’s going on.

Again you keep trying to make philosophy valid where it isn’t. This is just noise.

This isn't only limited to gravity as here is a huge plethora of quantum analogue models along with well needed discussions as to the place or importance of them. Happy reading! — substantivalism

I know you didn’t really these, you literally quoted the first paragraph. Not only do you not understand what science is doing but you link evidence to the contrary, nice work.

Like I said, it’s noise. Maybe read what you link first before posting. Again, that’s not what’s happening in science.

Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle. — Darkneos

There are several interpretations which disagree with this though, including Bohmian and Many Worlds.

Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle — Darkneos

The whole "measurement problem" seems like a hoax. If it only settles when we look we have no idea what it would be (or is) if we didn't

Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle. — Darkneos

According to what?

You have still left this a complete mystery as to how you interpret correctly mathematical models of any given phenomenon. I think the reason why you choose to remain silent on it and cite sources is because either you'd be shown as a dogmatist who can't think beyond his textbooks or your literally start talking about things that philosophers of science have discussed to death already. That or accidently have to bring in other such fields as linguistics and psychology into the fold because if philosophy is dead that doesn't actually mean all its problems go away as they find new homes in more palatably named alternative fields of study.

I have read some but to use the word analogy means you don’t understand what is going on and what they’re doing. — Darkneos

Explain to me why the word analogy doesn't fit? With a cited source?

You think the math is the pure data and it has to be translated to language and that’s just not what’s going on. — Darkneos

I've repeatedly made the distinction between the mathematical models one uses to quantify observations or make predictions which is CONSTRASTED with the actual observational statements made or observations performed.

There are theoretical and then there are generally therefore observational statements/terms. It's really simple. Read the above twice if you have to.

Again you keep trying to make philosophy valid where it isn’t. This is just noise. — Darkneos

. . . and your trying so hard to not have a discussion about things that confuse laymen all the time. I see tons of questions by such people all the time asking if the statements made by popular pop-cultural depictions of scientific facts or by actual scientists themselves are 'true' or 'mere language games/metaphor'.

I know you didn’t really these, you literally quoted the first paragraph. Not only do you not understand what science is doing but you link evidence to the contrary, nice work. — Darkneos

You stated that scientist did not do anything related to what I was talking about which implied they worked with nothing involving analogies or metaphors. I showed that this was wrong simply by the fact modern scientists construct and see worth in analogue modeling. It's a common ancient practice. It's literal basic modeling!

If you wanted a bit of a historical treatment and a deep dive into the prevalence of analogies in scientific work then I'd advocate grabbing yourself the book scientific models in philosophy of science by Bailer-Jones. Someone who has had an extensive interest in the philosophy of science but is also it seems has a masters in astrophysics. If you can't stand the more philosophical chapters at least read the sections showcasing paradigm examples from well known names such as Maxwell or Boltzmann. They both had brief but intriguing perspectives on the roles of modeling or analogy in the sciences.

I'd also recommend any historical treatment regarding physics concepts such as force, mass, space/time, simultaneity, or the interpretations of quantum mechanics (if you can find a cheap copy) by Max Jammer which are extensive historical treatments far beyond any text book presentation of the common physics notions you are now familiar with. (https://www.amazon.com/s?k=max+jammer&crid=2JUXI96VNZO85&sprefix=max+ja%2Caps%2C567&ref=nb_sb_noss_2)

The whole "measurement problem" seems like a hoax. If it only settles when we look we have no idea what it would be (or is) if we didn't — Gregory

Are you saying there is un-observational even in principle speculation to be had here? *gasp*

How can we know the state of something apart from measurement?

There are several interpretations which disagree with this though, including Bohmian and Many Worlds. — Apustimelogist

That's not what non locality here means and Many Worlds is tenuous at best.

The whole "measurement problem" seems like a hoax. If it only settles when we look we have no idea what it would be (or is) if we didn't — Gregory

It's not really look, measurement in QM just means any interaction even with each other.

think the reason why you choose to remain silent on it and cite sources is because either you'd be shown as a dogmatist who can't think beyond his textbooks or your literally start talking about things that philosophers of science have discussed to death already. — substantivalism

They haven't discussed it to death, in fact they can't settle on anything. You're just making noise because what you offer has no real value to science, not anymore anyway. Maybe when it still had it's birth as natural philosophy but science has grown past that point to where philosophy just gets in the way.

Explain to me why the word analogy doesn't fit? With a cited source? — substantivalism

You don't need cited sources when it comes to philosophy, it's all just arguments.

Again, engage with the science, not this philosophy of science noise where they can't agree on anything.

. . . and your trying so hard to not have a discussion about things that confuse laymen all the time. I see tons of questions by such people all the time asking if the statements made by popular pop-cultural depictions of scientific facts or by actual scientists themselves are 'true' or 'mere language games/metaphor'. — substantivalism

They aren't saying that. And the answer to that question is NO. The sensationalism behind QM isn't true. People just like to co-opt it for their pet theory because we don't fully understand it, therefore magic, therefor....my nonsense is true because quantum.

To draw back to the actual subject, I asked physicists and they all said this non locality doesn't really affect your day to day life and even then we aren't entirely sure how it does this. Quantum physics is hard to put into daily words because we still don't have the entire picture yet. This is bleeding edge science after all.

They haven't discussed it to death, in fact they can't settle on anything. You're just making noise because what you offer has no real value to science, not anymore anyway. — Darkneos

So are you saying that what I linked to has no value? Are you going to submit a paper or opinion piece on your blog about the wasted efforts of each of those authors?

Even before you've fully read anything by them?

I'm glad an espoused layman such as yourself can dictate whether their research or speculation mattered at all to the fields they are trying to actively be participants in and are actually a part of.

You don't need cited sources when it comes to philosophy, it's all just arguments. — Darkneos

However, the point of science is to build on critical thinking skills and the peer review process is built to be argumentative as well as critical for a reason. Not to 'avoid arguments' because its. . . what. . . inconvenient.

Again, engage with the science, not this philosophy of science noise where they can't agree on anything. — Darkneos

When I engage in science is it the case that there will be no reference to analogies or metaphorical speech regarding interpretations of any theory? Is there fully NO experimental underdetermination and if I wait long enough for the next experiment without inconsistency of debate will this always resolve to the correct interpretation?

Many of those 'nonsense philosophical discussions' were initiated in honesty with the intent to improve our scientific thinking from well known physicists. How about you forget the label philosophy and we will just start naming authors along with discussing their positions on the matter so you can't play your game of intellectual populism.

As you said in a previous reply to someone else. . .

It's pretty much done every day, you don't really need philosophy to do that. The fact it pans out and leads to discoveries that we can manipulate and act on sorta implies it doesn't matter what philosophy thinks about it. — Darkneos

If it doesn't matter what philosophy thinks on it then it also doesn't matter what interpretation you bring to the table or what words you put to the math. All we would need is a mathematical model and a collection of operational/instrumental practices that allow us to 'manipulate' the world or 'act on sorta' but with all that other interpretational fat shaved away.

Why? That being because the debate you are hypocritically indulging in ON A PHILOSOHPY FORUM doesn't matter to building a bridge that won't fall or semi-conductor based chips in our phones.

That is the practical, innovate, and experimental aspect of science. Not the interpretational or the purely theoretical. Would you abandon the latter because they don't suit you or provide any immediate or even future practicalities?

^--- That right there is the real choice. If you decide to do so then a lot of what physicists have done which they may not have considered philosophical could be thrown in the same bin.

That's not what non locality here means and Many Worlds is tenuous at best. — Darkneos

I'm not so sure what I think about Many Worlds here actually. But - where in the Bohmian interpretation are particles in many states at the same time? I don't think they are.

I feel like every new discovery in the field gets muddled by thousands of people who try to run away with it and draw conclusions that it's not saying. I'm pretty sure physics doesn't really have anything to say about realism, anti-realism, or idealism, but that hasn't stopped folks from trying. I just want to know what it means, because from the little I was able to parse it doesn't seem that disastrous — Darkneos

I agree with your suspicion here that it really isn't as astoundingly world changing as its made out to be and contains some connection in form to other similar discussions surrounding the base assumptions we make along with their implications on local causation.

It's making me think about the conventionality of simultaneity arguments that people had after Einstein's special theory of relativity. If you happened to detect a tachyon its implied that you are left with two choices either it 'came from the future' and perhaps is showcasing a case of retro-causality, time travel of sorts. That or you claim that whatever speed you've ascribed to the speed of causality, the speed of light, was merely incorrect and the speed of light is actually not our fastest conceivable influence. Retro-causality is a rather astounding physical re-interpretation of what the math implies while the other interpretation, including nonlocal action-at-a-distance, could retain all our commonsensical assumptions at the pain of leaving the core interaction we are concerned with undetectable by first principles.

Whenever we are met with an influence, interaction, or probabilistic correlation that may seem to go faster than the speed of light we either devolve into rather esoteric notions of 'action-at-a-distance' again or postulate that the fastest possible manner in which something can influence something else (the speed of local causation) isn't actually exhibited by any known signal. Photons are the fastest influence we have access to but there could be physical signals or interactions that violate this in undetectable manners.
So when they make their presence clear it appears non-locally and all of sudden because we base our operational definitions of simultaneity on the slower signal which we can observe.

The other horn is in being highly militant about the speed of light being coincident with the speed of causality and therefore having to interpret any apparent 'faster than light' correlations or casual influences as implying some weird form of hyper localism. This is where things would get rather peculiar with regards to the language one uses and I'm curious if it's at all possible to phrase it in intuitive terms that don't relegate it to obvious 'metaphysical nonsense'.

not really look, measurement in QM just means any interaction even with each other — Darkneos

No I think it's any interaction between the classical world and an isolated quanta. But to say apart from this interaction quanta is in multiple states is to say what you forbade yourself to do: tell something about the system without analyzing it. So it's self contradictory the way most physicists speak of this. They are philosophizing. Also, any "isolated" quanta is really always interacting with the whole system, so according to their philosophy everything must be only classical. A lot of what scientists say doesn't make any sense

No I think it's any interaction between the classical world and an isolated quanta. But to say apart from this interaction quanta is in multiple states is to say what you forbade yourself to do: tell something about the system without analyzing it. So it's self contradictory the way most physicists speak of this. They are philosophizing. Also, any "isolated" quanta is really always interacting with the whole system, so according to their philosophy everything must be only classical. A lot of what scientists say doesn't make any sense — Gregory

I think it’s more like you don’t understand what’s going on.

I told you what it means, doesn’t matter what you think it means that’s what it is. There is no contradiction

Whenever we are met with an influence, interaction, or probabilistic correlation that may seem to go faster than the speed of light we either devolve into rather esoteric notions of 'action-at-a-distance' again or postulate that the fastest possible manner in which something can influence something else (the speed of local causation) isn't actually exhibited by any known signal. Photons are the fastest influence we have access to but there could be physical signals or interactions that violate this in undetectable manners. — substantivalism

Nope, that’s called hidden variable and that was disproven by the experiment

I think it’s more like you don’t understand what’s going on.

I told you what it means, doesn’t matter what you think it means that’s what it is. There is no contradiction — Darkneos

That's it? No explanation?

Nope, that’s called hidden variable and that was disproven by the experiment — Darkneos

So they can rule out God as a hidden variable?

That's it? No explanation? — Gregory

I mean...you either get QM or not, it's solid math so there ain't much else to say.

So they can rule out God as a hidden variable? — Gregory

And that's where I stop taking you seriously.