The logic of physics is, in this sense, a wheel of self-referencing entities inside a circular logic. It works, nevertheless, if you don’t bother about the existential questions we are dealing with here. But it shows how, when it comes to deeper questions, the so-called ‘exact sciences’ don’t tell us much about what the world ultimately is and… why it does something. Ultimately, everything boils down to forces, space, and time. More than that, physics won’t be able to tell you.
It continues to AMAZE me how intensely, how vigorously people - even physicists - will fight this when it's spelled out like this.
My understanding of Anton Zeilinger's views (he won the Nobel Prize in physics in 2022) is that they are completely in alignment with what you wrote, but when I've quoted Zeilinger's own words to others (including scientists of various kinds) they object vigorously - saying, for example, he obviously doesn't understand physics (!!!) or doesn't understand the observer effect.
Sigh. Hope you make a "metaphysics for dummies" video or write a dumbed down essay some day that can get this across.
My experience is a bit less dramatic. Most physicists simply say: "Well, it is not our job to know the ultimate reality of things, we leave that to philosophers.... let us talk about something else." Obviously, they then continue (more or less unconsciously) to assume that physics describes an ‘objective reality.’
If someone says Zeilinger doesn’t understand physics, one is obviously exhibiting one’s own ignorance in plain sight. Or, to put in Feynman words: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
Having said that, I align with those who say that there is no such thing as an ‘observer effect’ in QP. At least not in the sense that people normally think of it (the human mind collapsing the wave function) I guess Zeilinger has been misunderstood, or, as it is, unfortunately, the case among many physicists, he has popularized and vulgarized the concept in a manner that makes people happy to hear what they want to hear. Have you the quote from him? So I may see what he means. At any rate, I have already written an essay on that, I might post it next.
however little I understand it, I think I agree that it' obviously not the human mind collapsing some "objective" wave function (which is already an incorrect way of putting it, I think). you know Ulrich writes pretty clearly about this particularly thing - I think you are in agreement about this.
I looked through several of B Alan Wallace's books for the quote - I can't find it at the moment. I'll see if I can find it later.
THIS:
The logic of physics is, in this sense, a wheel of self-referencing entities inside a circular logic. It works, nevertheless, if you don’t bother about the existential questions we are dealing with here. But it shows how, when it comes to deeper questions, the so-called ‘exact sciences’ don’t tell us much about what the world ultimately is and… why it does something. Ultimately, everything boils down to forces, space, and time. More than that, physics won’t be able to tell you.
It continues to AMAZE me how intensely, how vigorously people - even physicists - will fight this when it's spelled out like this.
My understanding of Anton Zeilinger's views (he won the Nobel Prize in physics in 2022) is that they are completely in alignment with what you wrote, but when I've quoted Zeilinger's own words to others (including scientists of various kinds) they object vigorously - saying, for example, he obviously doesn't understand physics (!!!) or doesn't understand the observer effect.
Sigh. Hope you make a "metaphysics for dummies" video or write a dumbed down essay some day that can get this across.
My experience is a bit less dramatic. Most physicists simply say: "Well, it is not our job to know the ultimate reality of things, we leave that to philosophers.... let us talk about something else." Obviously, they then continue (more or less unconsciously) to assume that physics describes an ‘objective reality.’
If someone says Zeilinger doesn’t understand physics, one is obviously exhibiting one’s own ignorance in plain sight. Or, to put in Feynman words: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
Having said that, I align with those who say that there is no such thing as an ‘observer effect’ in QP. At least not in the sense that people normally think of it (the human mind collapsing the wave function) I guess Zeilinger has been misunderstood, or, as it is, unfortunately, the case among many physicists, he has popularized and vulgarized the concept in a manner that makes people happy to hear what they want to hear. Have you the quote from him? So I may see what he means. At any rate, I have already written an essay on that, I might post it next.
however little I understand it, I think I agree that it' obviously not the human mind collapsing some "objective" wave function (which is already an incorrect way of putting it, I think). you know Ulrich writes pretty clearly about this particularly thing - I think you are in agreement about this.
I looked through several of B Alan Wallace's books for the quote - I can't find it at the moment. I'll see if I can find it later.