Quantum Physics and Classical Physics A Short Note
Why dont classical and quantum physics go together? Are we dealing with two different worlds or are they just two different descriptions?
A world or a universe can only have one physics. It can hardly be assumed that different laws of nature prevail in the microcosm described by quantum physics than in the mesocosm or macrocosm, for which classical physics is responsible.
Lets assume that there are two kinds of laws of nature, one made by nature, the other by us humans. The two are not identical. This means that our laws of nature describe nature as we see it. This description is best achieved in the mesocosm with which we are familiar. We are adapted to this by evolution and are able to create rules with the help of which we can understand the mesoscopic world. By creating our laws of nature, we formulate, as it were, a (mesoscopic) ontology of the world.
So you can say that the phenomenology of the mesoscopic world leads to an ontology in classical physics. In the microscopic world, this ontology does not succeed, one remains in a phenomenological description in the form of statistics, because our mesoscopic measuring instruments do not correspond to the microscopic scales.
Quantum mechanical phenomena such as the spooky action at a distance indicate that at the lowest level, the world must be seen as a coherent field. The field is not an ontological concept, but a phenomenological one. If we were as small as a photon, we could formulate an ontology of the very smallest. And only then would there be a unified physical theory.
Therefore, conversely, it makes no sense to try to apply quantum mechanics to the macroscopic world and this also applies to philosophical conclusions. For this reason, structural realist considerations based on quantum mechanical considerations, such as those of John Worrall, are pointless. One would want to justify a (macroscopic) ontology with a (microscopic) phenomenology.
Against this background, a unification of classical and quantum physics is therefore not possible, unless new laws are found on both sides and categorically unified.
To achieve this, it would have to be possible to ascribe properties to matter, whatever we want to understand by that. In the mesoscopic world, this is easy for us to do by characterizing a molecule, for example. At the quantum level, where we speak of fields, properties can no longer be ontologically assigned to individual particles, because they appear to us both as particles and as waves.
The properties of matter are therefore not intrinsic, but they are an attribution made by us, no matter which interpretation of quantum mechanics we use.
The question of what holds the world together at its core and by this we actually mean what makes up the world in the smallest is wrongly posed, because there is no innermost that we can ontologically label with properties.
So we take two looks at the world, a quasi-ontological one at the mesoworld and a phenomenological one at the microworld.
The same applies accordingly to the macro world of the cosmos. Again, we observe phenomena for which we cannot create an ontology, starting with the Big Bang.
So the world is relativistic for us. Thus, the Kantian thing-in-itself does not exist. In the Critique of Pure Reason, however, Kant still described the thing-in-itself as recognizable in the sense of the essence of things. Later, he described it as unrecognizable. In the earlier version, therefore, it resembles the being that Husserl meant in the context of his view of nature, which is to be achieved by the method of eidetic reduction.
This reduction to the essentials is therefore the starting point of any ontology that we can establish. And we can as far as possible assign properties to this essence, at least in the mesoscopic world.
A world or a universe can only have one physics. It can hardly be assumed that different laws of nature prevail in the microcosm described by quantum physics than in the mesocosm or macrocosm, for which classical physics is responsible.
Lets assume that there are two kinds of laws of nature, one made by nature, the other by us humans. The two are not identical. This means that our laws of nature describe nature as we see it. This description is best achieved in the mesocosm with which we are familiar. We are adapted to this by evolution and are able to create rules with the help of which we can understand the mesoscopic world. By creating our laws of nature, we formulate, as it were, a (mesoscopic) ontology of the world.
So you can say that the phenomenology of the mesoscopic world leads to an ontology in classical physics. In the microscopic world, this ontology does not succeed, one remains in a phenomenological description in the form of statistics, because our mesoscopic measuring instruments do not correspond to the microscopic scales.
Quantum mechanical phenomena such as the spooky action at a distance indicate that at the lowest level, the world must be seen as a coherent field. The field is not an ontological concept, but a phenomenological one. If we were as small as a photon, we could formulate an ontology of the very smallest. And only then would there be a unified physical theory.
Therefore, conversely, it makes no sense to try to apply quantum mechanics to the macroscopic world and this also applies to philosophical conclusions. For this reason, structural realist considerations based on quantum mechanical considerations, such as those of John Worrall, are pointless. One would want to justify a (macroscopic) ontology with a (microscopic) phenomenology.
Against this background, a unification of classical and quantum physics is therefore not possible, unless new laws are found on both sides and categorically unified.
To achieve this, it would have to be possible to ascribe properties to matter, whatever we want to understand by that. In the mesoscopic world, this is easy for us to do by characterizing a molecule, for example. At the quantum level, where we speak of fields, properties can no longer be ontologically assigned to individual particles, because they appear to us both as particles and as waves.
The properties of matter are therefore not intrinsic, but they are an attribution made by us, no matter which interpretation of quantum mechanics we use.
The question of what holds the world together at its core and by this we actually mean what makes up the world in the smallest is wrongly posed, because there is no innermost that we can ontologically label with properties.
So we take two looks at the world, a quasi-ontological one at the mesoworld and a phenomenological one at the microworld.
The same applies accordingly to the macro world of the cosmos. Again, we observe phenomena for which we cannot create an ontology, starting with the Big Bang.
So the world is relativistic for us. Thus, the Kantian thing-in-itself does not exist. In the Critique of Pure Reason, however, Kant still described the thing-in-itself as recognizable in the sense of the essence of things. Later, he described it as unrecognizable. In the earlier version, therefore, it resembles the being that Husserl meant in the context of his view of nature, which is to be achieved by the method of eidetic reduction.
This reduction to the essentials is therefore the starting point of any ontology that we can establish. And we can as far as possible assign properties to this essence, at least in the mesoscopic world.
Comments (57)
How is this a valid assumption? The hypothesized unified force shattered into the four fundamental forces, resulting in the stratification of effects between the quantum and the cosmic, owing to the different scales at which different forces predominate. There is an apparent phase transition between the quantum and the classical which is not well understood. Also, it is invalid to conclude that it makes no sense to apply quantum mechanics to the classical world. There are natural macroscopic processes that function through quantum effects. The transistor utilizes quantum properties. One could argue that the modern era is an expression of quantum-aware ontology.
This, or maybe a Bohm-de Broglie guy, retrocausal, or one of the new "super determinism" types (who I've never quite wrapped my mind around)?
The problem I see with claims that QM actually [I]is[/I] deterministic is that it's like saying it [I]is[/I] computable. These are completely open questions.
Lately I've considered that it is retrocausality that most keeps our image of the classical world down to micro scales. You get locality, realism, basically classical mechanics, just at the cost of future events being involved in the actualization of past ones. Not bad if the alternative is a pleroma of infinite worlds.
That the schrodinger equation is deterministic is not a question - there's unanimous agreement by relevant experts there. It's what happens on/after measurement that people disagree on.
(And there's some disagreement on how ontologically real the schrodinger equation and the "probability" waves it governs are).
Not sure about that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations
It's at least probabalistically deterministic, and a pure state quantum system is fully deterministic.
I'm not sure what he is referring to but if collapse/decoherence is real (not a limit in possible observation, but an ontic change) then the Schrodinger Equation, while describing deterministic evolution, is describing part of a phenomenon that is stochastic. Some people do indeed interpret collapse as an actual ontic event, and this would have major implications for both the symmetry of time down to the smallest scales and how we think about what the Schrodinger Equation describes.
A common complaint against this position is that collapse is "ad hoc," that it doesn't follow from the Schrodinger Equation, but this seems like a pretty weak argument. The one was developed to explain empirical observations and the other is an empirical observation that the explanatory model simply fails to explain.
I believe that he was confusing a statement about the schrodinger equation specifically with a statement about quantum mechanics as a whole, which is why he linked me to a page full of interpretations of quantum mechanics as a whole after I made a statement about the schrodinger equation specifically.
The schrodinger equation is as deteterminstic as the equation y = x^2. The various interpretations of QM don't disagree with *that specific statement about that specific equation*.
In sum, quantum mechanics is a math based on limitations in measurements and probability. As you noted a "field" or "wave" is a mathematical entity that is often confused with a physical reality. Its a metaphor in English. When examining the ocean, we don't calculate every single molecule of water. Its unnecessary. Does that mean that ocean waves are not made up of molecules? No. But for what we're calculating, its easier. This is the same thing as measuring light as a wave vs as a particle. For some experiments and circumstances, its better to calculate light as particles than waves. Are waves of life comprised of particles? Of course. But in those circumstances in math, its just better to calculate it as a wave.
Your first paragraph, maybe - that's probably actually mostly (maybe entirely) correct. Your second paragraph, however, would probably be a great example of why your first paragraph is true.
Just scroll down to the section on Copenhagen
I know many interpretations involve qm being indeterministic, and if you take the time to read my initial post again you'll see I explicitly acknowledge that.
Yes. That's why the quantum pioneers concluded that the conscious mind doing the sub-atomic measuring may have deterministic physical effects*1. Not due to Magical powers, but to something they have in common. Today, that something is typically known as "Information", especially in the form of causal Energy*2 and mental Entention*3. That notion is still in the early stages, and has not yet become scientific doctrine. But it is interesting fodder for philosophical speculation.
For those who are not afraid to conjecture into the unknown, such explorations may be called "quantum mysticism" or "quantum philosophy", depending on your attitude toward projecting what we know into the unknown. Nobel physicist Roger Penrose*1 is just one of many theorists who are pushing the boundaries of physics & psychology & math into uncharted territory, perhaps harboring strange "influences". :nerd:
*1. Quantum mind :
[i]Eugene Wigner developed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind. He proposed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness . . . .
These scientific hypotheses are as yet unvalidated, and they can overlap with quantum mysticism. . . .
Penrose suggested that objective reduction represents neither randomness nor algorithmic processing but instead a non-computable influence in spacetime geometry from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension, consciousness derives.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
*2. Information is Energy :
This book defines a dynamic concept of information that results in a conservation of information principle. Just as the principle of conservation of energy is essential to understanding energy, the principle of conservation of information leads to a deeper understanding of information.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6[/i].
*3. Entention : an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action
Classical and quantum physics go together quite well. You can read a very technical discussion here (which I don't pretend to fully understand) - but the essence of this is that "So after averaging out the quantum-behaviour you just get classical mechanics."
Now if you're looking for things which don't go together, one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics is the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity,
But perhaps I'm not following you.
Other than that- see my response to the OP.
I'm taking this to mean that in your mind, the field doesn't really exist, but is instead just an artifact of our models.
The ontological realness of these fields is certainly open to question, and there's no unanimous answer I think among the relevant experts, but it is a very serious idea that they ARE real, perhaps more fundamentally real than even the particles themselves, and many many experts are realists about this field. You may decide for yourself personally, if you like, that you don't think the fields have ontological existence, but you should still at least take the idea seriously and accept the reality they many experts think they are real.
Furthermore, I assume that we are the ones who interpret the world using our neural means. So there is no 'objective' ontology.
The ontology that we are able to construct leads to the classical physics of the mesocosm. The microworld is 'too small' for us to be able to construct an ontology that is adequate for us.
Both classical and quantum phasic are constructions. In classical physics it takes the form of an ontology; in quantum physics it remains phenomenology.
Many thinkers have pondered "what causes the difference" between Classical (deterministic) Mechanics and Quantum (probabilistic) Statistics? The Quora explanation below*1 --- probably unintentionally --- suggests that the "non-traditional" difference may lie in a Holistic vs Particularistic*2 approach to understanding. My peculiar (philosophical) interpretation of the paradox is that the elusive quantum particle is normally "entangled" in a functional integrated System, which must be forced to "collapse" in order to reveal one isolated part of the whole complex.
But what is it about Measurement that pops the balloon? My personal unorthodox guess is that Measurement (root : mensura ; mens = mind) is an extraction of Information, which as noted in my previous post, is a form of Energy/Force*3. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) postulates that real world objects are collections of particles that are held together by some "force" similar to Gravity (gluons?) into a cohesive organization : a whole system with new functions in addition to those of the constituent parts*4. If that is the case, and if Information is a form of Energy (causation), then probing a sub-atomic system looking for particular answers, may disrupt the structural unity of the system --- like removing a single card from a card tower --- and reveal its components as they fall apart.
You may be able to suggest a more statistical analogy pointing to the same "collapse" effect. For me, this is just a philosophical footnote on the broader application of Holistic (general to specific) Deduction. :nerd:
*1. Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic because it has to incorporate two incompatible properties into one whole.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-quantum-physics-not-deterministic
*2. Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology. ___Oxford Dictionary
*3. Information is Energy :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
*4. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. ___Wikipedia
Quoting Wolfgang
The above statements strike me as inconsistent. The first seems to include more than philosophy (perhaps science and/or technology?) while the second seems to exclude all but philosophy (including science and/or technology?).
And what is the demarcation line between science/technology/philosophy? And if working technology (transistors as an example) does rely upon both, then does that not have significant philosophical implications?
Please advise.
[quote="Pantagruel;879044"]
That's a good summary of the quantum quandary. The arcane math accurately predicts the results of chemical processes, but the "reality", of both the invisible particles and the intangible waves, is hard to imagine. As you noted, both are analogies to common sense experience on the macro level of reality. And even the notion of Entanglement may be simply an analogy to the well known Holistic functions of complex systems*1. Metaphorical analogies are too often "confused" with the Material objects they refer back to.
The Santa Fe Institute*2 for the study of Complexity was established by quantum scientists (e.g. Murray Gell-Mann) among others, specifically to research the mysteries of complex physical systems, in which the contributions of parts may be subordinated to those of the system as whole. As you noted above, it's sometimes easier to calculate the behavior of a whole system than to track the zillions of dissolved parts (e.g. sea water & salt). The system label (e.g. cellular automata*3) may be an as-if metaphor to cover the interactive functions of uncountable physical elements.
I mention the use of holistic methods by scientific experts, because my philosophical use of the term "Holism" on this forum is often confused with, and condemned as, New Age religious beliefs about unseen spiritual realities. Despite that Reductive defense against Holistic models, we need to emulate the quantum pioneers --- who at first were baffled by the counter-intuitive, and contra-classical, evidence of quantized systems and entangled behaviors --- but eventually got on with their job of revealing the underlying roots of Reality. :smile:
*1. Holistic view in Complex Systems :
By adopting a holistic perspective of complex systems, the system rule enables us to navigate the intricate interdependencies and dynamics within them.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/system-thinking-rules-3-rule-holistic-view-complex-m/
*2. Santa Fe Institute :
. . . . the scientific knowledge that is associated with dynamic processes contains an amazingly rich variety of interconnections, involving distinct forms and levels of understanding. This variety of forms of dynamic knowledge, which is presently largely unrecognized, will be demonstrated via recent specific technical examples. It will be seen in these examples that the understandings (relationships) that have been discovered all have holistic characteristics. Moreover, their holistic qualities are unique in each case---in this sense, they are emergent discoveries. This suggests the future understanding of complex systems will involve the common activity of discovering new holistic forms of relationships.
https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/working-papers/scientific-understanding-of-dynamic-phenomena-anal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute
*3. Automata :
a moving mechanical device made in imitation of a human being.
___Oxford
Quoting Gnomon
///
Quoting Gnomon
The specific point at issue was the idea that while the wavefunction predicts probabilities, it seems a 'wave without a medium' - to which you mused whether that might be 'aether' of yore. But again, the epistemological interpretations don't posit that the wavefunction is physically real, but a wave-like pattern of likelihoods. The question as to what is the medium then doesn't arise. Isn't that what bothers the realists, like Hawking and Einstein? The fact that the theory can't say what is 'really there'?
Quoting Gnomon
My hazy understanding is that the observation or measurement process 'makes manifest' what was previously indeterminate. The issue being, if you ask the question, 'what do you mean "indeterminate"?' then it's an impossible question to answer, as to identify it is to make a determination! (as per above).
Quoting Gnomon
I think I've mentioned this article before about how Heisenberg incorporates Aristotle's 'potentia'. (But then, Heisenberg was the most 'Platonist' of the quantum pioneers, he was known to carry around a copy of the Timeaus at University. I posted a copy of one of his talks on Platonism 'The Debate between Plato and Democritus'.)
The issue with reification is a subtle one, but it has to do with the shift to 'objective consciousness' that occured in the transition to the modern period. Perhaps look at this post from another thread.
I think the 'vaccum energy' is something quite different from the wave function and that it is physical, although here are the leading edge of physics there are very difficult questions about whether and in what sense fields are physical. I suppose the answer is, we know they're physical because we have instruments that measure their effects on mattter. (But a question I sometimes ask is, what if there are fields other than electromagnetic, like Sheldrake's Morphic Fields? Many unanswered questions lurk.)
I have mentioned before that fundamentally the S. equation reduces to a simple calculus concept: the instantaneous change in a thing is proportional to the amount of that thing at that time. Think of continuous compounding of interest in the financial realm. Nothing magical.
The challenge for scientific realism is the concept of superposition, what exactly is involved in measurement and why the act of measurement appears to change the super-posed wave/object into a definite thing. That was why Schrodinger came up with his infamous cat thought-experiment, so as to try to drive home the apparent absurdity. It might not be magic, but it ain't billiards either.
Wiki:
I'm not a physicist, merely an old mathematician who prefers this definition. So I don't see the magic.
Unfortunately, I will be long gone when they sort this out. You may be around :cool:
Yes. The calculation is intentionally deterministic, but when scientists observe (measure) what actually happens, it doesn't make sense*1. Measurement is an attempt to make observations consistent with our expectations. Schrodinger's half-dead Cat is an illustration of the problem of how to interpret the results of calculations that don't conform to our deterministic prejudices.
Newtonian mechanics presumed a divinely-designed deterministic world. But Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix". So the question arises : is that exception to the deterministic rules due to the vagaries of Nature, or to deficiencies in the Observer, or to whims of the Designer/Programmer? Schrodinger inferred that the "deficiency"*2 was in the Materialistic/Deterministic presumptions of their scientific methods. :smile:
*1."In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic."
___Google AI overview
*2. "I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity."
___Erwin Schrodinger
Quoting Gnomon
Did scientists "catch god with his pants down", or are they too far from the measured "forest" (quantum field) to clearly see the statistical "trees" (fluid/solid wavicles)? Unlike yes/no mathematics, probabilistic Statistics must be interpreted in a specific context, and from a personal perspective. Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science. :smile:
"Statistics topics are often discussed in math classes or taught within a math department. However, statistics arguably is not a branch of mathematics. It is a mathematical science, built upon the mathematical discipline of probability. . . . . Statistics is not meaningful without context though mathematics generally is."
https://www.usu.edu/math/schneit/StatsStuff/Home/isStatsMath.html
"A philosophical interpretation is the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(philosophy)
"Does probability measure the real, physical, tendency of something to occur, or is it a measure of how strongly one believes it will occur, or does it draw on both these elements?" ___Wikipedia
Note --- Probability is not deterministic computation, but stochastic guessing. Not true/false, but 50/50.
It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer. Understanding what the mathematical concepts mean at root takes quite a lot of effort and study, and I fear most philosophers want to give their philosophical take on quantum physics without having done the prerequisite work of actually understanding the physics.
It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer.
:up:
Quoting flannel jesus
Who, then, do you trust to answer "philosophical questions" of meaning? Feynman gave-up on trying to understand quantum reality in non-mathematical terms : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, unlike most American scientists, the European pioneers of quantum physics were trained in both Science and Philosophy*1.
So, many philosophers today yield to the published opinions of the pioneers on the interpretation of quantum math into human meaning. Unfortunately, we Ordinary Language amateurs have to accept some ambiguity of understanding. Does Schrodinger's equation*2 mean anything to you? Fortunately, there are a few philosophically inclined physicists today, such as Paul Davies, that we can trust to interpret the math into words that forum posters can understand.
Materialistic philosophers typically have trust issues on metaphysical questions. So perhaps they shouldn't get involved in philosophy forum discussions of Quantum Physics, which is inherently immaterial and metaphysical*3. It's true that most philosophers, especially forum amateurs, are not equipped to answer . . . . in mathematical terms. Fortunately few do. So what's your point? :smile:
*1. Heisenberg later stated that "My mind was formed by studying philosophy, Plato and that sort of thing" and that "Modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Note --- Is his "prerequisite work" good enough for you?
The interpretations of Ordinary Language philosophers may be somewhat less ambiguous than those of laymen; but they are always debatable, especially on internet forums.
*2. Schrödinger's equation in mathematical symbols is written as: "H? = i? ??/?t"
Note --- Does that foreign expression mean anything to you? Would you like a translation into English?
*3. [i]Quantum physics can be considered metaphysical in a few ways:
# Quantum physics can force a rethinking of metaphysics :
The radical nature of quantum physics can lead to a rethinking of metaphysics. For example, quantum physics can imply that the world is fundamentally indeterministic, or that causes aren't always local to their effects.
# Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities :
Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities that pure rational reflection can't. For example, quantum mechanics can reveal that things can be fuzzy at the quantum level, or that space-time can be curved.
# Quantum entanglement has metaphysical consequences :
Quantum entanglement has been thought to have deep metaphysical consequences. For example, it has been claimed to show that Humean supervenience is false.[/i]
___Google AI overview
I loved Zizek's whimsical analogy. Obviously to be taken with a large grain of salt, but still....
Quoting flannel jesus
Don't know if I agree. In our culture, since the Enlightenment, we've been told time and again that Science is the Arbiter of Truth, that scientists will provide answers that you can't find in the hazy fog of metaphysics, etc. People were willing to shout about LaPlace's Daemon from the rooftops, you'll still find many here today who believe in physical determinism. But when Heisenberg came along and basically torpedoes that idea, well, let's not venture there, you can't do the math!
I've frequently mentioned several excellent books on meaning of modern physics (see this post.) Yes, they're difficult reads in places, and there are definitely some aspects that are beyond the skills of those without mathematical physics training. But that doesn't kick the whole debate into the long grass.
To me, he's the most congenial of the Copenhagen scientists, and yes, he was a lifelong Platonist (in fact, a Christian Platonist, unlike Neils Bohr, who professed no religion.) Heiseberg was philosophically both deep and adept, and I think his Physics and Philosophy is still well-regarded. Here's an excerpt from a public lecture of his delivered in the 1950's:
Quoting Werner Heisenberg, The Debate between Plato and Democritus
Regardless, it is a sad but unavoidable fact that Heisenberg's association with Hitler's nuclear program has tarnished his name. I did read an OP many years ago, which I can't re-locate, to the effect that he was less than a willing participant in this effort, and may even have surreptitiously stalled the program by directing it in ways that he knew would prolong the amount of time necessary to develop it. But the fact still remains.
Quantum fields can be considered ontological, although you aren't compelled to do so.
Quoting Wolfgang
Quantum effects have an impact on the macroscopic world, so it can't be ignored.
Quoting Wolfgang
There's only one world, and it seems to be fundamentally quantum mechanical (subatomic particles do not behave like classical objects). But there is clearly a disconnect in our ability to describe the macro world in quantum terms. That doesn't disprove reductive physicalism, but it does leave room for one to deny it-perhaps there is ontological emergence.
But regardless of that, it seems that this fine carpet of matter is fundamental at the smallest level and everything macroscopic 'unravels', but then evolves according to its own rules and acts deterministically (gravity through planets).
In any case, we will not be able to describe classical and quantum physics with the same terms and theories.
God, pull up your pants please. We don't need to see that.
In your opening post, you used terms ambiguously. Is ontology what is actual, or is it a human-created model, that may or may not correspond to the actual? The same with laws of nature. Actual ontological emergence implies reductive physicalism is false: new (true) laws of nature arise that cannot be fully accounted for by lower level laws and objects. By contrast, epistemological emergence is consistent with reductive physicalism: new laws emerge that we couldn't anticipate, but they reflect nothing ontologically new (in terms of actual ontology).
[Quote] But regardless of that, it seems that this fine carpet of matter is fundamental at the smallest level and everything macroscopic 'unravels', but then evolves according to its own rules and acts deterministically (gravity through planets).
In any case, we will not be able to describe classical and quantum physics with the same terms and theories.[/quote]
Clearly, our understanding (our ontological models) unravel. That doesn't imply the actual ontology includes true ontological emergence.
Quoting Wolfgang
Again, the ambiguity of your terminology makes it challenging to interpret. But I'll try.
The dichotomy in our models has 2 possible causes: 1) there is true ontological emergence. 2) there is no actual ontological emergence; rather, our models are do not adequately represent the true ontology.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe #2. Ontological emergence seems like magic. Even if it's wrong, I think it's the preferable assumption- it just means we need to try and develop a model that accounts for what we see.
If we now argue from our operational level of knowledge, it seems as if the microworld is fundamental. But this statement can only be understood relativistically.
Ultimately, we only transform the world into a modality that suits us. In our case, this is a neuronal one. In the case of a photon, it would be a photonic one. And that would look completely different to ours.
We make models intended to represent reality (ontology) based on our perceptions and the empirical data we develop. Yes, it's naive to think we necessarily got the models right, but there's no reason to think they are entirely wrong nor that they can't be improved upon to more closely model reality.
[Quote]Classical and quantum physics are therefore two ontologies that we have made out of two different phenomenologies.[/quote]
Correction: there's a disconnect in these two models: physicists have only partially described their relationship. Perhaps there's a fatal flaw in one, the other or both- if so, a comprehensive model should be sought. In the meantime, it seems undeniable that each model is telling us something about the way reality actually is.
If you want to understand my point of view (but you don't have to), it's best to read my epistemological article. There you will see that there are four levels of knowledge and it depends on which one you want to argue on: https://www.dr-stegemann.de/erkenntnistheorie-anthropischer-relativismus/genetisch-relativistische-erkenntnistheorie/
It is in German, but you can have it translated without any problem. It will also appear soon on my medium.com account: https://medium.com/@drwolfgangstegemann
Of course here's a lot of dubious quantum philosophizing around. But Faggin is no crank. He made his fortune in technology, specifically as designer of the first commercial microprocessor, the Intel 4004. After the 4004, he led development of the Intel 8008 and 8080, using his SGT methodology for random logic chip design, which was essential to the creation of early Intel microprocessors. He was co-founder (with Ralph Ungermann) and CEO of Zilog, the first company solely dedicated to microprocessors, and led the development of the Zilog Z80 and Z8 processors. He was later the co-founder and CEO of Cygnet Technologies, and then Synaptics. The latter company introduced the I1000, the world's first single-chip optical character recognizer in 1991. In 1994, Synaptics introduced the touchpad to replace the cumbersome trackball then in use in laptop computers. The touchpad was broadly adopted by the IT industry and remains current to this day.
Faggin's first book, Silicon, published 2021, tells his life-story - birth in Italy, migration to America and becoming a Silicon Valley legend. It also details a life-altering mystical experience he had in Lake Tahoe over a Christmas holiday which set the future course of his life. Thereafter he retired frome the technology industry and subsequently devoted himself to consciousness studies, forming a foundation with his wife devoted to this purpose.
In Silicon he describes how from his experience buidling neural networks, he came to realise that the explanatory gap between silicon and human mental states is insuperable - seven years before encountering David Chalmers' argument. Folllowing this and his awakening, he rejected scientific materialism as an inadequate foundation for exploring and understanding the nature of consciousness, which has significance for both AI and the relationship of the quantum and classical physical domains. In the new book he takes the next step and attempts to articulate a fully-formed idealist philosophy of quantum and classical physics, consciousness, computers and meaning - technically known as the whole enchilada.
As for Irreducilble, it's quite a large book, a tad under 300 pages. I haven't finished it, but from what I've gleaned so far, it is an attempt to articulate a fully scientifically-informed idealist philosophy of life and mind. I'm following the first half OK, but the substance of the book in section two is conceptually challenging. In any case, refs hereunder for anyone interested.
Silicon
Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature
Review of Irreducible, Srinivas Hebbar
Interview with Federico Faggin.
I've never had anything close to an "awakening" or "mystical experience", but like Faggin, I did have a sudden insight --- upon reading a quantum physicist's unexpected conclusion, while trying to make sense of enigmatic sub-atomic reality --- into the Life & Mind problem of modern physical science and metaphysical philosophy. Speaking of aethereal Photons and other Leptons, he concluded, "it's all information". To which I might add : "all the way down". Or as you said : "the whole {holistic} enchilada".
After further investigation, my subsequent thesis, Enformationism, is a mashup of Materialism and Idealism, based on Einstein's equation of Matter & Energy, and later conclusions of physicists that Energy is a physical form of Causal Information : what I call Entention. Physicists can't say what Energy is in material terms, but only what it does : Cause change (action) in the material world. For sentient humans, Information is whatever causes a change in their mental state : e.g. Knowledge.
Although Isaac Newton assumed that God was the ultimate cause of all change, his Classical Physics was generally compatible with a materialistic worldview. But Quantum Physics introduced some concepts, such as Fields and Entanglement, that don't fit the materialist model. Nevertheless, I try to avoid the trap of Quantum Mysticism, by assuming that both Materialism and Idealism are true, in their appropriate contexts. That's what I call my BothAnd philosophy. Why can't I have it both ways? :smile:
"Driven to understand consciousness, Faggin realized that if we hypothesized that consciousness and free will are irreducible properties of nature, the scientific vision and narrative of reality would radically change and legitimize a profound spirituality, with unexpected consequences for both science and spirituality.
____Amazon review of Irreducible
In my own thesis, all matter & mind in the world reduces down to causal EnFormAction (power to cause changes in form), as the precursor to physical Energy and to mental Information (meaning). Ultimately, fundamental EFA might be related to what we call Free Will or Schopenhauer's Will as the causal force in the world. My motivation for the thesis was mainly scientific and philosophical, but I suppose you could also call it "spirituality" by contrast with monistic materiality.
Since you have already started, maybe I should leave it to you to digest the book into its fundamental elements, and then post your understanding on the forum, for those of us less erudite.
Ancient Atomism postulated that everything in the world can be reduced down to a fundamental/elemental particle of matter. Yet modern Quantum Theory assumed that everything could be reduced down to an irreducible mathematical measurement (quantum)*1 : e.g. a bit of energy (photon)*2. But Planck attempted to define mathematically the smallest "irreducible" units on the quantum scale*3. The quote below says that the lowest limit of measurement is mental not material.
So it shouldn't be surprising that scientists have not been able to "touch bottom" in the ocean of matter. Eventually, they temporarily gave up on the search for an irreducible particle of matter, and instead postulated the Quantum Field as the fundamental element of reality --- so they could "shut up and calculate". Ironically, that "field" is a mathematical construct, not a material object, and the dimensionless "points" are imaginary locations in space, with no material extension --- nothing physical to measure; only metaphysical math.
Since the Irreducible "Atom" of physics turns out to be Immaterial, it's understandable that such ghostly concepts are difficult to understand, and to translate into our materialistic language*4. :smile:
*1. What is a Quantum? :
In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Quantum is a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents. ___Wikipedia
*2. Photons are light quanta that do not have mass or a size because they are neither a wave nor a particle, but both. However, the size of a photon perpendicular to its velocity is constant and is expected to be as small as 10?20 meters. {Meters??? 65 feet!}
___Google AI overview
*3. Is there anything smaller than the Planck scale? :
It is not impossible for anything to be smaller than the Planck length. It is impossible for the laws of physics as we understand them today to describe anything smaller than the Planck length. That is a limit of our ignorance, not a limit of the Universe.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-smaller-than-a-Planck-length-1
*4. Irreducible Mind :
Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms.
___Amazon Books