3 ms·

You are also missing the point. If something exist "out there" as a separate concept then it can only do so because it exist as a discreet entity. Yet QM show

You are also missing the point. If something exist "out there" as a separate concept then it can only do so because it exist as a discreet entity. Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local. We can observe because there is a discreet universe to observe within, but that does not make the observable universe the foundation of reality. And so if you want to claim that something exist out there without there being a designer or without our perspective of reality being what turn it into existence then you need to explain how it relates to the entire universe not just the classical one.

kordless 10y ago
I would argue it with irrationality, which is the point here. Science can't be used inside a frame of reference to refer to something outside that frame without being irrational. The point the scientific principle becomes irrational is the point people start demanding an explanation. I would also say that it is possible we are all missing the point.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  What is outside the frame of reference? QM isn't outside the frame of reference of the scientific method though. It's as proven mathematically and empirically as general relativity is. So the only irrational thing here would be to claim that the quantum world isn't as real as the classical physical world. Agree on the last part though. we might (are most likely) all be missing the point
wyager 10y ago
> Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Please stop trying to use QM in philosophy arguments. If you do, you're almost certainly misunderstanding what it entails.
- danbruc 10y ago
  No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Entanglement seems to be fundamentally non-local - unless you posit hidden variables - and does not depend on the interpretation.
  - wyager 10y ago
    It is not. Theories like einselection explain entanglement with only local effects (via superselection rules).
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      It's ironic that you go on to use something as an argument against non-locality which I think it's safe to say there is even less actual consensus about.
      - wyager 10y ago
        In what way is it ironic? I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to be aware of the entire solution space.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        I am well aware of the solution space just as I am aware that the one your are proposing isn't even close to being what one would consider having solid foundation.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Non-locality is baked in because the theories are based on that principle. They are not invented to make the theory make sense. Bells theorem shows that there is actually "spooky action at a distance". So I am not using some arbitrary collapse theory in QM as a philosophy argument I am using Bells theorem which happens to be one of the most important experiments in the field of QM as I am sure you know better than anyone.

kordless 10y ago

I would argue it with irrationality, which is the point here. Science can't be used inside a frame of reference to refer to something outside that frame without being irrational. The point the scientific principle becomes irrational is the point people start demanding an explanation. I would also say that it is possible we are all missing the point.

ThomPete 10y ago
What is outside the frame of reference? QM isn't outside the frame of reference of the scientific method though. It's as proven mathematically and empirically as general relativity is. So the only irrational thing here would be to claim that the quantum world isn't as real as the classical physical world. Agree on the last part though. we might (are most likely) all be missing the point

wyager 10y ago

> Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Please stop trying to use QM in philosophy arguments. If you do, you're almost certainly misunderstanding what it entails.

danbruc 10y ago
No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Entanglement seems to be fundamentally non-local - unless you posit hidden variables - and does not depend on the interpretation.
- wyager 10y ago
  It is not. Theories like einselection explain entanglement with only local effects (via superselection rules).
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    It's ironic that you go on to use something as an argument against non-locality which I think it's safe to say there is even less actual consensus about.
    - wyager 10y ago
      In what way is it ironic? I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to be aware of the entire solution space.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        I am well aware of the solution space just as I am aware that the one your are proposing isn't even close to being what one would consider having solid foundation.
ThomPete 10y ago
Non-locality is baked in because the theories are based on that principle. They are not invented to make the theory make sense. Bells theorem shows that there is actually "spooky action at a distance". So I am not using some arbitrary collapse theory in QM as a philosophy argument I am using Bells theorem which happens to be one of the most important experiments in the field of QM as I am sure you know better than anyone.