3 ms·

>As it stands, quantum monism should be considered as a key concept in modern physics: It explains why “beauty,” understood as structure, correlation and symmet

>As it stands, quantum monism should be considered as a key concept in modern physics: It explains why “beauty,” understood as structure, correlation and symmetry among apparently independent realms of nature, isn’t an "ill-conceived aesthetic ideal” but a consequence of nature descending from a single quantum state. They can call it monism...but it sounds like they are just describing the spatial dimensions. 0D Point (quantum/singularity/Planck unit), then 1D line, 2D square, 3D cube...as a direct consequence of nature/math it’s got structure, correlation, and symmetry (aka their definition of beauty). Is there any physicist who doesn’t think dimensions are a key concept of physics?

gus_massa 8y ago
No, spatial dimensions have a very specific meaning. The universe has 3 big special dimensions and 1 temporal dimension (and perhaps 8 or additional "small" dimensions.) Here monism means another thing, I'm not sure what, I'm not sure that it even mean anything at all. The important thing is if it is possible or not to find any experiment that can refute the existence of monism. (It's easier to be a little less technical and ask for and experiment that confirms the existence of monism.) If no experiment can confirm of refute it, then it is outside the realm of physics and can't do anything to save it.
- neltnerb 8y ago
  I believe roughly he's saying that we are a universe experiencing itself that is intrinsically a single quantum state. It has never made sense to me to separate the observer and the experiment, it's weird to suggest the observer is somehow more classical than the experiment, both are just evolving together in time as a quantum system. The idea of "collapse" makes no sense, there is no observer separate from the experiment, and instead the question of why we experience what we call "collapse" the way we do comes up. Practically, it makes more sense to me. How can our experience of consciousness be real? What does it mean to be conscious? Can we numerically measure free will? Are those answerable questions under this framework? Just let's not talk too much like that to the pop-gurus...
  - gus_massa 8y ago
    The idea that the universe is a single quantum state can be applied to any quantum theory, from a toy universe that only have a few particles and electromagnetism, to the universe with the standard model, and many other variants. For example some years ago many people believe that it was possible to unify all the forces using the SU(5) group. It was a very nice theory, people like it, sadly experiments disagree. The idea that the universe is a single quantum state can't differentiate between the current standard model and the SU(5) model. I really hate that the weak force only acts on left handled particles. Experiments disagree with my preferences. The idea that the universe is a single quantum state can't differentiate between the current version and the version where the weak force affect all particles. So, how can be the idea that the universe is a single quantum state imply that the universe laws are beautiful? --- Nobody like the collapse and the almost magical properties of the observer (the observer can be a machine, it's not necessary a human). Anyway, it's very useful if you can shut up and do the calculations. I vote that the answer to the problem is something something decoherence. It's still a research topic (not my topic), so we have to wait a few years/decades/centuries to be sure. --- I think that "conscious" is like "alive". It's not magical. It's just an useful classification of some aggrupation of matter following the laws of physics.

gus_massa 8y ago

No, spatial dimensions have a very specific meaning. The universe has 3 big special dimensions and 1 temporal dimension (and perhaps 8 or additional "small" dimensions.) Here monism means another thing, I'm not sure what, I'm not sure that it even mean anything at all. The important thing is if it is possible or not to find any experiment that can refute the existence of monism. (It's easier to be a little less technical and ask for and experiment that confirms the existence of monism.) If no experiment can confirm of refute it, then it is outside the realm of physics and can't do anything to save it.

neltnerb 8y ago
I believe roughly he's saying that we are a universe experiencing itself that is intrinsically a single quantum state. It has never made sense to me to separate the observer and the experiment, it's weird to suggest the observer is somehow more classical than the experiment, both are just evolving together in time as a quantum system. The idea of "collapse" makes no sense, there is no observer separate from the experiment, and instead the question of why we experience what we call "collapse" the way we do comes up. Practically, it makes more sense to me. How can our experience of consciousness be real? What does it mean to be conscious? Can we numerically measure free will? Are those answerable questions under this framework? Just let's not talk too much like that to the pop-gurus...
- gus_massa 8y ago
  The idea that the universe is a single quantum state can be applied to any quantum theory, from a toy universe that only have a few particles and electromagnetism, to the universe with the standard model, and many other variants. For example some years ago many people believe that it was possible to unify all the forces using the SU(5) group. It was a very nice theory, people like it, sadly experiments disagree. The idea that the universe is a single quantum state can't differentiate between the current standard model and the SU(5) model. I really hate that the weak force only acts on left handled particles. Experiments disagree with my preferences. The idea that the universe is a single quantum state can't differentiate between the current version and the version where the weak force affect all particles. So, how can be the idea that the universe is a single quantum state imply that the universe laws are beautiful? --- Nobody like the collapse and the almost magical properties of the observer (the observer can be a machine, it's not necessary a human). Anyway, it's very useful if you can shut up and do the calculations. I vote that the answer to the problem is something something decoherence. It's still a research topic (not my topic), so we have to wait a few years/decades/centuries to be sure. --- I think that "conscious" is like "alive". It's not magical. It's just an useful classification of some aggrupation of matter following the laws of physics.