Entanglement etc. Materialism vs. Idealism

[Martin_]

As a side note, it might we worth to remember that Entanglement and Observation is the same thing in QM. It is an identity.
This is a fact that even some Physicists forget sometimes.

Martin,

I'm not an expert but I think this is wrong.

My understanding is along this line. If two (or more) particles are entangled, they are in a superposition of states until a measurement is made. Measuring/observing something on one of particles, spin for example, collapses the wave function (or pick your favorite interpretation) and determines one state on both particles. The superposition is gone.

One of the other counter-intuitive phenomena in quantum physics is entanglement. A pair or group of particles is entangled when the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the quantum state of the other particle(s). The quantum state of the system as a whole can be described; it is in a definite state, although the parts of the system are not.

If the spin of one of the particles is measured on a certain axis and found to be counterclockwise, then it is guaranteed that a measurement of the spin of the other particle (along the same axis) will show the spin to be clockwise. This seems strange, because it appears that one of the entangled particles “feels” that a measurement is performed on the other entangled particle and “knows” what the outcome should be, but this is not the case.

https://www.quantum-inspire.com/kbase/s ... anglement/

sorry. That's not good enough. I'll take that guy in this video's authority over yours (or the site quantum-inspire.com) on this matter. (I'm not trying to belittle you in any way), If you look at the setting for the talk, his audience is (among others) professional Physicists. He's not a nut-job who came up wth something weird. He is someone who has gone into the depth of QM and is digging out a fact which most Physicists (and ordinary people) don't realize. He literally goes through the outline of a mathematical proof which shows, that given the standard QM modelling of physical reality (yes I'm being dualist atm), the mathematical component which corresponds to Measurement is identical to the mathematical component which corresponds to Entanglement.

As i write this i realize that in my original post i said Observation == Entanglement. Sorry. that was a mistake. I meant Mesurement == Entanglement.

So, unless you can show either:
1. the way he modells the physics is wrong
or
2. the way he does his Math is wrong.

i'd say your'e pretty much stuck with this fact.

What this dualistic identity Means is a completely different matter which we can discuss, but i think you'll have a hard time getting rid of the mathematical identity outlined in the above video.


(and no, i don't understand QM well enough to actually engage in your detailed comments. I'm likely to fall into numerous conceptual traps of trying to apply my intuition where intuition should not apply. But i know how physics and math works - in general - well enough to recognise the point his presentation is making. )

[Jim Cross]

Martin,

The paper accompanying the video has its own mixed messages:

It turns out that by thinking of measurement and entanglement as related
phenomena we can shed quite a bit of light (so to speak) on the nature of physical
reality

"Related" and "same" are not the same.

The statement below in the paper makes no sense if they are the same.

Entanglement is the
reason that measurement is possible, and thus the reason that the Universe is
comprehensible.

There's a quora on it. One of the answers:

I think I found the root problem. In the video you quoted, the speaker takes a philosophical stance against “reality” in the classical sense. Nothing new there. He presents conventional explanations of some quantum experiments that look well reported and conventional. The problem is that he tosses out a flippant comment claiming measurement and entanglement are the same thing. Don’t take that too literally. He means that measurement can be explained as a process involving entanglements, even when a discrete value is obtained, (and he is not wrong about that), but he does not mean that entanglement is measurement. It’s an asymmetric throw away line. The science (for once) is not too bad at all, its a fairly stock standard well reported presentation of that, but the conclusions are a bit suspect IMHO

https://www.quora.com/If-quantum-mechan ... -particles

[Eugene I]

I think I found the root problem. In the video you quoted, the speaker takes a philosophical stance against “reality” in the classical sense. Nothing new there. He presents conventional explanations of some quantum experiments that look well reported and conventional. The problem is that he tosses out a flippant comment claiming measurement and entanglement are the same thing. Don’t take that too literally. He means that measurement can be explained as a process involving entanglements, even when a discrete value is obtained, (and he is not wrong about that), but he does not mean that entanglement is measurement. It’s an asymmetric throw away line. The science (for once) is not too bad at all, its a fairly stock standard well reported presentation of that, but the conclusions are a bit suspect IMHO

This is exactly right. In fact, nobody knows what the measurement really is, but there are certain hypotheses about it depending on the interpretation of QM. In the QBit interpretation the measurement is assumed to be entanglement, and this is a proposed way in the QBit interpretation to resolve the measurement problem. So the "measurement is entanglement" is not a proven truth, but a proposition within the QBit interpretation of QM in order to resolve the measurement problem.

My understanding is along this line. If two (or more) particles are entangled, they are in a superposition of states until a measurement is made. Measuring/observing something on one of particles, spin for example, collapses the wave function (or pick your favorite interpretation) and determines one state on both particles. The superposition is gone.

The WF collapse is not a physical fact, but a necessary conclusion within the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. In other interpretations there is no such thing as WF collapse (for example, in QBit or many-world interpretations). The problem with the Copenhagen interpretation is that nobody has any clue how to explain how exactly such collapse happens. If the Copenhagen interpretation would be able to explain the collapse, there would be no need in alternative interpretations. Sabine explains the measurement problem in the Copenhagen interpretation quite well here:

[Jim Cross]

Eugene and Martin,

If entanglement is measurement, this seems to lead to some interesting conclusions.

If two electrons are entangled, then measurement must have occurred between them.

If measurement requires a conscious observer, then the electrons must be conscious. Panpsychism.

If measurement doesn't require a conscious observer, then reality exists independently of consciousness. The predominate interpretation of QM but idealism is wrong.

Actually either way BK's idealism is wrong.

[Eugene I]

Eugene and Martin,

If entanglement is measurement, this seems to lead to some interesting conclusions.

If two electrons are entangled, then measurement must have occurred between them.

If measurement requires a conscious observer, then the electrons must be conscious. Panpsychism.

If measurement doesn't require a conscious observer, then reality exists independently of consciousness. The predominate interpretation of QM but idealism is wrong.

Actually either way BK's idealism is wrong.

Jim, you are again trying to make metaphysical conclusions from QM observations, but those are all false. QM observations are entirely inconclusive about the nature of reality. There are numerous interpretations of QM, some of those interpretations are more compatible with materialism, others are more compatible with idealism or dualism, but nobody knows which interpretation is actually correct. As I said before, the idea that measurement (and WF collapse) actually happens when a QM event is observed by a conscious observer was proven to be false.

[Mark Tetzner]

Actually either way BK's idealism is wrong.

This is the claim I was looking for, if we can find one more "materialist" siding with Jim we have a small but sufficient team.
And then, since this is a mainly idealistic forum, we find two more idealists minimum also and then we are off to the races.
Though taking the articles I posted at the beginning of this thread as a starting-point would make things interesting.

[Martin_]

Martin,

The paper accompanying the video has its own mixed messages:

It turns out that by thinking of measurement and entanglement as related
phenomena we can shed quite a bit of light (so to speak) on the nature of physical
reality

"Related" and "same" are not the same.

The statement below in the paper makes no sense if they are the same.

Entanglement is the
reason that measurement is possible, and thus the reason that the Universe is
comprehensible.

There's a quora on it. One of the answers:

I think I found the root problem. In the video you quoted, the speaker takes a philosophical stance against “reality” in the classical sense. Nothing new there. He presents conventional explanations of some quantum experiments that look well reported and conventional. The problem is that he tosses out a flippant comment claiming measurement and entanglement are the same thing. Don’t take that too literally. He means that measurement can be explained as a process involving entanglements, even when a discrete value is obtained, (and he is not wrong about that), but he does not mean that entanglement is measurement. It’s an asymmetric throw away line. The science (for once) is not too bad at all, its a fairly stock standard well reported presentation of that, but the conclusions are a bit suspect IMHO

https://www.quora.com/If-quantum-mechan ... -particles

sure. fair enough. maybe a bit too strongly worded by me. I just wanted to point out the similarities. I think the entanglement is the key here, that Measurement is a type of entanglement, not the other way around.

[Eugene I]

This is the claim I was looking for, if we can find one more "materialist" siding with Jim we have a small but sufficient team.
And then, since this is a mainly idealistic forum, we find two more idealists minimum also and then we are off to the races.
Though taking the articles I posted at the beginning of this thread as a starting-point would make things interesting.

Such race will stall at the very starting point, just because, as I said before, the QM itself is entirely inconclusive about the ontological nature of reality, and so you can interpret it in numerous metaphysical ways with no way of proving which one is actually true.

[Eugene I]

However, materialism still has serious trouble with interpreting QM. There are a few interpretations of QM compatible with materialism, such as Copenhagen, pilot-wave and many-world, but they all have serious explanatory gaps. Sabine actually gave a good overview of each of them pointing to their troubles.

On the other hand, there are a few interpretations of QM (relational and QBit/informational) that are agnostic to metaphysical assumptions and are not based on the materialistic ontology, while being compatible with idealism (but still not requiring it as a necessary assumption). And these interpretations are nicely free from the measurement problem and other QM paradoxes.

[Jim Cross]

Actually either way BK's idealism is wrong.

This is the claim I was looking for, if we can find one more "materialist" siding with Jim we have a small but sufficient team.
And then, since this is a mainly idealistic forum, we find two more idealists minimum also and then we are off to the races.
Though taking the articles I posted at the beginning of this thread as a starting-point would make things interesting.

Keep in mind my argument was prefaced with "If entanglement is measurement". That seemed to be something that Martin was intent on arguing but has since backed off. It was something I thought wasn't correct from the beginning.

Actually I agree more with Eugene. I don't know where you place his viewpoint but my take on it is that QM is science and science can't make any metaphysical conclusions. In a way it is as skeptical a view as the contrarian materialist view even though Eugene isn't a materialist.

In other words, there is no need to read or discuss any of the articles you've linked to because there is nothing of philosophical value in any of BK's arguments relating to QM and metaphysics.

As far as I can tell, BK only has three core arguments for his idealism. One is his interpretation of QM. Another is his psychedelics/transformative experience interpretation. That is more science and another view of his out of step with mainstream science. Finally, there is the convoluted logical argument in Idea of the World which I don't think I have ever seen discussed in this forum. That might make an interesting separate thread. However, if the argument is reduced to that, then likely we are reaching the end of the road where everyone will just agree that you can believe whatever you want but there is no way to prove or even make an intelligent guess about the nature of ultimate reality if such a thing even exists.