Entanglement etc. Materialism vs. Idealism

[Mark Tetzner]

So here are a few articles that have to do with entanglement etc, I thought I post these here and
see what happens, since we also have some members here who think idealism is bull etc.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=entanglement

And
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search? ... +mechanics

Looking forward do seeing if there will be an exchange.

[Jim Cross]

So here are a few articles that have to do with entanglement etc, I thought I post these here and
see what happens, since we also have some members here who think idealism is bull etc.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=entanglement

And
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search? ... +mechanics

Looking forward do seeing if there will be an exchange.

Mark,

Are you referring to me?

Something interesting about any of the QM arguments is that QM is a theory of physics that involves measurement. Measurement is at the core of it. So it is probably useful for explaining the quantities of the world but not the qualities. If the measurements are real, then there is something outside of qualia. If the measurements aren't real, then QM is in error and doesn't help to explain anything.

[Mark Tetzner]

Jim, I am looking for a minimum of 2 participants (in my wildest dreams and all that), one completely agreeing
with the interpretation of the very articles I posted and one completely disagreeing.
So in this fantasie at least 2 people will have completely studied them and then have a high-level convo.
Thank you.

[Eugene I]

Something interesting about any of the QM arguments is that QM is a theory of physics that involves measurement. Measurement is at the core of it. So it is probably useful for explaining the quantities of the world but not the qualities. If the measurements are real, then there is something outside of qualia. If the measurements aren't real, then QM is in error and doesn't help to explain anything.

There is another option: quantities of QM measurements are actually certain qualities selected and abstracted from the wholeness of the qualitative conscious experience. For example, a scientist sets up a QM experiment and observes a voltmeter measurement. What he actually experiences is a wholeness of different qualia, including seeing a black number "10.5V" on the voltmeter screen, which is just another quale. Then, in his thinking, he abstracts the fact of seeing "10.5V" number from all the rest of the qualitative content, and that becomes the "quantitative measurement result". What QM does is simply establish a math model of describing and predicting correlations between such "measurement results" that are in fact simply abstractions from our qualitative conscious experience.

[Jim Cross]

Something interesting about any of the QM arguments is that QM is a theory of physics that involves measurement. Measurement is at the core of it. So it is probably useful for explaining the quantities of the world but not the qualities. If the measurements are real, then there is something outside of qualia. If the measurements aren't real, then QM is in error and doesn't help to explain anything.

There is another option: quantities of QM measurements are actually certain qualities selected and abstracted from the wholeness of the qualitative conscious experience. For example, a scientist sets up a QM experiment and observes a voltmeter measurement. What he actually experiences is a wholeness of different qualia, including seeing a black number "10.5V" on the voltmeter screen, which is just another quale. Then, in his thinking, he abstracts the fact of seeing "10.5V" number from all the rest of the qualitative content, and that becomes the "quantitative measurement result". What QM does is simply establish a math model of describing and predicting correlations between such "measurement results" that are in fact simply abstractions from our qualitative conscious experience.

If what you say is right, then there are no quantities. Everything science measures is really a quality. There is no in inherent difference between materialistic science with its focus on measurement and quantities and idealism. This seems to contradict a core argument idealism makes against physicalism.

Would a red number "10.5V" be something different from a black number "10.5V"?

If quantities are qualities then are qualities also quantities?

[Eugene I]

If what you say is right, then there are no quantities. Everything science measures is really a quality. There is no in inherent difference between materialistic science with its focus on measurement and quantities and idealism. This seems to contradict a core argument idealism makes against physicalism.

Would a red number "10.5V" be something different from a black number "10.5V"?

If quantities are qualities then are qualities also quantities?

Yes, in idealism quantities are essentially qualities, but they are just abstracted from any irrelevant qualitative content. But that's not only relevant to idealism. In a metaphysically agnostic science this is what we actually do:

We find from observations that if we do the same QM experiment multiple times with different voltmeters, the number "10.5V" will always be the same regardless whether it's red or black, so we can assume that the color is irrelevant to the experimental outcome and so we remove it from the list of the relevant observables. Or, in other words, we "abstract" the list of the observables from any irrelevant qualities. We similarly abstract such list form the observer's mood, gender, age, and thus arrive to the "3-rd person perspective" consideration, which is nothing else than just an abstraction of the list of observables form irrelevant personal qualitative content for practical purposes. Such abstraction is always a pragmatic and contingent consideration, it has nothing to do with philosophy and has no ontological meaning whatsoever (so it does not let us make any conclusions whether "quantities" actually exist or not in any ontological sense apart from qualities).

It's only in materialism where we assume that quantities are certain properties of matter that exist independently of qualities (qualia) of conscious experience.

[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.

Source:

(thanks Eugene for the link)

[Jim Cross]

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/

[Jim Cross]

So here are a few articles that have to do with entanglement etc, I thought I post these here and
see what happens, since we also have some members here who think idealism is bull etc.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=entanglement

And
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search? ... +mechanics

Looking forward do seeing if there will be an exchange.

These links when I click reach searches on BK web site that contain 18 links to articles with some overlap. Some aren't even written by BK.

Are there some in particular to focus on?

What's the point you're trying to make?

[Mark Tetzner]

So here are a few articles that have to do with entanglement etc, I thought I post these here and
see what happens, since we also have some members here who think idealism is bull etc.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=entanglement

And
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search? ... +mechanics

Looking forward do seeing if there will be an exchange.

These links when I click reach searches on BK web site that contain 18 links to articles with some overlap. Some aren't even written by BK.

Are there some in particular to focus on?

What's the point you're trying to make?

I think these articles make an interesting case for idealism. That they are not all BK I do know.
I am not trying to make a point as I am not an expert on QM.
I am interested in having 2 oppenents, one arguing for idealism one for materialism.
Obviously they should have a good grasp on the above artciles.
Not a problem for the right candidates.
The first thing we probably need is a materialist challenging the claims.
Then I think the rest will fall into place.
It that can be done, great, if not, great.