Beauty

[Nous]

"Gobbeldegook" is jargon which lacks meaning.
So you misuse the word if you use it to simply say that I'm wrong.

Anything I've said here that you believe is erroneous, be sure to quote and cite your sources showing it's error. Your claim that "Interpretation is theory" is gobbledygook.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anything I've said here that you believe is erroneous, be sure to quote and cite your sources showing it's error. Your claim that "Interpretation is theory" is gobbledygook.

Bless your heart.

 

[Koldo]

No issue on this thread depends on anyone needing to show that something you've claimed about yourself is false. Try again.

If you can't prove that I am misperceiving the beauty in math then you can't prove that beauty in math is objective in any possible way. Any argument in favor of the beauty you can find in math being objective becomes irrelevant. You need to use something that I can also agree to be beautiful to sidestep this issue. Which is why I insist: Next.

 

[Polymath257]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf

Be sure to see the poll. Your claims that physicistis have decided that realism of the wave function is "dead" is apparently a claim made out of ignorance.

Notice the amount of support for the De Broglie-Bohm view (question 12). It has a rating of 0%. That seems pretty dead to me.

I also like question 14: How much is the choice of interpretation a matter of personal philosophical prejudice? 58% said 'a lot'. In other words, most don't think there *is* a 'correct' philosophical interpretation.

Or how about question 6: What is the message of the observed violations of Bell’s inequalities? 64% said local realism is untenable and 52% said unperformed measurements have no results.

And, again, the evidence, which you obviously haven't refuted:

Quantum mechanics is an outstandingly successful description of nature, underpinning fields from biology through chemistry to physics. At its heart is the quantum wavefunction, the central tool for describing quantum systems. Yet it is still unclear what the wavefunction actually is: does it merely represent our limited knowledge of a system, or is it an element of reality? Recent no-go theorems[11–16] argued that if there was any underlying reality to start with, the wavefunction must be real. However, that conclusion relied on debatable assumptions, without which a partial knowledge interpretation can be maintained to some extent[15, 18]. A different approach is to impose bounds on the degree to which knowledge interpretations can explain quantum phenomena, such as why we cannot perfectly distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states[19–21]. Here we experimentally test this approach with single photons. We find that no knowledge interpretation can fully explain the indistinguishability of non-orthogonal quantum states in three and four dimensions. Assuming that some underlying reality exists, our results strengthen the view that the entire wavefunction should be real. The only alternative is to adopt more unorthodox concepts such as backwards-intime causation, or to completely abandon any notion of objective reality.​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6213.pdf

Anything I've said here that you believe to be erroneous, be sure to quote it and cite your sources demonstrating its error. That's what I'm doing with your false claims.

But I did. It very clearly states that it *assumes* an 'underlying reality'. In this paper, that means specific properties that *then* determine the wave function. That is the exact position most physicists disagree with. So it is based on assumptions that are questionable.

 

[Nous]

Bless your heart.

It's called "trolling" when you do a lot of posting about members but don't address the topic of the thread.

Perhaps the questions I asked in the OP werre just too troubling for you.

 

[Nous]

If you can't prove that I am misperceiving the beauty in math then you can't prove that beauty in math is objective in any possible way.

Again, false. The topic of this thread is not about some claim you have made about yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps the questions I asked in the OP werre just too troubling for you.

Surely, that must be it.

 

[Koldo]

Again, false. The topic of this thread is not about some claim you have made about yourself.

The topic is about the whether beauty is objective or subjective.
You can't argue that the beauty that can be found in math is objective unless you can prove that I am misperceiving it. Therefore, next argument please.

 

[Nous]

Notice the amount of support for the De Broglie-Bohm view (question 12). It has a rating of 0%. That seems pretty dead to me.

Note question 9 of this unscientific survey of 33 physicists: 27% said quantum states are epistemic/informational; 24% said they are ontic; and 33% said quantum states are a mixture of ontic/epistemic.

Obviously, contrary to your claims, physicists have not decided that the wave function is a subjective thing.

But I did. It very clearly states that it *assumes* an 'underlying reality'.

Hello? Read and try to comprehend this:

Yet it is still unclear what the wavefunction actually is: does it merely represent our limited knowledge of a system, or is it an element of reality? Recent no-go theorems[11–16] argued that if there was any underlying reality to start with, the wavefunction must be real. However, that conclusion relied on debatable assumptions, without which a partial knowledge interpretation can be maintained to some extent[15, 18]. A different approach is to impose bounds on the degree to which knowledge interpretations can explain quantum phenomena, such as why we cannot perfectly distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states[19–21]. Here we experimentally test this approach with single photons. We find that no knowledge interpretation can fully explain the indistinguishability of non-orthogonal quantum states in three and four dimensions.​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6213.pdf

 

[Nous]

You can't argue that the beauty that can be found in math is objective unless you can prove that I am misperceiving it.

False. Again, the topic of this thread has nothing to do with claims you have made about yourself. For all we know, the claims you've made about yourself are false.

Instead of trolling, why don't you try answering the questions I asked in the OP?

 

[Nous]

That mathematics is made up by humans who then use it as a language to model with universe? We are the ones that choose the rule (axioms). We are the ones that make the models (physics, for example).

I remembered that I forgot to respond to this.

Your claims here do not argue against mathematical realism or imply that mathematics is merely a human creation. Euclid didn't create the fact that "if equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal." No human has made that statement true. It is an objective fact. Just because someone chooses to to apply that fact in appropriate circumstances means nothing more than that he has appropriately applied a mathematical axiom.

 

[Polymath257]

I remembered that I forgot to respond to this.

Your claims here do not argue against mathematical realism or imply that mathematics is merely a human creation. Euclid didn't create the fact that "if equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal." No human has made that statement true. It is an objective fact. Just because someone chooses to to apply that fact in appropriate circumstances means nothing more than that he has appropriately applied a mathematical axiom.

No, it is NOT an objective fact. It is dependent on the axioms *we* choose to use in our mathematics. This is like saying the way a knight moves in chess is an objective fact. it is only after we decide on the rules of chess that it even becomes a meaningful statement. In the same way, it is only after we decide on the rules of math that mathematical claims make sense.

Now, the standard definition of equality is
x=y if and only if for all properties P, P(x) if and only if P(y).
(technically, we don't need the second 'if and only if--we can use just if..then).

So, using standard logic, the statement of Euclid is valid.

But even standard logic is a human invention to help us comprehend the universe. There is no reason we could not use, for example, a 3-valued logic, or a logic without excluded middle, or any number of other possibilities.

There are many more possibilities than you seem to imagine.

 

[Polymath257]

Hello? Read and try to comprehend this:

Yet it is still unclear what the wavefunction actually is: does it merely represent our limited knowledge of a system, or is it an element of reality? Recent no-go theorems[11–16] argued that if there was any underlying reality to start with, the wavefunction must be real. However, that conclusion relied on debatable assumptions, without which a partial knowledge interpretation can be maintained to some extent[15, 18]. A different approach is to impose bounds on the degree to which knowledge interpretations can explain quantum phenomena, such as why we cannot perfectly distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states[19–21]. Here we experimentally test this approach with single photons. We find that no knowledge interpretation can fully explain the indistinguishability of non-orthogonal quantum states in three and four dimensions.​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6213.pdf

I responded to this already. I did read it and comprehended it. Did you? Seriously. Did you read the article or just the abstract above?

 

[Polymath257]

Note question 9 of this unscientific survey of 33 physicists: 27% said quantum states are epistemic/informational; 24% said they are ontic; and 33% said quantum states are a mixture of ontic/epistemic.

Obviously, contrary to your claims, physicists have not decided that the wave function is a subjective thing.

Are you willing to admit that they have uniformly dismissed Bohmian mechanics?

 

[Koldo]

False. Again, the topic of this thread has nothing to do with claims you have made about yourself. For all we know, the claims you've made about yourself are false.

Can you prove or at least substantiate that ?

Instead of trolling, why don't you try answering the questions I asked in the OP?

I am not trolling. I am stating a fact. You can't argue for beauty being even partially objective using your math examples if you have someone, like me, who sees no beauty in math. You need to explain how this can be the case and substantiate it, which you haven't done so far.

To put it another way: The way I view math is logically contradictory to it being objectively beautiful.

 

[Nous]

There is no reason we could not use, for example, a 3-valued logic, or a logic without excluded middle, or any number of other possibilities.

You can't construct consistent mathematics from nonsense such as 1=2.

 

[Nous]

I responded to this already. I did read it and comprehended it. Did you? Seriously. Did you read the article or just the abstract above?

Yes, you're right. But the very paper and experiment itself demonstrates that physicists have not decided that the wave function is a subjective thing.

 

[Nous]

Are you willing to admit that they have uniformly dismissed Bohmian mechanics?

No, and even if that were true it is irrelevant to the issue of subjectivity vs. objectivity of the wave function.

The question asked of these 33 physicists was "What is your favorite interpretation of QM?" and then it provides about a dozen well-known interpretations. The fact that no one at this conference said that the De Broglie-Bohm theory is his/her favorite does not mean "they have uniformly dismissed" it.

 

[Nous]

Can you prove or at least substantiate that ?

Yes. for all we know, you could lying when you claim you cannot perceive beauty.

I am not trolling. I am stating a fact.

Prove it.

You can't argue for beauty being even partially objective using your math examples if you have someone, like me, who sees no beauty in math.

False. Beauty in mathematics does not depend on any claim you have made about yourself.

 

[Polymath257]

You can't construct consistent mathematics from nonsense such as 1=2.

Sure I can. Let X be the collection of even integers and define a multiplication by m*n=(mn)/2, where the second is ordinary multiplication. Then 2 will be the multiplicative identity, so 2=1. This is also a perfectly consistent set-up.

/E: This operation has the additional advantage that it is distributive over ordinary multiplication, making X into a perfectly good integral domain. Since 1 is the symbol used for the multiplicative unit in such a situation, 1=2 in this case.