Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, and mind/body is equivalent to abstract/real, conceptual/material. One is conceptual, the other real/material/physical.Not for me, really. I only use one type of quantum manipulation technology and I don't have to worry about the same kind of issues.
And here I though the context was mind-body dualism.
In the sense that it is a phenomenon found in the physical universe (if it exists - which has not been established). If it was not physical, physics would not be exploring it - you are confusing physics for metaphysics. Science is the study of the physical universe, if it is not the physical material universe you are discussing - it is not science.Of course there is. The problem is the ways in which this distinction is unknown. In classical physics, if I wanted to know the value of some observable/measurable quantity or property, the value I obtained is a direct representation with what I measured. For example, if I wish to know the mass of a baseball, I weigh it and the value I get is the mass (on Earth anyway). If I want to know the baseball's momentum when I throw it, I take my value for the mass, I get a radar gun or something, and I measure it's speed at some point in such a way that I can also account for it's direction so that I can multiply mass and velocity and bingo-bango my value is the momentum.
In quantum mechanics, such "observables" are never values, they are mathematical functions called operators. These functions act on the quantum system to give us information about its state. Now, how can a mathematical function "act on" a quantum system? Because the quantum system is a mathematical entity with no known correspondence to any physical reality. According to the standard interpretation, it's meaningless to ask what it corresponds to, and all we can ask about is what is obtained from measurement. Things get worse with extensions of QM to quantum field theories and particle physics.
The point is that we already have to be very careful about trying to ensure we are aware of when we are talking about a mathematical entity, a mathematical representation of some property, process, or state of a system when we don't really know what we are representing, and when we know we are dealing with some physical system and we have to be careful to ensure that we know which representations are intended to correspond to something "real", and how (for example, neuronal populations may be represented using network topology in which entire populations are operationally described as single nodes for convenience; that's a clear example of when we know our model corresponds to something real but the representation is simplified or otherwise indirect for one reason or another, like simplicity).
All of that, though, isn't the big deal. Sure it is interesting and all but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about except insofar as your choice to call physical something that has no material existence and exists only as a link that makes e.g., two photons separated by miles behave almost like one. The photons aren't the problem either. Whether entangled or in a superposition state, we can still call them photons and talk about as physical systems. The problem is a causal "agent" that exists only as a link, but one that "exists" in no-space & no-time (nothing in reality travels between the photons; the link doesn't exist as anything in our universe other than its causal role in the behavior of the entangled systems).
So, I ask again, in what sense is this no-time, no-space "link" physical? If it is not physical (and therefore by your definition not real) how is it able to causally affect physical systems?
Besides, the simplest explanation here is that there may well not be a causal link at all - that is your assumption, not a known. You should read up on this subject, the alternate explanation was published a couple of years ago and involves no causal link. That there is a causal link at all has not been established - it is just a hypothesis.
Last edited: