What is the default position in the mind-body problem?

[Nakosis]

Many claim that physicalism is the default assumption, where some believe it is idealism. I personally believe it to be solipsism, as with absolute certainty we can only be aware we exist in some manner, and nothing further. Not to say I'm a solipsist, I think we can reject the problem even if just on pragmatism, but rejection is exactly what you try to do to a default position. I think physicalism, dualism, emergence, idealism, etc all require a rejection of this default position. At that point, we accept the position which makes the least assumptions.

Do you agree with this default? What is yours? In what way can the position held, if not solipsism, be supported with the least assumptions?

I suppose I agree. The self is such a limited, small part of the mind. The conscious self is pretty much at the mercy of the larger, faster, more powerful subconscious mind. The subconscious works on a level we are consciously completely unaware of. The conscious mind may have some impact of future action/decision making by the subconscious mind but the reality seems to be all decisions, all action, all perceptions have already occurred before we have become consciously aware of them. We end up with an edited partial perception of what occurred a few moments ago in he past.

The benefit of consciousness is we can review, analyze, consider alternate circumstances/results that can be fed back into the subconscious mind to alter the choices/actions taken by the subconscious mind in the future. Consciousness provides an abstract feedback system for the mind. Since we consciously are aware of consciousness and identify with it, we feel it holds much more importance than it actually does.

 

[Polymath257]

So you still can't quote even a single scholarly source claim the quantum mechanics is a local theory?

The only reason that you are unable to substantiate your claim that QM is a local theory is because your claim unequivocally false.

I gave you links to those scholarly articles and the specific places to find the quotes. In particular, Peskin and Schroeder's book is *the* standard book on Quantum Field Theory. If you want me to quote one, here we go:

From the link I gave above:
"
But what about arbitrary spacetime separations? In particular, for our theory to be
causal, we must require that all spacelike separated operators commute,
[O1(x),O2(y)] = 0 ∀ (x−y)^2<0 (2.86)
This ensures that a measurement at x cannot affect a measurement at y when x and y are not causally connected."

Notice that being 'causally connected' is the same as 'local' in this context.

 

[Nakosis]

No idea. I never found a definition of free will that I found realistic.

Free will, the ability to do what you want to do.

I suspect other definitions are a fantasy of self control.
The subconscious mind provides a desire, like to eat. Free will is the ability to act on that desire. Of course I kind of suspect that consciously we don't make the actual choice. The subconscious mind makes the choice and creates a perception of having consciously made a choice to eat.

We become aware after the fact. Sometimes we don't even consciously think about it. Other times maybe we didn't like the result so provide feedback to the subconscious mind which allows it to make better choices in the future.

 

[Nous]

I gave you links to those scholarly articles and the specific places to find the quotes. In particular, Peskin and Schroeder's book is *the* standard book on Quantum Field Theory. If you want me to quote one, here we go:

In other words, you still can't quote even a single scholarly source claim the quantum mechanics is a local theory.

The only reason that you are unable to substantiate your claim that QM is a local theory is because your claim unequivocally false.

Were you able to read and understand any of the papers I quoted above that explicitly state that QM and empirical reality is nonlocal? Why don't you try?

 

[Nous]

Free will, the ability to do what you want to do.

I suspect other definitions are a fantasy of self control.
The subconscious mind provides a desire, like to eat. Free will is the ability to act on that desire.

Free will is also the ability to not act on that urge. (That's how people go on diets, restrict the calories they consume and lose a pound or two.)

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously you need to clear your head of your beliefs and concentrate on what Bell said.

I am quite aware of what Bell said.

Wow. You just haven't understood anything about quantum mechanics. The description of Einstein's objection to the nonlocal implications of QM seem to me to be quite clear. I don't see how anyone could fail to understand that the particle's wavefunction is expanding over a large expanse, then when it is measured, by hitting a screen, it collapses to a single point.

No, it does not. It 'collapses' to an eigenstate of the measurement made.

Even middle school students understand these ideas. You've got work to do.

Again, what actual physics class in Quantum Mechanics have you ever taken? What actual detailed treatment of it have you read?

Have you *ever* solved a differential equation? Do you know how to determine the allowed transitions between energy states of a hydrogen atom? How about spin-orbit coupling?

Quantum mechanics is nonlocal and nonrealist:
Quantum theory predicts and experiments confirm that nature can produce correlations between distant events that are nonlocal in the sense of violating a Bell inequality [1].

OK, if *that* is your definition of 'non-local' (merely violating Bell's inequalities), then the problem is one of definitions, not the science. I am not arguing that Bell's inequalities are not violated. They are.

But QM *is* local in the sense that there is no way to signal faster than the speed of light. The correlations in the Arrow experiment are NOT signals.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antia_Lamas-Linares/publication/260176298_Testing_quantum_correlations_versus_single-particle_properties_within_Leggett'smodel_and_beyond/links/5589aec108ae4e384e25fed5/Testing-quantum-correlations-versus-single-particle-properties-within-Leggettsmodel-and-beyond.pdf

The abundant experimental confirmation of Bell’s Theorem has made a compelling case for the nonlocality of quantum mechanics (QM), in the precise sense that quantum phenomena exhibit correlations between spacelike separate measurements that are inconsistent with any common cause explanation​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9906036.pdf

The above results suggest that Bob’s portion of the single photon cannot have a local quantum state before Alice defining her measurement setting θ.​

Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements : Nature Communications

A violation of Bell’s inequality not only tells us something about quantum physics, but more impressively, tells us that some spatially separated systems exhibit nonlocal correlations. This must be true for any future theory that is put forward as a complete quantum theory. Consequently, it is nature herself that is nonlocal.​

http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/gisin-2009.pdf

In the [Aharonov-Casher] experiment, the invalidity of both the Bell inequality and the Leggett inequality suggests that quantum mechanics is neither local nor realistic. The result is consistent with the works in the literatures11 12 13 14 based on the experiment of entangled photons.​

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect : Scientific Reports

OK, we are using very different definitions of the word 'local' here. I agree that QM is not realist. But part of the problem here is thinking of the wave function as an actual physical object instead of a condensation of what we can potentially measure.

 

[Polymath257]

Free will, the ability to do what you want to do.

Well, sometimes you can and other times you cannot. For example, if you are falling from a cliff, you cannot 'will' and negate gravity.

But this also circumvents the issue that what you want may well be determined. So, even in those circumstances where you can 'do what you want', there is no problem if BOTH are determined.

So, I submit this is a bad definition of the term.

I suspect other definitions are a fantasy of self control.
The subconscious mind provides a desire, like to eat. Free will is the ability to act on that desire. Of course I kind of suspect that consciously we don't make the actual choice. The subconscious mind makes the choice and creates a perception of having consciously made a choice to eat.

We become aware after the fact. Sometimes we don't even consciously think about it. Other times maybe we didn't like the result so provide feedback to the subconscious mind which allows it to make better choices in the future.

 

[Polymath257]

In other words, you still can't quote even a single scholarly source claim the quantum mechanics is a local theory.

The only reason that you are unable to substantiate your claim that QM is a local theory is because your claim unequivocally false.

Were you able to read and understand any of the papers I quoted above that explicitly state that QM and empirical reality is nonlocal? Why don't you try?

I gave you links *and* I quoted from a *book* on quantum field theories. Were you able to understand my quote?

 

[Nous]

I am quite aware of what Bell said.

Apparently you haven't understood what Bell said or his theorem:

"If [a hidden variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local. This is what the theorem says."

Obviously he isn't saying anything about QM not being a hidden variable theory. He is clearly stating that it is only nonlocal hidden variable theories that agree with QM. And that is because QM is a nonlocal theory that makes predictions of nonlocal correlations.

 

[Nous]

OK, we are using very different definitions of the word 'local' here. I agree that QM is not realist.

If you are able to read the following peer-reviewed papers and take in these facts, let me know:

The abundant experimental confirmation of Bell’s Theorem has made a compelling case for the nonlocality of quantum mechanics (QM), in the precise sense that quantum phenomena exhibit correlations between spacelike separate measurements that are inconsistent with any common cause explanation​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9906036.pdf

The above results suggest that Bob’s portion of the single photon cannot have a local quantum state before Alice defining her measurement setting θ.​

Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements : Nature Communications

A violation of Bell’s inequality not only tells us something about quantum physics, but more impressively, tells us that some spatially separated systems exhibit nonlocal correlations. This must be true for any future theory that is put forward as a complete quantum theory. Consequently, it is nature herself that is nonlocal.​

http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/gisin-2009.pdf

In the [Aharonov-Casher] experiment, the invalidity of both the Bell inequality and the Leggett inequality suggests that quantum mechanics is neither local nor realistic. The result is consistent with the works in the literatures11 12 13 14 based on the experiment of entangled photons.​

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect : Scientific Reports

But part of the problem here is thinking of the wave function as an actual physical object instead of a condensation of what we can potentially measure.

It isn't the physicists who are confused about what nonlocal means.

 

[Nous]

I gave you links *and* I quoted from a *book* on quantum field theories. Were you able to understand my quote?

If you ever find a physicist claiming the quantum mechanics is a local theory, quote it.

 

[Polymath257]

They detected the signals. They measured a violation of a Bell-type inequality.

That is NOT detecting a signal! That is detecting a correlation.

No, Bell's theorem and the Bell test experiments rule out local hidden variables as a way to account for the correlations. The de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory is a nonlocal hidden variable theory.

Yes, a nd QM is a local theory that is not a hidden variable theory.

See Nicholas Gisin's Science article: Quantum Nonlocality: How Does Nature Do It?

One of the problems here is that there are two different definitions of locality flying around. To use the terminology of your link, there is non-locality (non-local correlations) and signaling (messages can be transmitted).

Using this terminology, QM is non-local because there *are* non-local correlations. But QM is also non-signalling: no messages can travel faster then light.

In the derivation of Bell's inequalities, the assumptions are that particles have definite properties (i.e, realism) and that no signals can travel faster than light. The essence of Bell's inequalities is to say that this implies locality: the correlations have to obey certain inequalities.

Now, Bell's inequalities *are* violated. So this means, again using the terminology above, that the universe is non-local. So that means that either realism must be rejected (so particles do not have definite properties) or there must be faster than light *messages*.

Now, once again, QM is not realist and it *is* non-signaling. There are non-local correlations but no messages can be transmitted and particles do not have definite properties.

 

[Nous]

QM is a local theory

I'm not interested in your nonsense. Your claim is unequivocally refuted by the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[Polymath257]

If you ever find a physicist claiming the quantum mechanics is a local theory, quote it.

Link as given above:
The Reference Frame: Locality, nonlocality, and anti-quantum zealots

Note: Lobos Motl is a physicist and specifically studies string theory.

Quote from this link:
"Quantum field theories and string theory, the two most viable types of quantum mechanical theories, respect the Lorentz invariance, the basic symmetry that defines Einstein's special theory of relativity. This symmetry guarantees that no information can be sent superluminally or instantaneously: there can't be any action at a distance. The relativistic locality ends up being equivalent to the relativistic causality: the cause must precede its effects, t&#x003C;t&#x2032;" role="presentation">t<t′, in all inertial systems."

From this link again:
"There is no nonlocality. There is no action at a distance. There is no doubt about this statement.

"The term "nonlocality" had to be defined carefully and operationally. We generalized an empirical definition that could have existed in classical physics, too. Can a decision at one point influence the predictions for measurements in a spacelike-separated region? The answer is No. It unambiguously follows from the relativistic quantum mechanical theories. If you wanted to defend a different conclusion, you would have to start to describe billions of physical phenomena from scratch – using a completely different theory. You would almost certainly fail because your theory would have to be profoundly and strongly inequivalent to the relativistic quantum mechanical theories – but it would have to "look" equivalent in all the tests that have already been done because in those tests, quantum field theory etc. succeeded.

One could have tried to define "nonlocality" differently. But no different definition – no definition disconnected from "the influence of some decisions on some measurements" – would really make any sense from a physicist's viewpoint. All sane physicists – like all competent particle physicists and physicists from sufficiently close disciplines that actually do some research with "beef" – agree that quantum field theories are local. They are sometimes called local field theories for that very reason"

 

[Polymath257]

If you are able to read the following peer-reviewed papers and take in these facts, let me know:

The abundant experimental confirmation of Bell’s Theorem has made a compelling case for the nonlocality of quantum mechanics (QM), in the precise sense that quantum phenomena exhibit correlations between spacelike separate measurements that are inconsistent with any common cause explanation​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9906036.pdf

The above results suggest that Bob’s portion of the single photon cannot have a local quantum state before Alice defining her measurement setting θ.​

Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements : Nature Communications

A violation of Bell’s inequality not only tells us something about quantum physics, but more impressively, tells us that some spatially separated systems exhibit nonlocal correlations. This must be true for any future theory that is put forward as a complete quantum theory. Consequently, it is nature herself that is nonlocal.​

http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/gisin-2009.pdf

In the [Aharonov-Casher] experiment, the invalidity of both the Bell inequality and the Leggett inequality suggests that quantum mechanics is neither local nor realistic. The result is consistent with the works in the literatures11 12 13 14 based on the experiment of entangled photons.​

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect : Scientific Reports


It isn't the physicists who are confused about what nonlocal means.

And as I stated in another post, there is more than one definition of the term 'local' being used. I fully agree that there are non-local correlations. I do NOT agree that there is non-local signaling. Most of what I read identifies 'local' as the latter not the former. In particular, QM is non-signaling but has non-local correlations.

 

[Nous]

One of the problems here is that there are two different definitions of locality flying around. To use the terminology of your link, there is non-locality (non-local correlations) and signaling (messages can be transmitted).

Again, it isn't the physicists who are confused. It is you who is confused.

The correlations between Alice's result and Bob's result are nonlocal. Alice's result of spin up is not a property of the particle before she makes her measurement. When Alice makes her measure, the whole wavefunction collapses nonlocally; that nonlocal collapse is what causes Bob's particle spin to anti-correlate with Alice's result. As the papers by Peacock and Gisin explain, there's a couple of ways to account for these nonlocal correlations.

 

[Nous]

Link as given above:
The Reference Frame: Locality, nonlocality, and anti-quantum zealots

Note: Lobos Motl is a physicist and specifically studies string theory.

Quote from this link:
"Quantum field theories and string theory, the two most viable types of quantum mechanical theories, respect the Lorentz invariance, the basic symmetry that defines Einstein's special theory of relativity. This symmetry guarantees that no information can be sent superluminally or instantaneously: there can't be any action at a distance. The relativistic locality ends up being equivalent to the relativistic causality: the cause must precede its effects, t&#x003C;t&#x2032;" role="presentation">t<t′, in all inertial systems."

From this link again:
"There is no nonlocality. There is no action at a distance. There is no doubt about this statement.

"The term "nonlocality" had to be defined carefully and operationally. We generalized an empirical definition that could have existed in classical physics, too. Can a decision at one point influence the predictions for measurements in a spacelike-separated region? The answer is No. It unambiguously follows from the relativistic quantum mechanical theories. If you wanted to defend a different conclusion, you would have to start to describe billions of physical phenomena from scratch – using a completely different theory. You would almost certainly fail because your theory would have to be profoundly and strongly inequivalent to the relativistic quantum mechanical theories – but it would have to "look" equivalent in all the tests that have already been done because in those tests, quantum field theory etc. succeeded.

One could have tried to define "nonlocality" differently. But no different definition – no definition disconnected from "the influence of some decisions on some measurements" – would really make any sense from a physicist's viewpoint. All sane physicists – like all competent particle physicists and physicists from sufficiently close disciplines that actually do some research with "beef" – agree that quantum field theories are local. They are sometimes called local field theories for that very reason"

If you are ever able to find a scholarly work in which a physicist claims that quantum mechanics is a local theory, be sure to quote it and cite your source--like I've done with a half dozen peer-reviewed papers stating that QM is a nonlocal theory, is consistent with nonlocal theories, makes predictions of nonlocal correlations.

 

[Nous]

And as I stated in another post, there is more than one definition of the term 'local' being used. I fully agree that there are non-local correlations. I do NOT agree that there is non-local signaling. Most of what I read identifies 'local' as the latter not the former. In particular, QM is non-signaling but has non-local correlations.

So you agree that your numerous claims about quantum mechanics being a local theory are false.

 

[Polymath257]

So you agree that your numerous claims about quantum mechanics being a local theory are false.

NO. The terminology I usually use has 'locality' defined as what your link defines as 'non-signaling'.

We were using different definitions of the word 'local'.

I will agree that using your definition of 'locality', QM is a non-local theory. But, at the same time, it does not allow for non-local signaling.

Do we now agree?

 

[Nous]

I will agree that using your definition of 'locality', QM is a non-local theory. But, at the same time, it does not allow for non-local signaling.

Do we now agree?

What is it in QM that does not allow for nonlocal signaling?