යථාර්ථය නිර්වචනය කිරීම - 2
රූත් ඊ කැස්ට්නර් කියන්නේ මේරිලන්ඩ් විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයේ භෞතික විද්‍යාවේ
පදනම ගැන අධ්‍යයන කරන කණ්ඩායමේ මහාචාර්යවරියක්. ඇය පසුගිය දා තවත් දෙදෙනකු සමග
පළකළ පත්‍රිකාවක ක්වොන්ටම් භෞතිකයේ විසඳුම්වල දකින්නට ලැබෙන අධිස්ථාපන
(සුපර්පසිෂන්) මූලධර්මයෙන් කියැවෙන විසඳුම් ද යථාර්ථ විභවයක් ලෙසට සැලකීමට යෝජනා
කර තිබුණා. ක්වොන්ටම් විසඳුමක අවස්ථා දෛශික ගණනාවක් තිබෙන නමුත් අප නිරීක්‍ෂණය
කරන්නේ එක් දෛශිකයකින් නිරූපණය කෙරෙන්න පමණයි. අනෙක් අවස්ථා වෙනත් අවශ්‍යතා යටතේ
නිරීක්‍ෂණය වීමේ සම්භාවිතාවක් තියෙනවා. ඒවාත් යථාර්ථ විභව ලෙස ගැනීමටයි කැස්ට්නර්
යෝජනා කර ඇත්තේ. මෙය අලුත් අදහසකට වඩා පැරණි අදහසක් වර්ධනය කිරීමක්. මේ අවස්ථා
දෛශික ගැන මා ද කලකට පෙර පත්‍රිකාවක් පළ කර තිබුණා. කෙසේ වෙතත් යථාර්ථය ගැන මා මගේ
අදහස් කිහිපයක් රූත් කැස්ට්නර්ට දැන්වූවා. මේ ඈ හා මා අතර ඇති වූ සංවාදය.
මෙහි ඈය කලින් පෙන්වා සිටියේ නිරීක්‍ෂකයාගෙන් තොර යථාර්ථයක් ඇති බව.
ඇය යථාර්ථ විභව ගැනත් කීවා. ඉයන් ජෝන්ස් නමැත්තා යථාර්ථයක් ඇති බව හෝ නැති බව
නොවෙයි ඇගේ ප්‍රශ්නය බව කියා ඇය බේරා ගැනීමට තැත් කළා. එහෙත් මා ඇගෙන් උපුටා
ගැනීම් සහිතව පෙන්වා දුන්නේ ඇය නිරීක්‍ෂකයාගෙන් තොරව යථාර්ථයක් ඇති බව පෙන්වීමට
උත්සාහ දරා ඇති බව. පසුව ඇය එයට නිසි පිළිතුරක් නොදී අපට එකඟ විය හැකි බවක් කීවා.
එතැනින් එහාට මා තර්ක කරන්න ගියේ නැහැ. මා ඇයට ස්තුති කළා.
මෙරට පමණක් නොව පිටරට මහාචාර්යවරුන්ටත් ඇත්තේ උපකල්පන පමණයි. ඔවුන්
හිතනවා නිරීක්‍ෂකයාගෙන් තොරව යථාර්ථයක් ඇති බව. එහෙත් එය කිසි දිනෙක පෙන්නන්න
පුළුවන් එකක් නො වෙයි. අප යථාර්ථය යැයි
කියන්නේ අපේ හිතළුවකට. අපට ඇත්තේ යථාර්ථයක් නොව යථාර්ථ. ඒ ඊනියා යථාර්ථ නිරීක්‍ෂකයාගෙන්
සවායත්ත නැහැ.
බටහිරත් ඉතා විශිෂ්ට ගණයේ චින්තකයන් ඇත්තේ ස්වල්පයයි. අනෙක් අය
විශ්වවිද්‍යාලවල ඊනියා පර්යේෂණ ආයතනවල බොරු පත්‍රිකා පළ කරනවා. විශිෂ්ට ගණයේ අය
අලුත් කතන්දර ගොතනවා. ලංකාවේ විශිෂ්ට ගණයේ කිසිවකු නැහැ.
\Thoughts on ““Taking
Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously” Featured on Science News Blog”
- Dean Waters says:
October 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm
Exceptional clarity and
timeliness! This paper addresses the consequences of a peculiarly connected,
but still potentially comprehensible universe. Bravo to all of you! Combined
with your other recent work, this has helped bridge a gap in my visualization
of ‘simple’ polarization entanglements, “weak” measurements and their implied
entanglements, and coherent quantum entities. Good stuff! ;-)
- Reply
rekastner says:
October 16, 2017 at 10:39 pm
Thanks very much, Dean! Very
glad to hear that this makes sense and is useful to you. Have you seen:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09367
- Reply
Dean Waters says:
October 18, 2017 at 10:08 pm
I’ve only done a first pass on
that paper, but yes. It sent me scurrying to read your other work to better
understand your terminology and justifications. I now have wrinkled printouts
of PTI & Relativity (2012), Heisenberg Potentia, and Status of Measurement
Problem from September. I’ve printed, but not read Weak Measurements from
March, though with a quick scan I think I get the idea. I’ve been stuffing your
papers in a pocket and bring them to work to read during lunch and on breaks.
I will tackle your co-authors’
work, but your work is easier for me to read.
Long story, but I actually own
a hard cover copy of Cramer’s Quantum Handshake, so I saw you referenced there.
And this summer I came across a sly wink from Roger Penrose in reference to
some ‘interesting work by Ruth Kastner’ in his Fantasy, Faith and Fantasy. I
didn’t get a chance to try to see who you were until I saw Taking Heisenberg’s
Potentia Seriously while scanning the Arxiv newsfeed. And … that lead me here.
- Dean Waters says:
November 2, 2017 at 10:29 am
Correction. In this Universe,
Roger Penrose has not mentioned your work. My bad. In my mind that does nothing
to diminish the importance of your work!
- Nalin de Silva says:
October 17, 2017 at 5:59 am
Please find a paper I wrote sometime
ago on a similar topic
- Reply
Nalin de Silva says:
October 17, 2017 at 6:02 am
The paper 1006.4712 Arxiv On
Quantum Ontology
- Reply
rekastner says:
October 17, 2017 at 1:33 pm
Thanks, I will take a look.
- Reply
Giulio Prisco (@giulioprisco) says:
October 26, 2017 at 3:14 am
Awesome paper Ruth! I stumbled
upon while researching ideas related to Kauffman’s last book “Humanity in a
Creative Universe” (also awesome). Using the terminology that you use in the
paper, it still seems to me more of a principle theory than a constructive
theory where one can “see physical processes at work.” It’s certainly true that
“imaginability must not be made the test for ontology,” but can you propose
some kind of intuitively visualizable model? If potentia are ontologically
real, they are “things” in a mathematical space that is also ontologically
real. How to model that space and it’s interaction with space-time as-we-know?
- Reply
rekastner says:
October 26, 2017 at 3:25 pm
Thanks very much Giulio! And
yes, the constructive theory for this is RTI, presented for the layperson in
Understanding Our Unseen Reality, and in more technical form in The
Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility
- Reply
Giulio Prisco (@giulioprisco) says:
October 27, 2017 at 2:16 am
Thanks for replying Ruth, I
have both your books, will go through them again. How does the Relativistic
Transactional Interpretation relate to Kauffman’s ideas on free will and an
open universe embedded in a wider realm of possibilities? Free will seems to
require (hidden) non-randomness, where does that come from?
- rekastner says:
October 27, 2017 at 2:50 pm
RTI is a theory about quantum
systems, but I interpret the quantum systems as the potentiae. That is, they
are not spacetime actualities. RTI details how the quantum potentiae become
actualities through the process of ‘measurement’, which isn’t really
‘measurement’ in classical terms, but rather the emergence of spacetime events
(which are the actualities).
Re free will, RTI does not go
into free will specifically, but it leaves room for it. I discuss that briefly
on pp 182-8 of “Understanding Our Unseen Reality”. For more technical details,
see http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11893/
- Reply
Nalin de Silva says:
October 28, 2017 at 6:57 am
Reality is our creation. There
is no objective reality independent of the observer. Recent experiments on
delayed measurements using satellites is not in disagreement with this view.
The potentials as embodied in
the state vector may not be seen by the observer. However, it is the observer
who decides on what he wants as reality. The sensory perceptible world has been
considered to be the reality but it has to give away to other interpretations
of :”reality”/
Nalin de Silva
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:50
AM, Transactional Interpretation wrote:
> rekastner commented: “RTI
is a theory about quantum systems, but I > interpret the quantum systems as
the potentiae. That is, they are not > spacetime actualities. RTI details
how the quantum potentiae become > actualities through the process of
‘measurement’, which isn’t really ‘me” >
-Reply
rekastner says:
October 28, 2017 at 1:18 pm
Thanks, but that’s a
metaphysical position that is not at all obligatory. Recall the parable of the
Blind Men and the Elephant. Their perceptions and theories about what they
sense are limited, but there’s still an elephant out there.
-Reply
Nalin de Silva says:
October 29, 2017 at 7:08 am
Is there a reality independent
of the observer. ? Is it possible to demonstrate that there is a reality
independent of the observer without appealing to an observer?
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:18
AM, Transactional Interpretation wrote:
> rekastner commented:
“Thanks, but that’s a metaphysical position > (idealism) that is not at all
obligatory. Recall the parable of the Blind > Men and the Elephant. Their
perceptions and theories about what they sense > are limited, but there’s
still an elephant out there.” >
- Reply
rekastner says:
October 30, 2017 at 12:05 am
Is it possible to demonstrate
that there is no reality independent of the observer? This is why these are
metaphysical positions, and it’s inadvisable to make dogmatic assertions either
way. We simply don’t know. But we can certainly point to situations (such as
the Blind Men and the Elephant) where the men would be wrong to conclude that
there is no reality independent of their observations. Which is why they would
not want to dogmatically assert such a claim.
- Reply
Nalin de Silva says:
October 30, 2017 at 2:08 am
The blind men have their own
realities. The observer who perceives and conceives the “elephant” as the
elephant is only another reality. As long as we cannot establish that there is
a reality independent of the observer, reality itself remains metaphysical, How
does one define “reality”?
-Reply
Nalin de Silva says:
November 1, 2017 at 7:42 pm
The blind men conclude certain
“facts” depending on their senses. It could be considered as their “realities”.
With our senses we conclude that the real elephant is not what the blind men
describe as the elephant.
The “reality” depends on the
senses and we should not conclude what we sense as the reality. The reality .is
not independent of the observer.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:06
AM, Transactional Interpretation wrote:
> rekastner commented: “Is
it possible to demonstrate that there is no > reality independent of the
observer? This is why these are metaphysical > positions, and it’s
inadvisable to make dogmatic assertions either way. We > simply don’t know.
But we can certainly point to situations (” >
- Reply
rekastner says:
November 2, 2017 at 1:31 am
Sorry, but you’re still making
dogmatic statements that are non sequiturs. I.e. they don’t follow from any
argument. In the example of the Blind Men and the Elephant, each makes a theory
based on his sense impressions. Nothing about that shows that there is no
reality independent of their sense impressions. You’re just asserting that
without argument,
- Nalin de Silva says:
November 3, 2017 at 12:55 am
Could you define reality
please. It will make this discussion purposeful.
For example is reality the
sense impressions of a “normal” person. Then of course the question arises as
to who a “normal” person is.
Is reality the sense
impressions of a “normal” person and the scientific theories that are not
usually sensory perceptible.
Or is reality something else?
Is it possible to conclude by
argument that there is a reality starting from your definition of reality.
Thank you.
I think Nalin de Silva has failed to understand rekastner’s
question. It is not possible to start with a definition of what reality is
simply because it is not possible to gain direct access to such a reality.
Nalin de Silva seem to have confounded an epistemological limitation with an
ontological fact. For me rekastner’s argument is very simple: we do not know if
there is anything outside the human relation that we can definitively claim to
be real, but this means, at least, the equal possibility of the existence and
non-existence of such a real
|
in response to Ian
Jones:
I think Nalin de Silva has failed to understand rekastner’s
question. It is not possible to start with a definition of what reality is
simply because it is not possible to gain direct access to such a reality.
Nalin de Silva seem to have confounded an epistemological limitation with an
ontological fact. For me rekastner’s … Continue reading
“Taking Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously” Featured on Science News Blog
Yes, of course.
Thanks Ian.
|
Nalin de Silva
Nov 10 (4 days ago)
I thank Ian Jones
for his contributions. Let me come back to the epistemological limitations and
ontological facts in a future comment. Ian Jones states on rekastner’s argument
the following : “we do not know if there is anything outside
the human relation that we can definitively claim to be real, but this means,
at least, the equal possibility of the existence and non-existence of such a
real”
I am afraid rekastner
does not say the same. In different comments she has said the following.
Introducing Understanding our Unseen
Reality it is stated:
“This captivating book
presents a new, unified picture of the everyday world around us. It provides
rational, scientific support for the idea that there may well be more to our
reality than meets the eye…”
What is meant by our
reality in this statement? It is clear that according to rekatsner there may be
more to reality than meets the eye.
“Thanks,
but that’s a metaphysical position that is not at all obligatory. Recall the
parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Their perceptions and theories about
what they sense are limited, but there’s still an elephant out there.”
What
is meant by but there’s still an elephant out there? Is that elephant real or
not? The perceptions of theories of blind men sense are limited. Does it
mean that the perceptions and theories of the one who concludes that there’s
still an elephant out there, not limited?
“Is
it possible to demonstrate that there is no reality independent of the
observer? This is why these are metaphysical positions, and it’s inadvisable to
make dogmatic assertions either way. We simply don’t know. But we can certainly
point to situations (such as the Blind Men and the Elephant) where the men
would be wrong to conclude that there is no reality independent of their
observations. Which is why they would not want to dogmatically assert such a
claim.”
Please
note that I have not concluded that there is no reality independent of their
observations from the parable of blind men. My position is more general and I
state that the blind men have their own realities.
My
question is whether “an elephant out there” is the real elephant? Is “an
elephant out there” independent of some observer? Can there be more to the real
elephant than meets the eye of the “normal observer”? Does “an elephant out
there” refers to an elephant relative to “normal observers”?
Just to clarify: while of course I’ve argued
in my book that there is good reason to think that QM is describing a reality
independent of the sense data of particular observers. And in my other writings
I’ve provided more details about what this reality might be (e.g., the
Heisenberg Potentia paper).
However, I’ve made no dogmatic statement to that effect. What I was doing was simply countering a dogmatic statement (from the commenter) that there is no such reality. As long as we agree that there is no point in making dogmatic statements either way, then we have no essential disagreement
However, I’ve made no dogmatic statement to that effect. What I was doing was simply countering a dogmatic statement (from the commenter) that there is no such reality. As long as we agree that there is no point in making dogmatic statements either way, then we have no essential disagreement
Nalin de Silva
Nov 11 (3 days
ago)
Thank you
_____________________
වෙබ් අඩවියේ සංස්කාරකවරු
2017-11-14