I have a degree in theoretical physics and a gold medal, which is to say I have endured the requisite intellectual beatings. Often the best interpretations of physical theory are unpalatable to the average person. The idea that there is in fact no objective physical reality is the most egregious offender in this regard. However, it is nonetheless the best conclusion that one can draw given strict adherence to what the mathematical formalism of QM provides. There is simply no physical machinery to support an objective reality, period.
Now, that being said, the remarkable part is that the forgoing conclusion does us zero harm. We can still have the logical predictive fiction that an objective reality exists. What staggers the mind is the corollary that no human has ever erected a truth. Moreover, every intelligent species that ever endeavors to ask these questions will find the same non-answer.
>>no objective physical reality is…the best conclusion that one can draw given strict adherence to what the mathematical formalism of QM provides…
Can’t get on board with that. Relational QM/no objective reality is just one viewpoint, and it’s worth noting it’s not consensus.
To clarify he’s not claiming objects don’t exist, just that they don’t have observer independent properties.
It is fun to try and wrap your head around what no objective reality would mean. To grasp what we already have shown to be true about time being relative, the examples around simultaneity are a great wtf demonstration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
To clarify he’s not claiming objects don’t exist, just that they don’t have observer independent properties. -- that's right!
Isn’t it as likely that we have formulaic illusions like time that suffuse our inability to reach objectivity? And in those paradoxes: change only at Planck speed, motion is illusory, quantum gravity obeys probability as in Darwin, the theoretical observer independent reality exists.
The process of philosophy involves shedding illusions like words, statements, time, space to reach objectivity. A loop quantum gravity philosopher claiming there is no objective reality could just be an observer stuck at a bottleneck (notice he doesn’t call into question illusory attributes the piece relies on like biographical info).
Barbour’s observation, that quantum appears to demand specialization and record keeping at very unique planes (records are geology, fossils, impressions, photographs) hints that observers are what physical reality is, is counterpoint to “there is no objective reality.”
If reality is non trivially about record keeping, then of course there’s an objective reality, the Darwinian outcome is the objective sum of record keeping and the study of their differences.
Is existence an observer independent property?
no, unruh effect
You could say the same about relative existence of the magnetic field in classical electrodynamics.
Can you be more precise about what you mean by "objective reality"?
I would say that QM shows the world is not classical, but it doesn't say there's no objective reality: the predictions it makes about what we observe (reality) are extremely reliable and accurate (i.e. objective).
Yes, those predictions are just probabilistic for any single system, but when you have a lot of systems the probability that you will observe a specific outcome (to within observational error) can approach 1. A lot of our technology, such as lasers, transistors, etc., relies on this. I don't see how you make sense of that while denying there's objective reality.
Amateur here, certainly. But I recall that one of the two consequences of Bell's inequality (shown to be valid AFAIK) is that there isn't an "objective reality". Kind of like nature makes it up depending on what the observer is up to. Yes? No? Maybe?
Not really, no, but I can see why you might think that, because Bell's theorem is often described as saying that quantum mechanics contradicts "local realism", but "realism" in this sense has a precise technical meaning, which is that a physical system at some time has a complete set of well-defined values for all the possible measurements that we might do on it (and "local" just means that physical effects can't propagate faster than the speed of light). It was known since the beginning that quantum mechanics, as a theory, doesn't have this feature because of complementary observables, aka the uncertainty principle, which says that the more precisely some quantities are known, the less precisely the theory determines other quantities, e.g. in the case of a spin-1/2 particle, knowing the value of its spin along one axis means that it's value along any axis at right-angles is completely uncertain - it can be up or down with equal probability.
Nevertheless, it was thought (e.g. in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper in 1935) that it might be possible to formulate a theory that could reproduce all the correct predictions of quantum mechanics, while also ascribing simultaneous well-defined values to all the physical quantities possessed by a quantum system, i.e a locally realistic theory. These are also known as local "hidden variable" theories, where the idea was that some of the values of the variables might be unobserved simply because of measurement practicalities - we can't measure the spin of a particle along two orthogonal axes simultaneously because the measurement needs a magnetic field gradient along the direction we're measuring in.
Bell derived an inequality that any locally realistic theory must satisfy, and showed that quantum mechanics in fact violates this inequality, so no locally realistic theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. Alain Aspect and others later implemented Bell's thought experiment in the lab and showed that the physical world obeys quantum mechanics, and so is not describable by a locally realistic theory.
In my view, none of that shows that there is "no objective reality". Rather, it shows that objective reality is as far as we can tell quantum mechanical, and not locally realistic in the sense described above. It's certainly the case that quantum mechanics requires a modification of the classical concepts of reality, i.e. of classical ideas about what a physical system is, but you would only accept that conclusion if you agree that quantum mechanics is telling you something objective about reality... At least according to how I understand those words.
So I think what people really mean when they say quantum mechanics shows there's no objective reality is just that it contradicts classical conceptions of physical systems, which is clearly true but sounds less sexy and mysterious.
In EPR, the setup is that there are two labs doing measurements outside of each other's lights cone. The outcome in one lab allows a perfect prediction of what happens in the other. This means that it is not possible that something random is going on in unless there is some nonlocal coordination between the two. This suggests that there is some actual fact of the matter as to how the experiment will turn out. That is, they argued that QM+locality = extra information beyond the wave function to determine outcomes. Bell then saw Bohm's theory and wondered about getting rid of the nonlocality. Bell showed that QM+extra info determining outcomes = nonlocal. In short, EPR + Bell shows that if QM predictions are correct (the predictions, not the theory), then there is something nonlocal going on. The lab experiments confirmed this and nature is indeed nonlocal.
Thus, there is no local theory that has definite experimental results compatible with what is actually demonstrated in labs. Many worlds, to the extent that one can apply any notion of locality to it, avoids this by not having singular, definitive experimental results (all results happen).
> The outcome in one lab allows a perfect prediction of what happens in the other.
I guess you know this, but just to clarify, that's only if the same measurement is performed in the other lab. If the other lab measures an orthogonal spin component, that result can't be predicted at all (I'm assuming entangled spin-1/2 particles for simplicity). It's more precise to say that measurement in the first lab tells you the state in the second lab, and with that information the probabilities for the various possible measurement results in the other lab can be predicted. In particular, if the other lab measures the spin along the same axis, the results can be perfectly correlated, as you say.
So there's some kind of nonlocality, but it's not the kind of nonlocality that makes problems with relativity, because the correlations can't be used to signal or cause any difference in the distant lab, only to predict, in general probabilistically, what would happen in the other lab if some measurements are performed. So entanglement allows this interesting middle ground between a local theory and a theory that's nonlocal in the sense that it would allow nonlocal causation, which is the kind of nonlocality that would worry Einstein. There should be different words for the different kinds of nonlocality, but maybe nonlocal correlation versus nonlocal causation serves the purpose
In EPR, it is critical that it is the same measurement. Bell explores doing different measurements. For EPR, they assumed that if you can predict with certainty what happens in a space-like separated region, then there must be a fact of the matter about it. Not being probabilistic was very important for that. Bell then showed that there cannot be a fact of the matter without there also being some nonlocal means going on in order to account for the QM predictions. It is critical to appreciate the two separate pieces of arguments, how they differ, and how jointly they do lead to some kind of nonlocality. Tim Maudlin has a, now old, book exploring these different levels of nonlocality in quantum mechanics.
I recently heard a talk from Tim Maudlin where he mentioned that foliations are the easiest and most natural structures to use to provide nonlocality and, if there is such a thing, maybe there is a clever way of using it to actually communicate and discover the foliation in some sense. He mentioned there is current research on using arrival times which are experimental results outside of the operator formalism, as far as I know. I found an article describing the research:
https://www.altpropulsion.com/ftl-quantum-communication-reth...
> In EPR, it is critical that it is the same measurement.
I must admit I haven't read the full EPR paper, only post-Bell expositions and excerpts. But you can have perfect spacelike correlations of the same measurement classically as well, e.g. if two particles having opposite (angular or linear) momenta are sent from the midpoint towards distant labs, measuring one momentum will tell you the other one. They must somehow discuss making different measurements no? Maybe they effectively discuss a protocol where the two labs agree on the same sequence of orthogonal measurements. I should read these sources sometime...
Thanks for the ftl reference. It would be astonishing if their hypotheses are borne out. I find it unlikely, but of course the experiments will have to decide, so I'll keep tabs on that. By "foliation" in this context I guess he means a foliation of spacetime amounting to an absolute reference frame. I've seen Tim Maudlin discuss something like that before.
By the way, the article you linked mentions a couple of times the importance of distinguishing signaling from causation or action, but doesn't seem to define how they're distinct. Do you know some more formal article discussing the proposed experiments? The sources given in the article are just to video interviews.
EPR's point is that there is nothing mysterious from a classical perspective of being able to deduce this. They were arguing against the presentation of QM as to there being no fact of the matter about what the momentum is before the measurement and that it randomly becomes whatever it becomes when measured. Their point is that if both particles are randomly collapsing into their choices, then they should disagree at some point unless there is some nonlocal causation happening. Einstein rejected nonlocal causation, reasonable given what he knew at the time, and thus the momentum measurement result must already be preordained by something and it is then like the classical setup.
Bell's work was to show that it had to be the nonlocal causation.
>Do you know some more formal article discussing the proposed experiments?
I do not know of an article, but Maudlin's book Quantum Non-locality and Relativity goes through the various notions of locality and what QM says about it. There is a chapter about signaling and another about causation. It also covers the GHZ scheme which is a non-probablistic version demonstrating non-locality. It is pretty clean.
>Do you know some more formal article discussing the proposed experiments?
I have not read them, but my understanding that Siddhant Das is pursuing these and here is a link to his Arxiv papers which talk about arrival time experiments though I do not know if it is directly about these.
https://arxiv.org/search/advanced?advanced=&terms-0-operator...
If MWI is true, then nature is local without extra information beyond wave function.
The term is an error due to messy history. Copenhagen program being the first, influenced early quantum physics, quantum behavior was unreal, classical behavior was real. When the term local realism was introduced, it was intended to be philosophic realism, but was confused with classical behavior, because historical baggage was messy.
I mean there is no perspective from which one can obtain a view of all properties of all systems that will not be invalid to another observer.
In my view there is such a perspective: quantum mechanics. So far as we know its predictions are valid for all observers.
But what that means is that we have to readjust our classical conceptions about what a "property of a system" is.
The word "property" in general is just a logical concept, and doesn't carry any intrinsic ontological implications. There can be mathematical properties, physical properties, properties of thoughts and dreams etc., and this way of talking about things doesn't by itself imply any specific ontological interpretation. It's just a feature of the structure of language.
About physical properties specifically, if we derive our concept of physical property from quantum mechanics, instead of trying to retain the inadequate classical meaning, then physical properties are exactly those represented by the state vector: e.g. its projections on to each of the basis vectors corresponding to some observable.
True, as is well-known from the Bell and Kochen-Specker theorems, we can't consistently say that a quantum state has some specific value of its observables independently of interactions with other systems, but this is just the classical conception of a physical property (formalized, e.g., by a real-valued function on phase space).
But quantum mechanics doesn't thereby force us to say that a physical system has no definite properties. Instead, we can reconfigure our conception of physical property to make it compatible with quantum mechanics.
Then in general the properties of quantum states are probabilistic (at least some of them - the dimension of its state space, for example, is not), but the theory unambiguously assigns to a state the probabilities that the various possible measurement outcomes will be observed. These probabilities are among that state's properties, and all indications are that these probabilities are objective features of the state, independently of our ways of representing the state.
In fact the dependence goes in the other direction: this (objectively) probabilistic character of quantum states (among other things, like the quantization of energy exchanges) is what forced us to change the way we think of physical states.
if your definition requires universal observer agreement you already have that issue with special relativity / light cones / the spacetime metric.
many worlds posits a single universal quantum state it's just only partially accessible to observers, which is different from saying that it simply doesn't objectively exist.
maybe it depends on your definition of objective
No objective reality or no single universal frame?
Reproducable reality from x frame seems non-arbitrary if not objective.
That phenomenon was known in classical physics since 500 BCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
I've got a doctorate and I don't really see what you are saying, primarily because "no objective physical reality" is somewhat vague.
QM, for example, is a totally adequate theory of objective reality! it just describes an objective reality with properties which differ to some degree from those intuitive to creatures at classical scales. It may be inadequate in other respects (not invariant, a little unsatisfying wrt the born rule, etc) but it isn't as if it implies NO OBJECTIVE REALITY.
This is what’s meant by no objective reality as alluded to in the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
The claim is not that objects don’t exist, just that they don’t have observer independent properties.
This is what I mean.
And to further clarify, observer independence is referring to the frame itself not that humans imagine the world into being in the solipsistic sense many believe.
I say this because just a few days ago on this forum someone was asserting that without humans the earth would not exist, that human observation instantiates the earth and the earth did not exist before human consciousness.
What do you mean? That according to relational quantum mechanics absolute reality doesn't exist? But absence of absolute reality doesn't imply absence of objective reality. And it's according to relational quantum mechanics, not according to mathematical formalism of QM.
I second your comment. This is where a degree in philosophy would have been useful. The term "objective reality" is just a semantic indirection to a cluster of loosely defined concepts. Okay, what concepts? That whole discussion is philosophy, informed by physics.
See above.
I think language does us a disservice here. I'm reminded of Korzybski's work in Science and Sanity. The interpretation of "truth" depends on which level of abstraction you are operating on. "Every statement is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense". The term "reality" implies a perceiver, and that perceiver is generating "reality" based on their neurological instrument, which has its own biases based on its prior experience and genetics.
I agree that language other than math fails us here. Nevertheless, I humbly try to convey thoughts that occur in me with these tools.
But the problems described by the parent comment also exist in mathematical language, that’s what Godel Incompleteness is. The problem is inherent to all conceptual frameworks
I would disagree, completeness is not required consistency is all you need really. QM is consistent.
> The term "reality" implies a perceiver
No. Subjective reality is what we experience as sentients. There must be an object reality and imho that is the only statement of truth that can be uttered in language, with "language" to be understood in the sense that Werner Hisenberg uses that term.
So I'm with Bohr, Hisenberg on this matter. We can not 'presume' to speak of the Real with capital R. It exists but it can not be 'encompassed'.
No vision can encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision. Indeed, He Is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware! - Qur'an - 6.103
Leave out the quran quote since that is most definitely not what Bohr/Heisenberg/Others mean when they talk about subjectivity/observation/measurement. See my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45759220
If you want to discuss Philosophical/Ontological/Epistemological concepts of Reality/Truth etc. there are far better models in Hindu/Buddhist scriptures. The submitted article itself refers to Nagarjuna's Sunyata and Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy.
The quote seems perfectly fine in illustrating the idea that reality will always transcend our language or thought (to the extent that can be expressed in any language).
And if you appreciate Hindu scripture, that particular quote could have been lifted almost verbatim from the Upanishads.
I don't appreciate the dogmatism that is associated with a lot of orthodox Islam either, but this is something similar to a lot of conservative religious outlooks, as you can find among people identifying as Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc. But in fact this particular quote can be seen as antithetical to any such dogmatic position, and it's worthwhile to recognize points of agreement even though you might disagree in other areas.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45761877
I find your chauvinism is what doesn't belong to HN. Bohr was familiar with Eastern scriptures so it is perfectly understandable as to why he would reference its formulations. I happen to familiar with both and I do not see any discrepency or antagonism in these scriptures. You may not benefit with such comments but it is possible that others will find it useful and informative.
I dislike unnecessary religiosity being dragged in where there is no reason for it.
> I happen to familiar with both
I don't think you are. No Quantum Physicist has ever quoted anything from Quran since there is nothing there (it is the youngest of all religions being only from 7th century AD) which has not been already elaborated in Hindu/Buddhist/Greek/Chinese/Christian philosophies/worldviews. That is why most scientists quoted from those ancient scriptures. There is no need to try and hoist your opinions on them.
Moreover the article specifically mentions Carlo Rovelli drawing inspiration from Nagarjuna's Buddhist philosophy and hence that is the model we should look at to try and understand what he means (and not drag in all and sundry others).
Quoting the Quran in a positive light is like doing the same with Mein Kampf, except that Islam has caused a lot more deaths over the years. I'd say it's yours that doesn't belong on HN.
If you are going to attack the sacred text of two billion people, it would be better to avoid a lazy comparison to Hitler. Have you read the Quran? Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged? Do you know how it had been used and abused? What is the relationship between modern science and islam? How has it been used to justify violence? How has it been to argue for peace? Have the people who have used it to justify violence understood the original meaning? How does the violence/body count compare to other dogmatic religions, especially christianity?
There is violence in every ideology. To deny this is to deny reality. Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view. That does not mean that one cannot point out the shadow side, but one should look in the mirror of one's one preferred ideology, whether that is christianity, atheism, scientism, nationalism, rationalism, etc., before casting blanket aspersions at others.
> Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged?
Justification of one of the biggest, fastest, and most brutal conquests in history? Because everybody who wasn't a Muslim was fair game for killing or slavery? Because all non-Muslim land really belongs to the Muslims?
That's what it actually says.
> Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view.
Something that I very clearly didn't do. And there was nothing lazy about my comparison.
oh wow seriously?
Of course.
I am just a lay person so a lot of the maths is over my head for all of this, but I do try to follow the best I can.
Do you ever ponder that the maths that you try to distill into the “laws of physics” is just too low of a fidelity for such a complicated system?
For example when you capture a gorgeous sunrise/sunset in a photo, and despite you doing every trick under the sun to get a good angle/lighting etc, the photo is never as good as what you experienced in person.
Or maybe you just never experienced the sunrise/sunset shrug.
QM provides the most accurate and verifiable predictions in human history. The follow on from that is that my thoughts can be conveyed to you over a sea of quivering electrons. The one catch is that you must accept that when you are not looking the universe does its evolving in a way that is inimical to your conceptualizations.
You have beautiful way of writing. Do you have a blog?
Just want to +1 and would subscribe if you start one
Thank you so much, I don't.
Thank you for trying.
What were you hoping for?
I apologise as I replied in a shirty manner and deleted as I thought better of it.
I don’t think we’ll be able to really discuss the matter so have a good night!
The idea is that there is no "complicated system", or at least that you are not permitted to concieve of one without describing it in physical detail.
> is just too low of a fidelity for such a complicated system?
I think you're asking questions that some are afraid to ask.
It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain.
Fundamentally, I don't see how you can use continuous math to explain a discrete system.
"It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain."
No, here we are discussing the formalism without approximations associated with an instance of its approximate application.
And QM says "The map is the terrain".
QM is many things
You might want to be a little more specific, and rely less on approximations.
I am aware of what the Copenhagen interpretation states, thanks
To what approximations do you refer?
Here we discard Copenhagen and move forward.
Take your pick
Schrodinger/Dirac/Feynman.
A wave is a product, trigonometric functions do not exist.
Gerard hooft was on Curt Jaimungal's youtube channel a while back, I generally agree with him, discrete systems cannot be explained by real numbers, only integers
Not following youtube, sorry.
uhuh, well I'm sure you know how to use a search engine
For non-relativistic QM, the QM formalism is provable from Bohmian mechanics, an actual particle theory. BM starts from particles have locations the change continuously in time via a guidance equation using the wave function of the universe. One may choose other theories to explain quantum phenomena, but to say "There is simply no physical machinery to support an objective reality, period." is just false, at least in that realm. As for relativistic QFT, there are plausible pathways using Bohmian ideas as well though nothing as definitive as BM has been firmly established.
I would also say that any theory that does not have room to say definitively that I exist is a theory that is obviously contradictory to my experience and is therefore falsified. There has to be room in the theory for at least me. Additionally, I would certainly value much more a theory that has room for the rest of humanity more than one which questions the existence of everyone but me. I am not even sure what the point of a theory would be if it could not account for collaborative science being done.
QM does not deny you existence, it rather denies you a complete objective description of how you exist. Or perhaps it says that your existence is not an objective phenomena.
Would you mind clarifying in which of these 3 dictionary definitions of the word objective my existence (in the sense of the "particles" of my body) is not objective? Or maybe these definitions are not exhaustive? Perhapse the term objective has become overloaded.
objective
adjective
Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering and representing facts; impartial. “Historians try to be objective and impartial.” Synonyms: impartial, unbiased, neutral, dispassionate, detached. Antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced.
Existing independently of the mind; actual. “A matter of objective fact.” Synonyms: factual, real, empirical, verifiable. Antonym: subjective.
Grammar. Relating to the case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.
BM is objective, and indeed deterministic. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "complete" but it has all the same predictions as other interpretations of QM. It has some odd quirks however, such as explicit non-locality.
Since EPR+Bell showed that nature is non-local, it is a feature, not a bug, to be explicit about how non-locality happens. Collapse theories are also explicitly non-local.
That's one position in a century-long debate. But there are other assumptions than locality in the proof of Bell's Theorem, which other interpretations of QM relax. Like having single measurement outcomes (many-worlds), or observer-independent states (QBism).
In terms of quirkiness, how would you rank them? I feel like nonlocality is far less quirkier than saying that all possible outcomes of a measurement happen even though we just see one. Also standard QM has the quirk of being nonlocal. So QM is just quirky.
There are many that I don't understand very well, so I'm reluctant to rank them. My tendency is to be skeptical about how clearly us humans can see the underlying reality of things, so I find epistemic interpretations like QBism appealing on that basis.
The "every outcome happens" aspect of many worlds is a lot to accept. Otoh that's what you get if you take quantum states to be ontological and universal. My problem is more to do with how the Born rule falls out. There are some arguments for it based on decision theory, but I find the step from "this is how a rational betting agent maximises winnings" to "this is the objective probability of a scientific observation" uncompelling.
I'm not sure what you mean by "standard QM". There's the mathematical framework - which is effectively a way of calculating probabilities of measurement outcomes - and then there are interpretations, which assign ontological status to some/all of the mathematical objects. Non-locality properly applies to the latter, since you cannot say that the "real" physical state of a particle has changed until you've said which parts of the mathematics are real.
I don't at all begrudge you your logical predictive fictions.
To me, what makes sense is that there is one reality (or I guess, our reality is unity), and everything in it, including “living” beings and “intelligence” is inseparable from the singleton. So trying to observe an object or an event, is the same as reality observing itself. It wouldn’t surprise me that the feedback loop of this is what we perceive as observer dependent attributes. Whether this reality is an objective physical reality or something else entirely is irrelevant and does us no harm.
Your conclusion rests on the assumption that QM's description of reality represents the ontological truth. And such a 'truth' is not provable. However, as you already mentioned, it doesn't matter as QM provides the strongest epistemological claims, and this is what matters in the end.
I think otherwise. I am precisely saying that QM as a formalism denies ontological truth in the first instance. You have to do something like the BM guy above is embarking on.
Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup and other idealists have been saying this for years
https://youtu.be/yqOVu263OSk?si=M3fcLbJneZ0S5Jpq
Adivita Vedanta, Buddhism, mystics and perennial philosophers have been saying this for centuries
https://youtu.be/cwcft4auszA?si=1vYsny6jZb--IE_0
Wolfram is also taking in the same vein but in a different approach
https://youtu.be/8SD9WgPCZ28?si=t8XvVfJV8qi-K_0q
Ie something is up and spacetime is NOT fundamental
Some philosophers and mystics may be metaphorically correct, but that's not evidence of anything. Lots of people say really wrong things about reality too.
Once the notion of objective truth is relinquished, what ontological or epistemic status remains for reasoning itself? Is it to be understood as a pragmatic construct, or as something with deeper necessity beyond empiricism?
Deep necessity, we follow logic so we are not grunting beasts.
But where does logic exist in, then? Does it not need consistency to be useful? And what causes the consistency? It's turtles all the way down.
Logic does not exist in a physical sense, but try to think without it. For example, try to think without the law of noncontradiction. Can you categorize?
I tried quite a lot. I've come to the conclusion that thinking (and logic) is probably some pattern that only seems interesting to itself.
(Yes, I am aware of the otherwise nonsensical concepts "pattern" and "interesting".)
My instantiation of logic isn't physicalized? Is there unphysicallized logic?
What do you think about this blog post: [1]? It seems to be promoting very similar ideas but I lack education to evaluate its claims.
[1] https://andercot.substack.com/p/theres-no-single-objective-r...
Hm, I wrote this while reading the beginning, and then it rapidly went downhill with alien conspiracy theories.
Nice example of physics tumbling into meaningless metaphysical nonsense.
Nice example of hurling meaningless invective.
> What staggers the mind is the corollary that no human has ever erected a truth.
Hell, you don't need a physics degree for this, nor even QM, just a robust grasp of the limits of empiricism. Hume connected the dots centuries ago.
I see this as decidedly non-Humean. Why be Humean anyway?
So is it all a dream?