Another Ph.D. physicist here. Any popularization of quantum mechanics (or quantum gravity in this case) can quickly degenerate into potentially foolish, or even harmful, metaphysical speculation. Physicists are in the business of finding the best set of mathematical rules that describe "If the conditions A exist, then B happens [with a certain probability]." The frustrating part is that about 100 years ago, quantum mechanics provided a set of rules that didn't have an easy intuitive interpretation (i.e. that quantum mechanics is not both a "real and local" theory.) Yet it is wildly successful for what it does, and the mathematics is crystal clear. (By the way, regular non-relativistic quantum mechanics can be interpreted as having "no reality", no fancy quantum loop gravity needed; see e.g.https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013 - more precisely, only correlations exist.)
Taken to its metaphysical conclusion, though, "there is no objective reality" can lead to harm. So, I guess morality is all a matter of perspective? That can be used to justify anything. We do seem to have an emergent reality (at least the one I am experiencing at the moment) that is held in common - just because the underlying mathematics is hard to interpret doesn't justify "anything goes", or my crazy belief is just as good as your crazy belief.
So although it is fun to think about, don't take "there is no objective reality" too seriously - you still have to go to work, you still have to pay your taxes.
> Physicists are in the business of finding the best set of mathematical rules that describe "If the conditions A exist, then B happens [with a certain probability]."
Physics can't claim domain over the study of reality and then say that reality can only be studied using mathematical rules. You can either say physics is the study of mathematical physicalism and stick to your mathematical rules, or you can say physics is the study of reality and be open to alternative ideas outside of mathematics to describe reality. Otherwise you're just precluding the conclusion of what you're supposed to be studying, that reality can be described by mathematical rules.
> Taken to its metaphysical conclusion, though, "there is no objective reality" can lead to harm.
So we should hide reality under a rug if it could possibly lead to harm? The truth is the truth, your objective as a scientist should be to follow the evidence not police morality. History shows that the truth tends to lead towards a better world anyway. I'm sure the Church was afraid of the decay of morality from atheists if they learned that God doesn't keep the planets in motion.
>Physics can't claim domain over the study of reality and then say that reality can only be studied using mathematical rules.
I never claimed that physics claims domain over all studies of reality - in fact I quite limited the domain of physics to finding the "best set of mathematical rules" that gives a certain probability of events happening.
>Otherwise you're just precluding the conclusion of what you're supposed to be studying, that reality can be described by mathematical rules.
Just the quantifiable part of reality - the "metaphysics" parts (e.g., why are we here? Is that a sensible question?) aren't the purview of physics (although physicists generally have their own opinions, as does Prof. Rovelli...)
>So we should hide reality under a rug if it could possibly lead to harm? I never said hide it - I said such metaphysical beliefs could lead to harm. So be aware that the popular interpretation of there being no "objective reality" (which relies on interpreting something mathematically rigorous in physics) can be twisted into justification for nearly any action.
Alright fair enough, I apologize I guess we’re actually on the same page then
You, too, are practicing and advocating for a philosophy here.
Also, the lack of objectivity in the universe doesn't necessarily mean that nihilism is the ONLY way to go. Existentialism, for example, doesn't accept an objective reality either, and folks have found ways to make morality (and even religious faith) fully compatible within that framework.
Obviously, it's not good to delve into metaphysical speculation, as it often clearly leads to junk conclusions written by people who don't have the credentials to account for what the actual science (OR the actual philosophy) says.
But I do wonder what it would be like if modern physicists were more willing to pair up with modern philosophers once in awhile. I would very much love to see a collaboration between the two fields to explore what a subjective universe really MEANS to us as both a species and as moral beings in that universe.
I, very much, would love to see what some of these implications are, as written out by the folks who actually understand the science. Even if there's no true consensus among them, just learning what the different possibilities might be could be very enlightening.
Haha, the author observes that basis transformations don't change the state and concludes that there's no absolute state of being.