Issue #39 ~ I have frequently talked about the interpretation of quantum physics implying that “everything is a quantum wave”. Here I’d like to explain this a bit better and, more importantly, tell you about some problems with this picture of the universe.
Vlatko, do you precisely differentiate in your mind between two activities: On the one hand, mathematics that takes place alone from postulates and rules deeply tattooed in your structural memory, without the need to consciously intervene. On the other hand, the way in which your consciousness decides to use these languages, because they are indeed mathematical languages, in the face of mysterious observations to draw new models of reality.
If the first activity is purely mathematical, the second is philosophical. And requires advanced skills in analytical philosophy. Carlo Rovelli, for example, is acutely aware of this, being himself very well versed in analysis and having teamed up with an analytical philosopher, Nick Huggett, to test the quantum nature of space-time — he cites your proposal in his latest article, Vlatko, with high praise.
The solution you are looking for therefore requires philosophical reflection. Let us take an example of what analysis says: what most physicists call "uncertainty in measurement" is a false concept. Measurement is not uncertain in fact, despite Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Measurement is a completely real and certain interaction, which is not superimposable on another made at a different time. The uncertainty is that of the measured system and not of the measurement itself. If there is no uncertainty in measurement, there is none in the observer either, whether human, animal, or plant. Measurement is a transition of reality that appears in the interaction between two uncertain systems, the one measured and the one that measures. It is in this tiny interface that we must look.
If I claim that measurement is certain, it is because we experience it this way through direct experience. We do not experience ourselves as uncertain, as quantum. If our minds are included in reality, then reality annihilates uncertainties in one way or another. When you see renormalization as an approximate method, Vlatko, the philosophical analysis concludes: reality makes approximations. To think that such approximations reside only in our minds would be to exclude it from reality. To keep it there, one must assume that reality itself renormalizes. This is the simplest hypothesis to explain the effectiveness of renormalization in physics.
For more details on how reality renormalizes, read:
You are not only excellent physicist, you are also a wonderful storyteller. Thank you for theses réfections.
One number corresponding to “Infinity squared” of numbers, making me think of "from one drop of water grows a whole universe".
Vlatko, do you precisely differentiate in your mind between two activities: On the one hand, mathematics that takes place alone from postulates and rules deeply tattooed in your structural memory, without the need to consciously intervene. On the other hand, the way in which your consciousness decides to use these languages, because they are indeed mathematical languages, in the face of mysterious observations to draw new models of reality.
If the first activity is purely mathematical, the second is philosophical. And requires advanced skills in analytical philosophy. Carlo Rovelli, for example, is acutely aware of this, being himself very well versed in analysis and having teamed up with an analytical philosopher, Nick Huggett, to test the quantum nature of space-time — he cites your proposal in his latest article, Vlatko, with high praise.
The solution you are looking for therefore requires philosophical reflection. Let us take an example of what analysis says: what most physicists call "uncertainty in measurement" is a false concept. Measurement is not uncertain in fact, despite Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Measurement is a completely real and certain interaction, which is not superimposable on another made at a different time. The uncertainty is that of the measured system and not of the measurement itself. If there is no uncertainty in measurement, there is none in the observer either, whether human, animal, or plant. Measurement is a transition of reality that appears in the interaction between two uncertain systems, the one measured and the one that measures. It is in this tiny interface that we must look.
If I claim that measurement is certain, it is because we experience it this way through direct experience. We do not experience ourselves as uncertain, as quantum. If our minds are included in reality, then reality annihilates uncertainties in one way or another. When you see renormalization as an approximate method, Vlatko, the philosophical analysis concludes: reality makes approximations. To think that such approximations reside only in our minds would be to exclude it from reality. To keep it there, one must assume that reality itself renormalizes. This is the simplest hypothesis to explain the effectiveness of renormalization in physics.
For more details on how reality renormalizes, read:
https://surimposium.rhumatopratique.com/en/a-self-organizing-theory-of-consciousness-to-unify-them-all/