Does QM disprove realism and materialism?

[Chriliman]

 

[Tanj]

No it doesn't.

Also materialism isn't ending, no matter what rando youtube vid says.

 

[SkyWriting]

So QM is real, or isn't?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please provide a summary of the video and highlight the points that are relevant to whatever you are trying to communicate.

Without watching the video, i'll just answer your question by saying: quantum mechanics, IS physical / material. Sub atomic particles are physical / material things. Weird things, but nevertheless physical / material.

 

[Chriliman]

No it doesn't.

Also materialism isn't ending, no matter what rando youtube vid says.

Well, according to the latest scientific findings outlined in the video, everything exists as a wave function of potentiality until observed, then it becomes what we know as material. So, in a way, you're right, materialism isn't ending as long as there's someone to observe reality.

 

[Chriliman]

So QM is real, or isn't?

Good question. I don't think QM disproves realism in the sense that whatever's actually happening at the quantum level would have to be real, itself.

 

[Chriliman]

Please provide a summary of the video and highlight the points that are relevant to whatever you are trying to communicate.

Without watching the video, i'll just answer your question by saying: quantum mechanics, IS physical / material. Sub atomic particles are physical / material things. Weird things, but nevertheless physical / material.

Not necissarily because according to the latest scientific findings outlined in the video, everything exists as a wave function of potentiality(not material) until observed, then it becomes what we know as material.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not necissarily because according to the latest scientific findings outlined in the video, everything exists as a wave function of potentiality(not material) until observed, then it becomes what we know as material.

These are physical phenomena. Observation is an empirical, physical thing.

 

[Chriliman]

These are physical phenomena. Observation is an empirical, physical thing.

There’s an important distinction between the wave function potentiality and the physical particles that arise from it. I wouldn’t call the wave function, matter, but I would call a particle, matter. I think it’s important to understand the difference in order to makes sense of what we’re discussing.

 

[Speedwell]

There’s a distinction between the physical wave function and the physical particles that arise from it. I wouldn’t call the physical wave function, matter, but I would call a particle, matter. I think it’s important to understand the difference in order to makes sense of what we’re discussing.

I would think that for purposes of this discussion the important distinction is between material and spiritual, or supernatural if you prefer.

In that sense, everything QM describes is material.

 

[Chriliman]

I would think that for purposes of this discussion the important distinction is between material and spiritual, or supernatural if you prefer.

In that sense, everything QM describes is material.

Okay, would you say the wave function of potentiality is material or spiritual(non-material)?

 

[Speedwell]

Okay, would you say the wave function of potentiality is material or spiritual(non-material)?

Material. In any case "particles" imagined as hard little beads of something called "matter" don't exist as such. That idea is merely an outmoded abstract concept.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There’s an important distinction between the wave function potentiality and the physical particles that arise from it. I wouldn’t call the wave function, matter, but I would call a particle, matter. I think it’s important to understand the difference in order to makes sense of what we’re discussing.

However you twist and turn it, we are still talking about physics.

 

[Chriliman]

Material. In any case "particles" imagined as hard little beads of something called "matter" don't exist as such. That idea is merely an outmoded abstract concept.

Interesting. How would you describe particles as existing if not as tiny bits of matter?

 

[Speedwell]

Interesting. How would you describe particles as existing if not as tiny bits of matter?

What is this "matter" of which you speak?

 

[Chriliman]

However you twist and turn it, we are still talking about physics.

I'm not trying to twist and turn anything, I just know physics has to do with material things, not necissarily non-material phenomenon. One can conclude that everything is material based, but QM research is telling us that's not the case.

 

[Chriliman]

What is this "matter" of which you speak?

The stuff we can see/feel/smell/observe.

I'm fine with thinking reality exists as a wave of potentiality(not material) until observed, then it takes the form of material things, kind of like a simulation. It can certainly fit within my theistic worldview.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not trying to twist and turn anything, I just know physics has to do with material things, not necissarily non-material phenomenon. One can conclude that everything is material based, but QM research is telling us that's not the case.

What QM tells us is that the traditional concept of "matter" is bogus and always has been. Further, that the problem of wave/particle duality is based on the circumstance that neither "wave" nor "particle" are full and accurate descriptors of physical reality, not that a hard little bead of something called "matter" can unaccountably act like a "wave" But what QM tells us doesn't mean that physical reality is "spiritual"

 

[Chriliman]

What QM tells us is that the traditional concept of "matter" is bogus and always has been. Further, that the problem of wave/particle duality is based on the circumstance that neither "wave" nor "particle" are full and accurate descriptors of physical reality, not that a hard little bead of something called "matter" can unaccountably act like a "wave" But what QM tells us doesn't mean that physical reality is "spiritual"

It's telling us more than that, too. Did you watch the video by chance? It's also telling us that our mere acts of observing reality is what causes material objects to exist(or at least what we perceive as material objects.) Where as if no observation takes place then the object does not exist as an object, but rather a wave of potentiality.

There's even some notion that the act of observing can create a backlog of history that wasn't there before, which I don't fully understand yet.

 

[Halbhh]

Interesting start (fyi my degree is in Engineering physics, though I've not personally done the double split experiment I've observed diffraction patterns, which work the same way in principle). Here's a moment, early on, where I went, "What!?..." The video is representing a situation where "they" (I'd like to be able to look up "they" and their experiment) observed the electrons before they passed through the slits, which I take to likely mean something else, not what is stated. Of course to 'observe' the electrons we must alter them. So, at the very beginning, I'm already questioning the thinking in the video, from my background of understanding (though I'm very comfortable with the general idea that the observer alters reality, and that reality isn't fully independent of the observer, but even more, that we may help to actually create reality, etc., so none of that is a problem for me). It's not possible to 'observe' where the electron is in any way at all without altering it, altering it's path, for instance, or momentum. One very fun thing about the Copenhagen Interpretation is that no other interpretation has really displaced it as the leader, and it suggests reality could be truly random at heart, and thus even more dependent on the observer. Also the physics generally in the video is about real physics, which makes it worth watching, even if the presenter adds whatever preferences.