Physics is hard to understand; Don't draw unfounded conclusions

[Ninja_pig]

Hello all, I would like to make a PSA here to tell you all that physics is very hard to understand and takes years of dedicated study and practice in order to properly comprehend. Please take any physical justification of metaphysical or spiritual conclusions extremely skeptically. When you wish to understand the theories themselves, make sure you get the math down and solve some problems in a textbook or something, because it's not like you are going to understand the theories without that.

A couple unfounded conclusions I have heard:
-Special relativity tells us that time and space themselves are relative and the loss of simultaneity tells us that different things exist at different points in time depending at what reference frame we are looking from.

-Quantum mechanics tells us that consciousness is necessary in order for a particle to have a definite position in space, and until observation all matter is literally in a superposition of all possible states.

-Quantum entanglement allows particles to communicate faster than light.

These statements are not true. I will not try to explain why they are not true here because it would be lengthy and technical and most would probably not understand it because it takes a lot of math in order to properly understand. I am not trying to defend the scientific establishment or materialism here. I'm just warning you to be very careful when people who act like they know what they are talking about tell these things to you. If you would like to know the truth behind these statements, I invite you to try to get a good grasp of quantum mechanics and relativity by watching university courses on youtube, finding a good textbook or two, or even asking your favorite AI model. It will take time and hard work, but also the study  spirituality and consciousness does not require that you understand physics, so it's not entirely necessary. It often happens in science communication that these topics are given very little care and journalists have no issue misleading their readers in order to provide better entertainment. I would generally like to see more care taken when drawing conclusions from these theories, especially on a forum like this where we are ideally very interested in not fooling ourselves and falling into traps of the mind.

[theleelajoker]

Maybe you have a good intention - but putting out statements and then say that they are wrong without correcting them why they are wrong is completely pointless.

You say take some videos and books. Which ones? Why this one? Why not others? Why you believe book or video a) more than video b)? There are many interpretations of quantum theory (e.g. Copenhagen interpretation) , there are experts who dedicated their life to the research of it and they disagree. And now you are here and say "it's like this and that"...without given reasons. POINTLESS exercise IMO.

My take:

If you really understand why they are wrong, then you could out it into simple explanations why it is so. If you can't do that, you did not get it yourself. Or you say it's soooo complex, you can't put it in easy way - then probably because you reasoning why these statements are wrong is faulty in the first place. Then just say "nobody can really say if right or wrong", there are ideas, there are interpretations, there are disagreements, here is my take and this is my chain of thoughts / experience / logic / my credentials in saying so etc etc.

[Reciprocality]

You do not need a lot of math to imagine that 360 degrees (or any isotropic or homogenous metric) are insufficient to describe the simultaneity of matter.

You do not need a lot of math to imagine that isotropic/homogenous metrics have their foundations in the unity of perception and generalisations from counting and that properties that pertains to entities that exists independently of the perceptions from where we abstracted metrics could just as well exist independent of these metrics. Definite positions are a relation between one position and another, out of any two coordinates an isotropic two-dimensional metric can always be derived, when a third coordinate point is introduced without itself deriving from that metric you will not neatly fit it into that metric. It should be straight forward from this to conclude that quantum particles without consciousness (or interaction with something from which a metric is generalised, thus consciousness) have no definite position. Why should this take away from their simultaneity, if all simultaneity requires is an equal age via respective continuous paths each path of which are independent of any isotropic metric that unifies them?

Edited Saturday at 09:29 PM by Reciprocality

[Ninja_pig]

@theleelajoker I definitely left a lot of things out for the sake of brevity. I am just trying to prevent others from falling into the same trap I fell into, which is to think that real understanding comes from simple explanations and that "if you can't explain it to a 5 year old you don't understand it yourself".

30 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

Which ones? Why this one? Why not others? Why you believe book or video a) more than video b)?

For special relativity, I would recommend classical mechanics by Taylor for a textbook, and the YouTube channels Eugene kuthoransky, Dialect, and eigenchris. For quantum mechanics I would recommend David Griffiths quantum mechanics and PBS Space Time videos on the double slit experiment. I recommend these resources because they were what helped my personal understanding the most.

There are indeed interpretations of physical theories which do not have a definite right or wrong according to any real experiments we can do. I just think that we have to tread lightly and not try to turn interpretations into conclusions. I guess I could have said "these statements are at best highly speculative and have no supporting imperial evidence even though imperial evidence ought to be possible if they were true" instead of just that they're wrong.

I didn't take the time to explain why the statements were wrong because I didn't want that to take away from my main point, which is general caution. I would rather we not use physics at all to reason about spirituality or metaphysics. I have a bachelor's in physics which basically means I know the basics needed in order to understand the basics. I know from experience the dunning cruger effect and I know exactly how it feels at each point. So few have really gone through the effort of trying to grok quantum mechanics that they honestly believe simplified explanations with no math are as deep as the topic goes, or at least they think they have understood the just if it. To make a correct statement about the theory takes a lot more than to make an incorrect statement.

I want people to dive deeper into the math so they can think more critically about the subject. I think people are uncomfortable with the fact that they do not understand the topic so they try to pretend they do.

Just to satisfy you, let me try to debunk erroneous statement #2:

Quantum mechanics tells us that small particles, instead of exhibiting classical behavior, have a probability of being in any certain state once they are measured. The term "measured" means any interaction with the particle that requires It to have a definite position or momentum. For example, an electron interacting with a photon. At this time, the wave function of both quantum particles 'collapse' into a single point and they now interact at that point.

Notice that a conscious observer was in no way needed here in order to make the wave function collapse. In fact, the wave function itself tells us nothing about the actual state of these particles at any point in time, only the probability of them being at any one of those points. The idea of superposition is not trying to tell us the particles are literally in every possible state, but rather a convenient way to calculate the probability that they are in each state.

Now, there is the fact of Bell's inequality, which tells us that there are no hidden variables, or in other words properties inherent to the particles deciding these states which we simply do not know causing this quantum behavior. This tells us that there is some inherent randomness to how quantum particles behave which is ultimately unpredictable.

As far as the math goes, you should check out the stern Gerlach experiment, and understand how quantum particle states are represented in a hilbert space, and then use that knowledge to understand Belle's inequality. This is probably the minimum to fully comprehend the basics of superposition and quantum randomness in a way that may be metaphysically relevant.

[Ninja_pig]

37 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

You do not need a lot of math to imagine that 360 degrees (or any isotropic or homogenous metric) are insufficient to describe the simultaneity of matter.

You do not need a lot of math to imagine that isotropic/homogenous metrics have their foundations in the unity of perception and generalisations from counting and that properties that pertains to entities that exists independently of the perceptions from where we abstracted metrics could just as well exist independent of these metrics. Definite positions are a relation between one position and another, out of any two coordinates an isotropic two-dimensional metric can always be derived, when a third coordinate point is introduced without itself deriving from that metric you will not neatly fit it into that metric. It should be straight forward from this to conclude that quantum particles without consciousness (or interaction with something from which a metric is generalised, thus consciousness) have no definite position. Why should this take away from their simultaneity, if all simultaneity requires is an equal age via respective continuous paths each path of which are independent of any isotropic metric that unifies them?

So are you saying that in order for quantum particles to interact then you need a conscious observer which somehow is responsible for the singular spacetime where they interact? We should remember that according to special relativity, the statement "two separate points in space at the same time" is erroneous. Effectively, simultaneity is a matter of reference frame and we can't say that two particles are the same age or what have you until the point where they actually interact. This is the genius of special relativity. It does away with the need for some kind of "true" or "unifying" perspective. The lorenze transformations tell us how to reconcile one reference frame with another even though they are totally separate yet totally correct.

[Nilsi]

I don't think you need to understand the math to grasp the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics or special relativity - just like you don’t need to master von Neumann’s mathematics to understand the socioeconomic implications of game theory. That’s just gatekeeping.

Mathematics is just one epistemological framework, and if its proofs are truly robust and universal, it should be possible to arrive at the same conclusions by entirely different means. Einstein himself admitted that he arrived at his theories of relativity long before he could formally prove them mathematically. His insights came from conceptual reasoning and thought experiments, only later being refined into equations.

This reminds me of my experience with math in high school. I always got mediocre grades because, while I arrived at the correct solutions most of the time, I couldn’t formally explain how. It was abstract reasoning, intuition - something I couldn’t articulate step by step. Since I couldn’t show my work, my teacher assumed I was copying from classmates, even though I wasn’t.

Of course, formalization is important - rigorous proofs prevent misinterpretation and ensure consistency - but that doesn’t mean intuition and conceptual reasoning aren’t just as valid in guiding discovery. In fact, I would argue they are ultimately more fundamental and creative.

Edited Saturday at 10:26 PM by Nilsi

[tuku747]

11 hours ago, Ninja_pig said:

That consciousness is necessary in order for a particle to have a definite position in space, and until observation all matter is literally in a superposition of all possible states.

Quantum mechanics tells us that small particles, instead of exhibiting classical behavior, have a probability of being in any certain state once they are measured. The term "measured" means any interaction with the particle that requires It to have a definite position or momentum. For example, an electron interacting with a photon. At this time, the wave function of both quantum particles 'collapse' into a single point and they now interact at that point.

Notice that a conscious observer was in no way needed here in order to make the wave function collapse. In fact, the wave function itself tells us nothing about the actual state of these particles at any point in time, only the probability of them being at any one of those points. The idea of superposition is not trying to tell us the particles are literally in every possible state, but rather a convenient way to calculate the probability that they are in each state.

Now, there is the fact of Bell's inequality, which tells us that there are no hidden variables, or in other words properties inherent to the particles deciding these states which we simply do not know causing this quantum behavior. This tells us that there is some inherent randomness to how quantum particles behave which is ultimately unpredictable.

Without consciousness, there is no particle. The particle is made of your consciousness. This is the whole point of Leo's videos on quantum mechanics. Without You, there is no world, because You are the world. That you may argue that measurement is an even broader phenomena than just human consciousness does not change the fact that you are measuring reality constantly. You have never known a reality without also being an observer within it. Nor has any scientist ever known reality without being an observer in it. And never have you ever had any evidence of a scientist without also observing them and their work from your unique point of view.

Your eyeballs are a walking double-slit experiment. They have small openings called pupils, and therefore limit and shape the light coming in according to what light the retina can collect. Each eye sees a unique picture of the world because the light converges at unique angles because of the distance between them. What goes on in your mind is THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVEFUNCTION, utilizing a technique akin to stellar parallax, where both signals are collapsing into a unified experience.

Moreover, the very fact that you experience reality as a local entity in the center of your world ALL of the time, points to your nature as a particle-like self among a world of waves. You can only measure the light waves of the world from your point of reference, that's what it means to be a local self. Even when your eyes are closed, you measure and shape the light of the world with the lens that is the human mind, body, and soul. 

The particle collapses in your mind, in your perception, in your consciousness, and you can only ever have knowledge of that event as a local observer. This is the particle-like nature of the self and reality, the many ultimately collapse into one. Without observation, there is no measurement, no knowledge and no event.The particle collapses in your mind, in your perception, in your consciousness, and you can only ever have knowledge of that event as a local observer. This is the particle-like nature of the self and reality, the many ultimately collapse into one. Without observation, there is no measurement, no knowledge and no event. The event never occured out there, No!! All events occur within your mind and they are only ever known locally and immediately.

 

Edited yesterday at 01:49 AM by tuku747

[Hojo]

@Ninja_pig We don't have to draw conclusions the experts are for us.

[zurew]

11 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I don't think you need to understand the math to grasp the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics or special relativity

Sometimes though the math is compatible with multiple different kind of metaphysics and the issue comes when you try to use / try to pretend that the facts about special relativity and quantum mechanics is somehow  evidence that your preferred metaphysics is true. 

I think thats one way to cirtique Leo , because he would either need to show why the facts about quantum mechanics and special relativity can't be comaptible with  a different metaphyiscs or he would need to show some explanatory virtue or virtues that he thinks his metaphyiscs is better on compared to other metaphysical theories.

 

11 hours ago, Nilsi said:

In fact, I would argue they are ultimately more fundamental and creative.

Ideally , if we would have the power to do so - we would write a perfect algorithm for any given problem or question, but thats not how life works most of the time (ill-defined problems, lack of knowledge etc), so we use heruistics and shortcuts ,but ideally we would algorithmize it (there are physical computational limits, but I don't see a logical issue - like I don't see why in principle we couldn't formalize all of our problems and then write an algorithm for it).

Although we have to be careful with intuitions, because they can also be misleading or even if they are true, they can be used as conclusions, but often times the implications that are derived from a given conclusion can also be false (just like you said with the problem of misinterpretation).

Edited yesterday at 09:48 AM by zurew

[theleelajoker]

@Ninja_pig

1) Thanks for the clarifications, it's appreciated. I was a bit hard in my first response sry for that

2) One thing I do my best to keep in mind re these topics is

• We never observe the "real" world. We observe is whatever we can decode from a human lens. Alan Watts once said sth like "Astronomy is NOT the scientific investigation of stars, planets etc. It's the scientific investigation of the human experience of what we call stars". The same applies to physics IMO.
• I don't trust anyone that claims to know how things work.  First, live is incredibly complex. Second, the (human) information that we use to explain things is incredibly limited. Third, there is no purely external reality we are always part of the system and thus influencing what we experience
• Science looks for final conclusions, definitive statements and it has done a GREAT jobs in countless fields.  We have enough definitive knowledge to be able to fly to the moon, build nuclear power etc etc. But the whole issues around relativity theory and quantum mechanics indicate to me that some things can simply not be put into a "final answer". Looks close enough, and long enough, and there are always more questions than answers. 
• The world to me is simply a paradox . But is only a paradox because we want that final, definitive answer how things are.

Edited 22 hours ago by theleelajoker