Bell's Theorum.

[Casparov]

The "realism" meant here are hidden variables theories.

And what is the "Realism" meant here:

Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs.

A Hidden-Variable theory is just a theory that says "Realism still holds, it only seems like it doesn't because there are hidden-variables that we can't detect that are causing the weirdness." And Bell's and Leggett's hidden-variable theories have both been ruled out, meaning that Realism does not hold, there are no hidden-variables that leave Realism intact. There is no possible way that Realism survives this, it's only a matter of time and you are all fooling yourselves if you keep your head in the sand and think that somehow an external reality exists independent of observation. Realism is a dead ideology walking.

And remember what Realism means according to the peer reviewed scientific papers:

'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation.

[josephpalazzo]

Thanks again Joseph!  However, Casper is correct? Einstein showed there are no simultaneous events to every observer---so right off the bat the experiment is flawed. Solitary

Casper who?

On a more serious note: in the famous EPR paper, Einstein fell into a false dichotomy: either the events were simultaneous or there is a spooky action at a distance. Of course he argued the former would go against SR, therefore the second was his conclusion that QM is incomplete. However, the either/or choice presented in the EPR paper shows a profound misunderstanding between classical logic and quantum logic.

[Hakurei Reimu]

And what is the "Realism" meant here:

Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs.

More of your quote mining malarky! You can't even read a book written by a scientist for mass-consumption by the general public without reading into it. You have no hope at all of deciphering an actual peer reviewed paper, written by scientists for scientists. The statement you cite here comes in an abstract — a scientific come-on written to attract the eyes of scientists who already know about the controversy and wish to see what Zeilinger had to say about it. The paper body would go into detail about what that means so that everyone is on the same page.

Sorry, bub, but I happen to understand what the entire EPR controversy is actually arguing about. It has fuck-all to do with the wide definition of realism you want it to be. The Bell inequalities concerned only the polarizations of particles in singleton entanglements, much the same with Leggett's inequalities. Yes, you have to lose polarization/spin and a few other attributes as inherent qualities of quantum particles. That does not mean you have to lose all of philosophical realism.

[Casparov]

More of your quote mining malarky! You can't even read a book written by a scientist for mass-consumption by the general public without reading into it. You have no hope at all of deciphering an actual peer reviewed paper, written by scientists for scientists. The statement you cite here comes in an abstract — a scientific come-on written to attract the eyes of scientists who already know about the controversy and wish to see what Zeilinger had to say about it. The paper body would go into detail about what that means so that everyone is on the same page.

Oh jeez, sorry I didn't realize if it comes from an abstract you can completely disregard what it says. Okay then, well here's an excerpt from the actual paper then. Sorry about that:

Physical realism suggests that the results of observations are a consequence of properties carried by physical systems. It remains surprising that this tenet is very little challenged, as its significance goes far beyond science. Quantum physics, however, questions this concept in a very deep way. To maintain a realistic description of nature, non-local hidden-variable theories are being discussed as a possible completion of quantum theory.

I guess that clears up what kind of Realism they are talking about if the abstract didn't right? Or is there some other excuse you have up our sleeve to dismiss this entirely as well?

Sorry, bub, but I happen to understand what the entire EPR controversy is actually arguing about. It has fuck-all to do with the wide definition of realism you want it to be. The Bell inequalities concerned only the polarizations of particles in singleton entanglements, much the same with Leggett's inequalities. Yes, you have to lose polarization/spin and a few other attributes as inherent qualities of quantum particles. That does not mean you have to lose all of philosophical realism.

Hey did you hear that they conclusively showed that 430 atom molecules can be put into superposition and act the exact same way as these "quantum particles' you talk about? You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh and they also successfully but a 30 micrometer long paddle consisting of literally trillions of atoms into superposition as well. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It's beginning to look like all this 'spooky quantum weirdness" you guys are so scared of isn't going to be limited to only the "very very small" for very long... Philosophical Realism is a dead ideology walking. But hold tight Hakurei Reimu!! Keep the faith!

[Hakurei Reimu]

Oh jeez, sorry I didn't realize if it comes from an abstract you can completely disregard what it says. Okay then, well here's an excerpt from the actual paper then. Sorry about that:

Physical realism suggests that the results of observations are a consequence of properties carried by physical systems. It remains surprising that this tenet is very little challenged, as its significance goes far beyond science. Quantum physics, however, questions this concept in a very deep way. To maintain a realistic description of nature, non-local hidden-variable theories are being discussed as a possible completion of quantum theory.

I guess that clears up what kind of Realism they are talking about if the abstract didn't right? Or is there some other excuse you have up our sleeve to dismiss this entirely as well?

Where in that exerpt does it say that the things we think of as real aren't actually real? Where does it say that matter is not real? Where does it say that the results of observations about physical systems aren't true?

Nowhere! Again, you are reading into what is actually written what you want it to say. What is being described is exactly the hidden variables problem; exactly what I said the EPR problem was about! "The results of observations are a consequence of properties carried by physical systems" — hidden variables! This is even clarified later in that paragraph: "non-local hidden-variable theories are being discussed as a possible completion of quantum theory." The alternative presented by quantum mechanics is that there is genuine randomness associated with physical observations.

Hey did you hear that they conclusively showed that 430 atom molecules can be put into superposition and act the exact same way as these "quantum particles' you talk about? You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh and they also successfully but a 30 micrometer long paddle consisting of literally trillions of atoms into superposition as well. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It's beginning to look like all this 'spooky quantum weirdness" you guys are so scared of isn't going to be limited to only the "very very small" for very long... Philosophical Realism is a dead ideology walking. But hold tight Hakurei Reimu!! Keep the faith!

Again, where does it say that the 430 atom molecule doesn't exist, or the 30 micrometer paddle doesn't exist? Idealism doesn't predict that matter exists in superpositions: it predicts that matter does not exist, which is something you are going to have a hard time proving.

Seriously, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Casparov]

You seem to think that I am arguing that "reality doesn't exist" or "reality isn't real", but I'm not. Of course it's real! Of course it exists! It's just isn't as the Realist describes it. Realism is false and Materialism is false, this does not mean that nothing is real, only that the nature of reality is not as you believe it to be.

What you perceive as an external material object is not actually an external material object. If it were, it would be completely unaffected by observation. If this were a objective material reality, there is no way in hell one object could effect another object instantaneously without physically interacting with it in any way. Bell's Theorem was devised to test the thought that, "well maybe these two separated objects can interact with each other over a distance because there is some kind of physical signal being sent that we can't detect." For 80 years Quantum Physicists have been trying to save Realism and they have now eliminated every conceivable possible way that Realism could coexist with our observations about how reality actually behaves.

You can take an object, a 430 atom molecule for instance, and when it is unobserved it instantly ceases to exist in any classical meaning of the term "exist". We know that this actually happens, and we have mathematical formula's that describe the probability of where we might observe it when we decide to observe again, but while unobserved everything about it's state is transformed into mathematical probabilities that are more like thoughts and ideas that we made up than actual objective material objects. Realism states that physical reality is independent of observation. Therefore, IF REALISM WERE TRUE THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN TO ANY MATERIAL OBJECT ESPECIALLY A 430 ATOM MOLECULE!!!!!!!

I don't understand your argument at all. What are you saying? "Realism means that physical reality exists independent of observation, but just because physical reality doesn't exist independent of observation doesn't mean that Realism is false." Is that your argument? Or is it more like, "Just because Bell's and Leggett's Inequalities were violated doesn't mean that all of reality is observation-dependent, it only means that all of the atoms and particles that make up all of reality are observation-dependent." Is that your argument?

Hidden-variable theories test if there is any possible way that QM results can be explained under the assumption of classical realism. Local and non-local hidden variable theories have been violated, and thus to maintain that classical realism is somehow still a viable assumption can only be described as a unique sort of cognitive-dissonance. Especially coming from someone intelligent as you obviously are.

Look at what you are doing! Is there any other instance when you have fought so hard against blatant scientific evidence? Why are you fighting so hard against science that is so obvious? Realism is false. Admit it. Notice how you feel right now, this is EXACTLY how a creationist feels when they are coming up with tortured and twisted apologetics to deny the evidence for evolution. What you are doing is APOLOGETICS.

The papers I provided are very clear about what they mean by "realism" and that their results require that realism be abandoned. They refer to it as "a realistic description of nature" that's "significance goes far beyond science" and admit that "most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation." How can you maintain that what they are talking about is not what I am talking about? Why would they speak in this way or even bring up philosophical Realism if what their entire paper is about has nothing to do with philosophical realism as you claim????

I am not saying that "nothing is real" and "nothing exists" I am just saying we do not live in "an external reality [that] exists independent of observation." You should be able to admit this in light of the evidence but you wont, even though you normally uphold science, because this goes against your cherished beliefs, so instead you do backflips to dismiss the evidence staring you in the face.

The fact that Realism is a false assumption about reality has deep ramifications. A logical person who intellectually honest would abandon a view that no longer has any empirical evidence to support it, and courageously face the challenge having to fundamentally rethink one's view of reality. A weak minded person who cherished belief over reason would dismiss all evidence that is contrary to what he already believes to be true and close his mind to any new information by sticking his head in the sand in order to avoid changing his mind and rethinking his world view.

If you are so convinced that Realism is compatible with QM then prove it by taking the Quantum Randi Challenge and claim your Nobel Prize by overturning every piece of experimental evidence that has come out since 1925. I'll wait.

[Hakurei Reimu]

You seem to think that I am arguing that "reality doesn't exist" or "reality isn't real", but I'm not. Of course it's real! Of course it exists! It's just isn't as the Realist describes it. Realism is false and Materialism is false, this does not mean that nothing is real, only that the nature of reality is not as you believe it to be.

This has always been the case. That's why we do experiments. IDIOT.

What you perceive as an external material object is not actually an external material object. If it were, it would be completely unaffected by observation. If this were a objective material reality, there is no way in hell one object could effect another object instantaneously without physically interacting with it in any way.

And QM says that any observation is automatically a physical interaction, so observation can affect the observed. IDIOT.

Bell's Theorem was devised to test the thought that, "well maybe these two separated objects can interact with each other over a distance because there is some kind of physical signal being sent that we can't detect."

No. Bell's Inequalities are a way to test whether or not entangled particles carry their polarization information with them when created, and as such are in definite states before measured. Leggett's inequalities are a way to test whether or not the systems as a whole were in definite states. The failure of both indicate that there are no definite underlying states constraining the systems, even ones enforced by an underlying consciousness. IDIOT.

For 80 years Quantum Physicists have been trying to save Realism and they have now eliminated every conceivable possible way that Realism could coexist with our observations about how reality actually behaves.

And the implication of the violation of both equalities mean that QM is complete: that means that there is no deeper theory than QM. This is it. There is no underlying classical system (which would preserve either Leggett's or Bell's inequality) that underpins QM, even a computer simulator running on conscious fairy dust. IDIOT.

You can take an object, a 430 atom molecule for instance, and when it is unobserved it instantly ceases to exist in any classical meaning of the term "exist". We know that this actually happens, and we have mathematical formula's that describe the probability of where we might observe it when we decide to observe again, but while unobserved everything about it's state is transformed into mathematical probabilities that are more like thoughts and ideas that we made up than actual objective material objects. Realism states that physical reality is independent of observation. Therefore, IF REALISM WERE TRUE THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN TO ANY MATERIAL OBJECT ESPECIALLY A 430 ATOM MOLECULE!!!!!!!

And how would you know how a 430 atom material object is supposed to behave without observing it first? It's still totally made out of atoms, which is what materialism dictates.

And again we come to your bait-and-switch — it is materialism that opposes your idealism, not realism. After all, couldn't the consciousness computer underlying reality encode definite state data for each object just as well as a "realistic" reality, and thus be, in itself, realistic? Your particular argument against realism proves FUCK-ALL for your case for idealism. IDIOT.

I don't understand your argument at all. What are you saying? "Realism means that physical reality exists independent of observation, but just because physical reality doesn't exist independent of observation doesn't mean that Realism is false." Is that your argument? Or is it more like, "Just because Bell's and Leggett's Inequalities were violated doesn't mean that all of reality is observation-dependent, it only means that all of the atoms and particles that make up all of reality are observation-dependent." Is that your argument?

No, it means that the kind of "observation" that you think should exist if the world is realistic is not actually implied by realism, nor does it exist in the world. It also means that matter is not bound to your expectations. The fact that subatomic particles don't behave the way YOU think they should behave if everything is made up of those subatomic particles has no bearing on whether the everything is made up of those subatomic particles. IDIOT.

Hidden-variable theories test if there is any possible way that QM results can be explained under the assumption of classical realism.

That's right. CLASSICAL realism. Quantum mechanics is not a classical theory and as such there should be no expectation that it should follow CLASSICAL realism. That doesn't mean that there is not some other form of realism that QM could adhere to.

Local and non-local hidden variable theories have been violated, and thus to maintain that classical realism is somehow still a viable assumption can only be described as a unique sort of cognitive-dissonance. Especially coming from someone intelligent as you obviously are.

That's right. Except that I don't retain CLASSICAL realism, because they don't pertain to QUANTUM theories. Further, this argument has FUCK-ALL to do with whether or not the universe is materialist, because that is a separate question altogether. A question that, in all of your spiel about realism, has not been answered to the slightest degree.

Your screeching about realism is, at best, a distraction from your real stated issue — the defeat of materialism. Strictly speaking, you don't even have to destroy realism in order to prove idealism. You are pursuing a red herring. IDIOT.

Look at what you are doing! Is there any other instance when you have fought so hard against blatant scientific evidence?

Just because you say it's "blatant scientific evidence" does not mean that it is. IDIOT.

Why are you fighting so hard against science that is so obvious?

Just because you say that I'm "fighting so hard against science that is so obvious" does not mean that I am, or that it's obvious. Remember, this very point you are arguing is being argued over by real professionals as we speak. That's hardly a point that is "obvious." IDIOT.

Realism is false. Admit it. Notice how you feel right now, this is EXACTLY how a creationist feels when they are coming up with tortured and twisted apologetics to deny the evidence for evolution. What you are doing is APOLOGETICS.

That's my line. I'm going to defer to the real professional consensus when they say that materialism is alive and well, and going to call you out unless and until the consensus shifts towards your idealism. Because if it is so "obvious," the guy who works it out and finds a way to demonstrate it is up for a Nobel Prize, and unlimited fame and fortune going around the woo circuit telling them all they were right all along. IDIOT.

The papers I provided are very clear about what they mean by "realism" and that their results require that realism be abandoned.

Yes, it is quite clear. That doesn't mean you have understood it, and you have not. IDIOT.

They refer to it as "a realistic description of nature" that's "significance goes far beyond science" and admit that "most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation." How can you maintain that what they are talking about is not what I am talking about? Why would they speak in this way or even bring up philosophical Realism if what their entire paper is about has nothing to do with philosophical realism as you claim????

Because someone well-versed in the argument is cautious not to read too much into those quotes even if the author is being a tad hyperbolic. They know what the score is, so even if the particular author gets it a little wrong, we can still glark his meaning. In science, it is the consensus of professional opinion that decides what is the state of our scientific knowledge, not the ravings of any one author. IDIOT.

I am not saying that "nothing is real" and "nothing exists" I am just saying we do not live in "an external reality [that] exists independent of observation."

Since the kind of "observation" you demand simply plain doesn't exist, period, the statement is actually true, albeit vaccuously true. The external reality, if it exists, does exist independently of all observations that do not involve physical interactions — all none of them. IDIOT.

You should be able to admit this in light of the evidence but you wont, even though you normally uphold science, because this goes against your cherished beliefs, so instead you do backflips to dismiss the evidence staring you in the face.

Just because YOU think that the stuff you posted goes up against my cherished beliefs and doing backflips to preserve them, does not make it actually the case. IDIOT.

The fact that Realism is a false assumption about reality has deep ramifications. A logical person who intellectually honest would abandon a view that no longer has any empirical evidence to support it, and courageously face the challenge having to fundamentally rethink one's view of reality. A weak minded person who cherished belief over reason would dismiss all evidence that is contrary to what he already believes to be true and close his mind to any new information by sticking his head in the sand in order to avoid changing his mind and rethinking his world view.

See above. Your statements are not convincing in the slightest. I have, in numerous posts, given my reasons for why I don't believe you. If I have what I think are good reasons why I don't believe you or your interpretation of what is being said, then the only honest thing I can do is call bullshit. It also doesn't help your case that you pursue this red herring of CLASSICAL realism as if it had any bearing on materialism that is your real obsticle.

If and when the scientific consensus comes down in favor of your idealism, I'll accept it. But your word is decidedly NOT the scientific consensus. IDIOT.

If you are so convinced that Realism is compatible with QM then prove it by taking the Quantum Randi Challenge and claim your Nobel Prize by overturning every piece of experimental evidence that has come out since 1925. I'll wait.

I do not hold to CLASSICAL realism in QUANTUM reality. I agree that some of the things we normally think as real has no meaning for quantum systems. Perhaps all of them. That doesn't mean that there is not some underlying QUANTUM realism, nor that its absence automatically mean that idealism is correct and materialism is wrong, because that question is quite orthogonal to the question of realism — realism/nonrealism is a fucking red herring to your actual thesis.

I'll leave figuring out what the EPR experiments mean for reality to the professionals, and I suggest you do the same.

Oh, where are my manners?

IDIOT!

[Casparov]

Well, first of all, STUPID HEAD, your claim that Realism is somehow unaffected because all observation is physical observation is entirely fallacious. Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiments such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login show that you are making a moot point. The which-path information can be recorded and then erased and the fact that the PHYSICAL OBSERVATION you speak of occurred has absolutely NOTHING to do with the collapse of the wave function because when the information is erased the experimenters still get a defraction pattern. This proves that the cause of collapse is whether or not information is available to the conscious observers, not whether or not a physical interaction from the observation happened. STUPID HEAD

If you were right then whether or not the information is erased wouldn't matter because the physical interaction of the observation of which-path information happened right? If this physical interaction is the cause of collapse then why does the defraction pattern appear when they erase the which-path information after the physical interaction happened? Once the physical interaction of observation happened, they can't take that back, they should get a particle pattern if you are correct, but they don't. Because you are incorrect. STUPID HEAD

Your physical interaction theory is incorrect! False! Not correct! Insufficiently enlightened! Fallacious! Faulty! Wrong! The ramblings of a STUPID HEAD who is clinging to his cherished beliefs and nothing more! I declare weak APOLOGETICS!

the typical change in the wave function occurred only when some information entered my consciousness. It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness. Solipsism may be logically consistent with present Quantum Mechanics, Monism in the sense of Materialism is not. - Eugen Wigner, a real life Nobel Prize Winner in Physics STUPID HEAD

You say, STUPID HEAD, that Materialism apposes Idealism and not Realism, but this incorrect, typical of STUPID HEADS to say. Materialism is the hideously deformed offspring of Realism. It is dependent upon Realism for it's survival. Realism can exist without Materialism, but Materialism cannot exist without Realism. Realism is the part of Materialism which states that physical reality exists independent of observation, Materialism states that this observation-independent reality consists only of Matter. Obviously, you couldn't have external objective material objects that are observation-dependent because this is a contradiction in terms. STUPID HEAD When Realism is false, so is Materialism.

And so you admit that Classical Realism is false. Well that's a step in the right direction STUPID HEAD. Take baby steps if you need to. But asserting some kind of "Quantum Realism" that has zero of the defining qualities of Realism is a ridiculous attempt to save face. It's actually quite hilarious when you think about. "Classical Realism is false but there could be some kind of, you know, Quantum Realism that doesn't have to be observation independent." Well the very definition of Realism requires observation independence STUPID HEAD 

Sounds like you got the definition of Idealism (observation dependence) and changed up the name to "quantum realism". My god you LOVE realism so much!!! Look how dedicated you are!! You need a Realism Church and a Realism Bible so you can go to war against all these damn anti-Realists that are trying to take over the country. "teach the controversy!" - STUPID HEAD

Realism in any form, I don't care if it's classical or quantum, is committed to observation independence. If you have a definition with regards to Quantum Mechanics that allows for observation dependence, THEN IT'S NOT REALISM ANYMORE STUPID HEAD!! And are you seriously going to argue that Quantum Mechanics doesn't apply to the macro world when we've got 430 atom molecules in superposition?? Are you going to go that route to save face with your contortionist apologetics STUPID HEAD?

Go ahead and wait on your sacred high priests to tell you it's okay to drop Realism. I'm sure it will happen eventually. I know it's too hard for you to think for yourself so let someone else do the thinking for you. It's no different then blind commitment to the Bible. But just remember on that day when they give the good ol' thumbs up and tell what you can believe that Carry Cimovich Casparov tried to get you to think for yourself but you chose belief over reason. STUPID HEAD

p.s. Now since every interaction I have with you so quickly degrades into childish name calling this will be my final response to anything you post. good day sir.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[stromboli]

Stupid head? Wow, talk about going for the jugular. 

[Casparov]

Stupid head? Wow, talk about going for the jugular. 

LMAO

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No, I'm sorry, I must protest. Morons don't get to use Condescending Wonka.

[josephpalazzo]

The whole foundation of Casparov's point is: "I don't understand X, therefore X isn't real".

Narcissism at its best.

[Jason78]

To be fair, learning about X is bloody hard.

[stromboli]

X will be a saint in the afterlife.

[Berati]

Realism is a dead ideology walking.

This is your opinion. It hasn't been "proven" at all.
I have defended you against the troll allegations but I think I made a mistake especially when you lie so blatantly about what science has proven or not proven.

Like you, I'm not a physicist but even a casual search about QM indicates that what you claim as an absolute certainty is nothing of the sort. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

While the effects of QM are repeatable, the causes of all the weirdness are not even close to being understood and there is much disagreement. Neil Degrasse Tyson has an excellent series on Netflix called "The Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" Check it out and try to understand what is NOT known.

All you are doing is switching a god of the gaps argument for a consciousness of the gaps argument. It doesn't work for god and it won't for consciousness either.

So please stop lying about a scientific certainty that does not exist. I would have to recommend to the moderators that continued lying should be met with a permanent ban.