[ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change

BillK pharos at gmail.com
Sat Nov 30 13:53:48 UTC 2019

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 05:56, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
<big snip>
> QBism is a valid interpretation of QM. It uses all the same maths and
> leads to the same answers. However, it suffers from the same problems
> that Copenhagen and other epistemic interpretations suffer from. For
> one thing, it places undue importance on consciousness by way of
> subjective observation of probabilities in the evolution of quantum
> systems. Somehow abstract probabilities must become concrete
> actualities in quantum systems.
> In such epistemic interpretations for example, the moon is a fuzzy
> mass of probability amplitudes until the moment you glance at it, then
> it snaps to attention as a real object in the present moment located
> precisely where you see it. Then when you look away, it relaxes once
> again into a fuzzy mess of abstract data.
> It seems to violate the Copernican principle that the moon should
> dance at the whim of mere monkeys and that seems like a slippery slope
> to solipsism.

It does indeed! But that's not what QBism claims. :)
Their description of a fuzzy mass of probabilities only applies to
quantum states.
They see the collapse of the wave function as an operator action
causing a result which updates the operator belief. Not that the
operator belief caused a specific result.

> In ontological interpretations of QM, such as MWI however, the moon is
> always there and in every possible phase and position while it is we
> precious observers that may or may not be there to witness it.

QBism also believes in the moon.  :)  The idea that the rest of the
world doesn't exist until I look at it (while tempting) is pretty
obviously not correct. The universe existed before humans appeared,
even before life appeared.

> I suppose in the end, it boils down to matter of taste. Which
> intuition about the world do you cherish more? Realism or locality?
> For my part, I choose realism. If the present moment is real, then all
> of space is real. There is so much space out there that we don't know
> if it is infinite or not. Furthermore it is expanding due to dark
> energy with the farthest parts receding faster than light. That means
> that almost all of space is causally disconnected from us. That means
> that there is room out there for all possible pasts, presents, and
> futures to be real yet completely unobserved.
> If the number three can exist wherever threeness is manifest, Why
> cannot Einstein exist wherever Einsteiness is manifest?

As I read it, QBism is presently only arguing a POV about quantum wave
function collapse.
They claim this is better than the Many Worlds interpretation which
they say is meaningless and no help to quantum theory research. An
infinite universe doesn't necessarily mean that every possible past,
present and future exists somewhere.
Some infinities are bigger than others!


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list