What if facts don't exist?

[RoseGoesToYale]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

 

So... objective reality may not exist. The scientific method might be bunk. It's possible for people to experience two different realities that conflict.

 

Just, thoughts? My mind's kind of blown right now...

[Prufrock, but like, worse]

So, if this is correct... what is the statement "there is no such thing as objective reality" except a description of objective reality?

[SithLord]

So this is a bit confusing for me since I don't understand what photons are. A clarifying question since my brain shorts out sometimes. Is the below correct?

They're measuring something that is essentially Schrödinger's cat, that being something that is two separate things at the same time. Their measurements come back contradictory, meaning one person measures the cat as alive while the other measures it as dead.

And the assumption/conclusion being drawn is that both are true and therefore they have identified that there is no one "truth" or objective reality.

Am I on the right track?

[Guest]

*shrug*

 

Fits my beliefs quite well. I've been pointing out for years that science has nothing to do with objective truth, it's all about agreed-upon consensus reality. It creates no cognitive dissonance when you already believe that faith is everything, and we can't objectively know jack squat.

 

Kinda cool and satisfying to see naive scientism flummoxed, though. 😄

[Skycaptain]

A fact, if not a fact, what in fact will the fact be? 😳 

[lazypanda]

Just letting my mind wander a bit here(i have only a basic understanding of quantum physics, so pardon me if this sounds absurd)...

So is this evidence towards a multiverse? The infinite universes are maybe just different realities observed by different entities. The question is...who ? 

 

[Epitaph]

You know, a long time ago, I read some detailed papers on future predictions via scientific principles. What I remember was a study of particles and their locations. It's a physical phenomenon that exists.

 

The more you can accurately predict x, the less you can predict y.

 

The more effort you undertake to predict y, the less you can pheasibly predict x. And so there's no possible way to tell the future with 100% accuracy because there never will be a complete picture. And of course, this isn't something new. The deeper you dig, the more you find.

 

Like atoms. Atoms are composed of quarks. The rotation of each quark determines what the atom is. Dig a little deeper and you find that even quarks are composed of something else(I forget the name.) The organization of these even smaller particles determines what the quarks are, which all determine what the atoms are. The more we look the less we understand and the more we stray beyond human comprehension.

 

The more we understand x, the less we understand of y, plain and simple.

[timewarp]

Keep calm and study theoretical physics. Study everything up to the most recent outcomes and make sure you are able to express them mathematically. Then you are in a position to discuss these things. I am not and will stick to turbulent multiphase flows. I feel I have enough on my plate with them. And if I may add, don't trust the judgement of journalists on these matters. At the bare minimum read the original paper.

[ElasticPlanet]

4 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

objective reality may not exist

I think that's just the writer of the article playing with words to get attention. The whole idea behind all of this seems to rely on the 'measurement' problem' of ye olde 20th century quantum physics. It's all Schrödinger's cat as has been said here already.

 

But (as far as my ludicrously fragile grasp of all this goes) if you accept quantum decoherence and splitting into parallel universes, the person doing the measuring (or indeed, the proverbial cat) has already split into billions more possible parallel versions of themself before anyone else can come along and check what they have measured or what has happened to them. Every possibility that could have been 'measured', has been in some universes.

 

If what we're finding here is infinite different universes (or an even bigger system of all possible 'mathematical structures' as I seem to remember Max Tegmark calling them) then at most, our fundamental reality might be bigger and more diverse than we'd ever imagined before. To say that that reality is not an 'objective' one, is a bit like saying real estate trading is not 'real' because it is not the game of Monopoly.

[Guest]

The biggest assumption this paper makes is that quantum physics accurately describes the macro world. From all that I have read and understand there is a large discrepancy between the world quantum physics describes and the world described by Einsteinian relativity and classical Newtonian physics. Its why there is no Theory of Everything, one set of mathematical equations that could describe the entire world. So, while this may hold true on the quantum level there is something that takes place as the system under examination becomes larger that fundamentally changes how it interacts with an observer. 

[Yeast]

Maybe it's all like a viral You Tube video. You and your partner agree on a certain coordinate and then determine if the pixel is red, green or blue. One knows the position but one doesn't necessarily know the color since the image is changing constantly. However when all the pixels are examined at once the image of Schrodinger's cat emerges. It's playing the Maple Leaf Rag on the piano. Same cat. Same tune. Never the same pixels. Of course the assumption is made that both observers measure the pixel at exactly the same time. However, motion influences the relative passage of time. I suppose if I lean forward when I make my measurement and my partner doesn't we exist in two different time frames and therefore it is impossible to make a simultaneous measurement. I realize one has to approach the speed of light before this is apparent on a macro level but we are working with subatomic particles. Maybe on this level, ordinary motion has a much greater influence on the passage of time. Besides, things such as photons move at the speed of light themselves and don't experience time relative to the observer. This is of course just theoretical.   

[Tercy]

As has been touched on in this thread and was admitted in the article, this whole premise only really sticks if you subscribe to one particular perspective on QM.

 

You get a lot of explanations/theories (you might even call them "interpretations" hur hur hur) that grow out of things like anomalies in the maths and holes in our understanding and such. I'm personally wary of the more "out there" ideas, but YMMV.

 

This may be a relevant illustration:

 

3 hours ago, E said:

You know, a long time ago, I read some detailed papers on future predictions via scientific principles. What I remember was a study of particles and their locations. It's a physical phenomenon that exists.

 

The more you can accurately predict x, the less you can predict y.

 

[etc]

 

I'm assuming this is a reference to either the uncertainty principle or the observer effect?

 

With the observer effect, taking position/momentum as an example, the problem is that our method of measuring the position or momentum may alter the position and/or momentum in the process - and obviously it's then difficult/impossible/whatever to find what the position/momentum was before it was changed (or what it would have been if it wasn't changed). We may find solutions to this in the future; we may not.

 

If I'm not much wrong, the uncertainty principle grows out of other ideas like superposition - where from a theoretical/mathematical perspective, because x/y can't both be known (as above), some mathematical fudging takes place where all possible values of x/y are assumed - and as a consequence of the relevant equations, you get this relationship where isolating an exact value for x means you can't isolate y, etc.

 

(Feel free to correct me if I've goofed any of the facts here; I know there's a few physicists hanging around)

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I already live my life by the que sera, sera principle so it doesn't bother me

[Philip027]

Meh.  It's just Schrodinger's cat with a new coat of paint.

[SorryNotSorry]

Well, something would have to give, because evidence and by extension, the Scientific Method, would pretty much be fantasies.

 

Truth be told, the Earth will keep spinning whether I choose to believe it or not, we all have to be born and die sometime, iron will keep on rusting, copper will always appear reddish, etc etc.

[andreas1033]

Its a good job too(that humans will always never figure it all out), as the universe should always remain unknown, to the horrible creature, that is human beings.

 

The universe should always remain unknown, to humans.

 

All people on earth should be grateful, that humans will never work it all out.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

8 minutes ago, Woodworker1968 said:

copper will always appear reddish, etc etc.

Except when it goes blueish

[WinterWanderer]

So... scientific method leads to potential discovery that there is no objective reality, and therefore, scientific method must not exist?

 

Just spelling that out so that others see how preposterous that is.

 

The scientific method will always be our best way to understand the universe. Without it, we would not understand physics, chemistry, or biology at all. If we do ever unravel the mysteries of time, space, and alternate reality, it will be because of the scientific method (not in lieu of it). Even if realities were to conflict, we could measure the direction and effect of the difference.

 

[Member131995]

Okay I admit much of the article was hard to follow because quantum mechanics is Greek to me but this is fascinating!

[ElasticPlanet]

44 minutes ago, Niohmaye said:

quantum mechanics is Greek to me

As far as I know, quantum is Latin and mechanics is Greek... 😜

[andreas1033]

1 hour ago, Rynn said:

Even if realities were to conflict, we could measure the direction and effect of the difference.

I wonder how you do that, considering you can only measure what reflects light in our 3d world?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

A fact, if not a fact, what in fact will the fact be? 😳 

Alternative fact. 

[Janus the Fox]

The very definition of a fact seems much to be on the change.

[Usernamethe2nd]

I think the scientific method is our greatest tool in understanding objective reality, but that it is merely the latest in a long line of progressive theories in understanding our universe. There might one day be something that replaces the scientific method or builds on it. I am of the continental philosophy camp and tend to believe in phenomenology more. Although! I really would like to get to a point where I could discuss theoretical physics. Any study or reading suggestions? 

[uhtred]

18 hours ago, MiseryTriumphant said:

The biggest assumption this paper makes is that quantum physics accurately describes the macro world. From all that I have read and understand there is a large discrepancy between the world quantum physics describes and the world described by Einsteinian relativity and classical Newtonian physics. Its why there is no Theory of Everything, one set of mathematical equations that could describe the entire world. So, while this may hold true on the quantum level there is something that takes place as the system under examination becomes larger that fundamentally changes how it interacts with an observer. 

Quantum mechanics does accurately describe the macroscopic world - but it predicts results that are indistinguishable from classical mechanics for almost all macroscopic systems.   Quantum mechanics runs into problems with very strong gravitational fields - but those fields may not exist in the current universe. (would need extremely tiny black holes). 

[user23974865]

Reality is an approximation. I think you don't need to go as far as quantum physics to reach that conclusion. Just plain-old optical illusions are enough. Or the knowledge that colorblindness is fairly common. Or just common sense, if you think about it. In everyday life, it's normal and expected for people to report different experiences of the same thing.

 

Whether "absolute reality" even exists is a purely philosophical question, with no implication on the fact* that, in practice, for all intents and purposes, reality can only ever be an approximation -- because it's defined by our understanding of it, and we're not gods.

 

 

* 

[Yatogami]

This is why I have always said Science requires faith/blind acceptance.

 

"A bit beyond perception's reach 
I sometimes believe I see 
that life is two locked boxes 
each containing the other’s key"

 

Your mind is your reality. Perception is everything.

[Asterion Orestes]

Somehow I'm not surprised.

 

This reminds me of a snippet of conversation from a forgotten episode of Babylon Five back in the '90s:

Quote

 

Garibaldi: Just a thought.

 

G'Kar: Just a thought? Our thoughts create the universe.

 

 

[Gloomy]

If facts indeed didn’t exist, wouldn’t the statement “Facts don’t exist” in itself be a fact? 😛

 

Yes, the scientific method isn’t perfect, but it’s still the best tool we currently have in understanding the universe, or at least our perception of the universe.

[lapat67]

On 3/15/2019 at 6:04 AM, sithgirlix said:

They're measuring something that is essentially Schrödinger's cat, that being something that is two separate things at the same time. Their measurements come back contradictory, meaning one person measures the cat as alive while the other measures it as dead.

And the assumption/conclusion being drawn is that both are true and therefore they have identified that there is no one "truth" or objective reality.

Am I on the right track?

Close, one person measures the cat as alive while the other measures it as still in the closed box.

 

On 3/15/2019 at 8:13 AM, lazypanda said:

So is this evidence towards a multiverse?

 

No, both observers are in the same universe.

 

On 3/15/2019 at 8:47 AM, E said:

The more you can accurately predict x, the less you can predict y.

If you mean Heisenberg's Principle of indeterminacy, then no.

1) It's usually called Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, but there is no uncertainty involved. If you've measured the whole universe in terms of x, then you know everything there is to know about the universe. You can also make a complete description of the universe in terms of y. But not both.

2) Heisenberg's principle is concerned with observation, not prediction.

 

On 3/15/2019 at 10:14 AM, ElasticPlanet said:

 To say that that reality is not an 'objective' one, is a bit like saying real estate trading is not 'real' because it is not the game of Monopoly.

Yeah, at Lehman Brothers they must have thought that couldn't go wrong with subprime mortgages, because they were 'real' estate.

 

On 3/15/2019 at 10:53 PM, Usernamethe2nd said:

I really would like to get to a point where I could discuss theoretical physics. Any study or reading suggestions? 

Science and sanity by Alfred Korzybski. It's really complicated, but also really rewarding. It does describe theoretical physics in some detail, but it's mostly concerned with what that means for how we think of accumulation of knowledge, our use of language and it teaches value flexibility. WRT to the above real estate question, Korzybki, when he wrote Science and sanity in 1933, must have seen the 2008 crash coming, because he warns that the only way to write 'reality' is between scare quotes.