FTL

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
Sylvia Else wrote:
outcomes. After all, QM doesn't just describe photons. It also describes
pairs of coins. Can I deduce that the wave function is not real just
because pairs of coins sometimes fall heads-tails?

We agree, but I'd put this slightly differently. QM is based on the
mathematics of statistics, and the mathematics don't change just because
we (try) to put a physical interpretation to it.

If there is error, its in how we are applying those statistics to explain
physical reality.


There's a glaring flaw with how classical objective methods
view reality, and it's at the heart of this idea of the particle
wave duality.

When you view reality through the lens of either particle
or wave (deterministic or statistical) (classical or quantum)
methods, the most important variables wrt the future of
that system can't be seen. Which are the emergent system
properties like market forces, natural selection or ideas.

These emergent properties self tune the whole towards
the better solution, and are hence the most important
information for the ...future of that system.

Emergent properties can only be observed in an intact
and constantly changing whole. Not in the parts.
When you use either classical or quantum methods
you're limited to part behavior only.

And here's the big rub.....

Parts and systems have entirely different behavioral properties.
Yet, any part is also a system unto itself.

If object X is being ...treated...as a part to a greater whole
then it should be observed with the appropriate objective
methods.
If that same object is being treated as a system, then we have
an entirely different set of ...subjective (holistic) methods
which need to be used.

And whether any object is treated as one, or the other, depends
entirely on context, on the ...observer.

The duality we perceive in nature is an artifact of our chosen
methods of observation.
When we 'determine' the state of some object we stop that
system to do so, and when we stop that system is becomes
....either a particle or a wave. When in constant operation the
system is chaotically transitioning between the two...it's then
both-and-neither.

So you see, whether we treat any object as a part or a system
is ...subjectively determined, it's relative the observer. As such
the observer (context) needs to be restored to the observation
for a complete view of reality. You can't add the objective
and subjective together to gain a complete view of reality.
You have to view reality when the objective and subjective
are already entangled.

Think of it as a relativistic view of reality.

That reality is relative our...perception. Or, that the duality
of nature is actually seen in the relationship between
system...components vs. system...properties.

You have to accept one truth to see the necessity of a
observing reality in this way. Which is that the initial conditions
of an organized whole is....irrelevant due to the self tuning
emergent properties. As self tuning mechanisms /find their way/
to the best solution from a ...wide range...of initial conditions.

As you go up the ladder of order and meaning, the part details
matter less and less. That is the true duality inherent in Nature.

The more objectively you view reality, the less your able
to see the subjective side of reality. Both at the same time
are needed for full view.




Jonathan










Dave

PS: Wow, too many cross-postings... trimming this one down to groups I
read.

PPS: Speaking of statistics, asking for opinions, is this type of general
"properties of space-time" discussion to general for sci.space.history or
sci.space.policy?

Sylvia Else wrote:
outcomes. After all, QM doesn't just describe photons. It also describes
pairs of coins. Can I deduce that the wave function is not real just
because pairs of coins sometimes fall heads-tails?

We agree, but I'd put this slightly differently. QM is based on the
mathematics of statistics, and the mathematics don't change just because we
(try) to put a physical interpretation to it.

If there is error, its in how we are applying those statistics to explain
physical reality.

Dave

PS: Wow, too many cross-postings... trimming this one down to groups I read.

PPS: Speaking of statistics, asking for opinions, is this type of general
"properties of space-time" discussion to general for sci.space.history or
sci.space.policy?