Posted: Apr 14, 2012 10:59 am
jamest wrote:Little Idiot wrote:jamest wrote:
Afaik, QM lends itself to the notion that quanta exist in either definite particle form [when observed/measured], or in some blurry wave-like probablistic potential form [when not observed/measured]. The problem, as I see it, is that if 'things' are always in a state of being observed (by individual consciousnesses and/or the totality of the 'world mind'), then there doesn't appear to be any scope for the "blurry wave-like probablistic potential form" which scientists claim to have knowledge of... since all things are being persistently observed - and therefore must be in their particle state at all times.
The whole wave form concept is just a mathematical representation for what happens.
The pertinent point is that the behaviour of quanta (fundamental matter) can only be explained in terms of them having a dual nature. This is borne out by mathematics and experimental verification, afaik. This is not philosophy/reason, then - it's an empirical fact.
Yes, the behaviour is modeled by the mathematics, and the current explanation is of a dual nature.
I dont think its a very popular interpretation that the probability wave is an actual thing, a form of that which becomes either wave or particle when observed.
It's not popular because most people's heads implode whilst trying to make sense of it. However much it makes our heads hurt, quanta - in unobserved/unmeasured wave-form - behave in a manner commensurate with being "blurry wave-like probablistic potential entities", or suchlike. The distinction between this and the observed/measured form quanta take, is profound. It amounts to 'world things' having both a definite and indefinite form. We cannot ignore this, and must therefore incorporate it within any idealistic model which seeks to make sense of the 'empirical world'.
Another very similar point, not to be confused with the mathematical 'probability wave' is that both particles and waves are wavicles.
Electrons, 'fundamental particles', exhibit diffraction effects (a wave-only behaviour), called 'electron diffraction' They ARE wavicles; they exhibit either wave or particle behaviour, showing the particle model OR wave model is not a complete understanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction.
Light causes the photoelectric effect, and cant be explained by the wave model, (it used to be called the ultraviolet catastrophe because the wave model of light failed) but as Heisenberg showed it can be well explained as soon as one assumed a particle model rather than a wave model. Showing again that the wave model or particle is not a complete understanding.
The way the world works is that particles can have wave properties, and waves can have particle properties.
But I still think the probability wave is only a mathematical representation, representing the indeterminate state, not an actual state.
Further, the observation of something is contingent upon that thing having a definite form (otherwise, there's nothing to observe of it). So, if you think that 'things' are always being observed (by our consciousness or by 'X'), then 'things' should always exhibit an observed/definite form and there should be nothing to facilitate this wave-like indefiniteness unto which our physicists have become privy.
In other words, 'wave-like blurryness' is commensurate with matter/quanta having both an observed and UNobserved form.
Not so. I can observe a spinning dice as it spins, and its in an indeterminate state. Therefore it does not follow that an observed entity is in a definite state.
Also, a light ray is visible (to a detector, even if not the eye) splitting a ray and looking at half of it does not mean the other half of the ray can not cause either diffraction or the photoelectric effect.
Note also that a light ray could be bent (refraction - wave effect) just before it strikes a metal and causes a photoelectric effect (particle effect) - the same ray shows both wave and then a particle nature, not one OR the other.
My point being the ray does not have a definite wave OR particle form, and looking at it doesnt have to force it to one or the other, an observed object does not have to be a definite form.
I think its nearer the fact that light is a wavicle that is sometimes the way it behaves is better described as a wave, sometimes as a 'particle' (or indivisible piece of wave with a quantum of energy) but it is neither wave nor particle.
The point of any idealistic narrative, is that no 'thing' IS anything other than a phenomenon happening to/within/at consciousness and/or unconsciousness. What you say, above, is what a materialist/physicalist would say, since it seeks the singular reality/explanation for matter itself.
... However, as idealists, we know that it is X which has a dual nature - as there are conscious and unconscious elements of it, as discussed earlier. Therefore, the apparent dual nature of matter is actually explained in terms of X's dual nature. That is, matter takes a definite form within consciousness and some kind of indefinite form within unconsciousness. There is no need for any 'wavicle'.
I think this is a possible point of confusion on your part. Is X non-dual, monist or dual in nature?
Unless you have a model where it can be more than one, or otherwise explain how it can appear to be more than one, I think your creating a big problem by having a dual nature to X, which you do if saying X has a non-conscious element.
The duality is a property of the experienced world, not of the source of the observed world.
Also, for me the non-dual source is unlimited (self)awareness, World Mind is a limited part of this (limited in awareness to 'only' every-where and every-when in one cosmos) and the individual is a more limited part of this awareness.
But this means Source and World Mind are aware, not non-conscious. An individual can have a non-conscious component of itself. World mind is conscious of its cosmos (thats what the cosmos is) non-conscious of non-cosmos. Source is aware of all.
Although it can be represented by a probability wave, I dont think its commonly accepted that the entity actually is a 'blurry probabilstic potential form' - this is just a way to deal with it being in the third indeterminate state.
Again, afaik, a fundamental element of matter/energy is deemed to 'exist' everywhere at once.
As an idealist, you need to incorporate this understanding into your mentalism, not into a material reality. I am of the opinion that your 'wavicle' has betrayed you.
The wavicle is a description of the experienced world (oft called physical world), there is no need to posit any 'material' anything to describe the content of the experience.