Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the so-it's-what-you-know,-not-who dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

One of the most striking features of quantum theory is that its predictions are, under virtually all circumstances, probabilistic. If you set up an experiment in a laboratory, and then you use quantum theory to predict the outcomes of various measurements you might perform, the best the theory can offer is probabilities—say, a 50 percent chance that you'll get one outcome, and a 50 percent chance that you'll get a different one. The role the quantum state plays in the theory is to determine, or at least encode, these probabilities. If you know the quantum state, then you can compute the probability of getting any possible outcome to any possible experiment.

But does the quantum state ultimately represent some objective aspect of reality, or is it a way of characterizing something about us, namely, something about what some person knows about reality? This question stretches back to the earliest history of quantum theory, but has recently become an active topic again, inspiring a slew of new theoretical results and even some experimental tests.

If it is just your knowledge that changes, things don't seem so strange.

To see why the quantum state might represent what someone knows, consider another case where we use probabilities. Before your friend rolls a die, you guess what side will face up. If your friend rolls a standard six-sided die, you'd usually say there is about a 17 percent (or one in six) chance that you'll be right, whatever you guess. Here the probability represents something about you: your state of knowledge about the die. Let's say your back is turned while she rolls it, so that she sees the result—a six, say—but not you. As far as you are concerned, the outcome remains uncertain, even though she knows it. Probabilities that represent a person's uncertainty, even though there is some fact of the matter, are called epistemic, from one of the Greek words for knowledge.

This means that you and your friend could assign very different probabilities, without either of you being wrong. You say the probability of the die showing a six is 17 percent, whereas your friend, who has seen the outcome already, says that it is 100 percent. That is because each of you knows different things, and the probabilities are representations of your respective states of knowledge. The only incorrect assignments, in fact, would be ones that said there was no chance at all that the die showed a six.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @02:42PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @02:42PM (#503649)

    I was actually going to point out that this kind of dilemma reminds me a lot of the clamor in medieval philosophy amongst people like Occam and Scotus, but I guess Boethius beat them by another 500ish years in some regards.
    I'm still impressed by the guy's intellect. Too bad he was executed before he could finish translating all of Plato and Aristotle.

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:10AM (1 child)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:10AM (#504136) Journal

    Yes, but the Realist/Nominalist debate over the ontological status of general terms was very different than the "observational contamination of reality" debate of the modern realist/instrumentalist epistemological debates. The question is not whether the general conceptual structures determine or are determined by an independently existing reality, the question is whether there is any such reality. Both Duns Scotus and William of Ockham would be appalled!

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:53AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:53AM (#504160) Journal

      Personally I think this is one of those "has a dog the Buddha nature?" questions, which is to say, the answer is "this question is based on malformed assumptions." Reality may not be directly accessible to human consciousness, *and that's okay.*

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...