Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday November 18 2019, @10:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-reject-your-reality-... dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956__

Study: There may be no such thing as objective reality

Everyone is entitled to their own facts. That's not an opinion. At least, according to a new quantum mechanics study.

What we view as objective reality – the idea that what we can observe, measure, and prove is real and those things we cannot are theoretical or imaginary – is actually a subjective reality that we either unravel, create, or dis-obfuscate by the simple act of observation.

A smarter way of putting it can be found in the aforementioned study, "Experimental test of nonlocal causality" conducted by lead author Martin Ringbauer and an international team of physicists and researchers:

Explaining observations in terms of causes and effects is central to empirical science. However, correlations between entangled quantum particles seem to defy such an explanation. This implies that some of the fundamental assumptions of causal explanations have to give way.

Also at The Conversation


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 18 2019, @05:15PM (3 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2019, @05:15PM (#921585) Journal

    My take on the matter is that causation is too complex to deal with. It deals with a complex interaction of multiple inputs, and is statistical in nature. I recommend "Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference" by Judea Pearl, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

    It's not surprising that the medieval notion of causation was a bit flaky. So was their idea of logic. But that doesn't mean that the underlying phenomenon is unlawful.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @05:19PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @05:19PM (#921586)

    I have talked to Judea Pearl before, neither he nor his followers have been able to provide a single real life example where those DAGs are of any value.

    Causality simply is not an important concept in science because every event is collectively caused by every single event in its past timecone. In science you want to distill the most important functional relationships down to a simple set of assumptions/postulates.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:07AM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:07AM (#922208) Journal

      Yes/no. You can argue a "sum over histories" approach, and that works, sort of. But the question is the degree of relevance. If you expect infinite precision, then, yes, you do need totally accurate evaluation of the entire time-cone. But a lot of the effects are so small that they have no measurable effect. (Which, of course, depends on your measuring instruments.)

      That's why I said it was statistical in nature. You need to consider the several most important causal elements, and what that means depends on both the precision you expect in the result and the delicacy of the balance between alternatives. I'll agree that it's almost impossible to specify just how far one needs to go, but the further out you go, the smaller the incremental effect. So an iterative approach looks reasonable to me. This is closely (how closely?) analogous to the way neural nets decide whether or not to detect an edge. If it's closely enough analogous, then that provided the "real life example" you were asking for.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 19 2019, @04:55PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday November 19 2019, @04:55PM (#921994) Journal

    My take is that we have big problems with language. The way things are being described, there's a lot of stuff that simply does not make sense. The fault is in the inadequate and plain wrong names and descriptions, not objective reality.

    For example, a glass of water can be full, half full/half empty, totally empty, or anything in between. It can even be slightly overfull, temporarily. But it can't have a negative quantity of water.

    Extrapolation is a technique that must be considered cautiously. It's so easy for a simple extrapolation to be garbage, routine for a naive application to produce values outside the possible, a color whiter than pure white, blacker than totally, completely black (fuligin?), emptier than empty, or colder than absolute zero. A famous example is Moore's Law about the doubling of computing power every 18 months. We all realize it can't really hold up, that it must break down at some point. Also in this category is the whole notion of traveling backward in time, by extrapolating Relativity to faster than light speeds. The passage of time slows to zero as an object approaches light speed. Therefore, if something were somehow to go faster than light, time would have to run backward for it, and viola! Time travel into the past! Another bad extrapolation is the notion that a black hole might be a point with infinite density and mass.

    Adding to the problem is journalistic drama. To use a Betteridge Law style of headline, they might as well have said "Is Everything You Thought You Knew Wrong??" Count on them to mangle scientific findings out of all recognition. They love misusing extrapolation by not bothering to limit it, as that way it is so wont to produce dramatically impossible values.