Plato's allegory of the cave in regards to quantum theory.

[Sorcerer]

I just watched this rather interesting TED video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA), which dicusses Plato's allegory of the cave. It occured to me that it is also a good analogy for our difficulty in reconciling our perceptions of the macroscopic world and the quantum world. It almost perfectly fits that the shadows are the normal world we observe and the objects and light outisde the cave is the quantum world, especially since the quantum world is just that, light (gauge bosons) and objects (matter), and the shadow it creates of the macroscopic world is that which we observe through our macroscopic human senses. While both worlds are real, one precedes the other, in this case the quantum world casts the shadow which is the macroscopic world.

 

I found this uncanny how a philosopher 2,400 years ago could almost so perfectly make this analogy. I guess it can also be expanded on to fit in (allegorically) with his theory of forms.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

It just occured to me that the man set free of the cave is Niels Bohr and among the men still chained in the cave is Albert Einstein. As in the Bohr-Einstein debates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates

________________________________________________________________________________________________

And I just found a rebuttle at http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/?p=11289#sthash.obzjZUtW.dpbs

 

I think the author, Jeffrey O’Callaghan, is getting confused on the definition of observer and seems to think it means a conscious entity.

 

For example Quantum theory defines the existence of particles in terms of a mathematically generated probability function and that they do not exist until a conscience observer looks at it. In other words it assumes the act of observation or measurement creates the physical reality of our particle world. However because only conscience beings can be observers it implies that it cannot exist without them being there to observe it.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

Where Heisenberg neatly explains the misunderstanding by removing the need for consciousness and allowing an observe to simply be an apparatus which registers the "decision".

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."^{Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137}

 

 

He also is confused about the nature of the mathematical equations which constitute quantum theory.

 

However the proponents of quantum mechanics face an even greater problem than those who reside in Plato’s cave because they assume that reality and existence is defined in terms of abstract mathematical probabilities which by definition do not have physical properties; therefore they are unable to cast shadows on the reality of the non-abstract environment that exists all around us.

 

He seems to think equations are entirely abstract and somehow cannot cast a "shadow", he is taking the anology too literally, of course equations can't cast shadows, but it's not a real shadow, it's a metaphor for how the underlying reality, (however counter intuitive), projects itself into the macroscopic world.

It should also be noted that mathematical probabilities are descriptions of actual substance, probabilistic or not. The probabilities involved with regards to the uncertainty principle describe position and momentum, giving uncertainty to trajectory. There is no uncertainty of the actual existence of the wave/particle. There is no slippery slope here, if something is less that 100% probabilistic it doesn't cease to exist or have physical properties, only until we reach 0% probability, in all the properties we are defining, does it cease to exist. Therefore when a non zero probability defines any of a particles properties, then that particle will cast a "shadow".

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Edited July 19, 2015 by Sorcerer

[studiot]

 

What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

 

My thoughts are that following this analogy is similar to theologists following the line that equates biblical 'days' to a billion years in the bibilcal description of creation.

 

If your line of reasoning is elastic enough you can very nearly make anything an analogy for anything else.

 

[Sorcerer]

Fair enough I did ask. But it's ironic how you make an analogy of 2 analogies to make your point about using elastic reasoning to make analogies fit the reality.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Sorcerer