Classical objects

[Buket]

Donald Hoffman,a scientist, says in one of his interviews that classical objects don't exist according to quantum mechanics. Is this real?

[Strange]

Donald Hoffman,a scientist, says in one of his interviews that classical objects don't exist according to quantum mechanics.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

 

 

Is this real?

 

Haven't you asked exactly the same question before? Possibly more than once.

[Buket]

 

 

Citation needed.

 

Yes, I did 😄 But I again saw the claim when I was reading this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

 

 

Haven't you asked exactly the same question before? Possibly more than once.

[swansont]

He's not a physicist. So why is this posted in physics?

[Buket]

He's not a physicist. So why is this posted in physics?

He is a professor of cognitive science

[swansont]

He is a professor of cognitive science

 

 

Yes, precisely. How does his view on quantum mechanics carry any weight?

[StringJunky]

 

 

Yes, precisely. How does his view on quantum mechanics carry any weight?

He is quite strong on physics and trying to bring physics into the neuroscientific domain and vice versa. He should be pretty good at analysing the observer effect.

[Buket]

Are there any proofs justifying that classical objects don't exist according to QM?

[Strange]

What do you mean by "exist"?

 

Does the computer that you are using exist?

[swansont]

Are there any proofs justifying that classical objects don't exist according to QM?

 

 

 

What argument does Hoffman use?

[Buket]

Below is a comment by someone ı asked this question to in quora. What do you think about this comment? I think this is what someone who says classical objects don't exist mean.

 

'Im gonna try a somewhat different approach to this question, and start by talking about electrons.

 

Most people have a view of electrons as classical particles tiny balls (perhaps silver, red or blue), swooshing around atomic nuclei in a tremendous speed. People who have studied physics are taught that electrons actually do not go around the nucleus like planets around the sun, but most physics students still keep that view (because they have nothing to replace it with that makes sense to them).

 

Consider an electron. Is it real?

 

Can we touch it? Well, yes and no. We can certainly feel the electric forces caused by an electron. But we cant touch the electron itself like touching the surface of this tiny ball. Because there is no surface, and there is no ball. There are only these electrical forces (and some magnetic spin, and so on). No solid object that it emanates from.

 

Can we see an electron? Again, yes and no. Light is affected by the electric field associated with an electron, so we can se the effects of electrons bending, absorbing or even reflecting light. But we only se the traces of the electron. There is no photograph of what an electron looks like. Because it doesnt look like. Is has no visual appearance.

 

Is the electron real, then? The forces and other measurable effects that we associate with electrons are real (by any useful definition of the word). But electrons are constructs. It is a name we put on phenomena to make it easier to discuss and explore them.

 

When we think of objects being real, we usually mean that we can see them, touch them, and feel that they exist. Like the table in front of me.

 

However, what Im actually experiencing when pressing my hand against the table is not the table itself, but (mostly) the forces between electrons in the table and my hand repelling each other. My hand and the table dont touch each other there are only the forces between the table and the hand.

 

When Im seeing the table, Im actually only seeing light/photons that have interacted with the electronic structure of the table. Again, not the table itself, but only the electronic fields that build up the molecules the constitute what we call a table.

 

Basically all properties of the table comes from its electrons. (Except for mass, which mostly comes from atomic nuclei which are constructs just in the same way as electrons.)

 

My point of view is that classical objects dont exist in the way we usually think about them that is, as massive, touchable objects. The real stuff is the forces and interactions between objects. The objects themselves are constructs'

[swansont]

An electron is not something that pops into my mind when you mention a classical object. Perhaps you could define what you mean by classical objects, or rephrase the question.

 

In general, there is a lot about physics that's not real, and physics doesn't claim that the models it uses are reality.

[Buket]

An electron is not something that pops into my mind when you mention a classical object. Perhaps you could define what you mean by classical objects, or rephrase the question.

 

In general, there is a lot about physics that's not real, and physics doesn't claim that the models it uses are reality.

I really don't know what is meant by classical objects. I encountered the term a few times while reading some stuff. I guess you know pretty much about physics. That's why I am asking in this forum.

Can the claim 'don't exist' mean 'is not solid'?

[swansont]

I really don't know what is meant by classical objects. I encountered the term a few times while reading some stuff. I guess you know pretty much about physics. That's why I am asking in this forum.

Can the claim 'don't exist' mean 'is not solid'?

 

 

 

In QM a particle is not in any particular state until it's measured. That's the "reality" that's often being discussed in relation to QM.

[Buket]

Yes I understand.. It is really radical to say 'don't exist'..don't you think so?

[StringJunky]

Yes I understand.. It is really radical to say 'don't exist'..don't you think so?

The question of existence is a rabbit hole that you don't want go down.

[swansont]

The question of existence is a rabbit hole that you don't want go down.

 

 

Are rabbit holes real?

Yes I understand.. It is really radical to say 'don't exist'..don't you think so?

 

It would be radical, but I missed where that was claimed. Thus far I don't think you've characterized Hoffman's position (at least as portrayed in the linked article) particularly well. Maybe you could actually quote relevant bits of his argument, so we don't have to guess.

[Buket]

In the link I sent he says 'classical objects do not exist according to QM.' You can read it.

[Strange]

In the link I sent he says 'classical objects do not exist according to QM.' You can read it.

 

Nope. I search for the phrase "classical objects do not exist according to QM" and it doesn't appear on the page.

[Buket]

 

Nope. I search for the phrase "classical objects do not exist according to QM" and it doesn't appear on the page.

In the interview, the answer to the question before the last question.

[swansont]

Found it. "Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist."

 

I think that's a neuroscientist misinterpreting (or incorrectly extrapolating) QM. (Also, this is where exact quoting helps the discussion along)

[Strange]

Found it. "Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist."

 

I think that's a neuroscientist misinterpreting (or incorrectly extrapolating) QM.

 

I would say he is also misinterpreting or incorrectly extrapolating what idealism says. I don't believe it says that there is no reality, but that we can never know if there is, or what form it takes. All we can know is what we perceive, which may or may not correspond to some external reality in some way.

 

It seems to me that going from "we can't know" to "brains don't exist" is as bad a logical leap as from "unidentified" (flying object) to "aliens!".

Edited October 3, 2016 by Strange

[andrewcellini]

 

Nope. I search for the phrase "classical objects do not exist according to QM" and it doesn't appear on the page.

"I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist." - hoffman

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

 

edit: woops too late , you mean to tell me there's a page 2!

Edited October 3, 2016 by andrewcellini

[swansont]

I would say he is also misinterpreting or incorrectly extrapolating what idealism says. I don't believe it says that there is no reality, but that we can never know if there is, or what form it takes. All we can know is what we perceive, which may or may not correspond to some external reality in some way.

 

It seems to me that going from "we can't know" to "brains don't exist" is as bad a logical leap as from "unidentified" (flying object) to "aliens!".

 

 

 

I agree. There was also some hyperbole in "The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality". If we can't tell what reality is, how do we know how close we are (or aren't)?

[StringJunky]

 

 

 

I agree. There was also some hyperbole in "The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality". If we can't tell what reality is, how do we know how close we are (or aren't)?

But being neuroscientist he is is familiar with the foibles of the human sensory system, so even on a macro level he could show you where we fail in recording reality. For example: when you see a wall full of bricks you don't see every individual brick, the brain takes a sample of an area then clones them across the area that is the wall. The perception of reality is constructed.