Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness
Date: May 27, 2015
...
Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
...
However, the random number determining whether the grating was added was only generated after the atom had passed through the crossroads.
...
If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past, said Truscott.
...
"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," he said.
Well, I'm not sure "materialists" really exist these days (not in the strawman incarnation that helps your argument at least)Nice.
So... Can materialism be considered something that can overcome "proof" against realism and evolve into something else?
Most, if not virtually all, materialists are into realism, but not all realists are into materialism. By definition, the former is certainly more rigid, some people have argued that the fall of realism falsifies materialism as well, what's the take here?
Yeah, they all are... as long as they sit comfortably in their metaphysical assumptions.And I suspect realists are wearing that badge as it relates to the macro world. It's useful and pragmatic after all... Is anyone really not aware that things get really weird when thy get really small? The scientists I know are very humble about the mysteries of the universe.
Well, I'm not sure "materialists" really exist these days (not in the strawman incarnation that helps your argument at least)
And I suspect realists are wearing that badge as it relates to the macro world. It's useful and pragmatic after all... Is anyone really not aware that things get really weird when thy get really small? The scientists I know are very humble about the mysteries of the universe.
Nice.
So... Can materialism be considered something that can overcome "proof" against realism and evolve into something else?
Most, if not virtually all, materialists are into realism, but not all realists are into materialism. By definition, the former is certainly more rigid, some people have argued that the fall of realism falsifies materialism as well, what's the take here?
A few of them are hedging with the term, but you know well what I mean. There is no need to pull the Sam Harris card on me.
I think we need to remember that the conception of 'material' is not what it was 100 years ago. Material itself is 99% nothing, so calling it material in a certain sense is a misnomer.
Well said DM. Labels can be meaningless and unhelpful. This place tends to encourage an obsession with them.Even "nothing" and the missing 1% arent clearly definable. Im guilty of that too, no doubts there, but the word material in connection to philosophy or methaphysical systems is used way too easily sometimes, even though it isnt clear at all what it is supposed to be.
Ebut the word material in connection to philosophy or methaphysical systems is used way too easily sometimes, even though it isnt clear at all what it is supposed to be.
Materialism is very well and clearly defined. Is this "oh, well, the terms aren't really defined and see . .blah, blah" the new pathetic hedge by it's proponents?
Well said DM. Labels can be meaningless and unhelpful. This place tends to encourage an obsession with them.