My Version of Realism: Part 3
Mathematics, Superposition, Potential and Actual Existence
?
There can be more than one method to arrive at a solution to any mathematical operation. However, it is an identity condition of mathematics that there can be only one correct solution. Mathematics of superpositions appear to violate that identity condition of mathematics, because of uncertainty and the fact that any quantum elementary mass unit can (by false assumption, not by fact) exist simultaneously everywhere in the universe all-at-once. Even elementary matter mass electrons are assumed to have that capability. Therefore, this assumption appears to violate not only mathematical realism, but also violates the Pauli exclusion principle, which basically is the common sense certainty that no two baryonic matter mass objects can occupy the same place at the same time (for instance try walking through clear glass), and the mirror symmetry of that postulate is that no baryonic matter mass object can occupy more than one exact location or be in motion along more than one path between two exact locations at the same time. Electrons are instances of baryonic matter mass units.
?
Superposition is commonly defined to mean one whole superposition unit is inclusive of two logically contradictory elements or members of the superposition, for example wave/0/particle, alive/0/dead, on/0/off, up/0/down, here/0/somewhere else, exist/0/does not exist, etc. On the other hand, matter mass-energy mass equivalence is not an instance of superposition; it is rather more like the common phase state condition changes in which one object takes radically different forms while remaining exactly itself, for instance H2O (= two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded with one oxygen atom) can change between liquid, ice and steam, but always remains water. Similarly matter mass and energy mass units ceaselessly transform from each to the other while remaining exactly, only and always the same stem mass unit.
?
Superposition as it is commonly described is an unambiguous violation of the PNC (principle of non-contradiction), mathematical realism and Einsteins version of realism in classical physics, not to mention a violation of simple common sense and scientific empirical observation, and violation of the axiom there can be only one solution to any mathematical operation. Something is wrong with this picture, but what is it that is actually wrong?
?
The first thing that is wrong with this picture, is that there is no consensus definition in any system of physics (classical, relativity and quantum) for a physical particle, notwithstanding that the common assumption of physicalism clearly states (falsely) that undefined physical particles are everything.
?
The second thing that is wrong with this picture, is that superpositions cannot be empirically observed. In fact, if we observe a quantum mass superposition unit, decoherence destroys the superposition and all we can observe is one or the other, but not both, elements or members of the superposition. For example, in a double-slit experiment you always see either a single dot-point hit on the recording screen (only a particle leaves that recorded information), or an information interference patter = a cloud of dot-point hits (only a wave can leave that recorded information). No one has ever empirically observed a single elementary mass unit simultaneously in particle and wave form, same place same time.
?
For instance, no one has ever empirically observed that a quantum mass unit is actually (= physically) simultaneously a particle and a wave.
?
All versions of realism require that empirical observation confirmation is possible. It is now well-established scientific method (Popper), that to qualify as science you must be able to disprove it, and to disprove it you must apply empirical observation, in other words if you can’t confirm something with empirical observation, whatever you are postulating does not qualify as science, metaphysics perhaps, but certainly not science.
?
Notwithstanding this rather severe limitation, the mathematics of superposition is a foundation principle of quantum mechanics, and the SMpp mathematical model is by overwhelming consensus considered to be the most successful scientific theory of all time, with a remarkable track record of predictions and coherent explanatory power of quantum physical objects and events. However, by omission of any coherent congruent theory of quantum gravity, physicists remain foiled in their search for the holy grail, a theory of everything. Furthermore, Schr?dinger’s mathematical wave function in the SMpp cannot be empirically observed and that is nevertheless presumed to describe everything about the whole universe (everything!).
?
By analogy, consider a basket and a supply of fruit objects that could possibly occupy that basket which starts out empty. According to realism, at any particular temporal point (= point in time) there will be some knowable measurable quantity of, say apples, in the basket. There could be 4 apples, 17 apples or 35 apples, etc., but whatever the count is it will be an exactly known quantity, with certainty. On the other hand, before you count the apples, assuming someone else loaded the basket with apples, you cannot know the number of apples in the basket. In fact, if the basket is the whole universe object (a really big basket!), there could be any number of apples all occupying the universe at exactly the same now moment all-at-once, but no two apples could occupy be the same spatial location at the same time.
?
In other words, temporal simultaneous is a far weaker condition than spatial simultaneous. Spatial simultaneous must honor the limits of the Pauli exclusion principle for matter mass units, only waves (say photons) can be temporal and spatially simultaneous, particles (baryonic matter mass units, say electrons) cannot. For instance, it is common sense that everything that does actually really exist, both immaterial and actually concrete physical, necessarily exists at the same temporal now instant of time. We do not need to make any reference to spatial location to know that temporal simultaneous is true. However, if there is spatial location simultaneous, that necessarily also includes temporal simultaneous. This is a simple description of one aspect of realism.
?
Now consider this, it is also simple realism that, limited only by our quantity supply and size of apples and the size of the basket, we could place any number of those into the basket. That is possible or potential state condition-existence of apples in the basket, not actual existence of apples in the basket, and that uncertainty can only be resolved by empirical observation, for instance we look into the basket and count the apples.
?
Possible = potential existence is before observation; actual existence is after observation. In quantum mechanics, superposition is always a-priori, literally before physical begins to exist, literally possible = potential existence, which can only be described with the mathematical abstraction of statistical probability. Until we look at = observe the superposition, the logically contradictory elements = members of the superposition are not actually physical at all, they are certainly immaterial objects, like thoughts, or ideas, or equations or wave functions, all of which are strictly ontologically limited to immaterial (not physical status). Before we look at a superposition there is an immaterial mathematical coherence of the two logically contradictory elements, but after we look only one element remains and only one element transforms into an actual physical object that is empirically observable; never both elements same spatial location, same temporal time. It is certain that superpositions are always a-priori = before actual physical begins to exist. In fact, we have no information, other than mathematical abstraction theory, that superpositions exist at all. It is impossible to observe an immaterial object. The mathematical description is never the thing described, never. The menu is not the meal. The map is not the territory.
?
To know something is actually physical requires confirmation with empirical observation. No one has ever, and no one ever will, empirically observe superposition because they are not in the physical category.
?
Here are five reasonable, rational and coherent assumptions we can safely make with confidence based upon our current physics knowledge: 1) superposition is something, not nothing, 2) superposition exists only before we look at it (= coherence to two logically contradictory state conditions, say particle/0/wave, or alive/0/dead), 3) decoherence always occurs immediately simultaneous with the instant there is any kind of interaction of the superposition with any law of physics or with any observation by human consciousness, 4) decoherence always means, in every possible universe, only one of the contradictory state conditions survive to manifest as actually physical and empirically observable in actual existence reality (as opposed to the mathematical abstraction immaterial category) and 5) superpositions can only be described with statistical probability mathematics.
?
This raises a fundamental question: where do superpositions reside? Physicists are not asking that question, because they assume they have already answered it, but that is a false logical inference. According to physicists, by common consensus, there is only one domain of existence and everything that exists, without exception necessarily exists in that one domain; that is a false metaphysical assumption; it is certainly not scientific, for instance that is impossible to disprove with any empirical observation, or rather it is impossible to confirm with any empirical observation because no immaterial object, including all immaterial mathematical abstractions can be empirically observed precisely because they are not physical (yet), rather they are a-priori before physical exists. That means they require a domain where logical contradiction is permitted as normal, because logical contradiction is forbidden in actual existence domain. It is necessary that there is what I call the near-existence domain, not acknowledged by physicists. In my consciousness interpretation of quantum mechanics superpositions are instances of the immaterial category, a-priori = possible = potential = probability of existence, not instances of the physical category, therefore they necessarily exist inside near-existence domain. Near existence domain is necessary, or nothing physical could exist at all.
?
The necessary missing piece of this quantum mechanics puzzle is the sound logical inference that there are necessarily two domains, near-existence domain and actual existence domain. This solves most of the mystery of quantum mechanics; at the very least, this absolutely removes both the fatal logical reification category errors and fatal logical infinite regress error, common to all five currently popular interpretations of quantum mechanics.
?
The rules of those two domains are category distinction unique. For instance logical contradiction is strictly forbidden not only in the actual physical objects that occupy the actual existence physical domain, they are also strictly forbidden in all systems of mathematics that describe the physical objects in actual existence domain, strictly forbidden by realism (with the exception of fiction, imagination and bad metaphysics, misinformation and lies), or bad science including some of the basic assumptions of the five currently popular interpretations of quantum mechanics (for instance all five versions are virally infected with fatal logical contradiction errors including reification and infinite regress).
?
It is certain that statistical probability is strictly limited to describing something that has possible = potential to exist but does not actually physically exist yet. When something actually physically exists, some other kind of mathematics is required to define and explain it, for instance geometry, algebra, calculus, categories, sets, etc. Actual existence is never potential existence and potential existence is never actual existence, but both are real = exist + true, and both require a unique category domain in order to exist. Furthermore, near-existence is required or actual existence could not exist at all.
?
Two further observations (= sound logical inferences) I will mention are: 1) there are only two ways to create-manifest a path from potential-exist to actual-exist: i) observations by immaterial consciousness, for instance as in all versions of the double-slit experiments, ii) any instances of the four natural forces = interactions as governed by inviolable laws of physics, and 2) it is necessary that physical laws can only exist with a beginning, they must therefore be caused to begin but nothing physical can cause itself to begin to exist.
?
For any object to be capable of causing something, the causal agent must already exist. Only consciousness could be the cause of the first physical thing in the first universe and it seems coherent to assume the first thing must have been a set of laws of physics, otherwise evolution could not occur, big bang could not occur, cosmic inflation could not occur; all of those events must be governed by already existing laws of physics. No current interpretation of quantum mechanics, no current interpretation of cosmology offers any rational coherent explanation of what caused the first physical thing in the first universe, and that certainly is fatal logical infinite regress. What can explain cosmogony of cosmology is a set of natural a-priori axioms, and by common definition all axioms are irrefutable, and not dependent upon any other information, logical defense or proof of their epistemological truth value.
?
For instance, here is a short list of just a few of those natural a-priori axioms:
Axioms:
·???????? Everything physical exists with a beginning.
·???????? Everything physical must be caused to begin.
·???????? Nothing physical can cause itself to begin to exist.
·???????? It is necessary that something exists without beginning that could cause the first thing that exists with beginning to begin to exist.
·???????? Eternal (by common definition, which is completely rational by the way) is the one and only thing that exists without beginning.