Ontology of Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics is considered as a theory which is almost impossible to understand for our human brain. The main reason is that theory as presented in Quantum Mechanics requires a boundary between observer and what is being observed. This is a weird phenemenon for a physical theory. We explore our current understanding in this problem.

[Achrononmaster]

@3:05 that's a mistake I think. ψ is not "abstract and mysterious" if understood in proper context. The proper context is spacetime, not Hilbert space. The spinor ψ is an instruction for dilating and rotating (including boost rotations) the observables (which are themselves multivectors — and should _never_ be regarded as matrices — e.g. the bilinear invariants in the Dirac theory). Because you use a Hilbert space you have no idea about this because you are using a language that obscures the real geometry. Dirac γ matrices are nothing but the basis 1-vectors for a spacetime frame. The outer products γ_i∧γ_j are the generators of rotations. There is no uninterpreted unit imaginary in the spacetime context, but instead several square roots of ‒1, in the even subalgebra of Cl(3, 1), and of course for γ_0 (only γ_0 will not commute with odd grades now, which is better to know! You do not know this if you are using _i_ ).
In Schrödinger theory it is even worse, since you have turned the naturally 4 component spinor (8 real elements in the even subalgebra of spacetime) into a single complex number, which is brain rot (unless you know it is only a convenient simplification for when magnetic field =0 so that you do not fool yourself thinking ℂ is somehow deeply "quantum", which it is not).
Matrices are only a representation, a convenience in some circumstances, but are terrible things to use for elementary theory because they obscure the real geometry. All the Clifford algebras have a matrix representation, but that does not mean you should always work in the space of the matrix representation, because then it certainly will fool you into thinking it is "abstract and mysterious."

[lolroflmaoization]

The most important and clear book on this topic is Tim Maudlin philosophy of physics quantum theory book, I hope you use him as a resource

[charleswood]

All right. Boundary. Between process 1. a measurement, and process 2. where no measurement is taking place. What constitutes a measurement? A lab for sure, but in dynamical situ? Bell asks, do we not have jumping then all the time. Because the world itself did not constitute in classical form just because of the lab measurement. Is an observer necessary to a measurement? In the lab and in situ? The observed is necessary to a measurement. What is common, in experience, to the observer and the observed? The present. The measuring device by one line of thought must transform into a superposition when that device is used to measure a superposition. But it doesn't. It remains an object of classical description. The definite.

If I understand that correctly. Ask yourself of experience per se. A medium, like a catalyst, would not react when transforming process 2 to a measurable quantity. For a medium, at what boundaries does it within itself transform quantum to quotidian? You can get a sense of the appropriateness of that approach from Smolin and Verde 2021 The quantum mechanics of the present. That paper is an ontology, and speaks with some authority about boundaries between future, present, and past. That which happens in the present is ontologically real, accordingly. The future and the past are not real, the quantum that becomes our present is per se not ontologically real, accordingly. What happens at the present is a transformation described in that paper as instant. That's acausal since like a point as a placeholder with no dimension, then that point is timeless, the rules of causation don't seem germane then to incidents involving instant occurrences. If we say the fact of instant drives the phenomenal, then complementarity as a principle is flawed. Waves and particles are energy, and not opposites according to our science. Complementarity, which in physics sentimentalizes the unity expressed by the symbol for the Tao: a non sequitur. Quantum objective reduction isn't about opposites, it is about state and ontology.

Smolin and Verde's ontology feels to describe a medium for transformation, but not going there for not knowing how. See Coppola and Purves 1996 and Purvez et al 2015. This transformation happens at the nexus between charge in the body, a visual sensory signal, and the visual cortex, where at that terminus, we simultaneously, instantly experience visual imagery. Now that is no lie. The 2015 article is the master talking to a bunch of independent careerist contractors, not listening therefore to how it is a fact that the idea of the brain processing visual imagery was falsified in 1996.

If the cosmos is and has been and will always be of objective randomness, then in our perception, via a transform, objective reduction but appears to occur, including the history of the cosmos as written before life, and now while life sustains. What is true is that I am always the same me in the present. I never change, could the present change? Call the present a psychic state and neither me nor the present ever changes. Because it is a transformative medium. The implication here is that we live here by frequency of dynamics, while isolated from its quantum form, the doors of perception: we are behind those doors insulated and free and beaming with love.

[DarthQuantum-ezqz]

Well, I see you deleted my comments. You are a coward. But don't worry - I will flood you with comments, just out of spite. Congratulations, you're on my radar. BTW, Dave Farina's videos are still a waste of time.