
Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics - headalgorithm
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/quantum-monism-could-save-the-soul-of-physics/
======
andrewflnr
Hossenfelder's actual argument about beauty has definitely gotten lost
somewhere along the way. According to [0], she ends her book with

> The next breakthrough in physics will occur in this century. It will be
> beautiful.

She's objecting to a very narrow interpretation of "beauty" driving physics,
not elegance in general, a distinction this article's author seems unable to
see.

Anyone who publicly makes an argument dependent on a distinction between ideas
that aren't distinct in the mainstream is going to have an uphill battle at
best.

[0]
[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10314](http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10314)

~~~
fouc
Good read.

>If your standards are low enough, yes. But I don’t think we should compromise
on this idea of post-empirical physics. I think that’s appalling, really
appalling… If there was any bit of experimental evidence that was decisive and
in favor of the theory, you wouldn’t be hearing these arguments. You wouldn’t.
Nobody would care. It’s just a fallback. It’s giving up and declaring victory.
I don’t like that at all.

I wonder if we're starting to hit up against some sort of limitation or local
maxima that is blocking our search to the global maxima.

~~~
77pt77
> I wonder if we're starting to hit up against some sort of limitation or
> local maxima that is blocking our search to the global maxima.

That and maybe also human cognitive ability limits.

~~~
ThomPete
Wisdom lies in paradox as the Taoist say.

Language is a gross reduction of reality and has a hard time expresssing non-
local concepts. Our inability to philosophically explain QM and classical
physics in a consistant way is a good example of that.

My guess is that there are concepts which require the ability to express
perspectives of reality we arent able to grok because they requira a non-local
(no now, no me, no it) interpretation. Language cant express non local
phenomena from the perspective of non-local and so language cant express
“truth” but humans can experience it.

~~~
zwkrt
Wittgenstein teaches us that we invented language to solve a particular set of
problems. Depending on which book of his you read, language is designed to
either:

\- talk about the configuration of objects in relation to each other in space
and time.

\- perform social functions and to describe the actions humans take in the
social world.

In either case, I think it is totally clear that you are right and there are
just certain sets of concepts that human language is fundamentally unsuited
for. I think this is why some mathematical concepts are so abstruse; for
example, I know that I can interpret a matrix as a twisty-rotatey-stretchy
operation, but it is almost impossible for me to look at a matrix and
understand what it is going to do except in the simplest cases. If foundations
of QM are non-local (which they appear to be), we might have to take a long
time to understand how best to communicate what is going on.

~~~
phayes
> If foundations of QM are non-local

They're not. Non-locality is an artifact of certain interpretations /
modifications of QM (where it isn't simply a misconception). See e.g.
[https://sci-hub.tw/10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424011](https://sci-
hub.tw/10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424011) and
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2120](https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2120) or the
QBism intro [https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5253](https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5253)
or Ray Streater's old EPR webpage
[https://web.archive.org/web/20151117174141/http://www.mth.kc...](https://web.archive.org/web/20151117174141/http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/EPR.html)
or Gell-Mann's video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNAw-
xXCcM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNAw-xXCcM8) or...

~~~
ThomPete
Maybe I am misunderstanding you but non-locality is not just an artifact. It's
proven both experimentally and mathematically through Bells Theorem. It's as
solid as Einstein's theory of relativity and gravity.

What is interpreted is mostly the consequence of that philosophically (i.e.
what does that mean).

~~~
phayes
Well, that is what I said: non-locality is just an artifact _" of certain
interpretations / modifications of QM"_. Bell's theorem doesn't prove non-
locality; what it proves is that no (alternative) theory (of mechanics) that's
_both_ classical, aka naively realist, _and_ local could reproduce QM's
successful predictions (of those experimental results).

~~~
ThomPete
Which must lead us to conclude non-locality unless we can come up with a
better explanation.

I've seen a few alternatives like electrical universe theory which tries to
take the spookiness out of QM but so far no other theory reconsile both
clasically and QM and the two are proven to the extent that anything can be
proven. Classical physics is not proven more than QM. You could easily reverse
your argument starting with QM and saying classical physics doesn't prove
locality.

~~~
phayes
No, it mustn't! The logical negation of the conjunction "classical* _and_
local" is "non-classical _or_ non-local". Electrical universe theory"?! Please
stick to standard and generally accepted quantum foundations / interpretation.
There's no (non-local) spookiness to be taken out of QM in the first place -
_except_ for those who _choose_ to reject the non-classical option. %

* Your last remarks suggest you haven't read those Werner refs and don't know what is meant by the term "classical" as I've used it here - it's a reference to the structure of (general) probability state spaces, not to classical physics per se - and you should substitute "(naively) realist" for "classical" in the above.

% And those familiar with the probability theoretic aspects (see my links in a
comment in a different thread here, or Tom Banks's teaser:
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/2011/...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/2011/11/banks-
qmblog.pdf) ), probably won't want to do that. For example, the reason
violations of Bell-type inequalities occur in QM is _mundane_ from this
perspective: "What on earth did you expect?! You have observables that don't
commute! Use the _appropriate_ inequality." [https://sci-
hub.tw/10.1016/0375-9601(87)90075-2](https://sci-
hub.tw/10.1016/0375-9601\(87\)90075-2)

~~~
ThomPete
You are the one who seems to be using esoteric interpretations of language to
come to a conclusion that you have yet to provide any argument or evidence
for.

The problem of interpretation is at the reconciliation phase that's what I
care about.

------
phayes
"Both monism and many worlds can be avoided, but only when one either changes
the formalism of quantum mechanics—typically in ways that are in conflict with
Einstein’s theory of special relativity—or if one understands quantum
mechanics not as a theory about nature but as a theory about knowledge: a
humanities concept rather than science."

Tut-tut. There's nothing "humanities rather than science" about the
understanding that QM is 'just' probability theory

[https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0601158](https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-
ph/0601158) [https://terrytao.wordpress.com/tag/noncommutative-
probabilit...](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/tag/noncommutative-probability/)
[https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0002049](https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0002049)
[https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+probability](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+probability)

applied to mechanics (and interpreted sensibly, as it is in any 'neo-
Copenhagen' or 'pragmatist' interpretation). Grandiose and/or bizarre
'psiontology' is easily avoided.

~~~
natalyarostova
Saying a physical phenomena is 'humanities rather than science' is such a
stupid statement. Reality is just a complex computer.

~~~
colordrops
> Reality is just a complex computer.

> stupid statement.

~~~
natalyarostova
Humanities is distinct from science, to the extent that it's information
generated by a specific life-form (humans), and is specific to our specific
language and hardware we evolved and implemented.

Studying a great novel, or moral dilemmas, are ultimately about how we
process, transmit, and infer information generated by other humans, and shared
through extremely high-dimensional, but less structured, contexts, such as
language, novels, literature, etc.

To say a physics phenomena is more 'humanities' is a strange statement, and
it's hard to understand what they are getting at.

~~~
colordrops
I'm just referring to the statement that "reality is just a complex computer".
That's nonsense.

~~~
natalyarostova
Is it tho? It's so far the best model we have of how ~reality~ forms and molds
around us.

~~~
colordrops
> It's so far the best model we have

Is it? According to who?

------
will_brown
>As it stands, quantum monism should be considered as a key concept in modern
physics: It explains why “beauty,” understood as structure, correlation and
symmetry among apparently independent realms of nature, isn’t an "ill-
conceived aesthetic ideal” but a consequence of nature descending from a
single quantum state.

They can call it monism...but it sounds like they are just describing the
spatial dimensions.

0D Point (quantum/singularity/Planck unit), then 1D line, 2D square, 3D
cube...as a direct consequence of nature/math it’s got structure, correlation,
and symmetry (aka their definition of beauty). Is there any physicist who
doesn’t think dimensions are a key concept of physics?

~~~
gus_massa
No, spatial dimensions have a very specific meaning. The universe has 3 big
special dimensions and 1 temporal dimension (and perhaps 8 or additional
"small" dimensions.)

Here monism means another thing, I'm not sure what, I'm not sure that it even
mean anything at all. The important thing is if it is possible or not to find
any experiment that can refute the existence of monism. (It's easier to be a
little less technical and ask for and experiment that confirms the existence
of monism.) If no experiment can confirm of refute it, then it is outside the
realm of physics and can't do anything to save it.

~~~
neltnerb
I believe roughly he's saying that we are a universe experiencing itself that
is intrinsically a single quantum state.

It has never made sense to me to separate the observer and the experiment,
it's weird to suggest the observer is somehow more classical than the
experiment, both are just evolving together in time as a quantum system. The
idea of "collapse" makes no sense, there is no observer separate from the
experiment, and instead the question of why we experience what we call
"collapse" the way we do comes up. Practically, it makes more sense to me.

How can our experience of consciousness be real? What does it mean to be
conscious? Can we numerically measure free will? Are those answerable
questions under this framework?

Just let's not talk too much like that to the pop-gurus...

~~~
gus_massa
The idea that the universe is a single quantum state can be applied to any
quantum theory, from a toy universe that only have a few particles and
electromagnetism, to the universe with the standard model, and many other
variants.

For example some years ago many people believe that it was possible to unify
all the forces using the SU(5) group. It was a very nice theory, people like
it, sadly experiments disagree. The idea that the universe is a single quantum
state can't differentiate between the current standard model and the SU(5)
model.

I really hate that the weak force only acts on left handled particles.
Experiments disagree with my preferences. The idea that the universe is a
single quantum state can't differentiate between the current version and the
version where the weak force affect all particles.

So, how can be the idea that the universe is a single quantum state imply that
the universe laws are beautiful?

\---

Nobody like the collapse and the almost magical properties of the observer
(the observer can be a machine, it's not necessary a human). Anyway, it's very
useful if you can shut up and do the calculations. I vote that the answer to
the problem is something something decoherence. It's still a research topic
(not my topic), so we have to wait a few years/decades/centuries to be sure.

\---

I think that "conscious" is like "alive". It's not magical. It's just an
useful classification of some aggrupation of matter following the laws of
physics.

------
lkrubner
I'd be more comfortable if it said "Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics".
Writing "Quantum Monism" makes too many assumptions about where the Monism is.
What if the Monism is a layer down from the quantum layer? Or 10 layers down?
Or a million?

It's also possible that "down" is the wrong word. Or perhaps there are
constituent parts to the Monism. Indeed, what is really meant? If the monads
are like Church functions in the Lambda calculus, and if they therefore
struggle with the problem of incomparability, and they are linked to some
comparison function, it is possible they trace an ellipsis in a space created
by their interaction of their comparability. So then it would be more like,
"steps going around", rather than "layers down".

------
pjc50
What's a monism? Is it a monoid in the category of endofunctors?

~~~
rosser
A monism, in this context, is a metaphysics with one fundamental substance. In
"physicalism" or "materialism", that stuff is "matter". In "panpsychism" or
"idealism", it's "consciousness".

~~~
vokep
Is it not all information regardless? What makes matter different from
consciousness? sounds like different terms for the same fundamental thing:
stuff that exists.

The matter term comes from the fact the stuff is just stuff that exists

The consciousness term comes from the fact that we can _see_ stuff that exists

But these are both just observational terms of 'stuff that exists', and it
seems that anything existing at all is at the core of the issue (as opposed to
_what_ exists, in reference to the 'fundamental substance').

~~~
zwkrt
The tricky part of philosophy is that sometimes it attempts to overstep the
bounds from 'what we can know based on data we can collect' (i.e.,
'information') and 'what the fundamental concept/ontology/etc actually _is_ '.
The distinction is subtle, but one way to think about it is that you can never
know somethings true nature only by investigating it scientifically--this will
give you all the 'hows' but none of the 'whys'. Whether or not it is always
appropriate to ask 'why' is another matter. I have a shaky and unfounded
belief that asking 'why' questions about fundamental physics will not yield
interesting results.

In programming we make monisms all the time. Think of Unix's "everything is a
file" or Java's "Everything is an object". A monism is nice because it asserts
that fundamentally there is some single common denominator underlying all
emergent behavior. That being said, physicists are usually happy to do the
calulations and get the expected results without needing a fundamental
philosophy regarding the workings of the entire universe.

------
wwarner
I'm really sensing that the pendulum is swinging fast toward experiment and
verification and away from theorizing and interpretation. Dark energy, dark
matter and Hawking radiation/Unruh effect are among the testable problems
facing theoreticians these days. While I personally share the author's
preference for a single unified universe to a multiverse, it seems like
proving it true or false might not apply.

------
keyle
Every week or so there seems to be a new exciting theory/article on HN about
the universe etc.

I'm always looking forward to them and read them with passion. There are two
types though, the ones that make sense, and the ones I can't grasp. This is
the latter :/

~~~
justinpombrio
FYI, that's not because it went over your head, it's because this article is
vague and incoherent. Almost all popular articles on physics are.

If this interests you, I strongly recommend learning the very basics of
quantum mechanics. It will involve math, but the math doesn't need to be very
complicated. And you will learn how the universe is _fundamentally_ different
than you thought, in a way that these popular articles hardly even hint at.

There are many introductions, but I've found the lesswrong one to explain
things well, while using as little math as necessary (read: no calculus
required):

[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7FSwbFpDsca7uXpQ2/quantum-
ex...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7FSwbFpDsca7uXpQ2/quantum-explanations)

Feynman's book QED is also an excellent introduction, while requiring only a
bit more math:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED:_The_Strange_Theory_of_Lig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED:_The_Strange_Theory_of_Light_and_Matter)

------
mitchtbaum
Closest I can find for a wiki article is at
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/)
from Calosi.

Perhaps Quantum Monism fits in with
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_building_(particle_physi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_building_\(particle_physics\))
to replace any given standard model.

------
lkrubner
Also, I'm annoyed that a science magazine would be careless in its wording:

"it is infamous for its weirdness such as Schrödinger’s cat existing in a
limbo of being half dead and half alive."

The cat is 100% alive and also 100% dead. However, it has 100% chance of
resolving to just one state once you look at it.

~~~
nategri
Darn near 100% of attempts to describe quantum mechanics with English
sentences end up far from their target.

To paraphrase the protagonist of _A Serious Man_ : "No one understands the
cat. The math... the math is what's important."

~~~
jMyles
Actions have consequences. In this office, actions have consequences. Not just
physics. Morally.

Very possibly my favorite Coen bros film.

