The Universe as a Hologram

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]If particles are neither waves nor particles, what are they?

Wavefunctions. Particles are particles, obviously, just not particles at a specific point in the classical context, but particles smeared around some point in space.[/b]

Now, if the particles are indeed wavefunctions, they cannot be considered as particles neither in the classical nor in the quantum realm due to the fact that the wavefunctions are merely a description. On the other hand, if the quantum particles are really "smeared around somewhere" but we cannot locate them, onviously the definition "particle" is conventional due to the wave-like nature of the particle. So, the tetrallema holds
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
It is important to me because this way I have not the slightest problem to visualize the quantum particle as a point-wave source. For the time being I have no better way to grasp the nature of the particle
😵

Well, that is your problem, you are trying to visualize something that is not visualizable in a real-world-kind-of-way.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, that is your problem, you are trying to visualize something that is not visualizable in a real-world-kind-of-way.

"That", it is not my problem at all! I am not preaching the “absolute truth”. I merely expose my theory of reality in full, aiming to see it fully falsified in order to test it in depth, and therefore I am determined to be specific to the hilt.
On the other hand, we human beings can well "visualise freedom, love, hatred, colours, smells, mental states and other kind of things that are not visualizable in a real-world-kind-of-way", and thus offer an abstract description of these conditions/ mental states by means of, say, music, Fine Arts and philosophy. To be frank, it never crossed my mind it is forbidden to visualise a quantum particle.
But there is another point that makes your main position fully untenable: if we really cannot “visualize something that is not visualizable in a real-world-kind-of-way”, the tetrallema definitely holds due to the fact that the attempts to define the quantum particle are fully conventional and, thus, empty of own being because all we have is a subjectively chosen set of numbers instead of a factual wave and a factual particle. This means that we ignore the exact nature of the quantum particle, and this exact ignorance proves the tetrallema accurate for the time being.

On the other hand, if you can debunk the theory that an entrapped quantum particle can well be and/ or act as a 3D point-wave source and, thus, demonstrate that this academic approach is ill-considered, kindly please feel free to present your educated guess
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
"That", it is not my problem at all! I am not preaching the “absolute truth”. I merely expose my theory of reality in full, aiming to see it fully falsified in order to test it in depth, and therefore I am determined to be specific to the hilt.
On the other hand, we human beings can well "visualise freedom, love, hatred, colours, smells, mental states ...[text shortened]... demic approach is ill-considered, kindly please feel free to present your educated guess
😵

For me to debunk anything you first have to describe mathematically your theory.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
For me to debunk anything you first have to describe mathematically your theory.

I single out Math as the underlying structure of the quantum realm in an 1:1 correspondence to the factual reality that takes place in the subatomic level. Math, afterall, is merely just another language. So I expect to see from science to determine positively the reality that takes place in the quantum realm, and then I will transform whatever is “unconceivable” to a conceivable notion. For the time being, the most conceivable notion at my disposal regarding the nature of the quantum particle is the tetralemma.

I am looking for confirmations of theories that are the result of risky predictions. I don’t expect to get probabilistic outcomes of events that either never took place or they are incompatible with the source theory. I want to see a specific prohibition regarding the exact nature of the quantum particle. When you say that “…the particle is neither pure wave nor pure particle…”, and in addition you do not clarify its nature, you give me pure mumbo-jumbo. Instead, you could easily admit that you don’t know -by the way, nobody knows for the time being.
Since the evidence you offered is not the result of a genuine test of the theory, I counter-offered the tetralemma as an 1:1 correspondence to the Copenhagen Interpretation in a way that it escapes refutation. In my opinion, you have to decide either to accept that the theory is not corroborated, or that the tetralemma has a scientific status
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I single out Math as the underlying structure of the quantum realm in an 1:1 correspondence to the factual reality that takes place in the subatomic level. Math, afterall, is merely just another language. So I expect to see from science to determine positively the reality that takes place in the quantum realm, and then I will transform whatever is “unco ...[text shortened]... o accept that the theory is not corroborated, or that the tetralemma has a scientific status
😵

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In what way does the "tetralemma" impact the mathematics of quantum theory? Describe what you mean in specific terms, and we will be able to communicate. If the "tetralemma" has no impact on the mathematics, then it's not a theory, but an interpretation (nothing wrong with that, after all talking about quantum physics is fun).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In what way does the "tetralemma" impact the mathematics of quantum theory? Describe what you mean in specific terms, and we will be able to communicate. If the "tetralemma" has no impact on the mathematics, then it's not a theory, but an interpretation (nothing wrong with that, after all talking about quantum physics is fun).

The tetralemma does not impact at all the mathematics of quantum theory; the tetralemma is merely an accurate description of the nature of the quantum particle as it is described by the quantum theory
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The tetralemma does not impact at all the mathematics of quantum theory; the tetralemma is merely an accurate description of the nature of the quantum particle as it is described by the quantum theory
😵

Then there is no theory, and I cannot debunk it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Then there is no theory, and I cannot debunk it.

There is a theory -the quantum theory, according to which, as you said, "the quantum particle is the wavefunction" and "the nature of the quantum particle is neither pure wave not pure particle". But if this holds the way you perceive it, the nature of the quantum particle is unknown, whilst it 's impossible to determine the reality that takes place in the quantum realm. However, since this is exactly what is expressed by the tetralemma too, I cannot understand why you discard it although you accept that the theory is viable😵

Originally posted by black beetle
There is a theory -the quantum theory, according to which, as you said, "the quantum particle is the wavefunction" and "the nature of the quantum particle is neither pure wave not pure particle". But if this holds the way you perceive it, the nature of the quantum particle is unknown, whilst it 's impossible to determine the reality that takes place in ...[text shortened]... too, I cannot understand why you discard it although you accept that the theory is viable😵

The nature of the particle is the wavefunction and how its evolution in time is described by the laws of quantum physics. If the nature was "unknown" we wouldn't be able to predict anything now would we?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The nature of the particle is the wavefunction and how its evolution in time is described by the laws of quantum physics. If the nature was "unknown" we wouldn't be able to predict anything now would we?

The nature of the quantum particle is not the wavefunction. The wavefunction is merely a formula that we are using in order to get a clue regarding the nature of the quantum particle. The nature of the quantum particle (wave/ particle, “not pure wave not pure particle” as you said earlier) derives out of the attribution of the fundamental description of the unobserved reality of the quantum realm of existence to a mathematical realm of potential existence. For each possibility within the realm of the potentiality our formula assigns a probability that will come into existence when we measure the system. It is, thus, clear that the wavefunction is nothing but the mathematical description of potential existence in a specific context. We are using the wavefunction in order to conduct predictions and in order to calculate the equations that describe these predictions, but these sets of numbers (the wavefunction) are not the nature of the quantum particle
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The nature of the quantum particle is not the wavefunction. The wavefunction is merely a formula that we are using in order to get a clue regarding the nature of the quantum particle. The nature of the quantum particle (wave/ particle, “not pure wave not pure particle” as you said earlier) derives out of the attribution of the fundamental description of ...[text shortened]... ons, but these sets of numbers (the wavefunction) are not the nature of the quantum particle
😵

"Wave" and "particle on a fixed position" are also merely mathematical constructs we use to describe aspects of reality. The former is described by a sine and the latter by the delta function.

Originally posted by black beetle
We are using the wavefunction in order to conduct predictions and in order to calculate the equations that describe these predictions, but these sets of numbers (the wavefunction) are not the nature of the quantum particle
😵

Surely that goes against many of your past suggestions that reality is what we think it is or as we observe it to be.
Surely if the equations accurately describe the particles, then that is their nature. It the particles are 'really' each made up of three little pixies dancing, yet that pixies and their dance is unobservable and has no effect on the rest of the universe at all then are they real?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely that goes against many of your past suggestions that reality is what we think it is or as we observe it to be.
Surely if the equations accurately describe the particles, then that is their nature. It the particles are 'really' each made up of three little pixies dancing, yet that pixies and their dance is unobservable and has no effect on the rest of the universe at all then are they real?

No. The equations describe how a quantum particle arrived at a certain point, they do not describe what a particle is. The physicists use the theory, however they disagree about what it means. This fact is the reason why Einstein, Bohr Heisenberg and Schroedinger were in disagreement regarding the implications of the mathematical calculations that they were using, and this uncertainty remains. There is a consencus regarding the functioning of the quantum realm, but nobody knows what is going on beyond the probabilistic predictive mathemartics.
On the other hand, if the definition of the nature of the quantum particle holds (not pure wave/ not pure particle), it is in an 1:1 correspondence with the tetralemma
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely that goes against many of your past suggestions that reality is what we think it is or as we observe it to be.
Surely if the equations accurately describe the particles, then that is their nature. It the particles are 'really' each made up of three little pixies dancing, yet that pixies and their dance is unobservable and has no effect on the rest of the universe at all then are they real?

Edit: "Surely if the equations accurately describe the particles, then that is their nature."

No. The sine and the delta function are not the nature of the quantum particle just as the algorithm we are using in order to describe an attacking lion is neither the factual attacking lion nor his factual moves. Math is a language, and as such the sine and the delta function can merely describe accurately the condition of the particle in a given context. In fact, the "wave" (out of the sine) and the "particle in a fixed position" (out of the delta function) offer a description so illogical that was making Einstein sick big time. Why? Because, still, the nature of the particle was indefined; certainly, we don't have a clue of what exactly "exists" in the quantum realm
😵