Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't understand, in what way exactly does the double-slit experiment demonstrate subjectivity? To me, what it demonstrates is that the classical physics concepts of place and momentum have a different meaning when looking at the quantum level. Since that different meaning is described accurately and precisely using mathematics (which generally is not ...[text shortened]... inistic way, is not observed if you time propagate a system with a well-defined Hamiltonian.
You could see that the double-slit experiment demonstrates subjectivity once you see how exactly our units of knowledge are evolving. Our world is not the same to Newton’s world although the seemingly same world it remains: the phenomena we perceived back then and herenow are the same, however our interpretation regarding specific causal fields we examine went to be different over time. We evolve constantly by means of using our own products (our ideas, our theories etc) in order to prosper: the double-slit experiment would hold too at the time of Pericles, yet back then we were unable to drive our collective subjectivity towards that specific causal field. (And each sentient being is also a causal field -in fact, in its subjective world it is the protagonist causal field amongst the rest causal fields with which it interacts: when it dies, every examination/ interaction stops).
Subjectivity is the core of every language amongst else because each word and each notion is an invention/ convention of the mind alone in the context of our struggle to create a 1:1 analogy between our mind and our environment, and Math and Physics are nothing but two more languages at our disposal. Show me a factual wavefunction out there in our world and I will bow to you, because all I see for the time being is your fundamentalist view that a straightforward application and further framework of Physics can cover and explain all of the reality we perceive herenow. In fact, when you describe by means of an algorithm that lion who predates and kills that deer, methinks you conduct nothing more than an 1:1 description: your description is as accurate as it gets, however it is not the event itself but merely a description. On the other hand, show your algorithm to the lion and see what you ‘ll get regarding your so called "objective reality"; you can also show your algorithm to anybody who has not studied Math and see what you 'll get;
Edit: “To me, what it demonstrates is that the classical physics concepts of place and momentum have a different meaning when looking at the quantum level.”
So it seems that now you appear to agree with me: for, when you admit that the classical Physics is a tool (we are using in order to describe the classical reality, I reckon) that we cannot use when we are looking at the quantum level, then the opposite also holds. And why do they have a different meaning? Methinks because, as I told you earlier, the reality of the classical Physics and the reality of the quantum level are two different realities determined by us subjectively according to the specific epistemic instruments we decided subjectively to use for our convenience when we examine specific epistemic objects, and both of them are relative. The difference is caused solely by the specific causal field we examine and by our own mind (who picked the causal field we examine out of many other causal fields), a causal field that we subjectively decided to examine, that is, as if it was separated from the observer universe and from every other observer/ causal field included in that huge system;
Edit: “Wavefunction collapse itself, in a non-deterministic way, is not observed if you time propagate a system with a well-defined Hamiltonian.”
Of course. The fact that the wavefunction collapse itself in a non-deterministic way, it means for one that you are not in position to know if it is in fact collapsed or not herenow, and how. First You have to observe it.
For two, it means that solely when you are enveloped in the wavefunction’s causal field you are in position to determine a specific event and, thus, to determine the “reality”, which it will forever be subjective and relative because its determination takes place solely when you are becoming a part of the causal field that envelops the reality whose wavefunction you collapsed.
Finally, since whatever isn’t observed it is not an element of reality because it lacks of any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information, the lack of measurement itself points towards to the (empty/ relative) reality that “whenever a wavefunction collapse itself unobserved if you time propagate a system with a well-defined Hamiltonian, it does not provide any element of reality and thus it cannot be included in the realm of our (relative) reality”.
By the way, what is the exact meaning of your notion “time propagation” in our space-stretched universe?