A Non Physical View of Schrodinger's Cat

First off, the reason why there's so many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is because people want it to fit into materialism and it doesn't. Quantum Mechanics is a non physical theory and as you will see in this post, if you accept that the wave function is non physical, then there's no need for any interpretation.

When Erwin Schrodinger came up with Schrodinger's Cat, he wanted to show the absurdity of accepting Quantum Mechanics on a classical level.

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts. It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naïvely accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, Schrodinger posed a question that's still debated today. Einstein agreed with this and came up with his own version with gunpowder. He also came up with the EPR Paradox with Podolsky and Rosen which led to the discovery of entanglement.

I think the problem is pretty clear. It's only absurd when you try to explain these things in physical terms.

Anyone with common sense knows a particle in the material sense can't be in superposition, a wave/partilcle, quantum entangled, quantum tunneling and more. Quantum Field Theory tells us that what we call subatomic "particles" are excitations of underlying quantum fields. Here's some quotes:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg “

[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg

Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show 'tendencies to exist', and atomic events do not occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways, but rather show 'tendencies to occur'. -Fritjof Capra

A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. -Erwin Schrodinger

Is there evidence that the wave function is real and non physical?

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

There's more evidence than a multiverse where physical universes pop into existence for every decision made. So, let's look at Schrodinger's Cat in a non physical context.

The cat in the box, would have what we call a "physical" self and a non physical self. This non physical self is just as real as the "physical" self. So decoherence has nothing to do with it, because you're not talking about the wave function of the cat but of the radioactive source. That cat can't be in a dead state before the poison is or isn't released. Rovelli points to this in his Relational Interpretation. He says the classical observer becomes entangled with the superposition of the quantum system and the observer can only interact with one state so he/she believes they measured one state or the other.

All physical interactions are, at bottom, quantum interactions, and must ultimately be governed by the same rules. Thus, an interaction between two particles does not, in RQM, differ fundamentally from an interaction between a particle and some "apparatus". There is no true wave collapse, in the sense in which it occurs in the Copenhagen interpretation. Because "state" is expressed in RQM as the correlation between two systems, there can be no meaning to "self-measurement". If observer O measures system S, S's "state" is represented as a correlation between O and S. O itself cannot say anything with respect to its own "state", because its own "state" is defined only relative to another observer, O'. If the S+O compound system does not interact with any other systems, then it will possess a clearly defined state relative to O'. However, because O's measurement of S breaks its unitary evolution with respect to O, O will not be able to give a full description of the S+O system (since it can only speak of the correlation between S and itself, not its own behaviour). A complete description of the (S+O)+O' system can only be given by a further, external observer, and so forth. Taking the model system discussed above, if O' has full information on the S+O system, it will know the Hamiltonians of both S and O, including the interaction Hamiltonian. Thus, the system will evolve entirely unitarily (without any form of collapse) relative to O', if O measures S. The only reason that O will perceive a "collapse" is because O has incomplete information on the system (specifically, O does not know its own Hamiltonian, and the interaction Hamiltonian for the measurement).

CONT'D

en.wikipedia.org...

Rovelli is really onto something but he makes the mistake of most other interpretations of QM, he wants it to be a "physical" theory so it falls flat. Back to Schrodinger's Cat.

So the cat's non physical self would be alive and dead states on the real but non physical wave function. If the poision is or isn't released, a measurement occurs and the cat is killed by poison or the experimenter opens the box.

There you have it, a simple explanation of QM without the baggage of materialism. You don't need to start off saying that any interpretation of QM must fit into a "physical" box. This is about atheism or materialistic beliefs not science. Look at another example:

If I go to get some breakfast, the convoluted many worlds theory says universes will poof into existence where a version of me eats pancakes, another version french toast, another version oatmeal, another version Cheerios and another version will go to iHop. I will just find myself in one of these universes. How silly is that? If I eat pancakes, how does my stuff to make french toast poof into existence in these other universes? Is the version of me that's eating french toast eating my french toast? It would be simple to just say you have a real but non physical self.

So you go to eat breakfast, your non physical self is in these different possible states. Your non physical self interacts with the "physical" brain and when a measurement occurs because a choice was made, the "physical" and non physical self are eating Cheerios. There's no need for a universe pofing into existence for every decision.

Tesla said:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla

The reason this will not be accepted is because non physical sounds too much like spiritual. So, you have atheist and materialist controlling much of the scientific establishment and there's no way that they're going to accept anything that doesn't fit their worldview. Like I said, it has nothing to do with science.

I truly believe this is a 666 mindset. Mankind denying his/her spiritual nature and denying God. I think advanced civilizations that kill themselves off do so in part because of materialism. All you care about is fulfillment of your carnal or "material" nature. I think advanced civilizations that survive, study and research the non physical and rise above the "physical."

I think the only way to do this is through Jesus Christ.

Sadly, people on earth will deny their spiritual nature until the end. The Bible says:

Revelation 16:9 “And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.”

a reply to: neoholographic

The reason this will not be accepted is because non physical sounds too much like spiritual. So, you have atheist and materialist controlling much of the scientific establishment and there's no way that they're going to accept anything that doesn't fit their worldview. Like I said, it has nothing to do with science.

I truly believe this is a 666 mindset. Mankind denying his/her spiritual nature and denying God. I think advanced civilizations that kill themselves off do so in part because of materialism. All you care about is fulfillment of your carnal or "material" nature. I think advanced civilizations that survive, study and research the non physical and rise above the "physical."

I think the only way to do this is through Jesus Christ.

What? That's such a convulted gigantic leap simply calling it false wouldn't do it justice.
Dude, take a step back:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg “

[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg

Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show 'tendencies to exist', and atomic events do not occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways, but rather show 'tendencies to occur'. -Fritjof Capra

Potential and possibility are not physical and they're accepted by literally everybody.
Jesus on the other hand was at some point physical, is not accepted by everybody, Christianity is not even spiritual in nature but cultural and not universal what every scientific approach kind of has to be.
You're on your personal crusade trying to prove a cultural concept through physics that's... I don't know what that is, mind blowing but not in a way you want it to be.



Plus: if the cat has a not physical self it would always be alive because you can't 'delete' the concept of cat.

I think the only way to do this is through Jesus Christ.

What is your suggestion here anyways? Before we let our computers do any task for us it has to accept Jesus as its lord & saviour?

a reply to: neoholographic

"It's only absurd when you try to explain these things in physical terms. "

Your problem is that you mistake the word "physical" with the word "material".

"Is there evidence that the wave function is real and non physical?"

Dreams, feelings, and faith are real, but immaterial. The wave function is real, but is not an object you can touch. It is just a statistical function, as real as a logarithm is.

"There's more evidence than a multiverse where physical universes pop into existence for every decision made."

Show us the evidence.

"The cat in the box, would have what we call a "physical" self and a non physical self."

There is nothing called "self" in physics. Not even an eigenvalue.

"This non physical self is just as real as the "physical" self."

No. That mental figment called "self" is as real as a logarithm. It only exists in your mind.

"I think the only way to do this is through Jesus Christ."

I agree. The only way for you to understand physics is through a miracle, and apparently Jesus was good at that. Only that you killed him crucifying him on a cross.

I've been trying to wrap my head around Schroedinger's cat since I stumbled upon this column circa 1998 or so. As a verifiable Straight Dope addict love Cecils' columns along with these 2 pertinent comic strips

This passage from the hilarious verse from Adams on Edwin and his pussy, always struck a chord with me, see the rest below

To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, ‘Tough #.
We may not know much, but one thing’s fo’ sho’:
There’s things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons — you’ll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed —







Dear Cecil:

Cecil, you're my final hope
Of finding out the true Straight Dope
For I have been reading of Schroedinger's cat
But none of my cats are at all like that.
This unusual animal (so it is said)
Is simultaneously live and dead!
What I don't understand is just why he
Can't be one or other, unquestionably.
My future now hangs in between eigenstates.
In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.
If you understand, Cecil, then show me the way
And rescue my psyche from quantum decay.
But if this queer thing has perplexed even you,
Then I will and won't see you in Schroedinger's zoo.

Randy F., Chicago


Illustration by Slug Signorino
Cecil replies:

Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don’t worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton’d invented
By Einstein’s discov’ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, “Don’t panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that’s not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though — my theory permits us to judge
Where some of ’em is and the rest of ’em was.”
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E’en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, “Brother, suppose we’ve a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at —
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got ’em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom — whatever — but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder’s sealed. The hour’s passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring — or pushing up daisies?
Now, you’d say the cat either lives or it don’t
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won’t.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, ‘Tough #.
We may not know much, but one thing’s fo’ sho’:
There’s things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons — you’ll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed —
Which ruins your test. But then if there’s no testing
To see if a particle’s moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability — certainty, never.’
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
‘Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
“We’ve just flipped a coin and we’ve learned he’s a corpse.”‘
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, “You’re nuts.
God doesn’t play dice with the universe, putz.
I’ll prove it!” he said, and the Lord knows he tried —
In vain — until fin’ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: “Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I’ll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he’s in heaven — but five bucks says he ain’t.”

Cecil Adams

originally posted by: neoholographic

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

Glimpses past the veil do make it seem like the heightened states of consciousness behave similar to Heinseberg's uncertainty principle. It's non-physical, and there's "no place to lay your head", yet it is tangible and very 'real' at the same time. To pin-point this with words is very difficult, especially if the snakes are out trying to Pharisee your every word.

If the future prefers to exist in a state of probability, then faith is capable of influencing that probability. The placebo effect is case in point.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Quantum Mechanics is a non physical theory and as you will see in this post, if you accept that the wave function is non physical, then there's no need for any interpretation.

A wave function is physical, in as much as it's the way reality works; it is reality. There is nothing more physical in this universe than the things we call physical. So by definition even if reality is manifested by what we call wave functions, that reality IS physical,

The best way to try to understand the universe is stop making it so mystical. They may be difficult to understand, but wave functions are not mystical or something that requires conscious thought to become real -- rather, they are what reality is. They are the physical world.

a reply to: Box of Rain

What??

A wave function is physical, in as much as it's the way reality works; it is reality. There is nothing more physical in this universe than the things we call physical. So by definition even if reality is manifested by what we call wave functions, that reality IS physical,

What does this mean? I need a translator.

You also mention "mystical" which is just a codeword from pseudoskeptics to try and get people to stop thinking. I didn't say anything about mystical.

I keep hearing people talk about the physical world but there's not a shred of evidence that shows this physical world has an objective existence. I have asked in a few threads for evidence and I get nothing but hyperbole from pseudoskeptics.

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg “

[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg

Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show 'tendencies to exist', and atomic events do not occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways, but rather show 'tendencies to occur'. -Fritjof Capra

A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. -Erwin Schrodinger

If the wave function is physical show me the evidence. You need to collect your Nobel Prize in Physics and end all debates when it comes to interpretations of QM. Let's see the evidence that the wave function is physical.

Look at the definition of Physical Sciences.

Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature - often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.

www.nature.com...

OFTEN WRITTEN IN THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS.

Show me the evidence that the physical has an objective existence outside of the mathematics that describes it. It goes back to what Heisenberg said:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg “

How can you have anything "physical" if the Cosmological Constant wasn't 1 part in 10^120 or the Gravitational constant wasn't 1 part in 10^34 or the Mass density of universe wasn't 1 part in 10^59?

There's no evidence that what we call "physical" has an objective existence outside of the information and mathematics.

So, when you talk about the physical world, what exactly do you mean? This chair I'm sitting in feels soid but I know that's mostly do do forces. I know intelligence designed the chair. What part of the chair is physical as you describe it?

Platonism makes more sense than materialism.

a reply to: neoholographic

Dude! Watch more TV!!



If bees can do math then “requiring” mathematical proof on anything is kind of moot because we are not the only species that can do math!

Second, the whole reason for Schrodinger’s Cat was specifically to demonstrate how absurd a “physical” construct is upon a statical framework (and even Schrodinger expressed regret over this thought experiment).

A sphere, with a point that can be anywhere on the surface expressed as an infinity cross-multiplication of matrices is our best definition of quantum physics. The result, the Hamiltonian, is just a matrix expressed as a point of view n time.

Quantum computers are just “flipping through the rollo-dex” result of the Hamiltonian. And how that relates back to original matrix is open to how the data was set up.

In CompSci, you program a computer to take data and give “information” (meaningful data). In QC, the data is the program and the problem with the results being data needing interpretation.

It is not a cut and clear observer as Schrodinger!

I love your passion! I love that you make me think! But, at times, there is a leap, and sometimes, I have to respond (i agree that what you are saying is possible but maybe just not yet. And I think these are both the technological and philosophical reasons why we are not fully engaged in that kind of mental manipulation at this moment!)

Those road look to cross but not yet. Or completely.

a reply to: neoholographic

I just read the paper:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Very interesting.

I agree about Schrodinger's cat. A physical interpretation of the wave function is a big stretch.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Box of Rain

What??

A wave function is physical, in as much as it's the way reality works; it is reality. There is nothing more physical in this universe than the things we call physical. So by definition even if reality is manifested by what we call wave functions, that reality IS physical,

What does this mean? I need a translator.

It means that a wave function is the way reality and the physical universe work. It is built into the nature of the universe; it is the physical universe. That is, we can't say the universe is physical if we say wave functions are not.

You also mention "mystical" which is just a codeword from pseudoskeptics to try and get people to stop thinking. I didn't say anything about mystical.

When you start treating wave functions as something other than part of the physical universe and start bringing deities into it, I'm not sure what other word you want to use.

I keep hearing people talk about the physical world but there's not a shred of evidence that shows this physical world has an objective existence. I have asked in a few threads for evidence and I get nothing but hyperbole from pseudoskeptics.

If you can tell me what is more material than the physical world, then we would need to redefine the term "material." If not, then the physical world is a material as it gets. It is by definition material.

Sure, it might be manifested by collapsing wave functions, but again a wave function is the reality of the universe. It's the reality of the physical world. So a wave function is "material" by any definition we can invent in this universe for the word "material" -- since there is nothing you we describe as more material than what we call the physical universe.

By the way, the universe still existed before there was any consciousness to observe or measure its existence. Observations and measurements can be achieved -- and the wave function can be collapsed -- by an electron interacting with a proton. Consciousness is not required.

a reply to: Box of Rain

Again, a bunch of hyperbole and opinion without a shred of evidence that supports anything you're saying. You said:

It means that a wave function is the way reality and the physical universe work. It is built into the nature of the universe; it is the physical universe. That is, we can't say the universe is physical if we say wave functions are not.

This is just pure gobbledy gook. Then you said:

If you can tell me what is more material than the physical world, then we would need to redefine the term "material." If not, then the physical world is a material as it gets. It is by definition material.

Again, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China.

Where's the evidence that anything material or physical has an objective existence separate from the information and mathematics that describes it. It goes back to what Heisenberg said:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg “

This is the same way Nature describes Physical Sciences.

Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature - often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.

www.nature.com...

If the physical world has an objective existence, let's see the scientific evidence not just your ridiculous opinion.

Here's the question, how does matter have an objective existence when it's the Higgs Field that gives it it's mass?



Secondly, as the video explains, what we call subatomic particles are excitations of underlying fields. So, you can think of the field like the ocean and what we call particles are like waves on the ocean where the water(field) is concentrated.

What's the definition of matter?

In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
en.wikipedia.org...

So again I ask, if a subatomic particle gets it's mass from the Higgs Field and subatomic particles are not real in the particle sense but excitations of underlying quantum fields, what do you mean by the physical universe? Show me the evidence that this physical universe you speak of has an objective existence. Again, I don't want hyperbole and vacuous opinion. Show me some evidence to support what you're saying.

You said:

Sure, it might be manifested by collapsing wave functions, but again a wave function is the reality of the universe. It's the reality of the physical world. So a wave function is "material" by any definition we can invent in this universe for the word "material" -- since there is nothing you we describe as more material than what we call the physical universe.

Again, gobbledy gook but I can decipher some of what you're saying about the wave function. If the wave function is material, why are their so many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics? If you have evidence that the wave function is material, you need to call the Nobel Prize committee and claim your prize.

The wave function isn't a reality of this "material" world that you can't even provide any evidence that it has an objective existence, it's outside of the material world and consist of probabilities where one probable state can be measured by us.

So we act in a egocentric way and say the wave function is collapsing and conforming to our limited 3 dimensional point of view. The wave function or what it represents could be non physical and multi-dimensional and nothing collapses. We just can't see the fullness of the multi-dimensional wave function or what it represents.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

www.quantamagazine.org...

Death by experiment for local realism

The world is made up of real stuff, existing in space and changing only through local interactions — this local-realism hypothesis is about the most intuitive scientific postulate imaginable. But quantum mechanics implies that it is false, as has been known for more than 50 years1.

www.nature.com...

So again, I don't want nonsense on top of nonsense. All I'm asking you is to show me the scientific evidence that this physical universe you speak of has an objective existence.