GENIUS FORUMS

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Now, of course, there could be hidden variables in play, but such things aren't seen as necessary anymore. It seems that God actually does play dice with the universe.

It's not that hidden variables aren't "seen as necessary", it's that Bell's theorem kinda rules them out. As far as I know, you are stuck with either a non-local interpretation, or that Many Worlds thing.

My own (tentative) view is that the intuitive idea of "particle" we have, from the way things work at the scales we are familiar with, is very misleading at very small scales. Electrons and such just don't behave anything like billiard balls.

Eliza,

Energy exists, as does time, and looking at it from a philosophical perspective, that is what we are.

Mass and energy aren't the only properties that we talk of in QM. The point that I'm trying to make is that energy has a very specific meaning within science. It's the capacity for something to do work. Saying that everything is simply time and the capacity for things to do work strikes me as incomprehensible. From a philosophical perspective it doesn't matter if you describe everything as being made of "matter", "energy", or "qualia". It's all a matter of how you want to look at things.


David,

That's good logic. I saw that man on the stage perform magical tricks. It looks like he really does engage in magic. Now, of course, there could be hidden variables in play, but such things aren't seen as necessary anymore. In fact, I choose not to believe in hidden variables anymore. Thus, it really does seem that magic is real. QED.

Its one thing to say that hidden variables might exist, and to go looking for them (which has been done extensively). It's another to insist that they absolutely must, and to dogmatically accept an axiom like universal causation when such a thing doesn't appear to be true. Regardless of this, your analogy doesn't fit. We all know that folks performing magic tricks aren't performing real magic (whatever that is). Perhaps it's possible that someone can really make doves appear out of thin air, and perhaps it's possible that hidden variables exist that allow for universal causation to be true, but I find such things unlikely. Just because necessary universal causation is conceivable and intuitively powerful, doesn't make it a necessary truth. I find the iron grip that some have on the notion to be counter to the very spirit of freethinking.


DHodges,

Yeah. I totally agree.

Expectant,

What's your background in QM? I really enjoy your questions, but I'll have to do a bit more research before I can respond to your last comment. Quantum physics is an old (and favorite) hobby of mine, but I get the impression you have more of an academic background in it that than I do. I barely got through analytic trig in school (younger, I was in one of those experimental new math classes, and ran into troubles because of the unconventional math background), so mostly I've played with quantum theory. I'd like to know what level I'm talking to.

From a philosophical perspective it doesn't matter if you describe everything as being made of "matter", "energy", or "qualia". It's all a matter of how you want to look at things.

Hey, hey, I think I finally understand E = M C ^ 2 !

If matter is finite (due to measurement) and energy (which can't be created or destroyed, because causality, in a determinstic system, spans back infinitely) is the ability to do work, then the finite can only potentially work - up to the speed of light!

Steven Coyle wrote:Hey, hey, I think I finally understand E = M C ^ 2 !

If matter is "finite," and energy (which can't be created or destroyed, because causality, in a determinstic system, spans back infinitely) is the ability to do work, then the finite can only potentially "work" - up to the speed of light!

Darned close (and better than most people will catch on to). Rather than up to the speed of light, it is up to the speed of the constant, which I assigned to be the speed of time.

That which travels faster than the constant would have different properties assigned to them during the times that they were traveling faster than that speed.

****edit****
Well, the properties wouldn't really be different, but they would appear to be.

Darned close (and better than most people will catch on to). Rather than up to the speed of light, it is up to the speed of the constant, which I assigned to be the speed of time.

Hey, that's what I meant :-)

Up to the constant.

How can it be the speed of time, when time doesn't exist?

That which travels faster than the constant would have different properties assigned to them during the times that they were traveling faster than that speed.

Different properties only because they were traveling faster than the constant? The definition?

Eliza,

What's your background in QM?

I grew up reading science books, and it's always baffled and fascinated me, but I'm simply a hobbyist like yourself. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject.

Steven Coyle wrote:

Darned close (and better than most people will catch on to). Rather than up to the speed of light, it is up to the speed of the constant, which I assigned to be the speed of time.

Hey, that's what I meant :-)

Up to the constant.

Cool. :) *A well-deserved round of applause for Steven Coyle!* :)

How can it be the speed of time, when time doesn't exist?

I say time and energy do exist.

That which travels faster than the constant would have different properties assigned to them during the times that they were traveling faster than that speed.

Different properties only because they were traveling faster than the constant? The definition?

As I edited in, not really different, but just appearing different because they did things in a time that we had not gotten to yet.

What definition are you looking for? I don't understand the question.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Eliza,

What's your background in QM?

I grew up reading science books, and it's always baffled and fascinated me, but I'm simply a hobbyist like yourself. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject.

Well, anyone who can even hold his own in a quantum physics debate with me still really impresses me, and you and David H. have both taken it a notch above that. Thank you.

Are you playing with the quantum millennium problem at all?

Eliza,

Well, anyone who can even hold his own in a quantum physics debate with me still really impresses me, and you and David H. have both taken it a notch above that. Thank you.

:) Thank you.

Are you playing with the quantum millennium problem at all?

Yang-Mills is a bit over my head. By "a bit" I mean I wouldn't know where the heck to start.

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

DQ: That's good logic. I saw that man on the stage perform magical tricks. It looks like he really does engage in magic. Now, of course, there could be hidden variables in play, but such things aren't seen as necessary anymore. In fact, I choose not to believe in hidden variables anymore. Thus, it really does seem that magic is real. QED.

EI: Its one thing to say that hidden variables might exist, and to go looking for them (which has been done extensively). It's another to insist that they absolutely must, and to dogmatically accept an axiom like universal causation when such a thing doesn't appear to be true.

Firstly, it has always been an axiom of science that things don't happen randomly or without cause. That is how science has progressed over the centuries, by examining the causes of things. To suddenly halt this process in the quantum realm sounds very arbitrary to me.

It doesn't matter how weird or counter-intuitive the quantum realm currently appears to us, you don't just ditch a fundamental principle such as causality like you do a pair of shoes. It is a very serious step to take. It should be regarded as a last resort, when all other avenues have been thoroughly exhausted - which certainly hasn't happened yet in quantum theory.

In truth, we are still only scratching the surface of the quantum realm. Yet everyone seems to be pretending that we have just about covered all the territory and now it's just a matter of tying it all up with a nice pink ribbon.

Part of it is due to the relentless, insatiable desire on the part of physicists to feel that they are the great kings of science and that they, and they alone, have the unique ability to describe the whole universe with their theories. That is basically what their abandoning of the concept of hidden variables amounts to - the sheer naked desire to believe that they have reached the very bottom of reality down there.

They thought they had it solved a hundred years ago before it all went pear-shaped on them. And now they are making the same mistake again.

Regardless of this, your analogy doesn't fit. We all know that folks performing magic tricks aren't performing real magic (whatever that is).

We know this because we didn't abandon the principle of causality at the drop of a hat and we had it properly investigated. If we hadn't done this, we would still be living in the Dark Ages and believing in witches and sorcerers and the like.

That's one of the biggest problems with current hoo-haa surrounding quantum physics. It is helping to foster a Dark Ages mentality in the general population.

Perhaps it's possible that someone can really make doves appear out of thin air, and perhaps it's possible that hidden variables exist that allow for universal causation to be true, but I find such things unlikely. Just because necessary universal causation is conceivable and intuitively powerful, doesn't make it a necessary truth. I find the iron grip that some have on the notion to be counter to the very spirit of freethinking.

I agree that it is good to be free-thinking, but it shouldn't come at the expense of rationality. Abandoning a perfectly sound philosophic principle on the basis of some passing whim in science is not intelligent, and not a good example of free-thinking. If anything, I would call it severe short-sightedness.

I consider the idea that "all things are caused" to be a logical truth which cannot be refuted once you see it. In other words, it is necessarily the case that all things are caused, due to the fact that non-causality is an irrational concept.

If you're interested, I have written quite a bit on the subject here.

-

Dave Hodges wrote:

DQ: Now, of course, there could be hidden variables in play, but such things aren't seen as necessary anymore. It seems that God actually does play dice with the universe.

DH: It's not that hidden variables aren't "seen as necessary", it's that Bell's theorem kinda rules them out. As far as I know, you are stuck with either a non-local interpretation, or that Many Worlds thing.

Or a local interpretation involving faster-than-light travel, or intrusions from another dimension, or some such thing. There is bound to be a mundane explanation for everything that occurs in the quantum realm. This has always been the case in science, and I dare say always will.

-

David Quinn wrote:That's one of the biggest problems with current hoo-haa surrounding quantum physics. It is helping to foster a Dark Ages mentality in the general population.

Well, that's probably true. The general public always gets a dumbed down version of science that is more or less misleading. It's probably also true of relativity. But the general public likes to interpret things that way.

I consider the idea that "all things are caused" to be a logical truth which cannot be refuted once you see it. In other words, it is necessarily the case that all things are caused, due to the fact that non-causality is an irrational concept.

Things like quantum entanglement, are not denying causality, but finding that it works in a way that is different from how we intuitively think it should. It's a refinement, not a denial, as relativity was a refinement of Newton's work, not a denial.

One reason I prefer the Transactional interpretation I mentioned previously is that it gives you a of mental picture of where the causation is. The waves involved work very much like sound waves, with cancellations and resonances. The sound of a pipe in a pipe organ is not dependant on the structure of a single particle, but depends on the particular arrangement of a large number of particles - the space in which they are arranged. (It should go without saying that this is all highly speculative on my part.) Resonance, in my view, is extremely important. That's hardly a new insight, going back to deBroglie.

In order to really understand this, I think we need a better understanding of space itself than we currently have. I'd turn more to string theory than to QM for insight into that. And I agree that we do not currently have a complete Theory of Everything that ties together cleanly. Maybe we will, someday.

David Quinn wrote, in Wisdom of the Infinite, Chapter 2:

It is often said that this is the very strength of science, that its theories are always tentative and open to falsification. While this is certainly true, it is also its great weakness. Because its theories are always tentative and provisional, it cannot produce the kind of absolute truth and absolute certainty that great philosophers hunger for. Thus, as far as ultimate knowledge is concerned, science is a completely useless tool. Apart from stimulating the mind into exploring the philosophical realm (that is, stimulate it into leaving the scientific realm behind), it has nothing to contribute.

But you ignore the corresponding weakness of philosophy - kind of like the ancient Greeks debating how many teeth a horse has, rather than opening its mouth and taking a look. When philosophers make an error - usually, assuming something that seems perfectly obvious but turns out to be not quite right - they wander down that trail, with no way to tell where they went wrong. They don't have that self-correcting mechanism that science has.

Philosophers, as you say, hunger after absolute truth and certainty - and that very hunger can lead them astray. If your metaphysics predicts a result that does not agree with a large number of experiments, it's probably not the experiments that are in error.

Or a local interpretation involving faster-than-light travel,

I think an interpretation with FTL transfer of information would necessarily be non-local. I think we are pretty much stuck with non-local, even though that conflicts with our intuitive notions of how space works.

David,

After reading what you've written on causation at your site, it seems that you've ignored a very important distinction in terms. There's a difference between "random" and "arbitrary". Random events operate according to probability distributions. If phenomena P can be said to occur 25% of the time, then that event can be said to be random. If one can't reliably give the chance of P, then the event is arbitrary. The placement of electrons in a double slit experiment operates according to a probability distribution, and thus it is random rather then arbitrary. Furthermore, it doesn't follow from the notion that since some cases of P are acausal, where P represents the set of existent events, that all cases of P must then be acausal. It's conceivable that a system could primarily operate in a causal manner with some acausal components.

Nobody is trying to assert that the universe is utterly arbitrary, or even that probability distributions are unaffected by conditions. Given your definition of causality, it's probably not fair to even suggest that quantum phenomena are acausal. Nevertheless, it is fair to suggest that they are indeterminate. Which kind of leads into the rather interesting concept of indeterminate causality. If we view causality as the idea that events are reliant upon their conditions, rather then the common characterization of it as B following from A, then we can say that causality is true independent of the existence of random variables. Obviously this view depends on a redefinition of causality, albeit one that you seem to have already adopted.