Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the underlying assumptions rig the debate
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 246 (322660)
06-17-2006 5:14 PM


general reply to all
Since so many here are making consistently the wrong objection, claiming once again despite them being shown again and again the hard scientific data supporting some non-linear causality, I will just say that you guys can deny the principle of entanglement all day long as Einstein did when he called it "spooky action at a distance" but you are fighting a losing battle. It is a scientific concept, demonstrated via repeatable experiments, and it is a demonstration of non-linear causality, which refutes your assumptions that it is impossible.
From a classical perspective, it does appear impossible, but that's because assumptions about a static past, about a constant flow of time, etc,....were false, and yet you guys still formulate arguments based on those false assumptions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2006 5:29 PM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 246 (322666)
06-17-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
06-17-2006 5:14 PM


Re: general reply to all
I am not disagreeing with quantum entanglement. Nor did I see anyone else disagree with quantum entanglement. Your "general reply to all" seems to be nothing of the sort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 18 of 246 (322675)
06-17-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
06-17-2006 5:29 PM


Re: general reply to all
Maybe you are not seeing the point. You guys assert there is no scientific evidence for non-linear (time-wise) causality, but the classic 2-slit experiment and the principle of entanglement demonstrate exactly what you claim cannot happen.
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0402/0402127.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2006 5:29 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2006 6:03 PM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 246 (322677)
06-17-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by randman
06-17-2006 5:53 PM


Re: general reply to all
No, my position is that at the quantum level the past is often not written in the first place. From this point of view the "delayed choice" experiments indicate that an indeterminate past can be forced into a determinate state - not that there was a determiante past which changed.
Your ideas not only require that a determinate past may be changed, they also require that this occurs on the macroscopic level as well as the quantum level. That is also not required by quantum entanglemnet (or quantum theory in general).
So in short it is not that I miss your pont - the equation of quantum entanglement with the rewriting of the macroscopic past - it is simply that I reject it as false - because it IS false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 6:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 20 of 246 (322681)
06-17-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
06-17-2006 5:04 PM


Re: Yes it's possible
In other words, this is hard experimentally evidence of causality from the present onto the past through QM principles $(possibly via entanglement with the particle with it's past state).
No, it's not. How many times...
Causality lies at the heart of QM. There have been no repeatable sound experiments that have EVER suggested a breakdown in causality... ever. Entanglement has nothing to do with causality.
Those interpretations that you like using advanced wave solutions actually impress a more *fixed* view of space-time, coinciding with the relativistic view of a solid interwoven fabric of space-time, and causality is not only preserved, it is immutable.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: in no way does QM does support your viewpoint.
So contrary to your claim, my claim is not philosophical but based on hard, scientific experimental data in the 2-slit experiment and over 80 years of experiments in quantum physics, experiments that can be and are reproduced in the lab, and not merely inferences from data as evos do about the past.
Oh dear...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 6:40 PM cavediver has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 246 (322685)
06-17-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by cavediver
06-17-2006 6:33 PM


Re: Yes it's possible
No, it's not. How many times...
You always emphatically state it, usually with some misrepresentation of what I said, and then as we get into the details, you are forced to admit to the details, and then you refuse to discuss it any longer.
How long will we have to go around the merry-go-around before you accept the implications of QM? I know it's related to your field, but you reject the implications of it over and over again, which is one reason, imo, you misrepresent me.
Tell you what though. Here is your chance to shine and explain this paper. I draw my ideas straight from the 2-slit experiment, which is not "just math" and can be demonstrated without math, but you always claim the math is the key. Well, these guys talk the math, in ways over most of our heads but presumably not over your's. So let's hear it. They claim the principle of entanglement based on math and experiments means that entanglement can occur over segments of time.
Here it is.
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0402/0402127.pdf
Rather than assert yourself as an authority and arguing from authority, make bare assertions that I am wrong, explain what these guys are saying and how they are wrong in your view.
Moreover, please don't misrepresent me. I know you are or claim to be a Christian. So be honest. You know full well I am not arguing causility isn't true. I am saying causility can and does occur over perdiods of time such that it is not always linear time-wise (present events can affect the past).
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 06-17-2006 6:33 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 06-17-2006 7:29 PM randman has replied
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 06-17-2006 7:31 PM randman has not replied
 Message 31 by cavediver, posted 06-17-2006 7:48 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 22 of 246 (322690)
06-17-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
06-17-2006 6:03 PM


Re: general reply to all
No, my position is that at the quantum level the past is often not written in the first place. From this point of view the "delayed choice" experiments indicate that an indeterminate past can be forced into a determinate state - not that there was a determiante past which changed.
OK, so you are beginning to get some of what I am talking about. Keep in mind that the universe consists of the quantum world, or is built up from the quantum world, may be a better way to say it.
So you are saying that a present can occur which there was no determinate past, but that when the present occurs, the past is then determined.
How is this not a demonstration that a present event can determine and thus have a causal effect on the past?
Your ideas not only require that a determinate past may be changed, they also require that this occurs on the macroscopic level as well as the quantum level. That is also not required by quantum entanglemnet (or quantum theory in general).
No. Not at all. The past as part of the whole is never completely fixed if there are present events that can determine, as you say, the past in any fashion at all. As far as the differences in micro and macro level, I would say, although I could be wrong, that it is likely the present events determining and thus having a causal effect on the past are smaller, much smaller, than the linear causality of macro-objects "seeming to" propogate in time (false concept), but you get the point. Linear causation is bigger at any point in time.
But there are 2 kickers you may be ignoring. One is the fact that the longer time elapses, the more those smaller effects add up. That's why at any point in time it appears that causality is from point A to point B, but over millions and billions of years and compounded as that time span is elongated (the past present can affect the past past if you get that), then one would expect a considerable expansion and perhaps contraction of the time-line.
Regardless, the reality is that the past is not static (by your own admission) since it is not determined.
Small quantum effects compounded and added to massive locations in space and time add up to large macro effects as the macro world is produced by the interactions of the quantum world.
There is also the intrigueing notion of the effects of choice from more conscious observers, but then we are opening a big can of worms.
Suffice to say, you agree that the past is not static.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2006 6:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 06-17-2006 8:08 PM randman has replied
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2006 6:53 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 246 (322697)
06-17-2006 6:55 PM


not trying to reconcile evo with Bible
Keep in mind that I don't accept the Theory of Evolution on factual grounds. So I am not trying to reconcile the Bible here with evolution, as some suggest. I don't even think the Bible suggests a young earth. I do believe that the Bible doesn't necessarily disagree with evolutionary theory except the concept it occurs via chance, etc,..... Imo, the Bible is not scientifically precise enough to rule out various theories except, of course, those that demand the science rule out a personal God.
But this is a side-point dealing with my motive here, and answering critics who presume my motive is last Thursdayism as some have stated.
Edited by randman, : Edit to add reason for putting this post here, but clarifying I don't want to stray from the OP.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 7:06 PM randman has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 24 of 246 (322703)
06-17-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
06-17-2006 6:55 PM


Re: not trying to reconcile evo with Bible
I am suggesting that the Bible doesn't necessarily disagree with evolutionary theory except the concept it occurs via chance, etc,.....
I remember a pastor from my youth, who said that when people talk of "luck" or "chance" they are talking about God working behind the scenes. So I'm not sure why "the concept it occurs via chance" would be a basis for disagreement with ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 6:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 7:13 PM nwr has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 246 (322704)
06-17-2006 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by nwr
06-17-2006 7:06 PM


interesting question
But it's a different topic and I don't want to sidetrack this one, and don't really have time to debate it on a different thread, but maybe some other time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 7:06 PM nwr has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 26 of 246 (322705)
06-17-2006 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
06-17-2006 5:09 PM


Re: QM
Right. Please then provide us the details of where a QM experiment has verifiably altered the past. This being a science forum and all.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:09 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 7:23 PM Jazzns has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 246 (322707)
06-17-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jazzns
06-17-2006 7:19 PM


Re: QM
altered or determined? Remember that a present action determining past behaviour is a demonstration of the principle of causality flowing from the present towards the past. With that in mind, how about?
the classic 2-slit experiment
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jazzns, posted 06-17-2006 7:19 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jazzns, posted 06-17-2006 10:54 PM randman has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 28 of 246 (322708)
06-17-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
06-17-2006 6:40 PM


Re: Yes it's possible
How long will we have to go around the merry-go-around before you accept the implications of QM?
Hmmm, well you better catch up with all my students as well then and let them know they were taught incorrectly...
I know it's related to your field, but you reject the implications of it over and over again
No, I know the implications, and I'm just pointing out that you have them mistaken.
Tell you what though. Here is your chance to shine and explain this paper
I shone long long ago I have zero need to do it now and here...
But this paper... you mean this unpublished paper? That generated a lot of publicity? I can guess where... that said, you say this may be related to my field. Check out reference [18]. That would have probably been co-authored with me if I had accepted a certain invitation the year before.
Anyway, the paper... it is a fanciful attempt to look at the limits of temporal separability of a quantum state. It is by no means rigorous - probably why it has not achieved publication. In any case, it is not in any way an opening to the present affecting the past in the way you imagine. It has meaning within the micro-era surrounding the "collapse" of a state towards some observable, which is much more formally approached in the decoherent histories approach to QM.
causility can and does occur over perdiods of time such that it is not always linear time-wise (present events can affect the past).
Causality is precisely that that says present events DO NOT affect the past. Anything to the contrary is A-causality. And acausality has no basis in QM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 6:40 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 7:48 PM cavediver has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 29 of 246 (322709)
06-17-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
06-17-2006 6:40 PM


Forum Guidelines Advisory
randman writes:
Moreover, please don't misrepresent me. I know you are or claim to be a Christian. So be honest.
While I concur with your hope to not be misrepresented, by and large this seems to be focusing on the person you're having a discussion with rather than the topic, and you're directing him to be honest. The Forum Guidelines request that you keep discussion focused on the topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 6:40 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 246 (322712)
06-17-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
06-17-2006 7:29 PM


Re: Yes it's possible
So in your view, these leading scientists in their field, which apparently you were attempting to be a part of?, are merely advancing fanciful ideas. Well, it's worth pointing out that that apparently others don't agree with you.
But these problems may be nothing compared to the bombshell that Caslav Brukner of the University of Vienna has just dropped. As if our current understanding of entanglement between widely separated particles were not sketchy enough, Brukner, working with Vedral and two other Imperial College researchers, has uncovered a radical twist. They have shown that moments of time can become entangled too (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127).
They achieved this through a thought experiment that examines how quantum theory links successive measurements of a single quantum system. Measure a photon's polarisation, for example, and you will get a particular result. Do it again some time later, and you will get a second result. What Brukner and Vedral have found is a strange connection between the past and the future: the very act of measuring the photon polarisation a second time can affect how it was polarised earlier on. "It's really surprising," says Vedral.
Page Not Found - Biophysica Incorporated
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.or...
You also failed to make any comments on the math, nor any substantive comments at all here, but once again resort to arguments from authority coupled with bare assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 06-17-2006 7:29 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 06-17-2006 8:05 PM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024