Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The implications of quantum physics.
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 39 (340187)
08-15-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mitchellmckain
08-14-2006 6:16 PM


determinism and causality
I had wanted to respond in more depth, but will have to be brief this morning. Thanks nonetheless to admin for promoting this.
I am not sure the determinism issue is as big or necessary a debate at this stage as some have made it out to be, and think in some ways the uncertainty principle is eclipsed by the principle of entanglement, but good job bringing out these issues in the OP.
One of the bigger issues, imo, is causality. I believe QM experiments clearly and undeniably demonstrate non-Einsteinian causality despite the heroic efforts of some to find a way to say they do not. Keep in mind these experiments are not mathemetical constructs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-14-2006 6:16 PM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-15-2006 1:55 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 39 (340577)
08-16-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mitchellmckain
08-15-2006 1:55 PM


Re: determinism and causality
I guess there are different aspects of determinism at issue here. I was thinking of the issue of asserting that randomness is real, and that imo, I think this is a presumption to claim that based on the Uncertaintly principle as it seems to be somewhat eclipsed by entanglement or non-locality.
Determinism meaning there can be no God or free will acting in the universe, I think is wrong clearly, and unsubstantiated as well. Part of the problem, from my perspective, is the erroneous classification of things as supernatural. Supernatural from a scientific perspective does not exist. So if God exists, He is material, natural, whatever....same with angels, spirits, or anything. Definitions of science need to be based on intrinsinc qualities, not relative ones, and so just because we technologically cannot observe or test for something at present, does not mean we could never do so. Just as we can act within the universe and possess a will, and yet are not outside the scope of science; so God too can and does act. There is no reason to impute God's actions to changing the laws of the universe, as God just as easily could have programmed back-doors and loopholes to deny classical physical ideas on what is possible, and as we march forward in physics, it appears QM begins to show us some of those loopholes, etc,....
So the whole determinism thing is, imo, incredibly flawed as a starting point of discussion, and just plain wrong, but that doesn't mean that randomness is correct either, imo.
Each physical event of the process is now open to the possibility of non-physical causation.
I hear what you are saying. I would say it this way though. What consitutes physical has changed, or perhaps we should say that nothing is inherently physical, but what we considered physical in the past was just a by-product of the wave-function and so a secondary and derived quality that may or may not exist while the thing itself continues to exist according to the energy design known as a wave-function.
In other words, QM already definitely demonstrates non-physical qualities and causation defining and acting on the physical world, and indeed all causation begins as non-physical.
We also see the non-physical with the human will. The human will acts upon the body and the world and so we see the non-material affecting the material in everyday experience.
This opens up the possibility of an itermediate pov which accepts both scientific description of evolution and an underlying reality of God creative participation.
In other words, the strange world of QM may help return some sciences to common sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-15-2006 1:55 PM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-17-2006 12:37 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 39 (340582)
08-16-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mitchellmckain
08-14-2006 6:16 PM


causality
Something else which suggests that in going beyond the physical universe in search for causality, we must abandon the usual scientific idea of causality is the trend of modern physics to see time, as part of the structure of the physical universe and the idea that the Big Bang was the origin of both time and space as well as all the matter in it. Time is a part of the mathematical relationships which tie all parts of the physical universe together into a definite whole. This suggests that in looking outside this structure in a non-definite aspect of reality, we may be looking outside of the time and space, which is a part of this structure, as well. But if this is the case then the scientific idea of cause always preceding effects loses some of its clarity.
Your last line suggests you think perhaps QM and physics in general is in the process of weaking the concept of linear causality, and by linear I just mean the cause preceding the effect in time. That's where I think things are heading, and that we need to go ahead and drop the hoary myth of a static time-line.
The cause precedes the effect but the perspective of time as linear is wrong. Time is a measurement of change, and imo, some changes happen from the present affecting the past, and it could well be some changes affect things as a whole. As someone here suggested, we should see the earth as a streak in space-time rather than a ball passing through time. I wonder if there are not events that can vibrate and affect the whole streak.
My suspicions are that alternate histories are probably real, but not comfortable with the idea that all alternative histories are always present and real beyond mere potentials, but then again, if that were the case, then the many-worlds interpretation may not be needed. The Many-Minds seems a little more on target to me as a layman. Maybe this thread can illuminate the idea a little more?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-14-2006 6:16 PM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-17-2006 12:47 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 39 (340711)
08-17-2006 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mitchellmckain
08-17-2006 12:37 AM


Re: determinism and causality
A non-local aspect of reality is not acceptable within the framework of physics. It violates the Minkowsky structure of space-time, therefore any non-local aspect of reality is also non-physical.
Or another way to say this is reality is not only physical, right?
Causality for some events in quantum mechanics without physical cause can possibly be found in a non-physical non-local aspect of reality, but deterministic nonrandom causation for all such events is unreasonable.
I think we are on the same page, but not exactly sure....Determinism as you use it, and I think of it can be a little different, and perhaps I am not hearing the physics term of the word. Maybe random here is a relative term? I definitely agree that physical causation alone cannot explain reality, and that reality supercedes the subluminal universe we think of as physical reality.
Yes this word "supernatural" perpetrates a fraud, but I don't think you have quite explained what that fraud is yet.
I don't follow this. How can the term supernatural apply to anything as far as science. Nothing is supernatural according to a valid perspective of science.
Science must be based on what it always has been (that which is objectively observable or measurable only), because that is what works.
I think there is some confusion here. Working science must be based on what is observable or measurable, but that is relative to what can be measured today by our technology. So just because something cannot be measured today does not mean it is outside of the purview of science forever. So people that say positing that God or some spiritual force could be involved is a violation of science because it defies the definition of science are wrong. It may be it is outside the potential of present science, and so is theoritical, such as with string theory, but it is not outside the scope of science. Science just hasn't grown enough technologically to assess the matter fully.
It is philosophy which must change NOT SCIENCE!!!! It is the philosophy that science is a complete descripiton of reality which must be abandoned.
Well, of course that philosophy is absurd. Science is limited to technology, but I am talking about what science can even, by definition, theoritically assess. To say that science cannot assess something because it is supernatural is a fraud. If it can be detected or experienced by humans, then the potential is there for science one day to assess it, but that is not the same as arguing that if science cannot assess it, that it is wrong. Science is very limited always as a practical manner, but saying science cannot even address something theoritically is wrong, imo.
I truly believe that this property of being objectively observable or measurable is the defining difference between what is physical and what is spiritual. Let me explain. Energy is the substance of being. Everything which exists is a form of energy. But everything which is physical is really part of one enormous unified form of energy which we call the physical universe. Every bit of this energy is governed by deterministic mathematical laws which are defined by its complex geometrical shape or form in 10 dimension. Things of the spirit are also forms of energy but they are not a part of the huge mathematical structure or form that we call the physical universe. They interact with the physical universe from outside these mathematical relationships of time and space, so where you find this interaction is where the mathematical relationships end or fail - quantum physics - the true boundary of the physical world.
A few points and forgive the argumentative posting style here....some other threads probably affecting my posting here.
1. Spiritual things by all account possess energy which interacts with the physical world. (note I see you covered this later, but the interaction still suggests principles and order and so potentially mathematical descriptions).
2. I tend to think of the spiritual arena, or part of it, as most likely some of the 10 dimensions you mentioned.
3. I disagree that everything is controlled by deterministic mathematical forumulas. Is the human will truly controlled by such formulas?
4. If we are talking laws so that the structure of physical reality is controlled by deterministic mathematical formulas, there are laws for the spiritual arena as well, and not only just as strict, but if you accept the Bible and even other spiritual traditions, even more strict, and so it may well be those laws, like physical "laws" can be expressed as mathematical forumulas as well, if we can advance that far in math.
5. You mention QM as the true boundary of the physical world, and thus presumably where it intersects with the spiritual world, and I agree. But terms like physical and spiritual are just different descriptions of subsets of reality.
6. QM describes an ordered world nonetheless. So I am not so sure the following is correct.
Things of the spirit are also forms of energy but they are not a part of the huge mathematical structure or form that we call the physical universe. They interact with the physical universe from outside these mathematical relationships of time and space, so where you find this interaction is where the mathematical relationships end or fail - quantum physics - the true boundary of the physical world.
I guess what I am saying is we agree on a lot, but I think it's premature to say we cannot discover a mathematical description of the spiritual arena.
But God is not a part of this structure of energy
Are you sure? Paul states "In Him we live and move and have our being," and he wasn't talking to Christians when he said that, but referred to Greek philosophy, and so posited an immanent aspect to God's being. There are other spiritual traditions that emphasize this immanent aspect, some overemphasize it probably.
God and other things of the spirit are not objectively observable or measurable.
How can you be sure? I can accept there are aspects of God that are off-limits, but you said yourself we see in QM the intersection of the spiritual with the physical. If we see the effects (the intersection) then we are in a sense measuring something spiritual, right? We have accepted gravity for a long time but not measured it directly or hadn't done so for a long time if we even have now.
So I wouldn't say we cannot measure or detect spiritual things, and think we actually are measuring and detecting spiritual realms within QM.
It is the same thing that makes the spirit not be bound by these mathematical or deterministic laws and therfore not subject to death or corruption.
But the spirit is bound by laws, just different laws than those that govern matter.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-17-2006 12:37 AM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-17-2006 7:06 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 39 (340712)
08-17-2006 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mitchellmckain
08-17-2006 12:47 AM


Re: causality
Absolutely not!!! I was very clear about this. It is a matter of philosophy NOT SCIENCE.
Well, how do you explain that a later measurement of a photon's path affects the photon's path before the measurement as shown in the delayed-choice experiments? I am not talking philosophy, but real science. I also find it curious that though you consider the effects seen in QM as the result of the boundary or intersection with the spiritual realm, that you do not see those effects as indications or detection of the spiritual realm.
The Everett MWI may be useful in physics like the complex extention of a mathematical function into the imaginary plane, but I too, do not think there is any scientific or philosophical value in seeing these other worlds as anything but unrealized possibilities.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think reality can have a spatial aspect within the timeline so that what we think of as a strict causal, single time-line is really a mix of closely related, interdependent timelines. I think as science advances, we will come to acknowledge the past is not static, and the present can have a causal effect on the past, but these effects are much smaller in nature that the present leading to the next moment (if you want to describe it that way). Nevertheless, over time, these changes add up and with more time, the greater effects; the idea that the past remains the same being incorrect.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-17-2006 12:47 AM mitchellmckain has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 39 (340713)
08-17-2006 1:52 AM


General questions for whoever....
Albert Einstein, with his students Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky, were the first to point out thats the mathematics of quantum mechanics entails apparent these apparent non-local connections. They used them to argue that the quantum theory must be incomplete. In an article known as the EPR paper4, published in 1935, they pointed out that by making a measurement of the momentum of one particle, it is possible to accurately guage the momentum of another with which it has previously interacted. This implies at least one of two things: Either the quantum theory is incomplete, and incorrect in its assertion that the second particle does not have a definite momentum before it is measured; or else the measurement of the first particle somehow determines the state of the other, however far away it is. Einstein called this ”spooky action at a distance’ - spooky because there is no known mechanism for such an interaction, and because it would entail that things can be affected by events which, in some frame of reference, haven't happened yet. The paper concluded that a particle must have a definite state whether we look at it or not.
http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html
If measuring a particle causes the collapse into a definite state, then the entangled particle exists either in an undetermined state before the measurement, or is affected by the collapse instantly so that we see "spooky action at a distance" in a manner violating causality, right?
So particles either exist in an intrinsincly undefined state and take on form only upon some observation event, or the potential to be observed perhaps (some delayed-choice experiments suggest that), or they do exist in a physical state with some sort of non-local connection between the 2. Either way, causality is violated, correct?
And yet, despite the mountain of evidence demonstrating such violations of causality, it seems the scientific community is loathe to depart from the concept. My first question is why?
My 2nd question is if the human will by deciding to measure one way, has a determinative effect by the mere question it asks, then is the human will and consciousness not part of physical reality? In other words, a particle takes on form only when it is possible theoritically to determine what form it took, right? Some have posited an information exhange, the It from Bit line of reasoning. But without someone existing for that information to potentially be recognized by an observer, then matter doesn't exist in a form it seems? If that's the case, then one cannot claim there are only physical causes at work in observed physical processes, unless human awareness and consciousness are considered physical, and even then, it's not strictly deterministic unless the human will is deterministic, right? Believe it or not, that's all suppossed to be subsets of the 2nd question.
It appears QM demonstrates a deeper realm interacting within the subluminal or luminal universe we call physical reality, and we see that such interactions do not obey causality as we think of it, and indeed it appears that a later action can affect a prior state and history, or determine a definite history out of a multitude of potential histories, and so the past is affected by the present.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2006 3:28 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 39 (340833)
08-17-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Parasomnium
08-17-2006 3:28 AM


Re: General questions for whoever....
I realize I don't need to tell you this, Randman, you know all this. But it was the confusing way you described it that prompted me to write this.
Thanks for helping to make it clear.
If there is a lot of evidence for a concept, why would it be strange that science does not want to abandon it?
I may not have been as clear. There is evidence demonstrating a "violation of causality." It's easy to skip the violation part of the phrase.
think the term should be applied very loosely, in that a collision between two particles can be called an 'observation' in a quantum-mechanical sense, without the involvement of humans - or any other conscious beings for that matter.
Well, I agree to a degree, and think some experiments have shown the mere threat of observation causes the collapse. This could be a whole thread on it's own, and sometimes I think the information sharing Bit concept could be right, and other times not. There does seem to have to be somewhere, even in the future or background, an observer or potential observer, but I agree that there does not have to be a measurement by a conscious observer in the present to cause the particle to take on discrete and specific form, or at least I think that's right.
What do you mean by "subluminal"?
I mean the opposite of superluminal. Subluminal may or may not be a word, but I just mean all the universe that exists under the speed of light (and really need to qualify that to include the universe at the speed of light as well). In other words, I think there are dimensions of reality, whether one wants to call them spiritual or extra dimensions within string theory or whatever, but they are non-observed, at least directly, and perhaps we should separate the universe within and at the speed of light that we can observe from the other parts of the universe.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2006 3:28 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Admin, posted 08-17-2006 1:28 PM randman has not replied
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 08-17-2006 2:20 PM randman has replied
 Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2006 5:48 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 19 of 39 (340855)
08-17-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
08-17-2006 2:20 PM


Re: General questions for whoever....
GDR, thanks for the quote. It's sort of been a long haul getting that idea out here at this forum on a thread without a lot of pretty intense criticism, and so far, it seems the forum may be ready to accept that this is a reasonable scientific perspective, whether true or not.
Obviously, I think it's true. It's interesting but the idea of linear causality and global consistency is a basic assumption that has not really been tested. It may be there are ways to test the concept, and that small changes and inconsistencies do appear in the present, showing a lack of consistency, but would we ever notice without some form of testing?
I suspect we would chalk it up to bad memory (and for good reason), or something else, maybe an error in reporting, etc,...
But if true, and there is non-linear causality in respect of time, in the sense that the present can affect the past, the future the present, etc,...then this is a very radical departure from some basic perspectives of reality, and is pretty exciting.
It could get a little complex to discuss here, but in terms of the biblical creationism debate, I think one implication is that we would need to look at the Bible verses a little more closely and consider what they do say and don't say, and on the other hand, I think evo assumptions of uniformatarianism would need to be reviewed, and at the least, stating that observations about past events could still be evolving such that confirming that something never occurred is a bit iffy.
What I would expect to see are definite patterns revealing a common structure, but perhaps some inconsistencies in the details due to the evolving aspect of the past, present and future.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 08-17-2006 2:20 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024