the underlying assumptions rig the debate

Firstly, I have often seen it said that supporters of evolution will accept any wild idea rather than admit to the existence of a creator. But the suggestion given here qualifies as exactly the sort of wild and implausible that is meant (more so than the ideas actually attacked by this means).I am far from sure that modifications of the past are in fact possible, but if they are I see no reason that human actions could rewrite reality on a major scale - and if it is possible I woudl expect it to require some very special circumstances which don't seme to apply.Even if miraculous intervention is assumed then we are still left with the dubious theology of God either causing the effects Himself or setting up what amounts to a booby-trap.If, on the other hand we assume that ordinary human actions can rewrite the past wholesale then pretty much anything goes. We could blame anybody for anything. If I suggest that Fall occurred because Randman started this thread there's no way to show that that is wrong.The whole idea is non-productive and that is an excellent reason for keeping it out of the vast majority of discussions.I would finally suggest that it would be very odd to suggest that a debate was "rigged" because one side wasn't biased enough.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

My point is that the past is not materially affected. At the macroscopic scale nothing noticable has changed at all. But your argument requires a wholesale rewriting of the past at the macroscopic level. In short your assertions go way beyond what you are able to support, and it is entirely possible to reject your views without rejecting quantum entanglement.

quote:

---

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.

---

That is wrong, wrong wrong. There may be parts of the past that remain indeterminate but that does not entail that those parts of the past that have been determined could be changed.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you are referring to the so-called "delayed choice" experiments, they offer no support for such an idea. They don't even try to measure the role of consciousness and there is no reason to suppose the results would be any different if the conscious choice were to be replaced by an unthinking mechanical choice.

quote:

---

Suffice to say, you agree that the past is not static.

---

That would be misleading. I do not agree that the macroscopic past can be changed through QM. You'd do much better appealing to GR. But even then you'd still have to deal with the arguments in my first post to this thread.

The past is not materially affected because the newly determined state is consistent with all past observations. Only future observations can potentially be affected.

quote:

---

There may be parts of the past that remain indeterminate but that does not entail that those parts of the past that have been determined could be changed.

​

Why not? You admit that some parts of the past are indeterminate, or are determined later by events in the present. So should we assume these changes cannot affect the past? Your logic makes no sense. Causing an indeterminate area to be determined is by definition a change.

---

It would be better for you to explain why it is entailed. However, if the only change possible is for an object in a superposition of states to be fixed in a single state then naturally objects that are already in a determined state will not be affected. As I have pointed out the only "changes" available to you leave past observations unaffected.

quote:

---

So? How is that relevant at al l to the fact that the delayed-choice still affects the wave function as if the choice was not delayed; that the photon still travels one route and does so before the choice?

---

As should be clear from the context my point is that the delayed choice experiments do not test for any role for consciousness. There is no reason to beleive that a "choice" contolled by a random number generator would produce any different result. Conscious choice as such may not play any significant role.

quote:

---

I do not agree that the macroscopic past can be changed through QM.

​

Everyone is entitled to their faith, but that doesn't make it a correct scientific argument.

---

And that works both ways. You have only faith that changes to the macroscopic past are possible through QM.As I understand it, the science tends to support my position over yours, and with the philosophical and theological problems with your position brought out in my first message to this thread it's hard to see why you keep arguing. kEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The past is not materially affected because the newly determined state is consistent with all past observations.

​

Care to prove or substantiate that? That is your assumption, and that's the point here.

---

I'm only stating my position here, which is to my understanding consistent with QM. If you claim that it is wrong it is up to you to substantiate your position.

quote:

---

The quantum eraser experiments have proven that "determined" states can be undone, despite physicists thinking otherwise for decades. A collapse of the wave function to particle-like path and behaviour can be reversed, correct?

---

To the best of my understanding they do not affect the past in the way you suggest. In fact they work by erasing the influence of the past - according to the link you provide they render it impossible for past observations to be contradicted.From your own link: This seems to support my view that past observations are not contradicted. If they could be then why would we need to erase the information that might produce a contradiction ?

quote:

---

Why not be openminded here and consider the possibility, or better yet, the likelihood that indeed the past is not determined, but can be affected, but those affects are small at any given point in time, but multiplied over all points in time, they add up.

---

I have already given reaons why your hypothesis is sterile. In the absence of significant arguments for it, why should I consider it any further than I have. Why can't you be openminded enough to admit that your idea is simply speculation and quite likely false ?

quote:

---

I think you and Percy as well are mixing up thread topics. I have talked about the role of consciousness on other threads, but it matters not a whit for the scope of this discussion

---

Since I was responding directly to one of your comments, made in this thread, and quoted in the earlier reply it seems unlikely that I am mixing up threads.As to your long quote, lets get to the meat:

quote:

---

The pathway of the photon BEFORE the measurement is affected if the measurement is such that information can be conveyed.

---

And the way it is affected is that instead of being a superoposition of states it is one single state. That's it. In other words it presents absolutely no support for your idea.I'm not sure how well supported Zeilinger's ideas on entanglement in macroscopic objects are. Certainly my own reading indicates that the idea that macroscopic changes automatically collapse the wave function was widely held.

quote:

---

That's correct. You are stating your position (an assumption) without any substantiation.

---

Which does substantiate my posiiton on the actual point at issue - whether it is possible to disagree with your ideas without disagreeing with quantum entanglement.As for the quantum eraser it is specifically described as erasing information which would make it possible to track the photon's path. Thus it works by removing any way of telling that the photon's path had "changed". I repeat my point - if it is possible to simply change the past as you suggest, why is such a thing needed ? If your view were correct, what difference could it make ?

quote:

---

And the way it is affected is that instead of being a superoposition of states it is one single state. That's it. In other words it presents absolutely no support for your idea.

​

How is that not hard evidence of what I am talking about, PaulK. There is clearly a definite change in what the photon does, behaving more like a particle or more like a wave. It is affected, right?

---

Your assertion is that the past can be changed form one fixed state to another. Changing from a superposition of states to a fixed state is not that and does not support that.

quote:

---

That's what the experiment is showing. It doesn't explain this coorelation between potential knowledge and the wave-function, but it does demonstrate it.

---

Which is why it is evidence against your position. It relies on information not being available even in principle. But your view requires changing a lot of information that was knowable in principle. Thus the experiment contradicts your claims.

quote:

---

I'm not sure how well supported Zeilinger's ideas on entanglement in macroscopic objects are. Certainly my own reading indicates that the idea that macroscopic changes automatically collapse the wave function was widely held.

As was the idea that the quantum eraser was totally impossible, but we see that was not the case, don't we?

---

If the best you can do is point out that a tentative point might be wrong then it seems that you don't have much of a case.s

quote:

---

No, I am arguing that there is no reason at all to claim the past has a fixed state, and I have provided ample evidence both in forms of quotes from prominent scientists and hard lab experiments to demonstrate this is something both the data and respected scientists like Wheeler agree with.

---

I beleive that this is an equivocation. I was referring to the distnction between a superposition of states and the "collapsed" state. nless you are claimign that there is no collapse and that everytihng always exists in a superposition of states (which makes nonsense of your position) you are claiming that the past is changed from one collapsed state to a different collapsed state.

quote:

---

You have offered incredulity.

---

As I reminded you in the first place this discussion started because you denied that my position was even possible.Further I will point out that I have directly addressed your interpretations of the experiments you referred to and pointed out flaws.
According to the very experiments you referred to the superposition of states only exists when the information that would allow us to narrow down to a single state is not available. Yet the only "changes" in the experiemnts rely on superposition. It is no argument from incredulity to state that that proves that the experiments you brought up do not support you claims

quote:

---

Changing from a superposition of states to a fixed state is not that and does not support that.

​

What do you think it is then? Superposition (all possible paths) collapsing to one single path and then back again is not a change in your opinion?

---

Changing from a superposition of states to a collapsed state is not the same as changing from a collapsed state to another collapsed state. The closest you have got requires the use of a quantum eraser which makes the previous collapsed state unknwable in principle. Needless to say there is nothing to perform such a role in your original argument nor any prospect of such a thing.


quote:

---

In the delayed-choice and other experiments, does the ability to know which path a photon took coorealate to whether it travels on one path as a particle or on all possible paths as a wave?

---

I have already explicitly stated that according to your sources if the path information is knowable the superposition is collapsed. Thus the photon is forced to follow a single path.So your two questions are not about points under dispute.Your view requires that a path a photon takes can be changed, retroactively, even when the path information is knowable. That is contrary to what your sources claim.

quote:

---

I don't think you are appreciating what these experiments show. The experiments suggest that a superposition exists until someone sets up or there is set up a means of determining one single path.

---

You need a more general case. If the state is knowbale then a superposition of states cannot exist. Which is a big problem for your ideas.

quote:

---

As such, this depicts reality and past reality as existing either in a multitude of possible and yet real realities simultaneously, or in an unreal or undefined state as Wheeler claims, until as it were a question is asked of it.

---

No, according to your sources it is enough that the answer is knowable. Asking the question isn't necessary.

quote:

---

That is, no matter how much you want to dismiss it, evidence that the question in the present has a determinative effect or coorelates to what the past become

---

However, as I have pointed out it does not occur in a way that changes one collapsed state directly to another. As I keep having to repeat the only change available is the change from a superposition of states to a single state, a changee that can only be reversed by erasing the information that would allow us to know the collapsed state . That is not what your argument requires. You need a change from a collapsed state to a different collapsed state, and you've got no sign of anything like a quantum eraser that could affect an entire planet.

quote:

---

Now, you can claim all you want that this never violates previous observations

---

Which your sources seem to agree with - hence the need for quantum erasers.

quote:

---

...but in making that statement you are ignoring a fundamental issue, and that is that asking the same set of reality a different question using a different means can yield a different result as the quantum eraser demonstrates

---

No, I am not ignroing that issue. I make explicit reference to what quantum erasers do. You can get a different result only if you eliminate the information that would let you know the first result. That is what is "erased".

quote:

---

That shows there is some flexibility in what we think of as the past, just as I have been saying all along.

---

Uhfortunately for you that isn't all you were saying. You were claiming that the past is completely fluid. Your own sources explicitly refer to limits which are extremely problematic for your view. Quantum erasers - or rather the need for them - are a big problem for you. So is the idea that the knowability of a photon's path - rather than actual observation - produces a collapse. Both of these make the past more difficult to change - in ways that cause great problems for the idea expressed in your OP.

It's time to go back to the OP.Your example was that at one point death did not exist then Adam did something and as a consequence the past changed so that death DID exist.The initial point cannot be a superposition of states including states where death does not exist. Otherwise you could not claim that death did not exist.If it is a superposition of states excluding the possiblity of death then you are stuck. There's no way to change that.So youmust be referring to a collapsed state - and therefore you need to somehow produce a superposition of states which does include the possiblity of death. And according to your own sources that requires erasing all the information that would allow us to determine whether death did or not exist in that past. This is why the issue of knowability and the requirement for quantum erasers hurts your case. (And contrary to your assertion I've explained why several times).So how exactly is Adam supposed to do all that and then somehow produce the collapse which results in the presence of death ?The same goes for any other significant change in the past. The evidence of that past has to be erased - rendered completely unavailable even in principle - before any such change can take place. According to your own sources.

No, I'm not jumping ahead. I'm just clarifying the objections I have already made by pointing out the claims made in the OP which run into trouble with the sources you have produced.

quote:

---

First, I have shown one way that a superposition can exist; then not exist but instead a collapsed state, and then a superposition exists again, and that the quantum eraser shows that

---

And it is evidence that your ideas don't work in reality. The quantum eraser arranges the situation such that the "original" collapse can have no effect - the path of the photon is rendered unknowable - that is how it works. So the whole situation is such that even if the path after the second "collapse" were different it could not be known. So the actual impact on the rest of the universe is zero.

quote:

---

Now, of course, we are dealing with a book and story, that if we are to accept it, contains God Almighty directly intevening and working, and so you really cannot assess the story's events ruling out God.

---

However, if you are trying to construct an argument that your view is scientifically plausible then appealing to miracles is pointless. If you need miracles, then your view isn't scientifically plausible. So why bother ? Why not just say it's a miracle and have done ?

quote:

---

I think there is some sense you may be missing things here. When Adam was alive and had not sinned, to say the universe then or now was fully in a collapsed state is probably wrong.

---

That is a red herring. To say that death does not exist, Either the state is collapsed to the extent that death does not exist, or it is in a superposition of states excluding death.

quote:

---

With the introduction of the knowledge of good and evil, there would be for every new situation a new way to "know" something about it.

---

Morality is not part of QM. Moreover if morality is objective the information available in principle would not change. Since your sources are quite explicit that it is the knowability that matters, not even actual measurements, it appears that there is no relevant difference.

quote:

---

1. The change in the waveform reacts based on whether something can be known about it.

---

Actual human knowledge makes no difference. It is enough that an informed observer could determine the result. This point argues against you, even if you somehow managed to incorporate morality into QM in some way that could help you.

quote:

---

2. With the eating of the knowledge of good and evil, a new level and intimacy of knowledge was obtained, and so with that new knowledge, there was something new that could be asked so to speak of everything, and that includes the past.

---

And this is not a relevant point for the reasons given above..

quote:

---

PaulK, you are just not considering all the factors here

---

It seems to me that I am considering factors that you are not. Such as the way in which quantum erasers work.

quote:

---

First, let me reiterate that I showed and you have not responded to how in the quantum eraser experiment, that as "time progresses" or as a photon goes through it's trajectory, that it can change. It can be in superposition, to a single path, back to superposition, and bac again to an entirely new path and everyone one of these changes involves a change, as it were, backwards in time from our vantage point.

---

I repeat my response to this point from the previous post.

quote:

---

The past we know does not necessarily stay the same from our perspective

---

That would be the past that is not and cannot be known. According to your own sources.

quote:

---

So somehow what can be known about something affects it's the discrete form it takes, and this discrete form is generally what people think of as the physical world.

---

Ands this is precisely the poblem for your views. You want changes to the knowable past, which requires you to resort to miracles, thus undermining the whole point of invoking QM and the sources you use.

quote:

---

Well, with the introduction of the knowledge and good and evil to the observers, Adam and Eve, their questions and so what can be made known would change, and so one would expect everything to change.

---

Provided one fails to consider the points that what is in pricniple knowable has not changed and that moral questions are not part of QM. As I pointed out in my last post.

quote:

---

You said that this only happens with a change of what can be known, and I have shown how that circumstances can change what can be known, and so every time there is a change of what can be known, the past changes.

---

But you have not shown that what is in principle knowable changed in any way. ANd the very fact that such "changes" rely on the chnage being completely indetectable rules out any nooticiable change - directly contrary to the major and very noticable changes you invoke.
y

quote:

---

Who is the informed observer here?

---

There doesn't need to be one, according to your own sources. All that matters is what an informed observer COULD determine, if one were there.U

quote:

---

You seem to have missed the point. Let's imagine the scenario where the photon pass through some polarizers and so we could observe which path and they thus take one path. Now, there is the third polarizer that erases that collapse by scrambling the ability to know what path the photon took, but this time it is, say, a month of a light-year away. So a month later, the photons that did take a single path the month before, now in the past took all possible paths.

---

Even if you are right this is no good to you. You want to change the path that the photon did take and you want it to have a significant effect. And your own sources say that that can't happen.

quote:

---

So you could have along this trajectory, 3 different pasts all observed by people. The first group observes a single path. The second group observes the photon as a wave, all paths taken, and the third observes a single path taken (and no reason to think it would be the same as the first group).

---

By my understanding only one of these groups could possibly exist. If there were any measuring apparatus that the first group could use, for instance, the quantum eraser would fail.s

From Randman's link: Edited by PaulK, : Provide reason for edit here.m