Quantum Mechanics discussion with more than ten words.
Offline There, now I can reply properly.
Seriously, cheaters breaking the ten word rule and expecting me to be able to explain the totality of Quantum Mechanics in ten words...
Bell's inequality proves that the quantum effects in question are without cause of any kind- proven causeless, not just a hidden cause- because if they had a cause, it would create impossible paradoxes in terms of relativity by making possible the propagation of information instantaneously through quantum entangled particles.
To those misguided naysayers:
A negative can be proven far more easily than a positive- I don't know what idiot came up with the "you can't prove a negative" argument, but it doesn't become any rational person. Negatives are proven by demonstrating something to be contradictory with itself, or a proven positive- positives are the hard ones to prove, because one has to demonstrate that it's the only remaining possibility by proving the alternatives negative, or contradictory in some way.
In regards to the proof, though:
Instantaneous information propagation is fine if it's one way, and can't make a round trip- one can't cause paradoxes that way, because the fastest one could send that information back (in this hypothetical universe where it's only possible one-way) would be the speed of light, and so you'd only get the information back at the time you received it. If it propagated instantly in both directions, that would allow information to propagate backwards in time and interfere with its sending, or its own nature.
All sorts of crazy.
Anyway, not only can no variable be sampled to tell us what the particle will be, no variable can exist to give this information until after the event of "collapse".
Bell's, in the context of quantum entanglement and relativity, proves well enough that the information in the universe is non-causal in nature (So much for creator deities). This doesn't mean it isn't explained- Einstein was right to reject Copenhagen's interpretation, as it is absurd; he didn't live long enough to get the concepts behind many-worlds (which explains it, or necessitates it), however unfortunate.
- Login to post comments
Added Bob's post here so I respond to a single thread.
@Blake- So you are saying, "theory says nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Quantum entanglement seems to happen faster than the speed of light, therefor quantum entanglement is without cause.". Is that correct?
@Bob-I really do understand what you are saying. *Something* had to happen at some point that is causeless. Either outside of linear time or our understanding of it. To me, the idea that a complex, conscious being always existed or came into existence outside of time without a cause is nonsensical, but something had to happen at some point. If something uncased had to happen it makes more sense that such a thing would be a tiny, simple action, not a very complex one. So I agree with you and I don't have any issue using that idea in debate.
You don't need to prove 100% of every action has a cause though, you know that. All you need to do is show a preponderance of evidence that everything *so far* has a cause and operate under that assumption until such time as that changes. Again, reading about quantum stuff things pop up like alternate universes, etc...OK, that is still a cause though, right, no matter how strange? You agree that it is not possible to show with 100% certainty that quantum effects are causeless. I just don't think the argument is convincing unless you could do that somehow. It is very possible I am just being obtuse at this point though. It just seems like a situation where you are saying, "99.99% of understood reality agrees with our current models about causation. 0.01% does not." To a layperson it seems like either the current models are wrong/incomplete or the 0.01% is misunderstood. From what I gather, there is no unifying theory of quantum mechanics that meshes with the standard models, so isn't it premature to be making proclimations about it at this point? Or am I wrong?
Obviously I am in over my head.
This is one of those things I try to avoid when actually debating theists, because so much of it is conjecture on both sides. Not that it matters, even if you can make a logical case for a prime mover all you've done is gotten to deism, and that is not much of an achievement.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Quantum Theory is extremely successful and well-proven, as a mathematical description of what happens at that level.
What has been continually debated is what is the 'mechanism behind' Quantum scale events. What is it tellings about the ultimate nature of reality.
Then there is the problem of how to reconcile it with Relativity, which is also very accurate at the macro scale, but is not easily reconciled with QT in situations where Quantum effects become significant.
I think it is Relativity which needs to be amended to be consistent with QT at the atomic and subatomic scale.
I think the many-worlds idea simply has every possible next state of the universe actually existing in some sense, no causality involved, and as things progress, less probable states simply fade away in proportion to their degree of improbability.
You could regard the different probabilities, or the factors determining those probabilities, as being the 'cause' of a particular set of outcomes dominating the many-worlds, but that is a very weak sort of 'cause'. Its more like asking what 'causes' a hurricane. All we have is a set of factors - air temperature at different altitudes, sea-surface temperature, air pressure, wind patterns, etc, which all interact and affect each other - which determine the likelihood of a hurricane emerging. It has nothing remotely like a single identifiable 'cause' as imagined in classic cause-effect. Each aspect of the environment affects all the others in a series of feed-back loops. This is exemplified by the classic 'butterfly effect' idea - when you have such complex non-linear feed-back systems, they can be actually infinitely sensitive to changes in one or more variables.
With radioactive decay, the probability of decay can be accurately calculated. You could claim that the combination of factors used in the calculation, which together determine the size of the energy threshold which holds such an atom together, which in turn stops it decaying immediately, are in some sense part of the 'cause' of the decay, when it occurs.
This picture of 'causality' where all you can say is that the state of the universe at one instant 'determines' the probabilities of all the various possible states at the next instant, doesn't fit easily into the simplistic, linear cause-effect chain envisaged by statements like 'everything has a cause'.
The Kalam version, where they concentrate on what causes something to 'begin to exist', rather than just what causes some event, has slightly different implications.
I will have to take a break now - my head hurts...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Calm yourself down, Blake, FFS.
I wasn't "cheating" in the other thread by posting more than ten words because I wasn't debating anyone in my post. You projected that, dude. It wasn't real.
Moreover, although from reading your few posts here I haven't exactly been impressed by your manner or arguments at all, it was YOU that I was agreeing with in my post.
I was on that thread to debate Presup on his Kalaam argument using ten word points. My posts to mellestad were an aside, not a continuation of debate. Not to me anyway... to you maybe, because you saw my theist badge and started cock ho gunning for my philosophical blood without even paying attention to what I had said...
So... since you like to pick semantic nits in an effort to make yourself seem more authoritative I would expect you to articulate your understanding of topics in Quantum physics with word perfect precision. In which case, you're wrong that Bell's inequality proves anything of itself. Bells inequalities are schotastic propositions which can be (and have been) experimentally tested. It is only, in the case that Bell's propositions are violated, that, hidden variable causes are ruled out of Quantum non-local effects.
As for proving a negative assertion, you're right that I shouldn't have phrased it that way, what I should have said was that ruling out a possibly infinite number of yet unknown causal relationships in order to assert that cause is not involved in Quantum Fluctuations is, obviously, unrealistic. But do have very good options for pointing to causelessness even in the absence of a positively proved alternate dynamical system. Like Bell's inequality and the EPR paradox.
Bullshit.
Information cannot travel faster than light, and it doesn't matter if you go one way or both ways. c is the max speed of propagation. It may seem instantaneous on a small scale but over the scale of, say, a light year then it would be far from instantaneous.
Information appearing non-locally in any circumstances suggests propagation backwards in time, since velocity = ds/dt has a max value of c so you have quite simply in the case of instantaneous propagation:
if
1. ds/dt < or = c is absolute and cannot be violated.
2. and the change in s is positive.
Then dt is negative.
Is this your understanding of Bell's inequalities?
I pretty much agree with you here.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Not that nothing can move faster than light; that information can't travel back in time, because it produces paradoxes- this is based on relativistic reference frames, which are based on light speed relativity.
Not seems to be; is instantaneous.
You've excluded a few middle steps and details, but that's a summary of the premises and conclusions.
Not really, no. There is an explanation, but the relationship isn't causal. It is an essential emergent property.
If you want to say something "caused" it, you could possibly stretch the definition to say that logic caused it, but that's pretty weak- just as easily, the lack of contradiction caused it.
It's really not proper cause, though, as it has nothing to do with time or causality, as it was necessary, rather than resultant of a state that preceded it and might not have.
It is possible to say that, but only if you accept the "crazy" and unproven premises like relativity and wave phenomena.
It's not like every satellite in orbit has special software to compensate for the time dilat... oh, wait, it does.
Well, at least we know that waves don't exist, and that everything is a particle. It's not like tunneling electron microscopes function based on the principle of electron wave... wait, shit, they do.
Unless you deny those technologies, you have implicitly accepted the premises. Accepting those premises, the only logical conclusion in reconciliation of the two is uncaused quantum effects, which act as the overwhelming source of information in our universe, and are fully capable of explaining all matter and energy in terms of their known effects.
Not at all. Current theory is perfectly consistent, and 100% of our observations agree with it.
Unless the flying spaghetti monster is slowing down light for us, and tinkering with the atomic clocks in our satellites, and worming his way into every one of our double slit experiments to sabotage our research, and falsifying the clearly visible topographical output of tunneling electron microscopes (which we use to build nanoscale things), in addition to providing a bit of magic mojo to stand in for Bose-Einstein condensates, as well as making black holes look black, and facilitating intelligent falling, then our observations have been correct.
You would have to accept an astronomical level of absurd degrees of intelligent intervention for the purposes of deceiving us in order to question these observed properties.
And then, once you have, all you've done is made the universe make less sense than it currently does.
Information genesis in a reference frame (that includes all matter and energy we can observe) is easily explained, and has been for a long time, in terms of these quantum effects. Non-causality of this creates a sound, logical, source for the universe.
Under the assumption that everything has to have a cause (which goes against observation), the causer still needs a cause, so you really haven't solved anything at all, but just made the universe illogical. A first cause is fundamentally impossible.
You are wrong. There are many theories that reconcile the two- the question for most is which theory is correct. Right now Manyworlds based theories are winning by a long shot. All of those theories, however, involve uncaused quantum events (which are mutually consequential facts to the nature of the universe, but not caused).
QM is a proof against a creator god- any prime mover- however, I wouldn't suggest using it against theists, as they'd have a hard enough time understanding it if they *tried*, much less if they're deliberately trying not to.
It's not just math, look at condensates.
Right, but whether they are locally caused or 'uncaused' isn't really part of the debate anymore. Some people advocate a non-local cause, but they're just kidding themselves- even a non-local cause could violate relativity and propagate information faster than light, resulting in paradox. Either that, or it assumes a false notion of universal simultaneity, which is just beyond silly.
Not so, there are many theories reconciling these- namely many worlds.
Basically, yes.
Blake, in regards to "You cannot prove the negative", I agree with you. I think many posters are confusing that with the statement "You cannot prove non-existence". However, you can prove non-existence if it goes against definitions. For example, I can say that a cubic basketball doesn't exist if it is a common definition that all basketballs are spherical. In fact, I think you can disprove any god where the definitions are laid out and contradictions occur.
It is when the definitions are either way to vague or none are given at all that cannot be logically disproven. I cannot just "disprove" that god doesn't exist if that is all I have to go on. What befuddles most theists is that it isn't my job to disprove a claim. Logically, I must assume the claim to be false unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. So, the burdon of proof lies on whoever makes the claim.
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
I was being flippant, but look at what you said for yourself. You clearly expected me to reply in more than ten words. What marks the difference between an informative post and a debate? I debate informatively. You may not have been debating with me, but I was debating with you.
Chill out. I know what you said, and you clearly told me to support my statements, when I clearly had no more words to do so with.
*yawn*
That's nice, you can believe that if you want. I'm not going to argue with you when you behave this way.
Maybe some different time of the month, eh?
Isn't it impossible to empirically provide evidence for many-worlds?
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
If you say so. Maybe someone can write a book that makes sense to a layperson.
If I have it right, now you are saying we have a unifying theory of physical reality that explains 100% of everything, including quantum events, but then later in your post you say there is disagreement about the underlying cause/nature of QM. Then you say quantum effects are "emergent" which, to me, is another way of saying chaotically complex...not uncaused. If people are postulating causes for the underlying mechanics of QM, they are not causeless are they? Isn't this just what I have been saying the entire time, QM is causless in practice, but perhaps not in theory? If it were causeless in practice and theory why would anyone care about manyworlds or string theory or anything like that?
Also...I am really trying not to be insulted by how you write, but you sort of sound like an arrogant prick. If you care, you might want to work on that.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Evidence for quantum phenomena and gravity act as empirical evidence needed to rationally prove many-worlds. A logical proof of it relies on those premises.
That is not to say that there aren't many variations of the theory that essentially amount to the same result. That is, tomayto-tomahto.
This touches on it:
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Schr%C3%B6dingers-Cat-Quantum-Physics/dp/0553342533
I've read most of it (skimming- a friend had it). It doesn't go far into it, but it would give you some of the basics, from which you could learn the rest.
Yes, largely about whether they are tomaytoes or tomahtoes.
Even some theories that seem extremely different at face value are mostly the same, as the representations they present are effectually identical (they predict the exact same things, and are reducible to the same ideas). It's more in the way it's explained in particular details.
For example, is many-worlds the reflection of the universe being a wave phenomena itself, or are there many distinct universes pealing off from each other? Different ways to explain the same thing.
What causes pi? What causes circles? Do circles cause pi? Does pi cause circles? What causes 2 + 2 =4? Do numbers cause each other?
These are emergent properties of the very concept of mathematical logic.
No, they are causeless, but not without explanation. We care about it because it tells us more about the universe, and may ultimately help us predict and better understand how we can use quantum mechanics. If we know the explanation, we can figure out-without any testing, but through logic and simulation, what else that means.
Thanks for that!
Yeah, and pigs fly backwards.
Don't be such a tool, you debate arrogantly, curtly and asserting authority you don't have. Informative my arse.
So make one ten word post for each point if you must, but argue FFS! don't come the Big shot with bald appeals to your own authority. That's not debate.
That's not an argument.
You can't overwhelm me with claims of your authoritativeness on the topic of Quantum Mechanics. My minor is also in physics, my other minor is chemistry and my major is mathematics, I'm not intimidated by your claim to knowledge, try again.
That's just low. What the hell are you thinking, Blake.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
You are throwing an emotional hissy-fit. Take a breather.
I'm happy to answer your questions if you can behave rationally and politely, otherwise I'm more likely to respond in kind. I'm not keen on having a flame war with you, sorry.
Heh, sounds like TAG for QM. TAQM.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I see two distinct categories of the 'First Cause' argument.
One simply argues that every event requires a cause, with an 'event' being any identifiable change in the Universe.
The other concentrates on those 'events' where something 'begins to exist'.
Changes in state of things which already exist are easily covered by even classical Physics - all that is required is the existence of matter and energy in the Universe, and things will happen.
So the real question is where did Matter/Energy come from, or has it some sense always existed?
The simple response to the Theist is that the same question logically applies to God, so postulating 'God' only introduces an unnecessary entity into the scene without actually explaining anything.
QM and intrinsic randomness, whether a pure randomness or the result of some 'deeper level' process or 'hidden variable', covers the main issue they still try to raise about origins, to justify why the ultimate originator had to be a sentient being, They claim that if whatever preceded our Big Bang had no will, there would be nothing to decide when to trigger the Creation Event at a discrete time within an infinite time line.
Comments?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
You wish you could affect my emotional state so you don't have to, ever, actually, present a rational argument. And we both know this is because you don't have one, you haven't presented me with a single rational well argued reply, just insinuations about my state of health and naked assertions of your gender/learned superiority. That's really just sad.
If I can behave rationally and politely, WTF?
I don't need any questions answered by you, I am well enough educated on this topic.
It's pretty obvious that if anyone here is "responding in kind" it's me. You have been the one ranting and making ad hom attacks from the first post.
I'll believe that when I see it. If you can reply without a single ad hominem, for once, then go right ahead.
Edited: grammar and clarity
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Love is in the air.........
Hmmm come to think of it.... This such misogyny is all to often the mark of a Christian man.
are you faking, Blake?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Right, so it's a logical explanation, and not a scientific one, in that you can't observe another world, correct?
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Absolutely. I think the former has been well understood intuitively since the dawn of reason- of course that didn't stop people from using it. Back in the good old days of caloric fluid and the four(or five) elements that sorted themselves by order to explain gravity and density (earth below water below air etc.)- I don't think anybody intelligent has seriously argued that one since B.C.E.
The latter has been the justification for creationism for a good long while, though- and you're absolutely right in its fatal flaw.
I don't see how a reasonable person can say "all things need a creator" and then allow an uncreated deity- *much* more complex a prospect than an uncreated big bang. They try to rationalize it by saying the deity is something so primal and basic as to be the stuff of reality, but the way they explain the thing, it seems far too anthropomorphised to be remotely reasonable- I don't fault deists this, though, if they don't subscribe to consciousness etc.- but then they aren't effectively saying anything different from the atheist (or anything that amounts to a god).
Ah, but within an infinite time-line, if the ignition is founded on randomness, it is inevitable, is it not?
I believe creationists tend to favor 'hidden variable', as they ascribe this variable to their deity. Of course it is to our advantage that this is disproved- not that it's a big advantage, since they generally won't accept logical disproofs.
Absolutely correct in that, but that can be said of everything that isn't directly observed- which is almost everything. If we accept science, we must also accept logic, because science really relies on it- anytime we disprove something and look for other alternatives it's due to a contradiction.
Even gravity is a logical theory based on empirical evidence (things seem to fall, etc.). Likewise, evolution is a logical consequence of genetic inheritance, mutation, and natural selection- if those things are true, then evolution is true.
I know, right?
Playground confrontation tactic #54:
Well I'm not talking to her, so you can tell her for me that she's a silly-face. So there.
Also, preemptive: No I'm not infinity plus one!
My knowledge of QM is pretty minimal, but I believe the scientific consensus is that faster than light phenomena has been observed, but there is, so far, no way to send information using any of these methods. This includes information propagation "one-way."
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Of course we haven't observed it, even in "one-way", and it's probably impossible. My point was only that it doesn't produce any disastrous logical paradoxes.
I don't submit that it's likely or necessarily possible that we will ever achieve FTL information propagation- because that *is* reverse time travel. However, if it were done only in one direction, it wouldn't create a paradox as such:
-I send information in the positive X direction instantly, one light year away.
-This information has effectively traveled back in time one year, and tells me to buy Google stock.
-My satellite, positioned one light year away, receives the information, and transfers it back to me by laser.
-That laser takes on year to reach me, because it's only traveling at light speed over one light year.
-I receive the message immediately after (or at best the very instant) I send it- it is useless to me.
However, if at any point information is sent in the negative X direction instantly, that would be a violation.
Not saying it's possible, just that, logically, it could be O.K. My point was only that two-way propagation would be absolutely impossible, and that's what quantum entanglement would allow if hidden variables were a viable explanation.
Have you even read a relativity text, Blake?
You claim to be a scientist with a minor degree in physics yet you don't seem to know the first thing about relativity. I'm calling shenanigans.
here you're just trying to rephrase what i said and pass it off as your own... which I've seen you do more than once since you got here.
What's your game, then? are you a theist pretending to be an atheist physical scientist so you can embarrass this forum when you get away with it? So far all i have seen from you is imitation of the respected scientific minds of this forum, like Bob, and snide sidestepping. I haven't seen you post a single point that isn't the exact same thing someone else, smarter than you, said in different words.
And amusingly, every time you ape someone you contradict the last thing you tried to pass off as your own argument.
Am I the only one who has noticed that Blake is not a scientist?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I didn't notice that in my reply. Sorry butterbattle, I misread your post slightly.
By 'it', I was referring to FTL information propagation specifically not having been observed.
However, to nitpick; I don't know that we can really say faster that light phenomena has been observed, as that implies that something is moving- be it energy, matter, or information. That is, there really is no "spooky action at a distance". Many reconciliations, such as many worlds, do not necessarily have anything faster than light occurring; the particular 'branch' has only been isolated/differentiated.
While *we* know instantly what the variable *over there* is, they don't until they measure it, or until we send that information at light speed. Nothing is really moving, so quantum entanglement doesn't really constitute FTL.
Cpt_pineapple, would you please tell Eloise that she's a shenanigans? Also, please pass along the fact that I'm rubber and she's glue, and whatever she says bounces of of me and sticks to... wait, shit, that doesn't rhyme.
Thanks!
I think it's possible that he's a theist, but I'm skeptical.
If you have not seen it already, it might interest you to see this thread.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19790
If we assume that Blake is a theist pretending to be an atheist, then one reason he would have doing this is he thinks that we would be more receptive to arguments for theism if it's coming from a fellow atheist. A one-on-one debate where he's "pretending" to be a theist seems like the perfect opportunity try this tactic. And, in the thread calling for a one-on-one debate, he specifically asked for the other person be relatively less informed and have less experience with debating theists because the purpose of the debate was to educate everyone about theist argumentation, brilliant. This makes logical sense, but it also makes sense for him to do this if he's a theist.
So then, if he's a theist, he's probably not a Creationist. He knows some things about science, but he's probably not a scientist. He could be a misogynistic Christian, as you noted!
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I feel kind of bad looking through his short history, but it's kind of fun to think about what he's doing if he's a theist. It's interesting to observe that he seems to state that he's an atheist a bit more than necessary, almost like he's trying make sure....
See, he invites another debate here.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19205?page=1
Of course, he's also written many posts, which wouldn't seem to support his goal at all, such as posts criticizing Paisley. Unless, under the assumption that he's a theist, these posts are just to fool us into thinking that he's an atheist. If he is a theist pretending to be an atheist, he's very very good at it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
No worries; I can't consider anything on the internet to really be private.
Maybe I feel the need to constantly state I'm an atheist because people always accuse me of being a theist?
I'm just kidding, of course-
I've been accused of being an "omnivore" on pretty much every vegetarian form I've visited (and persistently in-person when debating with animal-rights activists), but this is a first for being accused of being a theist on an atheist forum- it's kind of funny.
Obviously I can't prove I'm an atheist- does saying "I deny the holy spirit!" help? Of course not if I'm secretly a Muslim or something- though I could provide evidence that I've been consistently claiming it, and have been active in secular causes, meet-ups, and argument against theism for the past seven years or so.
I wouldn't be inclined to bother, though, because I believe Eloise's delusional behavior says more about her than it does about me.
I would more be concerned if another atheist was doing it, because there's a certain measure of critical thinking I tend to expect from other atheists; a measure I don't tend to anticipate from theists, regardless of "philosophical" denomination- much less so in this case, as I suspect that the amount of delusion required of a theist to hold such beliefs is generally inversely proportional to the amount of scientific education she he or has had.
I'm not saying I don't accept logic, I'm just trying to figure out why it is better to go with many worlds than it is to go with inherent randomness. Would randomness, as an inherent trait of the universe, actually be illogical? From the standpoint of using Occam's Razor it seems better to say intrinsic randomness than many worlds because many worlds literally makes the universe infinitely more complex. The only thing I see pure randomness violating is determinism, which I didn't think was necessary in logic, given determinism developed from our experience in the rather deterministic realm of classical physics.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Well my suspicion comes from the fact that he's been a member for just under a week. He's taken no time to establish himself a standing in the forum community at all before presenting himself at the badges thread claiming to have a degree in English Arts with a Physics Minor and
1. I don't believe it's possible to even cross faculties that way, can such a quaification even exist? I know it cannot in my university.
2. The guy graduated a degree in english languages yet there are pretty massive holes in his spelling ability. If it were just that I would give him more benefit of the doubt but he also misquotes english colloquialisms frequently, such as saying "hollowed ground" instead of "hallowed ground"
3. He knows a LOT more about Jewish customs and biblical exegesis than he does about relativity or quantum physics.
then he proceeds without the faintest hesitation to strut around the forums professing himself a scientist and quantum theory expert - in the process managing to get basically every detailed exposition he has attempted completely wrong. Oh and did I mention attaching himself as Bob's little fanboy, I can only assume in order that Bob's credibility will mask the weakness in his own arguments.
BB you have miss the most telling one of all. The original one.
You may have reservations BB, but I am absolutely convinced that he's not the genuine article. And I have given a list of very rational reasons so judge for yourself.
Who gave the guy a science freak badge anyway? Like two minutes after he asked for it subsequently five minutes after he arrived at the site. Way to make the badges credible huh? And, did you see any evidence of his claims? An Arts degree with a core science minor?? Incredulous, no?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I found this book ( "Schrodinger's Rabbits: the Many Worlds of Quantum" ) very illuminating about the 'many-worlds' idea, and very interesting and helpful overall in getting my head around many QM ideas.
I actually read it while they still had it on line. Haven't actually got a copy, even an electronic version.
EDIT: Eloise, I am keeping out of the argument you are having with Blake, at least for the moment, partly because we have disagreed with each other on Relativity/Quantum stuff in the past.
I will just say I find little to quarrel with in your recent posts, and I do think Blake's comment on 'time of the month' was over the top.
But I am prepared to take him more-or-less at face value on the QT discussion unless/until I see stronger reasons not too.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Because with just inherent randomness producing a single state your theory needs to account for the lost information.
(now watch arts/physics boy try to make like he knew that)... LOL.
You could go with collapse but it is a postulate that has never made a single inch of headway in a hundred years. It seems to be a lost cause.
Interpretations which preserve the information in some state are what is being validated by the progress in the field - things like teleportation and quantum computing experiments. Many worlds is just such an interpretation, hence it's present popularity..
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Okay, I was just wondering. I'm not that well versed in QM, seeing as my physics classes have really only touched on kinematics... lol
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
I see what you're saying there. If you extend the principle of randomness through an infinite period of time, having random "big bangs" with variable starting energies, one essentially arrives at the same infinitely more complex series of information as does many worlds. So, it's not necessarily less complex-- or even different.
Where I find many worlds more balanced is simply this:
Everything in the universe thus far as been demonstrated to be a true wave; why wouldn't the universe itself be one too? The universe being a wave is essentially what many-worlds is saying (although in a more metaphorical way). *Can* one build a particle of a universe from waves? I believe that therein lies the primary contradiction.
Copenhagen also leads to some very conceptually strange explanations- some would as absurd. Many worlds is clean and symmetrical (not that aesthetics is a proof).
It seems to me that Occam's razor would favor many worlds- particularly as it also offers an explanation of the random information, and just stopping at random fails to do that while still leading into infinite complexity when thought out.
If they both invoke infinite complexity, then neither is simpler... I'm just throwing my two cents around. I don't have any formal education in QM and am trying to make sense of what is being said.
I recall you saying that QM is found causeless, but many-worlds offers an explanation. My confusion is over how something is explained but still causeless.
"Bell's inequality proves that the quantum effects in question are without cause of any kind- proven causeless, not just a hidden cause- because if they had a cause, it would create impossible paradoxes in terms of relativity by making possible the propagation of information instantaneously through quantum entangled particles."
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
It was a joke. My point being mainly that, from my perspective, she is over-reacting to seemingly everything I say.
First she was touchy and accused me of being biased against her arguments because she has a theist badge (This was in another thread), and then she accused me of arrogance for my short comments in reply in the ten word debate thread based on the argument that we weren't arguing (what?).
I don't know what sets her off so easily, but I would rather make light of a situation and joke about it. I just don't get riled up like that, and I don't like to respond to it. I'm not big into forum drama.
I'm also not always very politically correct.
I hope all of you will forgive me if what I said wasn't at all funny here.
I don't have anything against Eloise, beyond her being seemingly irrational- but that's common to all of the theists- and I will debate with a theist if said theist has something remotely sensible to say.
For example, this:
Sensible enough for me to argue against. Wrong, but sensible.
So, in the interest of starting over (if Elois is mature enough to calm down), I'll reply to that point. Olive branch?
There's no need to "account for" lost information- it can simply be lost. If we accept random information genesis as a real thing (and of course I don't), the same principles that allowed that information to come into being can take it back out again.
Namely, by way of the uncertainty principle, as solved for energy and time (I believe), which can allow that energy to come into existence for a short time, and then later leave, paying off that "energy debt". In that same way that otherwise empty space is fizzing with positron and electron pairs popping in and out of existence, objective reality could be fizzing with big bangs and crunches.
There are problems with the idea of random origin being a thing in itself, but I'm fairly certain that lost information is not one of them- although it may make you uncomfortable to think that all of the information in the universe at any point could absolutely be lost forever (to be honest, that would make me a bit uncomfortable too- but the equation is balanced; from random, to random).
Haha, yes, I guess you're right there. But many worlds offers us, in addition to the complexity, an explanation for the randomness, and is perfectly symmetrical- and I think being symmetrical infinite complexity is a bit simpler than being all in a jumble.
Kind of like asking about the cause of circles, or the cause of pi. Why is it 3.1415 etc.? "Because" it's a ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle (or do I have that around backwards? Circumference / Diameter, anyway).
The way we use language implies a causal relationship in everything we say, but that's a flaw of language, which is generally messy, and implies a good many things that aren't true or we just don't mean. I'm not a linguist, so all I can really give as an explanation to that is because [(heh') explanations *usually* are causal in the day to day sense, and language seems to be geared to the most typical. Sort of like how we say "right" when we may mean 'correct' or 'moral'.
I try to be unambiguous, but I've probably said the randomness is because of many worlds before- if so, I didn't mean to imply causality, but merely explanation.
I hope that explains the difference for you.
Not really... What I mean by 'inherent randomness in the universe' is simply that some things can be entirely causeless. You agree with that in what you say about Bell's findings. To me, the many worlds interpretation offers an explanation for why QM appears causeless, when, in the context of many worlds, it isn't causeless. Every feasible state actually exists in some way in reality, meaning that there is no state that exists without cause, since everything logically possible exists at all times. This is the implication I get from the many worlds interpretation. I think.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
But any given state was not caused by any of the others. It's like looking at a number line, pointing arbitrarily at 4 and asking what caused it. Four isn't caused by two plus two, or one plus three- it's defined by its relationship with the others, but they don't cause each other; yet they still all need each other. I'm saying that it isn't "caused", but that it's just a necessary part of that number line.
It's just as easy to say that all of those numbers caused the number line as the other way around- it's an explanatory relationship, but not a causal one.
For an explanatory relationship, though, it is pretty hard to explain... Wave mechanics explain and necessitate many worlds in the same way that many worlds explains and necessitates wave mechanics.
Is that any closer to making sense?
Unless it doesn't.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
They have tried explaining this to me like four times now. If it 'clicks' with you, maybe you can interpret for me.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Granted, I don't know any of this stuff, but I get the impression that QM is not as well understood as some here are saying it is.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
The illusion of entanglement? That does look interesting. Certainly using Bell's relies on that premise (of entanglement).
I kind of mangled that in a copy and paste, so I tried to fix it a bit, but the underlined is really my point. Uncertainty with application to wave mechanics doesn't just hold that we can't measure complete states, but that they don't really exist as collapsed, precise, states by the nature of a wave itself.
The premise here seems to be that uncertainty is wrong, that wave mechanics are wrong; it seems that the writer is assuming hidden variables from the get-go.
However, it is 2:00 a.m. so I may be *completely* misreading this. This probably requires a re-read later.
That's pretty much what Joy Christianson has stated in the past. He is working on a model that assumes causality. He's an interesting read (some of his older papers are pretty interesting, as well).
Really, I have no strong opinion one way or the other. I just thought it might be interesting to mix it up with the idea that Belle's Inequalities were incomplete.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
He's definitely working against the grain there, heh' I think Einstein would have approved though.
I would like to hear his interpretation of Bose-Einstein condensates and double-slit experiments, though- they serve for me as the most physical proof that wave mechanics are a real thing, and that uncertainty is the very explanation of them, rather than deficiencies in our ability to measure.
It is a very interesting idea to consider, but I think any argument from that direction would have to start with observable phenomena that demonstrate the reality of wave mechanics: really, any alternative explanation that provides for/predicts them without uncertainty would be a potentially viable launching point.
There are a couple really awesome fundamentals I suspect you have to really understand before you can fully appreciate the implications of the rest.
First: Double slit experiments- done with light, electrons, elephants (okay, maybe not elephants).
Second: Bose-Einstein condensates. A substance of such ambiguous constituency it has become as one particle.
Intuitive understanding of waves results in intuitive understanding of much of the rest. Unfortunately, it's counter-intuitive.
I see no reason why he couldn't be an English major with a physics minor. It's definitely possible at my university; these two majors would actually be in the same college, "college of arts and science," so although they're quite unrelated, it would be easier for someone to have English/physics than, say, English/mechanical engineering. All you would need to do is take all the necessary classes to fulfill the requirements for each.
http://www.washington.edu/uaa/gateway/advising/majors/minor.php
"Or you might choose to minor in a subject completely unrelated to your major; this is completely legitimate, too. For example, if you major in mechanical engineering but are fascinated by the theatre, you might decide to minor in drama."
Lol. His writing isn't "bad," but I suppose I would expect an English grad to write with a richer vocabulary and a more sophisticated style.
I agree with you to an extent, but it's just not enough to convince me that he's a theist. Even if he's not a scientist, he's still more knowledgeable about QM than me or he's very good at paraphrasing Bob and other sources.
Hmmm. Oh, I saw that one actually; I just didn't link to it.
I have to agree with you on that one. The mods should be a lot more conservative about handing out science freak badges. They should only be given to people who show that they are very knowledgeable in some science fields, not just anyone that likes science. For example, no offense to v4ultingbassist, but he seems to have gotten a badge just for being an engineering undergrad. I'm a physics major, I've been on this forum a lot longer than him, and I've been debating science with theists online for years, so I'm just as qualified to receive a science freak as him, if not more. However, I would never request a science freak badge because I don't think I deserve it. I may know some things about physics and biology, but I don't have a degree, and I'm certainly not an expert.
Anything other than theist or atheist should only be given to established posters, in my opinion.
I don't know.
If we really wanted to find out, we could just ask him questions. We could ask him things that someone with real physics credentials could answer easily, but someone with only a shallow understanding of the topic (e.g. theist high school grad pretending to be atheist scientist) could not.
Lol, here's a topic that usually comes up in Intro to Quantum Mechanics courses to aid with understanding. This should be easy for you, Blake,
Suppose you have some photons polarized in the state:
|psi> = 1/sqrt(2) ( |x> + |y> )
We send this incident light through a Polaroid sheet (often called the analyzer) with transmission direction |x>. What would be the amplitude and the probability for finding a photon after the Polaroid sheet, and explain why.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Actually, English minor- I primarily took classes in British literature, and focused on modernism/post-modernism philosophy of the era. Ask me something about Joyce or Yeats. Wait, actually don't, I've probably forgotten.
My spelling is about as awesome as Einstein's was. I had the benefit of going to university in Texas, where the other students were so much worse than anything I could muster that it didn't affect my grade- also, I halve a spelling chequer, witch is grate.
It's unfortunate for me that making a seldom spelling mistake thoroughly disproves everything I could ever have to say about science, though. I also didn't know that occasional spelling mistakes were evidence of god-belief- that's new one for me.
On an interweb forum? Seriously?
This isn't exactly dissertation quality writing. [accent=Posh] Expression of needlessly elaborate vernacular would only be counterproductive in this endeavor.[/accent]
You might have noted that I disagreed with Bob a few times and answered questions he asked- he's definitely well acquainted with QM, but I think he was a bit less so with Bell's specifically (not that skimming a proof didn't catch him up)- I may be wrong here though, and have misinterpreted something he said.
Bob is probably much more versed in astrophysics, though, than I. I'm particularly weak on star types.
If you're studying science, and it's your field in general, I think it's reasonable to say that you probably deserve one. You seem to know quite a bit more than a layman.
I think that was in basic first year physics.
We used degrees, and that's a strange vector notation ( |x> ? ) , But as it looks like you're saying X and Y components are equal, which would be 45 degrees (and if I do the trig, I can see that they are both one-half). So by either count (taking only the X component, or cos^2 of the angle) we'd get half of it out by filtering it that way.
Question for you:
We get light emission from electrons striking a surface which does not conform to the quantized emission energies expected from the surface material- whence comes this light?
(I got that one wrong on the final once- I'll never forget it again)
Yeah, pick your poison - quantum indeterminacy or nonlocality. Either way, materialism is dealt a deathblow.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead