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
Offline Paisley wrote:However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the two are one and the same. Does this imply that physical events are occurring without physical causation? Yes or no?
That's a weighted question with several false assumptions, but to answer what you're trying to ask: No, it doesn't imply that. It MANDATES that physical events are occurring without ANY causation (including any hoodoo voodoo) at all. A-causal quantum effects (relatively indeterminate) are proof against the hoodoo you support.
Translation: A-causal quantum effects are proof (in your mind) for MWI because causal-indeterminism is unacceptable to the materialist worldview.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Blake wrote:That's a weighted question with several false assumptions, but to answer what you're trying to ask: No, it doesn't imply that. It MANDATES that physical events are occurring without ANY causation (including any hoodoo voodoo) at all. A-causal quantum effects (relatively indeterminate) are proof against the hoodoo you support.
Translation: A-causal quantum effects are proof (in your mind) for MWI because causal-indeterminism is unacceptable to the materialist worldview.
No, many worlds is logically necessitated through the nature of waves- to put it in terms of bare-bones simplicity, one can not construct a particle from a mess of waves. The Copenhagen interpretation relies on the universe as viewed as a particle; and this yields some obviously dubious results (even beyond the assumption).
"Causal-indeterminism" is both incoherent and nonsensical (like the concept of "free will" )- it is its own logical disproof, and it doesn't need discussing.
I suspect any atheist here can poke holes in it without my help; I defer you to them if you wish to apologize for this kind of nonsense.
I would suggest that you start a new thread for this purpose, if you want to discuss that. This one is already rather long, and it might not be noticed here.
- Login to post comments
Offline Blake wrote:Paisley wrote:However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the two are one and the same. Does this imply that physical events are occurring without physical causation? Yes or no?
That's a weighted question with several false assumptions, but to answer what you're trying to ask: No, it doesn't imply that. It MANDATES that physical events are occurring without ANY causation (including any hoodoo voodoo) at all. A-causal quantum effects (relatively indeterminate) are proof against the hoodoo you support.
Translation: A-causal quantum effects are proof (in your mind) for MWI because causal-indeterminism is unacceptable to the materialist worldview.
Translation: The existence of truly uncaused events, ie with neither 'physical' or any other type of 'causation', is unacceptable to the Paisley Dualistic world-view, because you want to use the lack of physical causation to 'prove' the necessary existence of non-physical causation.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Translation: A-causal quantum effects are proof (in your mind) for MWI because causal-indeterminism is unacceptable to the materialist worldview.
No, many worlds is logically necessitated through the nature of waves- to put it in terms of bare-bones simplicity, one can not construct a particle from a mess of waves. The Copenhagen interpretation relies on the universe as viewed as a particle; and this yields some obviously dubious results (even beyond the assumption).
Whatever. There is no scientific evidence for parallel worlds - none, NADA! An atheist making the argument that the "many worlds" interpretation is based on logical necessity is analogous to the theist arguing that the cosmological argument is based on logical necessity. Despite the high-level mathematics involved, the many worlds interpretation is a metaphysical argument, not a scientific theory. It makes no new predictions beyond the Standard interpretation and it is not falsifiable. Also, infinite minds and quantum immortatility are implied by MWI. I would say that smacks of quantum hoodoo voodoo (to use your term).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Translation: A-causal quantum effects are proof (in your mind) for MWI because causal-indeterminism is unacceptable to the materialist worldview.
Translation: The existence of truly uncaused events, ie with neither 'physical' or any other type of 'causation', is unacceptable to the Paisley Dualistic world-view, because you want to use the lack of physical causation to 'prove' the necessary existence of non-physical causation.
That you are employing scare quotes to qualify the term causation is very telling. If you despense with causation, then all we are left with are correlations and observations.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Whatever. There is no scientific evidence for parallel worlds - none, NADA!
Like, totally, what-ever.
Like, there is no, like, scientific, like, evidence that 2 = 2! None, like, ZIP!
*Unless* we did a silly thing such as accept logic as a necessary qualifier of truth which supersedes empiricism, which would allow us to look at the premises that lead to that conclusions of many worlds as evidence for that conclusion.
But no, you likely wouldn't dare accept something like that would you? You're probably a dialetheist insofar as it conveneinces your dogmas. You've admitted already to being open to an idea only because you think it agrees with your dogmatic preconceptions.
An atheist making the argument that the "many worlds" interpretation is based on logical necessity is analogous to the theist arguing that the cosmological argument is based on logical necessity.
In so far as both arguments appeal to rationalism- yes. Insofar as they have anything else in common- no. Many arguments appeal to rationalism through the application of premises and logic. That's kind of how things get done.
Some subtle differences:
The deductions that lead to many worlds are founded in solid, objectively verified, scientific premises.
The deductions that lead to various theistic arguments are founded in numerous superfluous assumptions as premises.
The deductions that lead to many worlds are sound.
The deductions that lead to the theistic arguments are circular, and refer back to bunk premises.
I do have some respect for apologists who genuinely attempt to use reason to prove their god, because at least they have accepted the idea of rationalism itself. Unfortunately, they're doing it wrong.
Not too terribly much respect for the practice of those people who just copy the arguments of those apologists, though.
[blah blah...] not a scientific theory. It makes no new predictions
It doesn't need to be, it's more of a conclusion.
However, like all things, it's logically falsifiable- it's just not false.
I don't believe in unfalsifiable statements. Logic itself is the ultimate metric of falsifiability by way of contradiction, and all things are subject to it.
Also, infinite minds and quantum immortatility are implied by MWI.
Not at all and Sort-of, respectively.
See my post in this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19110
Enjoy.
I would say that smacks of quantum hoodoo voodoo (to use your term).
The former, yes. "many/infinite minds" is beaucoup hoodoo. The latter is partially true- it is only hoodoo voodoo to the extent that it is false (that is, the absurd assumption of a "conscious observer" being necessary- the idea of a "conscious observer" is derived from a misunderstanding of Copenhagen, and has nothing to contribute to many worlds).
As a caveat, though, it is also limited by the extent of possibilities within the quantitized structure of space-time, which are very large, but may or may not contain anything approaching an infinite number of configurations for a given universe.
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley wrote:Translation: A-causal quantum effects are proof (in your mind) for MWI because causal-indeterminism is unacceptable to the materialist worldview.
Translation: The existence of truly uncaused events, ie with neither 'physical' or any other type of 'causation', is unacceptable to the Paisley Dualistic world-view, because you want to use the lack of physical causation to 'prove' the necessary existence of non-physical causation.
That you are employing scare quotes to qualify the term causation is very telling. If you despense with causation, then all we are left with are correlations and observations.
I am simply qualifying that 'causation' as traditionally conceived, is too simplistic to be applied to the linkages between one state of existence and the next.
All we actually observe are indeed "correlations and observations", of course. Anything beyond that is just conceptual 'sugar' we apply to it in our mental model of "how things work".
'Causation' is simply a label for very tight and consistent correlations. Where there is no such correlation, as in many quantum scale events, it is not applicable.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:That you are employing scare quotes to qualify the term causation is very telling. If you despense with causation, then all we are left with are correlations and observations.
I am simply qualifying that 'causation' as traditionally conceived, is too simplistic to be applied to the linkages between one state of existence and the next.
All we actually observe are indeed "correlations and observations", of course. Anything beyond that is just conceptual 'sugar' we apply to it in our mental model of "how things work".
'Causation' is simply a label for very tight and consistent correlations. Where there is no such correlation, as in many quantum scale events, it is not applicable.
Interesting. What about "time?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
I think you may be right, at least away from bifurcation points.
I think what I recall as being making a chaotic system more unpredictable, making it possible for infinitesimal 'errors' or differences in initial conditions to lead to arbitrarily large differences in outcome after a finite time, is the presence of bifurcations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_theory.
There are also implications of Catastrophe Theory, which is related.
From the general article on Chaos Theory:
I am a little rusty on the details of this stuff, but it is coming back to me, with the help of the Web and Google.
I have a book which I read a while ago, which really got me into this area: "Order out of Chaos" by Ilya Prigogine & Isabelle Stengers. I am sure I have a few others, but they are currently buried in my "heap" system.
Only insofar as pi is caused- I think using that word (cause) is more prone to confuse people than not.
I think our differences here are largely semantic.
The more I think of this, stimulated by these discussions, the more this makes sense. The timing of a quantum event intrinsically, logically, cannot be 'caused ' by, or correlated with, another 'event', unless that event itself also displays the same 'random' timing behaviour.
Which means that there still has to be at least one 'uncaused' event for any such sequence. It is this total insensitivity to the state of any other object, at least with regard to the timing of an event, that is intrinsic to a truly 'random' event.
I agree that 'causation' is a questionable concept now, or at the very least carries far too much medieval/metaphysical baggage, which I meant to convey by regularly putting references to it in 'scare' quotes.
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