# Order and chaos

i) If an observer were to know every exact characteristics of every atom/element of the universe, including position and direction, and so on, it would theoretically be possible to predict the state of the universe at any given point in the future, pending processing and storage capabilities.

ii) But Heisenberg’s principle means that the act of observing alters the make-up of the universe, and thus the observer would need to be able to observe themselves in the act of processing, and a regressive loop occurs, solving nothing.

iii) Therefore the universe would be of absolute order if it were not for the observer, and thus the observer is the cause of chaos and/or randomness in the universe.

But why does the observing have to cause a loop? Can the observer not simply calculate his/her own observing into the equation and still come up with an answer?

Heisenberg were stucked between two worlds; trying to put in observations of the field in a classic mechanic particle model. From a fieldperspective the field is one observer that experience throughout the field, and is devided in the substance because of barriers in the communication.

i) is correct, total determinism is a fact.

iii) is also correct, it would be the same as i).

Johan

It takes energy to view an atom and sub-atomic structures. An example: When you look at a table, the only reason you can see the table is because light is hitting all its atoms and bouncing into your eyes. The Visible Light is modified by what it hits, and this modified light is what we see with our eyes. Iâ€™m sure you know that light is a form of wave; itâ€™s an electromagnetic wave. All waves have wavelengths; the wavelength of visible light is between 0.000001 and 0.0000001 meters (10^-6 to 10^-7m). When we try to view an atom or a sub-atomics structure with visible light waves itâ€™s to big and is not affected by the small sub-atomic structure so it canâ€™t be seen. We need to use a different type of wave to see the atoms and the sub-atomic. Because the wavelength of this new wave is smaller it has the power to be affected by the atoms and the sub-atomic structures, but it also has the power to change them. This is why when we view a sub-atomic object we can change it.

There are three parts to observing anything:

1. The Object to be observed.
2. The Observer.
3. The medium (means) uses to see the object. (As the Observer doesnâ€™t just magically have the picture in his mind, it needs to get into he’s mind through one of he’s five senses)

Thereâ€™s a very good book called â€œThe Search for Infinity: Solving the mysteries of the Universeâ€ ISBN:1-857-32280-0. It examines physics and is very accessible no real knowledge of maths or physics is needed to understand it. Most public libraries will have a copy.

Why do you see a separation between the universe and the observer, as the observer is apart of the universe? The observer canâ€™t exist without the universe, as they are both made from the same substances. Only if the universe ceases to exist will it stop observing itâ€™s self. So this proposition is false, as the observer is apart of the universe, so all that is happening is the universe is modifying the universe. Your proposition needs an external observer, something akin to God, and doesnâ€™t exist inside of the universe.

Pax Vitae

Possibly. Essentially you’d then have to ‘remove’ the observer from your data and analysis of the universe and then reintroduce the proposed ‘refined’ observer, who exists in the future when the universe has been analysed and predictions have been made. But doesn’t this then throw up a problem because of the time aspect, and the fact that if we’re replacing the observer with a future version, then it may not be a true reflection of the universe we’re observing. Basically, how can we predict the characteristics of the observer of the future when what we’re trying to do is predict the future using the future observer?

From a computational perspective, the machine observer has very specific limitations of its impact on the universe. So I suppose it could potentially make more accurate predictions. But I still see it as being a problem - while we can predict that in several seconds time, we’ll be predicting the state of the universe, and that we know what our characteristics will be while doing this, can we properly predict the effects of our actions, when what are actions are doing at predicting what is being affected?

Argh.

This is true. But we don’t need to look at things from a sub-atomic perspective to change things. From a very basic point of view, the very action of looking at a brick has the potential to change it’s temporary (and perhaps permanent) characteristics compared to not looking at it. Reflection of light from the eye may alter the light patterns on the object; standing in the path of the brick will alter the air channels and perhaps increase it’s lifespan by a millionth of a nanosecond!

But…

I agree, this is a crucial point, and it’s very obvious that the human senses are totally inadequate for an such task as we’re discussing. We would first need to recognise the very basic make-up of the universe and the specific set of characteristics that a) the universe possesses at root level (quarks/waves/whatever) and b) the observer requires to ‘build upon’ (i.e. project data to form colours) in order to operate the prediction apparatus. The experiment relies on this being a possibility, which I’m not sure that it does (for example, every frequency of wave would have to be monitored in every object; and the observer must then understand the relevane of this). From a theoretical ideal though…

In order to maintain order, yes, the proposition requires an external observer. The purpose of the argument is to demonstrate that; if we had an external observer, point i) would be as far as we go, since uncertainty wouldn’t play a part. Given that the observer we’re discussing IS a part of the universe though, chaos occurs.

(technically the observer shouldn’t be isolated from the universe in terminology since we then double up on data, but as you say, it’s more correct to suggest that the universe is modifying the universe. In either case, chaos exists and there can be no order, due to the attempts of prediction and mass data collection affecting the make-up of the universe).

Ostensibly, the conclusion of the argument isn’t really valid yet - all the argument shows is that absolute determinism is impossible without an isolated external observer.

So what exactly is it that lightwaves hit when they reflects if not atoms and sub-atomic “particles”. First the atom IS the sub-atom particles. Do you say that it requires clusters of atoms if light reflections should take part? And what is the substance of sub-atom particles?

In my opinion you (or someone you have read) are trying to fit in new observations in an old mechanic particle-model. You will never find any solid bodies, the universe exist as a field that old science use to call “ether” (to explain how wavelength could travel through space). Waves exist as dynamic movements in this field. The field have no substance (what traditional newton mechanic call substance) without dynamics, and is linear in empty space (or in black holes).

The reason why the observer can determine the position of sub-atom particles is that they do not exist at one point. They exist as a dynamic movement in the field and get a fixed position only if you choose to measure the position of the dynamics. You will then have an exponation of reality in that moment. This is how the total field works as well, and it give us free will and creativity. Not chaos or order, but creativity. Small dynamic processes works inside larger processes (like fractals), and the larger processes have dynamic influence on the smaller at the same time as the smaller changes that structure of the larger.

The total field is experiencing, and by experiencing it changes the future. complex awareness - like human awareness - is the communication between complex of dynamics in the field. Even though you may think so; You does not exist as a little “spot” somewhere. You exist because of communication in the field. The observer does not exist outside the object. This is to humanize the process. The observation take place in the communication. It’s the communication that is the existence; the field.

This is the logic I have drawn from my experience.

Johan

Yes, light will only bounce off groups of atoms. If you take an isolated atom its to small for light to be affected.

PV