Quantum Physics and Determinism

[Russiantank]

Quib,

Tell me if im getting it. So we search for reasons behind why macro things interact the way they do. We find out that what causes macro things to act is atoms. But then we wonder why atoms act the way they do. We search for a cause for that, and find protons, neutrons and electrons. But then we wonder why those three act the way they do, and they break down further. (im not sure if they actually do, whats smaller than those? gluons or something, whatever) And so the search for reason will continue infinitly. I wholly agree. There is no alternative. We will never reach a level at which we can say that things happen for no reason. Because like I said, proving that reason does not exist is impossible. We might reach a level where we can no longer proceed to find any more of the reasons, so the interactions will apear random, but this is no indication of complete lack of reason. This level may in fact be the quantum level already. The key is to keep looking though. No scientist but a lazy one will just call it random and go home. What this infinite divisibility of causes shows is that we will never be able to fully determine anything. But probability still works. The fact that mass attracts mass remains constant regardless of the reason behind it. We can never know that gravity will not just turn off one day, because we cant ever fully understand it or any law (because of infinite divisibility) but probability still makes accepting gravity extremelly usefull.

What I dont understand is your will thing. You say it cant be determined but its not random. I might be able to conceed to this, because infinite divisibility of causes makes it so we will never know the full outcome, but there are still reasons behind why it happens. Sure, I have no problem with this. But what does this have to do with us, and the will. If in fact we ennact an observational effect on the universe, we will just have to study how and why we have this effect. And when we get the answer, we get more questions, and so we will keep searching for reasons and causes. Our will, if anything, is just another link in the chain of infinite causality. Its no prime mover… its nothing special. Its just another level of reasons, another set of answers that begs more questions. This is no diffirent than the determinism I had in mind at the begining. The philosophical implications of it are the same… But you seem to place some big emphasis on the will. Please explain your idea of will further.

[wvoelcker]

Bell’s inequality was supposed to provide an experimental test for local hidden variables (i.e. a condition, verifiable by experiment, which must be true if hidden variables exist and causal effects can only operate locally in space). Many took it, combined with the experimental tests that followed, to be conclusive evidence against local hidden variables but I don’t think it is. The following link may be a decent starting point for further research.

Cheers

Will

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Q … ality.html

Edit: Damn, I’m a bit tired today and completely forgot about the other 4 pags in this thread, apart from the first one. Oh well - hope this helps anyway.

[quibbles]

Pardon my absence for the past few days. I don’t have a lot of time right now, so I can only reply to soc… not to worry RT, I’ll get to you too.

@SocratesIsDead

See, the simulated universe running on the computer can be fast-forwarded, rewound, paused, or whatever. The observer could fast-forward ahead to see what the (real) universe will be like at a future date.

This would all be well and good if time were a linear, continuous, arbitrary kind of thing but it isn’t. Relativity first demonstrated this by showing that everything in the unvirse is experiencing time at a different rate (at velocities not very close to C, you wouldn’t notice though.) The famous example is a pair of twins. One leaves earth in a space ship and is gone 10 years (according to the one on the ship) and comes back. The one on earth will be really old, probably dead, whereas the other will just have aged 10 years… er I could have this backwards but nevertheless, the point remains the same.

QM took this to an extreme by pointing out that ona quantum level (as Phaedrus pointed out) time is flowing every which way, with causes happening after effects, etc… I don’t how this happens, I think its inherently hard for our linear-oriented aristotilean minds to comprehend (again, as Phaedrus pointed out).

Now, anticipating your objection (the simulation speeds up, not time). What would the simulation speeding mean, I suppose. Speeding up and slowing down assumes that the universe does indeed happen linearly, which it doesn’t really seem it does.

Of course, this is getting to the point of incomprehensibility, as we are talking about things which have properties entirely foreign on multiple levels. So you could be right. I think I might do a little research on QM and GR and time and such and see what pops up…

@SocratesIsDead

Why can’t you have two identical, but separate entities? Indeed, this is part of the premise. Is there a fundamental problem with this concept?

Yes, I do believe there is.

Maybe more to the point, this entire hypothetical is a touch irrelevant (I mean that in the least harsh way possible). Remember, I’m argueing from a monist perspective. All is matter. I think you are too. Even the theoretical is based in matter (though we can preted its not). Oh wait, that might not have come out right… read it a few times and hopefully you’ll understand the full scope of what I’m saying (it was poorly said, but I think you can figure it out). We were talking about things outside of matter which is fine, I thought maybe it would work out as impossible there too (predictability I mean; events known without haveing happened yet.)

p.s.
Thanks for the article wvoelcker! I haven’t read it yet, but I definitly will. I think we refered to that experiment already, but I’m not sure. is this hidden variables (as in stuff we don’t know yet) vs. actual nondeterminism? or is it there are no necessary hidden variables, in which case it would be in favor of determinism?

[quibbles]

oh good, I will have time to respond to RT afterall

@Russiantank

Tell me if im getting it. So we search for reasons behind why macro things interact the way they do. We find out that what causes macro things to act is atoms. But then we wonder why atoms act the way they do. We search for a cause for that, and find protons, neutrons and electrons. But then we wonder why those three act the way they do, and they break down further. (im not sure if they actually do, whats smaller than those? gluons or something, whatever) And so the search for reason will continue infinitly.

You got it.
Oh as far as what’s below protons, neatrons, and electrons: quarks and such; I think there are something like four kinds of quarks, though I could totally be off. Then there are a ton of other particles with "-ton’ suffixes in there two (maybe they compose the quarks, maybe there right along with the quarks, maybe they are quarks, I don’t know). I think we’ve even gotten to the point of modeling forces as particles, as little packets of information, but that doesn’t make very much sense to me, so I can’t really talk about that. (String theory has gravitons, I know; gravity particles…)

@Russiantank

You say it cant be determined but its not random. I might be able to conceed to this, because infinite divisibility of causes makes it so we will never know the full outcome, but there are still reasons behind why it happens

Sounds good.

@Russiantank

Our will, if anything, is just another link in the chain of infinite causality.

No, it is the chain of infinite causality.

@Russiantank

Its no prime mover… its nothing special.

It is an inherent property of infinite matter.
I probably shouldn’t have said prime mover. That’s kind of a loaded phrase.

@Russiantank

This is no diffirent than the determinism I had in mind at the begining. The philosophical implications of it are the same…

I could be misunderstanding your determinism, but I don’t think the implications are the same.
The outcome of a situation cannot be known until it happens. Not because its random, but because its infinite. Thus, our choices are not determined before they are made. They are not random but they are not determined.

Hmm, this is almost as understandable (intellectually) as infinity… I believe it because of one of those “Ah, I see” kind of moments, where I saw infinte everything spinning and spiraling before me… I hesitate to use the word, but it was almost a spiritual experience (as spiritual as a monist can get, anyway).

In my humanities class, we’re giving credos right now… This one girl gave her’s, and, while she believed in God, I think one of her comments might be kind of interesting here. She said that although God is omniscient, we still have free will. God just knows each one of us so infinitely well that (s)he knows what we will choose. We are predictable (her words…) but not puppets…

[Russiantank]

Infinite causality actually sounds very good to me… It means that we can never stop learning. It means that there is always room for progress. I always wondered what we would do if we ever found a unified theory that works. It would be the end of physics, probably science in general. That world would probably get boring fast… Anyways, maybe I should change the name of my belief, because you seem to think determinism requires that things can be determined. Thats not my understanding of the philosophy. Like ive said many times, it just means things happen for a reason, and the causal chain is preserved. As a result though, given infinite knowledge, one could theoreticly predict the future… You cant argue this. I have rectified the infinite causality by simply introducing theoreticaly infinite knowledge. That is a logical result of a causal chain, that it follows a pattern, and complete knowledge of the pattern creates determinibility. All infinite causality suggests is that complete knowledge is beyond the scope of human capacity.

About the will, I was batting an idea around in my head. An infinite causality loop. I dont know where it would start, but lets pick an arbitrary point. Human is born. Human is determined by circumstances. At some point, human is able to effect quantum reality with conciousness. He causes an effect on the quantum level (which is determined by his circumstances, eg: he was beaten as a child so he wills his father to die of a heart attack, that sort of thing). This starts a chain reaction of causality, that loops all the way back to determine the next quantum change that human incurs. (He feels bad for his mother for killing her husband, so he wills her to win the lottery) Basicly a closed loop. Instead of having more reasons behind quantum paricles acting the way they do, what if this “will” was the reason. So the human conciousness exerts some force which will start a chain of causality that will effect your percieved world, which inevitably effects your conciousness, which effects your percieved world, which effects your conciousness… Maybe this was what you were trying to say before, but I dont take this theory seriously. Just fun contemplating it.

[SocratesIsDead]

@quibbles

This would all be well and good if time were a linear, continuous, arbitrary kind of thing but it isn’t. Relativity first demonstrated this by showing that everything in the unvirse is experiencing time at a different rate

Fair point, I hadn’t thought of difference in the rate that time is experienced. I suppose you could model this in the simulation by including a “time” variable with each base particle. The simulation would proceed in (arbitrarily defined) increments. Yeah, I suppose these increments are linear. But the increments are an arbitrary measure we’ve defined that allow for variance in time, so it should work.

Now, anticipating your objection (the simulation speeds up, not time). What would the simulation speeding mean, I suppose. Speeding up and slowing down assumes that the universe does indeed happen linearly, which it doesn’t really seem it does.

Linearly, as in time-linearly? If you include a time variable in the simulation (for every piece of matter), time could be slow for parts, fast for other parts, and even reversed.

So the simulation appears linear to the observer (because it’s governed by the linear increment), but non-linear to the simulated matter (as it is governed by non-linear time).

@SocratesIsDead

Why can’t you have two identical, but separate entities? Indeed, this is part of the premise. Is there a fundamental problem with this concept?

Yes, I do believe there is.

Maybe more to the point, this entire hypothetical is a touch irrelevant

I’m not sure how it’s irrelevant. Sure the hypothetical doesn’t fit within a monist framework, but then it doesn’t have to. It’s just a thought experiment to show how something’s theoretically possible.

If I do end up convincing you that the simulated universe can represent the real one perfectly, then the hypothetical premise has meaning. Why? Because it’s shown that the (real) universe is deterministic (relative to this arbitrary increment). In other words, everything is theoretically predictable.

Of course, what is predictable by the simulation may not be predictable by us, because we’re governed by the rate of time that we’re experiencing.

Hmm. This idea sure got crazy, fast.

[quibbles]

RT

@Russiantank

Infinite causality actually sounds very good to me… It means that we can never stop learning. It means that there is always room for progress. I always wondered what we would do if we ever found a unified theory that works. It would be the end of physics, probably science in general. That world would probably get boring fast…

While I tend to share your optimistic outlook, many take this to prove the futility of science and become very depressed because of it. Another possibility I like to explore is that perhaps ‘the answer’ would not be an endpoint, it would be a perpetual thing. For if it were an endpoint, if it left us with nothing to do, then it would not answer the most important of all questions: “What do you we do now?”

@Russiantank

…you seem to think determinism requires that things can be determined.

um…

As for the will thing, first off, we need to be clear about our terms. ‘Will’ and ‘Conciousness’ do not mean the same thing, at least not to me. Conciousness is more a thought process I suppose; the ability to creat theoretical and hypothetical situations symbolically from varying neural patterns… A will, a will is more like a perpetuater, a (you’re going to hate this) choice maker I suppose. It is the doer…
Having said that, consciousness is easy; its a almost coincidental arrangement of a complex system. Human’s are conscious… A will on the other hand is inherent in matter (in my view). In fact, I don’t think you can have one without the other. They are one and the same, the will and infinite matter…

Actually, now that I think about it…
consciousness… everything would be conscious to a degree too as everything is infinitely complex… I don’t know, just throwin’ it out there…

@Russiantank

Instead of having more reasons behind quantum paricles acting the way they do, what if this “will” was the reason.

Not quite what I meant. The will is not a step along the way; it is the infinite-nature of matter. Make sense?

@Russiantank

So the human conciousness exerts some force which will start a chain of causality that will effect your percieved world, which inevitably effects your conciousness, which effects your percieved world, which effects your conciousness…

Now here is an idea I like…

[quibbles]

soc:

@SocratesIsDead

The simulation would proceed in (arbitrarily defined) increments. Yeah, I suppose these increments are linear. But the increments are an arbitrary measure we’ve defined that allow for variance in time, so it should work.

I think this is kind of what I was trying to get at… er argue against I mean. The universe does not operate in increments and cannot be modeled as increments, at least I don’t think so.
First off (the easy one), information would be lost in modeling the universe in increments because the universe flows continuasly, not in steps or increments. Try to right a computer simulation of anything real and you’ll see what I mean. (I wrote a spring-physics simulator once, and it would always start to go crazy after a bit because it would always overshoot on each increment. As far I know, there is no general, formulaic way to fix this accurately. Situational fixes can be a approximated.) Of course, given that our computer = all powerful, we can safely assume that these increments are infinitely small…
Besides which, I don’t think it could be done anyway. Not only given the properties of GR (different time rates) but the properties of QM (time flowing every which way), you could not determine the next increment based on the last (which is the whole point) because the cause for your effect hasn’t happened yet incrementally!

@SocratesIsDead

Sure the hypothetical doesn’t fit within a monist framework, but then it doesn’t have to. It’s just a thought experiment to show how something’s theoretically possible.

I wonder, what do you mean by theoretically possible? Do you mean fits logic? Well that seems rather silly… we’re supposing things can exist outside of matter but not outside of logic, which is simply a creation and illusion of our minds for describing the world around us? … I don’t knowl; for me, it is illogical to think about things that exist outside of matter, things that we cannot, by necessity, perceive or be aware of.

@SocratesIsDead

Of course, what is predictable by the simulation may not be predictable by us, because we’re governed by the rate of time that we’re experiencing.

Nor is it predictable by any other material being/observer.

[nik2]

@quibbles

Ok, I think my main beef is with the idea of evidence. You can collect evidence that appears random, but you cannot collect evidence that directly supports this idea. Why? Because randomness is simply a rule that generates no evidence other than seemingly random events. Essentially what I’m saying is that randomness cannot be anything other than an assumption.

Not exactly… perhaps random might the wrong word (first of all) because of all the connotations it brings. QM deals with probabilities; where an electron is likely to be and the velocity it is likely to be traveling at. So its not completely random. In fact, I believe it has almost perfectly predicted the outcome of experiments (in that the probabilties work out). So it doesn’t deal with complete chaos, obviously. That might be easier to stomach.
Second, you can have evidence that supports randomness. Of course, it won’t be like “well, we can model this data with our random function, so it must be random.” The evidence more runs like “the more and more accurately we can measure this variable, the less and less accurately we can measure this other one”.
Actually, that’s exactly how it runs. This whole debate has been (determinism vs. nondeterminism in physics) going on for a while, originally kicked off by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in 1927. The UP says that the more accurately we can measure the position of particle (usually an electron) the less accurately we can measure its velocity, and vice versa. (I don’t know how exactly he proved this, but would be interested if anyone else knew.) This is central to QM.
From there, QM it gets into electrons being in mutliple places at once, taking multiple paths to the same place, being entagled with another (possibly sending information instantly, literally, over any distance), and lots of other fun stuff that have all sorts of philosophical implications.
Sorry if I’m just sayin’ what everyone knows already, and for any mistakes I might have made. I’m by no means a ‘physics expert’, but like to read about this kinda stuff.

(Russiantank posted while I was typing)

Logic seems to run on the very same causal principles that form the foundation of my deterministic beliefs.

Godel proved (let’s see if I can remember this right) that any sufficiently powerful system cannot prove both its consistancy and completeness. That is to say, if it proves its consistancy, it can’t be known if its complete. If it proves its completeness… (I;m sure someone’s gonna get mad at me for misrepressenting, or misusing, but whatever).
uh, does that speak for itself, or shall I say more?

Excellent post. Thats exactly what QM is. It deals with probabilities, now I truly doubt these probabilities are truly random but depend on things that we currently cant measure or comprehend. Now some of the truly quirky parts of QM I am not familiar with but I think it will take time for QM to be developed enough to be able to use it for a philosophical discussion, in my opinion we need to understand more about the science before we can say the universe is random…

[Russiantank]

Roger