To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/11/02 14:00
Subject: Re: Time (was Re: [K-list] RE: fate, destiny, subtle body and s
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/11/02 14:00, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
08:24:42 Tue, 2 Nov 1999
Ville Vainio at Ville Vainio <vvainioATnospamtp.spt.fi> writes:
>On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Martin Thompson wrote:
>
>> >Therefore, everything between beginning and end of time is "known" by a
>> >hypothetic omniscient entity (or possibly a person in Samadhi).
>>
>> Emphasis on the word "hypothetic" I suspect. But the fully
>> deterministic, billiard-ball theory of the Universe is well out of date:
>> it is fundamentally impossible for any being that needs to observe
>> reality to know all about it (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).
>
>Yes, for any *being*. Universally it's insignificant whether some
>phenomenon can be observed.
Maybe; it depends on the ultimate purpose of it all, if any, I suppose.
In terms of quantum mechanics though, if something isn't observed, it
may not be "real" in the every-day sense of the word (the Schrodinger's
Cat problem), i.e., may exist simultaneously in every possible state
until "observed". If you accept instead the "Many Worlds" formulation of
quantum mechanics, i.e., that every possibility does in fact exist, but
in parallel Universes, then that particular reality problem is solved.
> Determinism is impossible to disprove
>physically (we will never know everything about the universe, so there
>will always be hidden variables... even when we thought we have plunged
>all the way to the core) and determinism is the only rational model.
>
Ultimate determinism is not clearly supported by quantum mechanics as
far as I can tell. However, from the point of view of gross matter such
as ourselves, the seemingly random behaviour of particles at the quantum
level is fundamental and may determine our behaviour, but it is only
statistically predictable. This weakens the odds that determinism is
fundamental. Also, hidden variables of the sort searched for so far have
been ruled out by experiment and are inconsistent with current theory
(which is subject to modification, of course).
>> > So, the
>> >future indeed influences the past (taking that "influence" really means
>> >anything), but since there is no free will there is not much to be gained
>> >from this. We, as people, are only "sampling" the universe (everything) a
>> >moment ("now") at a time, but the everything is still out there.
>> >
>> >> totality, at worst, a complete illusion as one random but probabilistic
>> >> configuration of particles replaces another in no particular sequence
>> >> (how that can happen without time, I don't know).
>> >
>> >This interpretation seems worse because it is simply wrong.
>> >
>> It is consistent with quantum mechanics. Non-probabilistic determinism
>> is not.
>
>Could you elaborate which part of quantum mechanics? I didn't study too
>much physics (being a IT major) but what I studied didn't seem to disprove
>determinism - it only emphasized how little is really known about that
>stuff.
>
The difficult thing about quantum mechanics is that, unlike older
physical theories, it seems to place probability at the centre of
reality. This is not, apparently, just a cover for more fundamental
variables that we don't understand or haven't discovered yet:
mathematical analysis has proved that such variables as we might expect
to find cannot account for quantum behaviour. Nobody has as yet figured
out any form of such variables that might work, and although therefore
they can't be ruled out, it currently looks highly unlikely that there
are any, especially given some of the more bizarre quantum phenomena
that exist.
This means that instead of our old, relatively comprehensible friends
matter, energy, time and space as the fundamental building blocks of
reality, we have probability and perhaps information - whatever the heck
they are. Look at Schrodinger's Equation for example, which takes the
classical formula for the kinetic energy of a particle and converts it
into a quantum formulation. It does not contain items representing the
particle in question! It contains items representing the probability of
finding the particle at any given location should you try and observe it
somewhere! The particles themselves are not represented directly any
more. This formulation goes right through quantum mechanics. And it
works experimentally. This means that we need to regard the probability
as being more fundamental than the particle, in the same general sense
as we regard an atom as being more fundamental than a lump of rock.
The two sides of this determinism/indeterminism argument essentially
revolve around the EPR paradox on the one hand and Bell's Theorem on the
other. The EPR paradox (Einstein, Rosen, Podolski) is that if you create
two particles simultaneously in such a way that certain values such as
their polarization are indeterminate in the quantum sense until
measured, then measure that property for one particle thus causing it to
become real like Schrodinger's Cat when you observe it, you can from the
result predict what value you will find on the second particle, no
matter how far away it is at that instant. So according to quantum
mechanics it could be so far away that no information about the first
measurement could reach it before you take your second measurement
(Einstein proved that information cannot travel faster than the speed of
light in a vacuum), and yet, paradoxically, the value of your second
measurement is still predicted by your first. EPR say this implies
hidden variables, i.e., the particles had those values all along, we
just didn't know them until we took the measurements, and our current
formulation of quantum mechanics is wrong or incomplete. The normal
interpretation of quantum mechanics would contradict this.
In 1964, Bell, using Boolean logic, produced a mathematical proof that
if there are hidden variables such as EPR proposed, then a certain value
in certain experiments should be positive. Alain Aspect and various
others have performed the experiments, and produced a negative result
for that value (some experimental results were inconclusive because the
result is probabilistic too). (Bell's theorem is listed in full in a
Scientific American Special, I believe). This shows that despite the
common-sense logic of the EPR position, quantum mechanics sticks to
mathematical logic and so all quantum mechanical theories will allow so-
called non-local or non-causal events (events where an effect happens
although no information to cause it can get there in time).
This leaves us with only two viable interpretations of quantum mechanics
at present, as far as I know. The Copenhagen Interpretation says that
things are not "real" until observed (their probability wave function
doesn't collapse to a specific value), and the act of observation at
least in part creates the observed reality.
The other is the Many Worlds Interpretation. Whenever an observation is
made, reality splits into as many different Universes as there are
possible outcomes of the observation, so there is no need for an
arbitrary collapse of the wave function to a specific value: all
possible values become real. The Many Worlds interpretation is preferred
by cosmologists trying to formulate quantum theories of the Universe as
a whole, as they assume (pending proof otherwise) that there is no
observer capable of observing the entire Universe so that its wave
function could collapse, which the Copenhagen Interpretation appears to
require for the Universe become real. David Deutsch in "The Fabric of
Reality" has suggested that quantum computers amount to proof of the
Many Worlds interpretation or at least may allow the two interpretations
to be tested experimentally. Although a quantum computer has been built
and does work, the debate continues.
So determinism sucks, but quantum mechanics sucks harder!
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.