To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/11/05 06:28
Subject: Re: Time (was Re: [K-list] RE: fate, destiny, subtle body and s
From: Ville Vainio
On 1999/11/05 06:28, Ville Vainio posted thus to the K-list:
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Martin Thompson wrote:
> behaviour - thus, for us, reality would be deterministic. At the quantum
> level, the behaviour of a particle such as an electron is determined by
> its properties, of course, but it seems to turn out that those
> properties include a probabilistic element - so the determinism is of a
> sort that is unpredictable. This is unlike the traditional "billiard-
> ball" determinism of classical (i.e., old) physics, in which if you knew
> the position and disposition of all particles you could predict their
> future behaviour exactly (in theory). In the new physics, a) you can't
Indeed: the traditional billiard-ball determinism relies on the thought
that 3-dimensional events occur against the backdrop of linear time. This
is of course false idea. This billiard-ball determinism is useful in one
way, though: it's like a 2d-presentation of a 3d-model, 3d-represantation
of 4d-model, etc... Helps us understand the way things are.
> undeterminstic. Strictly, predictability and determinism are separate
> concepts, however. Determinism as a philosophical idea seems
> incontrovertible to me: things happen because that's how they are.
This has been my point all along.
> As I mentioned, the god-variable idea is most obviously consistent with
> the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, since it seems to require an
> observer capable of observing the entire Universe. The arbitraryness of
I feel that there is an observer capable of observing the entire universe.
Not a physical one, though. This "observer" is the source, unborn,
unbecoming, static center... I won't go into trying to justify my point,
my Samadhi experience verified it for me and that's enough. After all, it
was supposed to be indescribable. (Gee, finally something that's not
off-topic ;-). And, there is nothing that could ever invalidate it for me.
So, my vote goes for Copenhagen.
> >Again, the part such "variables _as_we_might_expect_to_find_" explains
> >everything.
> >
> Yes: we cannot assume infinite knowledge on our part. But remember that
> physics is in effect a map of our own minds and is limited by what we
> are capable of understanding. We find it difficult to understand the
Yes, but we most forget that physics does not limit what we are capable of
understanding.
> - but maybe it is that way. Or maybe that is the best we can understand
> and such hidden variables as there may be are of a sort we could never
> comprehend. We can't tell from our vantage point, having limited
I support the idea of incomprehensible hidden variables, obviously.
> My use of fundamental is that it implies that there is nothing behind
> it, no other mechanism driving this property. An atom was once thought
> to be a fundamental particle, but it turned out to be made of yet
> smaller particles. A particle that is not made from anything other than
> itself would be a fundamental particle.
>
> Probability is fundamental *as far as we know* - but we can't know
> everything.
Yeah. This all sheds some negative light on the concept of "fundamental"
;-).
> >How could anyone prove something like that? If the proof is mathematical,
> >how can it rely on some experiments? If the mathemathics is used as a tool
> >if physics, it's allright, but it should *not* have the "authority" we put
> >on mathematics.
> All physics experiments are designed to test a theory. The theories are
> expressed mathematically. Bell produced a theory that was tested by
Still, it's not "pure" mathematics. The kind of mathematics that never
goes wrong. The kind of mathematics has the final word that, for example,
1+1=2.
> experiment and the result was that *known* types of hidden variables
> (those known to mathematics and physics) wouldn't account for the
> quantum behaviour Bell predicted. I recommend the Scientific American
> article if you can find it! It takes substantial concentration to read
> and understand it, but the logic seems impeccable.
I might check out the library, if I knew what issue it was...
Ville Vainio - vvainioATnospamtp.spt.fi http://www.tp.spt.fi/~vvainio
We're all puppets
The first step on the path to understanding is seeing the strings
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.