"Free will" doesn't make any sense, does it?
A Troll
Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
nonsense to me.
F~A~R~V~A: The Original Bastard
--
>>> _
>>> /'_/)
>>> ,/_ /
>>> / /
>>> /'_'/' '/'__'7,
>>> /'/ / / /" /_\
>>> ('( ' Fuck /' ')
>>> \ You' /
>>> '\' _.7'
>>> \ (
>>> \ \
"Kick him when he's down, he's easier to reach."
---Scott Hall
#1 ranked poster in RSPW history....
.....NEVER SHIT A SHITTER!
******************************
Mike Painter
I'd suggest you move into at least the early 20th century. Once comfortable
look at trees, grass, fingerprints, and the weather then learn about Chaos
theory.
A Troll
news:fGBTg.7259$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
Um, what? Steven Spielberg invented "chaos theory" for his movie, Jurassic
Park. The novelisation by Michael Crichton mentions it as well.
Dirk Van de moortel
"A Troll" <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in message news:Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58...
No nonsense:
http://altahemp.com/freewillie.html
Dirk Vdm
the Bede
raven1
Bwahahahahahahahaplonk
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
*nemo*
A Troll <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote:
Perhaps you should take up this conversation with the Tralfamadorians
when they come to kidnap you for their zoo...
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Kevin Anthoney
Chaos is an entirely different concept to indeterminism (various classical
systems are both chaotic and deterministic). A chaotic system is simply
*impractical* to determine exactly.
Quantum Mechanics is generally considered indeterministic, though.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
DaffyDuck
> Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
> will which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like
> religious nonsense to me.
Seems like someone doesn't understand the meaning of Free Will, and
what it is - either that, or their unified school district did quite a
number on their education.
Besides all that, Will is never Free. One way or the other, you always
pay for it.
Panties On Head
> > will which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like
> > religious nonsense to me.
Definately not nonsense. Free will most likely does exist, and it may be
nearly provable by science at this time.
This universe is not determined. Not only because of my own beliefs, but
also Stephen Hawking. There is a certain amount of disorder inherent in
nature. This means that there is a very real possibility that the question
does indeed have an answer after all, and that the answer is that it most
likely does exist.
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/
http://order-disorder-randomness.blogspot.com/
ike milligan
I could not agree more. There have been a lot of threads in the past where
this came up and was discussed at great length.
Mike Painter
Are you claiming Loki points?
Stephen Fairchild
>> > Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
>> > will which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like
>> > religious nonsense to me.
>
>
> Definately not nonsense. Free will most likely does exist, and it may be
> nearly provable by science at this time.
>
> This universe is not determined. Not only because of my own beliefs, but
> also Stephen Hawking. There is a certain amount of disorder inherent in
> nature. This means that there is a very real possibility that the question
> does indeed have an answer after all, and that the answer is that it most
> likely does exist.
>
It exists because it seems real to us like the immortal soul. It is an idea
preprogrammed into us which allows us to function properly.
--
Stephen Fairchild
Bill Hobba
Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what you
post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may be
interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden assumptions
(sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things exist
independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and value
definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then the
Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out the
door. So far QM has yet to find exception. Basing ones views on experiment
rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it sounds
like it (and to you at that) is not what science is about. Experiment asks
questions of nature - those interested in science respect its answers.
Thanks
Bill
Martin Hogbin
> Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
In physics, 'cause' is simply the event that occured first
(with some relativity stuff added).
> Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
> which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
> nonsense to me.
I agree.
Martin Hogbin
Sorcerer
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:jv2dnTl3Tou...@bt.com...
| I agree.
|
| Martin Hogbin
Who cares what you agree or disagree with, shithead?
Androcles.
Jan Panteltje
<anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in
<Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58>:
Agreed
Glenn Møller-Holst
Hi!
Short answer: Nobody knows I *believe*. But you are free to *believe* in
free will or not - but free will may exist whether you believe in it or
not? Please notice that Physics does not have a complete description of
the universe and humans (yet? maybe never?). Despite this uncertainty,
Physics is successful and useable for us.
Please read this article for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
If free will does not exist, then life does not have any meaning?
Because then we have no choices? Then blame and guild and other human
feelings does not make any sense? Your question is meaningless, if we
have no free will, because then you do not need the answer at all, the
universe would then just be a clockwork and ethics, needs and feelings
does not matter or exist?
But we do not know if free will exist I *believe*, so here is an article
about meaning of life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life
-
Physics and all of science is build on axiom (fundamental *assumption*):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Quote: "...An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is accepted as the
first and last line of a one-line proof and is considered as obvious or
as an initial necessary consensus for the theory building or
acceptation. Therefore, it is *taken for granted* as true, and serves as
a starting point for deducing and inferencing other truths...In many
usages axiom and postulate or assumption are used as synonyms..."
It is not possible to proof axioms. That is what all of science is build
upon, but it is still very useful.
"Cause and effect"; causality is also just a postulate or assumption, no
one can proof it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_and_effect
Quote: "...David Hume asserted that it was impossible to know that
certain laws of cause and effect always apply - no matter how many times
one observes them occurring..."
But you can of cause *believe* in causality. Most of the time it appears
to be right. Quantum mechanics and causality have had clashes both in
the past and now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Quote: "...A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy)
described as a "classic point particle" or as a wave but rather the
microphysical situation is best described in terms of wave-particle
duality...For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one
imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and
producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such
explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of
quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a
"measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it
directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Quote: "...Although originally devised as a thought experiment that
would demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, actual
experimental results ironically refutes the principle of locality,
invalidating the EPR trio's original purpose. The "spooky action at a
distance" that so disturbed the authors of EPR consistently occurs in
numerous and widely replicated experiments..."
Web archive mirror: New Scientist, 28 June 1997: "Light's spooky
connections set distance record":
http://web.archive.org/web/20000915205413/www.newscientist.com/ns/970628/nlight_nf.html
Physics World, December 1999, Volume 12 Issue 12 Article 2: Quantum
gravity presents the ultimate challenge to theorists:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/12/2
Quote: "...Physics in the 20th century is founded on the twin pillars of
quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. However, in spite of the
enormous successes of each theory individually, the two appear to be
incompatible. This embarrassing contradiction at the very heart of
theoretical physics remains one of the great outstanding challenges in
science..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem
Quote: "...The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the
physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of
matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in
the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge..."
-
As you see, we do not (yet? maybe never?) have a complete description of
the universe...today we still have astronomical sized problems...
So free will, no free will and determinism can not be proofed or
falsified (yet? maybe never?)...*believe* it or not...
/Glenn
John Bailey
Much of the mind's perception of its volition is indeed illusory. The
unconscious develops decisions for which consciousness then claims
credit.
reference: http://tinyurl.com/me2xq
That said, unless you accept you are just a zombie-like
product of a vast memetic network of culturally based word
associations and emotional reflexes, its easier to believe that there
is something missing in our current knowledge of physics, chemistry,
biology and neuroscience.
If I am a zombie, why do I worry so much about it?
As a topic for physics, the discussion immediately runs afoul of the
inability of most physics to explain the arrow of time. Its only
possible to dissect consciousness, volition, and causality when its
possible to distinguish past, present and future.
Here is a conjecture which illustrates the depth of a potential
answer.
Start with the views expressed in Roger Penrose's book: The Emperor's
New Mind. I find the counter-arguments against Penrose's theories
persuasive, Penrose's theory of the mind as a quantum computing system
may be at least half right. It seems unlikely that components of the
brain are of a scale for there to be serious quantum effects at the
molecular level where the mental processes operate.
However, suppose that the mind has evolved so that it processes
signals in a fashion analogous to quantum mechanics. Not necessarily
physical equivalence, just mathematically similar behavior. For
example,suppose the subconscious is a vast menta/quantum waveform
(the analog of Hawking's wave function of the universe,
hep-th/9409195, pg 43) which repeatedly undergoes the analog of
quantum collapse. These decoherence events result in the mind's
perception of a series of specific moments of awareness which are the
fabric of consciousness.
What happens next is best described in the paper: The Physics of 'Now'
by James B. Hartle
"The world is four-dimensional according to fundamental physics,
governed by basic laws that operate in a spacetime that has no unique
division into space and time. Yet our subjective experience is divided
into present, past, and future. This paper discusses the origin of
this division in terms of simple models of information gathering and
utilizing systems (IGUSes). Past, present, and future are not
properties of four-dimensional spacetime but notions describing how
individual IGUSes process information."
http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0403001
The lack of current physic's ability to explain decoherence (as
reflected in wooly interpretations such as the many-worlds
interpretation) is mirrored in our inability to explain consciousness.
When physics can explain entanglement and collapse, perhaps we can
then also explain consciousness. On the other hand, perhaps
neuroscience could get there first!
John
*nemo*
DaffyDuck <daff...@spammersdie.mac.dot.com> wrote:
Souns like someone hasn't read their modern literature. Here's a hint:
Kurt Vonnegut. {;-)
Greg Hansen
Maybe you should define "free will", first. It's hard to imagine the
will being free if our actions are in conflict with our desires. In
that sense, it has to be causal, by definition. As to where our desires
come from, must they be random and without basis in order for the will
to be called free?
Bill M
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:ryMTg.67016$wg.3...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Why do you engage in this nasty vitriol? could it be that you have no
reasonable or logical answers?
Daryl McCullough
>Why do you engage in this nasty vitriol? could it be that you have no
>reasonable or logical answers?
Androcles is an idiot. And worse, he's a bad-tempered idiot. Best not
to pay any attention to him.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Free Lunch
stevend...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote in
<efool...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>Bill M says...
>
>>Why do you engage in this nasty vitriol? could it be that you have no
>>reasonable or logical answers?
>
>Androcles is an idiot. And worse, he's a bad-tempered idiot. Best not
>to pay any attention to him.
Probably because he's never had the chance to pull a splinter out of a
lion's paw.
Andres64
Got any good sources for dummies such as myself?
Citizen Bob
>>so determinism is out the
>> door. So far QM has yet to find exception.
You are full of crap. The Schrodinger Equation is completely
deterministic because it employs Unitary operators.
>Got any good sources for dummies such as myself?
Don't listen to this bullshit.
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
Andres64
Citizen Bob wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2006 09:48:21 -0700, "Andres64" <andr...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>so determinism is out the
> >> door. So far QM has yet to find exception.
>
> You are full of crap. The Schrodinger Equation is completely
> deterministic because it employs Unitary operators.
>
> >Got any good sources for dummies such as myself?
>
> Don't listen to this bullshit.
lol. Thanks. I am familiar with Schrodinger's cat, but my knowledge
if rather limited.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Andres64" <andr...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1159721300.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> "A Troll" <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58...
...
>> > Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical
>> > property of free will which allows humans to be "free" of
>> > causality. Sounds like religious nonsense to me.
>>
>> Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming
>> you are not what you post under suggests then it appears
>> you, or others reading this, may be interested in a
>> scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
>> determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies
>> on correspondence with experiment.
Experiment *relies* on determinism in fact.
>> Determinism rests on two hidden assumptions
>> (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality
>> (things exist independent of context ie if they are being
>> measured or not)
Right, experiments should yield the same result, regardless of
context.
>> and value definiteness (things have a definite value).
I'm not sure that follows, but there is a one-to-one
correspondence between modelled independent variables, and the
dependent ones.
>> If QM is true
Which kills most classical theories...
>> then the Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't
>> have both so determinism is out the door. So far
>> QM has yet to find exception.
Describe spacetime with QM, Bill. Something simple... ;>)
>> Basing ones views on experiment rather than what
>> you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it
>> sounds like it (and to you at that) is not what
>> science is about. Experiment asks questions of
>> nature - those interested in science respect its
>> answers.
>
> Got any good sources for dummies such as myself?
He dropped a bunch of cognates that you could do a search on.
On Google
determinism science site:.edu
295,000 hits ... or ...
"non contextuality" "value definiteness" site:.edu
3 hits, including Kochen-Specker ... or ...
Kochen-Specker site:.edu
537 hits
David A. Smith
Panties On Head
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9HJTg.39194$rP1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Well spoken and informative Bill.
DaffyDuck
> Souns like someone hasn't read their modern literature. Here's a hint:
> Kurt Vonnegut. {;-)
Sounds like someone doesn't have either a sense of humor, or to limited
an understanding of the world.
Chris H. Fleming
(1) The Schrödinger equation is completely deterministic.
(2) The Kochen-Specker theorem like Bell's inequality rules out hidden
variable theories.
If one takes the Schrödinger equation to be fundamental, and the
postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be approximation, the
one has a deterministic theory of QM that is not ruled out by Bell's
inequality nor anything of that nature. One must then work out exactly
how measurement works as an intereaction between the quantum system and
the extraordinary number of degrees of freedom in the measurement
apparatus. This is the approach of decoherence and quantum open
systems.
If one takes the postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be
fundamental, and the Schrödinger equation to be approximation, then
the Schrödinger equation is only applicable for the free Hamiltonian.
One is left with no fundamental theory at all. I am unfamiliar with
this side of the coin as my research lies with quantum open systems as
it seems much more straightforward to me.
Panties On Head
"Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:efog4...@enews3.newsguy.com...
The universe is either a gigantic deterministic clockwork, or it is not. The
only other alternative is that it is and also is not. Lets look at this case
by case. Please forgive my usage of CAPS.
UNIVERSE IS A DETERMINISTIC CLOCKWORK
True on ordinary scales, but many sources including Hawking state
explicitly that in some special cases information lossed directly imply
indeterminism and irreversibility of dynamical processes. The universe is
NOT a Newtonian clock.
UNIVERSE IS NONDETERMINISTIC CLOCKWORK
Seems true on quantum scale, but certainly we are still able to predict
things on ordinary scales. The universe is not just a collection of random
things happening for no reason whatsoever.
UNIVERSE IS A MIX OF DETERMINISM AND NONDETERMINISM
This is the way it really is, but nobody has the stomach or the balls to
discuss partial causality, partial existence, triviality, nonexistence, etc
etc etc. Indeed, the universe is a mix of deterministic and nondeterministic
dynamics, it is scale dependent, and so there is ample motivation to state
that free will can indeed exist. We have'nt proved that it does, only that
the complete negation of freewill must be false.
An example.
Bob and Joe will earn money during the course of their lives.
Bob will earn 1 dollar per day working 365 days per year for 65 years. His
cost of living is fixed at 50 cents per day. His finances are completely
determined, and in some sense they are "reversible". You can rewind the
clock and you will know "exactly" what he was worth at any given time.
Joe is different. His income and expenditures are exactly the same as Bob's,
but Joe plays the lottery. Joe's income is not reversible because there is
no way to know "exactly" when he won the lottery at any given point in time
going backwards. Joe's finances are NOT reversible.
All dynamics are exactly the same as illustrated in this example, and
questions of randomness, order and disorder are so fundamental and important
to science, why it is being ignored I have no idea.
Does randomness exist in nature ? Does it exist at all, even in math ? Can
it possibly ?
Panties On Head
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159727339.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Is it ? The output of SWE is probabilistic. Can you really say that it's
completely deterministic ? What about the cat ?
-----------------------------------------------------
(2) The Kochen-Specker theorem like Bell's inequality rules out hidden
variable theories.
If one takes the Schrödinger equation to be fundamental, and the
postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be approximation, the
one has a deterministic theory of QM that is not ruled out by Bell's
inequality nor anything of that nature. One must then work out exactly
how measurement works as an intereaction between the quantum system and
the extraordinary number of degrees of freedom in the measurement
apparatus. This is the approach of decoherence and quantum open
systems.
If one takes the postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be
fundamental, and the Schrödinger equation to be approximation, then
the Schrödinger equation is only applicable for the free Hamiltonian.
One is left with no fundamental theory at all. I am unfamiliar with
this side of the coin as my research lies with quantum open systems as
it seems much more straightforward to me.
-----------------------------------------------------
This whole issue can be traced back to the laziness of mathematicians who
have yet to provide a suitable clarification of order and disorder. The
current concept of randomness is incapable of serving science properly and
that it the root of the problem in my opinion.
j_ns...@msn.com
> Determinism I understand. It's simple[....]
Is the truth usually simple?
Joseph Scott
Denis Loubet
"A Troll" <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58...
> Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
> Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
>
> Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
> which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
> nonsense to me.
Free will makes no sense to me. Christianity uses the concept to make
people, and not their omniscient creator god, responsible for the evil
people do. But it keeps becoming clearer and clearer that we're robots made
of meat.
My personal theory is that the universe is a mechanical clockwork that
accomodates quantum randomization. Thus it is not classically deterministic,
but it is still mechanical, with everything operating according to strict
physical law.
It doesn't help free will arguments. If a mechanical universe doesn't
accomodate free will, and a random universe doesn't accomodate free will, I
don't see how a mixture of the two accomodates free will. You're either
slave to the machine, or slave to the roll of the dice, neither of which is
free will.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
Denis Loubet
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9HJTg.39194$rP1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
But QM makes the universe operate on dice rolls. Being slave to the roll of
the dice is not free will either.
Denis Loubet
"Glenn Møller-Holst" <nom...@xx.dk> wrote in message
news:efo7g6$crm$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk...
>A Troll wrote:
>> Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
>> Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
>>
>> Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
>> will which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
>> nonsense to me.
>
> Hi!
>
> Short answer: Nobody knows I *believe*.
But the dismissal of free will is justified by the fact that no one has
established that human brains operate outside physical law.
Bob Kolker
>
> But QM makes the universe operate on dice rolls. Being slave to the roll of
> the dice is not free will either.
QM get dicey only when the wave function collapses. In its uncollapsed
state the wave function evolved in time in a determinisitic fashion.
Bob Kolker
Sphere
A Troll wrote:
> Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
> Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
>
> Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
> which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
> nonsense to me.
None of it "makes sense."
It doesn't matter if the world is detministic or not.
It doesn't matter if you have free will or not.
All that matters is that you have to make choices
in the face of uncertainty.
You're stuck with effective free will whether
you like it or not.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
j_ns...@msn.com
incompetence, as of such-and-such a time, at predicting whatever.
Can the word "random" be expected to usefully describe anything
unchanging over time about the universe? We could be less grand in
wording and ask how much "not-sureness" is really in the universe (the
universe itself, not just us). And I think that's at least as silly as
wondering how much human free choice is really in the universe.
Joseph Scott
Sphere
Positing that everything is determined in advance
is assuming available computing power greater
than the entire Universe.
How can you be a slave to them when you can't
even compute them? If the universe is deterministic
then it is computing the future as fast as it can --
and we cannot know the results in advance. This
is effectively non-deterministic.
We have to make choices, and we cannot know
everything. It isn't possible to compute every result
of every choice. This is effectively free will.
The entire debate is based upon some magical
being capable of computing the future of the
Universe, and that being cannot be part of
the Universe for otherwise it would have to be
included in the computation. If it cannot be
part of the Universe then we can completely
ignore it.
chris_h...@yahoo.com
Yes.
> The output of SWE is probabilistic.
Only when one envokes the measurement postulate of Born. And when you
do that, you break the unitary dynamics of the SWE. Therefore you are
under some rules of nature other than the SWE.
> Can you really say that it's
> completely deterministic ? What about the cat ?
If we can model everything with the SWE, then yes.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> (2) The Kochen-Specker theorem like Bell's inequality rules out hidden
> variable theories.
>
> If one takes the Schrödinger equation to be fundamental, and the
> postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be approximation, the
> one has a deterministic theory of QM that is not ruled out by Bell's
> inequality nor anything of that nature. One must then work out exactly
> how measurement works as an intereaction between the quantum system and
> the extraordinary number of degrees of freedom in the measurement
> apparatus. This is the approach of decoherence and quantum open
> systems.
>
> If one takes the postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be
> fundamental, and the Schrödinger equation to be approximation, then
> the Schrödinger equation is only applicable for the free Hamiltonian.
> One is left with no fundamental theory at all. I am unfamiliar with
> this side of the coin as my research lies with quantum open systems as
> it seems much more straightforward to me.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> This whole issue can be traced back to the laziness of mathematicians who
> have yet to provide a suitable clarification of order and disorder.
That really depends on the representation in QM. It is an outstanding
problem.
> The
> current concept of randomness is incapable of serving science properly and
> that it the root of the problem in my opinion.
Random variables work just fine mathematically. Even in a deterministic
interpretation of QM, with the interaction of the large numbers of
degrees of freedom in the environment or measurement apparatus, there
is an approximate randomness. The measurements seem as random as there
are many DoF in the measurement apparatus . And the wave collapse is as
irreversable as that too, even though the SWE is time reversable. It is
much like a thermodynamic limit in that sense.
A Troll
news:1159737856.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
You had no choice but to type this exact message and could not have done
otherwise. Is that infuriating to realise? If so or if not, you had no
choice there, either.
Dance for the universe.
Martin Hogbin
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:ryMTg.67016$wg.3...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:jv2dnTl3Tou...@bt.com...
> | I agree.
> |
I see you are maintaining your usual standard of reasoned
argument.
Martin Hogbin
Sorcerer
Not even interesting.
Sphere
I'm completely indifferent. Whether I
had a 'real' choice or not, nothing could
have predicted with certainty even a few
hours in advance that I'd be here to do
the typing. As far as I'm concerned,
that's the same as having a choice.
Besides, my system of belief is such
that determinism is excluded. I consider
the whole topic mental mastubation.
Take note of my sig.
>
> Dance for the universe.
I don't think the Universe cares.
Denis Loubet
"Sphere" <spher...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159739597.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ah, you're using language to obsfuscate. How very helpful.
Everything is not determined in advance like a computer simulation,
everything is determined by the inevitability of the outcome. No computing
power necessary. The operation of the universe is proceeding at one second
per second.
> How can you be a slave to them when you can't
> even compute them?
By the fact that the outcome is inevitable.
> If the universe is deterministic
> then it is computing the future as fast as it can --
If you call an inevitable sequence of events a computation, then one second
per second is the speed the computation is proceeding.
> and we cannot know the results in advance. This
> is effectively non-deterministic.
Irrelevant. Inevitable equals deterministic.
> We have to make choices, and we cannot know
> everything.
That appears to be the case.
> It isn't possible to compute every result
> of every choice.
It would be tedious as well.
> This is effectively free will.
No, this is called making decisions without all the facts. This has nothing
to do with free will.
> The entire debate is based upon some magical
> being capable of computing the future of the
> Universe, and that being cannot be part of
> the Universe for otherwise it would have to be
> included in the computation.
Not if you're responding to my post it isn't. I have said nothing about
advance simulations of the universe.
> If it cannot be
> part of the Universe then we can completely
> ignore it.
Things like free will, I agree.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
The other Eric
A Troll wrote:
> "Sphere" <spher...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1159737856.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > A Troll wrote:
> >> Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and
> >> effect. Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
> >>
> >> Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free
> >> will which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like
> >> religious nonsense to me.
> >
> > None of it "makes sense."
> >
> > It doesn't matter if the world is detministic or not.
> > It doesn't matter if you have free will or not.
> > All that matters is that you have to make choices
> > in the face of uncertainty.
> >
> > You're stuck with effective free will whether
> > you like it or not.
> > ---
> > No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
> >
>
> You had no choice but to type this exact message and could not have done
> otherwise.
Prove it.
> Is that infuriating to realise? If so or if not, you had no
> choice there, either.
Prove that two.
Regards,
-Eric
Sphere
If so then it is also unknowable. If an
outcome is unknowable it doesn't
matter whether it is inevitable or not.
...
> > This is effectively free will.
>
> No, this is called making decisions without all the facts. This has nothing
> to do with free will.
If it cannot be distingushed from free will
then it doesn't matter whether it is free will
or not. You may mastubate with the idealizations
of determinism and free will all you want, but
when it comes down to the mat what we have
can be treated as if it were free will. We still
have to make choices.
Determinism is an idealization, and there are
no ideals. No perfect circles, no perfect beings,
no perfect plans.
...
Hendrik Boom
>
> "A Troll" <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58...
>> Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
>> Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
>>
>> Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
>> which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
>> nonsense to me.
>
> Free will makes no sense to me. Christianity uses the concept to make
> people, and not their omniscient creator god, responsible for the evil
> people do. But it keeps becoming clearer and clearer that we're robots made
> of meat.
>
> My personal theory is that the universe is a mechanical clockwork
So you, inside the universe, are a machine.
> that
> accomodates quantum randomization. Thus it is not classically deterministic,
> but it is still mechanical, with everything operating according to strict
> physical law.
>
> It doesn't help free will arguments. If a mechanical universe doesn't
> accomodate free will, and a random universe doesn't accomodate free will, I
> don't see how a mixture of the two accomodates free will. You're either
> slave to the machine, or slave to the roll of the dice, neither of which is
> free will.
You are not a slave to the machine; you *are* the machine. Your decision
are the machine's decisions. YOu decide. What would be the point of free
will, after all, if it weren't you making your decisions depending on your
state, your beliefs?
DaffyDuck
> So you, inside the universe, are a machine.
I think that is what he said, when he stated that "we're robots made of meat"
> You are not a slave to the machine; you *are* the machine. Your decision
> are the machine's decisions. YOu decide.
Actually, bzzzt! No. If you are the 'machine' you do NOT decide. A
'machine', by it's very definition, does not decide, does not have the
capability to decide - it only performs the task it is made for
(disregarding the usual 'watchmaker' and 'intelligent design'
arguments).
> What would be the point of free
> will, after all, if it weren't you making your decisions depending on your
> state, your beliefs?
I think that's exactly the point - precisely, that if you are a
machine, that you have no free will. You may *believe* you have a free
will, you may be programmed to firmly believe so, but at the end of the
day, you don't.
Not really a problem for me - I believe I have free will, even though I
know I don't Smart people can internalize this. Dumb people get all
bent out of shape.
DaffyDuck
> Does randomness exist in nature ? Does it exist at all, even in math ? Can
> it possibly ?
No, it does not! True randomness is impossible in a physical universe,
albeit with our limited understanding of the physical aspects and
variables of it, effectively, we can experience events with sufficient
appearance of randomness to qualify as such... but that does not make
them such.
DaffyDuck
> None of it "makes sense."
>
> It doesn't matter if the world is detministic or not.
> It doesn't matter if you have free will or not.
> All that matters is that you have to make choices
> in the face of uncertainty.
>
> You're stuck with effective free will whether
> you like it or not.
Very well say. Best way to wrap this up.
NC
Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays.
The other Eric
So what drives choice?
Regards,
-Eric
Lefty
"DaffyDuck" <daff...@spammersdie.mac.dot.com> wrote in message
news:200610011856008930-daffyduck@spammersdiemacdotcom...
Quite right as pure disorder can most likely be rigorously proved to be
trivial. Real randomness cannot exist. Things can be "maximally disordered",
but that is different from complete disorder, or what I think of as truly
random.
The only truly random number is one where each of the digits is uncertain,
to be determined by some "random process" of choosing. So, even in the
abstracted case where one is dealing with a hypothetical number, you have a
string of digits which are all completely uncertain regardless of how many
digits are already determined.
My claim is that this is not even a number, but an uncertainty. Calling it a
number does not make it so.
If the number A = a1 a2 a3 a4 a5, ..........a(n) is a random number, where
each of the a(n) is completely uncertain - this is not a number. Just a
sequence of uncertainties. I see no numbers in this - just one uncertainty
after the next.
Bill Hobba
"Citizen Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:451ff3fe...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On 1 Oct 2006 09:48:21 -0700, "Andres64" <andr...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>>so determinism is out the
>>> door. So far QM has yet to find exception.
>
> deterministic because it employs Unitary operators.
And the collapse of the wave function by an observation is deterministic?
But that is not what the argument is based on - it is based on the hidden
assumptions of determinism that are violated in QM. All this is very well
known and detailed in the Kochen Specker theorem:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
This does not prove Nature is not deterministic - it proves if our best
description of Nature is true then it is not deterministic.
Bill
>
>>Got any good sources for dummies such as myself?
>
> Don't listen to this bullshit.
>
>
> --
>
> Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
> you would have good people doing good things and evil
> people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
> things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
Bill Hobba
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:6RSTg.1323$v43.1103@fed1read02...
> Dear Andres64:
>
> "Andres64" <andr...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1159721300.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> "A Troll" <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58...
>>> > Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical
>>> > property of free will which allows humans to be "free" of
>>> > causality. Sounds like religious nonsense to me.
>>>
>>> you are not what you post under suggests then it appears
>>> you, or others reading this, may be interested in a
>>> scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
>>> determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies
>>> on correspondence with experiment.
>
>
>>> Determinism rests on two hidden assumptions
>>> (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality
>>> (things exist independent of context ie if they are being
>>> measured or not)
>
>
>>> and value definiteness (things have a definite value).
>
> between modelled independent variables, and the dependent ones.
>
>>> If QM is true
>
> Which kills most classical theories...
>
>>> then the Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't
>>> QM has yet to find exception.
>
Good one David. Of course space-time is based on the concept of events
which are classical things so no problem can arise. Of course the 64
million dollar question is how the classical world emerges from QM -
different interpretations - different explanations. My favorite is
consistent histories:
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/histories.html
>
>>> Basing ones views on experiment rather than what
>>> you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it
>>> sounds like it (and to you at that) is not what
>>> science is about. Experiment asks questions of
>>> nature - those interested in science respect its
>>> answers.
>>
>> Got any good sources for dummies such as myself?
>
> He dropped a bunch of cognates that you could do a search on.
> On Google
> determinism science site:.edu
> 295,000 hits ... or ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
The issue however is subtle and will require thought. No Kochen Specker
theorm for dummies.
Thanks
Bill
>
> "non contextuality" "value definiteness" site:.edu
> 3 hits, including Kochen-Specker ... or ...
>
> Kochen-Specker site:.edu
> 537 hits
>
> David A. Smith
>
Bill Hobba
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159727339.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> "A Troll" <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58...
> > Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
> >
> > will
> > which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
> > nonsense to me.
>
> Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what
> you
> post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may be
> interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
> determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
> (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things exist
> definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then the
> Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out the
> rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it
> sounds
> like it (and to you at that) is not what science is about. Experiment
> asks
> questions of nature - those interested in science respect its answers.
> (1) The Schrödinger equation is completely deterministic.
Yes.
> (2) The Kochen-Specker theorem like Bell's inequality rules out hidden
> variable theories.
Not quite - for example it does not rule out Bohmian mechanics - that has
been ruled out by experiment.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196
What it rules out is naive realism ie that in nature things exist
independent of context and can always be assigned a value. Determinism
rests, among others things, on those assumptions - not just cause and
effect.
> If one takes the Schrödinger equation to be fundamental, and the
> postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be approximation, the
> one has a deterministic theory of QM that is not ruled out by Bell's
> inequality nor anything of that nature.
You seem to be advocating a version decoherence - a valid interpretation
that avoids the collapse issue. The one I actually put my money on is
primary state diffusion:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9508021. Of the conventional ones I like
consistent histories.
However it will not save determinism which is still based on naive realism.
Of course you are allowed to define determinism to exclude naive realism -
which is fine - but is not what most people mean by deterministic eg in QM
one can not at have momentum and position possess definite values
independent of measurement context which is something most would say a
deterministic theory should have. In decoherence the wave function has
objective existence but it can never be assigned both a definite momentum
and position at the same time. If you accept that wiedity then yes you have
determinism - just of a rather strange type - so strange many including
myself would say it is not deterministic.
> One must then work out exactly
> how measurement works as an intereaction between the quantum system and
> the extraordinary number of degrees of freedom in the measurement
> apparatus. This is the approach of decoherence and quantum open
> systems.
You betcha.
> If one takes the postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be
> fundamental, and the Schrödinger equation to be approximation, then
> the Schrödinger equation is only applicable for the free Hamiltonian.
> One is left with no fundamental theory at all. I am unfamiliar with
> this side of the coin as my research lies with quantum open systems as
> it seems much more straightforward to me.
It is in part an issue of semantics. It is just that naive realism is
usually part of what most mean by determinism.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:XK2dnRmGGd8ys73Y...@io.com...
That is actually a misconception. Interpretations of QM exist that avoid
the issue (eg quantum decoherence and many worlds). My objection has to do
with other things than the probabilistic nature of some interpretations of
QM. When people speak of determinism they usually mean determinism in the
sence of classical physics in which in principle everything has a value at
all times and exists independent of being measured. If QM is true then we
have a powerful theorem called the Kochen Specker theorem that says nature
can't be like that:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
Thanks
Bill
Glenn Møller-Holst
Hi Denis
As you see, we do not (yet? maybe never?) have a complete description of
the universe...today we still have astronomically sized problems...
Minor quote from my former text:
Physics World, December 1999, Volume 12 Issue 12 Article 2: Quantum
gravity presents the ultimate challenge to theorists:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/12/2
Quote: "...Physics in the 20th century is founded on the twin pillars of
quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. However, in spite of the
enormous successes of each theory individually, the two appear to be
incompatible. This embarrassing contradiction at the very heart of
theoretical physics remains one of the great outstanding challenges in
science..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem
Quote: "...The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the
physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of
matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in
the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge..."
-
As you see, we do not (yet? maybe never?) have a complete description of
the universe...today we still have astronomically sized problems...
So free will, no free will and determinism can not be proofed or
falsified (yet? maybe never?)...*believe* it or not...
/Glenn
Bill Hobba
"Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4oapmaF...@individual.net...
Nice to see you posting again Bob. Sure - but my objection goes further
than that. It rests on the fact most people would bundle naive realism in
with determinism - and it is naive realism the Kochen Specker theorem
specifically forbids if QM is correct. I am not too worried about if given
the initial state of the universe everything is preordained so we have no
free will - which in practical terms is of zero help - I am worried people
understand exactly what QM violates.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Bob Kolker
John Baker
Glenn Møller-Holst
Hi!
You can not prove that (yet? maybe never?), because we do not have a
full description of the universe today. What we have now, is just a
crude model (science). In many cases it seems ok with about 8 figures -
other times, it do not predict correctly. Quote from former text:
Physics and all of science is build on axioms (fundamental *assumptions*):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Quote: "...An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is accepted as the
first and last line of a one-line proof and is considered as obvious or
as an initial necessary consensus for the theory building or
acceptation. Therefore, it is *taken for granted* as true, and serves as
a starting point for deducing and inferencing other truths...In many
usages axiom and postulate or assumption are used as synonyms..."
It is not possible to proof axioms. That is what all of science is build
upon, but it is still very useful.
"Cause and effect"; causality is also just a postulate or assumption, no
one can proof it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_and_effect
Quote: "...David Hume asserted that it was impossible to know that
certain laws of cause and effect always apply - no matter how many times
one observes them occurring..."
But you can of cause *believe* in causality. Most of the time it appears
to be right. Quantum mechanics and causality have had clashes both in
the past and now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Quote: "...A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy)
described as a "classic point particle" or as a wave but rather the
microphysical situation is best described in terms of wave-particle
duality...For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one
imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and
producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such
explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of
quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a
"measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it
directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Quote: "...Although originally devised as a thought experiment that
would demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, actual
experimental results ironically refutes the principle of locality,
invalidating the EPR trio's original purpose. The "spooky action at a
distance" that so disturbed the authors of EPR consistently occurs in
numerous and widely replicated experiments..."
Web archive mirror: New Scientist, 28 June 1997: "Light's spooky
connections set distance record":
http://web.archive.org/web/20000915205413/www.newscientist.com/ns/970628/nlight_nf.html
Physics World, December 1999, Volume 12 Issue 12 Article 2: Quantum
gravity presents the ultimate challenge to theorists:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/12/2
Quote: "...Physics in the 20th century is founded on the twin pillars of
quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. However, in spite of the
enormous successes of each theory individually, the two appear to be
incompatible. This embarrassing contradiction at the very heart of
theoretical physics remains one of the great outstanding challenges in
science..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem
Quote: "...The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the
physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of
matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in
the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge..."
-
As you see, we do not (yet? maybe never?) have a complete description of
the universe...today we still have astronomical sized problems...
Glenn Møller-Holst
...
>>
>>No, it does not! True randomness is impossible in a physical universe,
>>albeit with our limited understanding of the physical aspects and
>>variables of it, effectively, we can experience events with sufficient
>>appearance of randomness to qualify as such... but that does not make
>>them such.
>
>
>
> Quite right as pure disorder can most likely be rigorously proved to be
> trivial. Real randomness cannot exist. Things can be "maximally disordered",
> but that is different from complete disorder, or what I think of as truly
> random.
>
> The only truly random number is one where each of the digits is uncertain,
> to be determined by some "random process" of choosing. So, even in the
> abstracted case where one is dealing with a hypothetical number, you have a
> string of digits which are all completely uncertain regardless of how many
> digits are already determined.
>
> My claim is that this is not even a number, but an uncertainty. Calling it a
> number does not make it so.
>
> If the number A = a1 a2 a3 a4 a5, ..........a(n) is a random number, where
> each of the a(n) is completely uncertain - this is not a number. Just a
> sequence of uncertainties. I see no numbers in this - just one uncertainty
> after the next.
Hi!
Number are just brain abstractions, that are useful, but numbers do not
exist, as far as I know, outside our mind.
You can not prove, that randomness do not exist (yet? maybe never?),
because we do not have a full description of the universe today. What we
have now, is just a crude model (science). In many cases it seems ok
with about 8 figures - other times, it does not predict correctly. Quote
from former text:
-
the universe...today we still have astronomically sized problems...
A Troll
news:r4e1i2le011dsg93j...@4ax.com:
> On 2 Oct 2006 00:22:22 +0200, A Troll <anobvio...@nothidingit.com>
> wrote:
>
> <PLONK!>
>
Thank you for publicly alerting me to your killfile action.
I have altered my email address accordingly. Again, thanks.
--
The above post was written by A Troll.
chris_h...@yahoo.com
Bohm's theory is nonlocal though. You're right that it is a hidden
variables' theory. I wasn't specific enough.
> What it rules out is naive realism ie that in nature things exist
> independent of context and can always be assigned a value. Determinism
> rests, among others things, on those assumptions - not just cause and
> effect.
>
> > If one takes the Schrödinger equation to be fundamental, and the
> > postulates of measurement and wave collapse to be approximation, the
> > one has a deterministic theory of QM that is not ruled out by Bell's
> > inequality nor anything of that nature.
>
> You seem to be advocating a version decoherence - a valid interpretation
> that avoids the collapse issue. The one I actually put my money on is
> primary state diffusion:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9508021. Of the conventional ones I like
> consistent histories.
>
> However it will not save determinism which is still based on naive realism.
> Of course you are allowed to define determinism to exclude naive realism -
> which is fine - but is not what most people mean by deterministic eg in QM
> one can not at have momentum and position possess definite values
> independent of measurement context which is something most would say a
> deterministic theory should have. In decoherence the wave function has
> objective existence but it can never be assigned both a definite momentum
> and position at the same time. If you accept that wiedity then yes you have
> determinism - just of a rather strange type - so strange many including
> myself would say it is not deterministic.
Determinism: You have a differential equation, you have initial
conditions, you have a uniqueness theorem for solutions, you have
deterministic behavior. Determinism means that given the exact initial
conditions, the exact final conditions are determined. Determinism does
not hinge upon the existence of local variables, but a fundamental
theory that is an exact differential equation in time.
In the context of a SWE that is taken to be the fundamental theory
(along with the existence of some pure state - which you take to be a
naive realism), the initial condition is the global state and not local
variables (and especially not position and momentum). Given the initial
state (a global state), the future state is determined. That is how it
is deterministic.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>And the collapse of the wave function by an observation is deterministic?
The so-called "collapse of the wave function" is a remnant of the
now-defunct Copenhagen Interpretation. It was required to explain the
deficiencies of first quantization, which does not allow for
transitions. Second quantization allows for transitions and therefore
there is no "collapse of the wave function" bullshit.
The wave function in the absence of measurement in second quantization
(aka "quantum field theory") is many body - there are no individual
particles present only a variable number of identical particles. When
a measurement occurs the many body wave function makes a completely
deterministic transition to a single particle wave function. There is
no need for any "collapse" nonsense.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>QM get dicey only when the wave function collapses. In its uncollapsed
>state the wave function evolved in time in a determinisitic fashion.
There is no such thing as the "collapse of the wave function". The
wave function makes a continuous deterministic transition from one
state to another when a measurement is performed.
This "collapse" nonsense is a remnant of the defunct Copenhagen
Interpretation which was caused by the failure of first quantization
to explain transitions between eigenstates. Later second quantization
was developed in which there was a natural mechanism for transitions.
Every process in quantum mechanics, including measurement, is
completely deterministic. That's because the wave equations employ
Unitary operators. There are certain variables that are intrinsically
unknowable due to the many body nature of second quantization, but
that does not mean that the process that evolves in Hilbert Space is
not completely deterministic.
Denis Loubet
By this criteria, you're suggesting that agreement with the theory of
gravity is just as valid as agreement with the claim that the tooth fairy
exists. You're insisting that they're both "beliefs".
We have mountains of evidence showing that matter acts according to strict
physical law. We have no evidence that matter acts outside the bounds of
strict physical law. I will therefore agree that matter acts according to
strict physical law, and insist that my position is far better justified
than a position that insists that matter acts outside the bounds of strict
physical law.
Denis Loubet
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:17:39 -0500, Bob Kolker <now...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>QM get dicey only when the wave function collapses. In its uncollapsed
>>state the wave function evolved in time in a determinisitic fashion.
>
> There is no such thing as the "collapse of the wave function". The
> wave function makes a continuous deterministic transition from one
> state to another when a measurement is performed.
>
> This "collapse" nonsense is a remnant of the defunct Copenhagen
> Interpretation which was caused by the failure of first quantization
> to explain transitions between eigenstates. Later second quantization
> was developed in which there was a natural mechanism for transitions.
>
> Every process in quantum mechanics, including measurement, is
> completely deterministic. That's because the wave equations employ
> Unitary operators. There are certain variables that are intrinsically
> unknowable due to the many body nature of second quantization, but
> that does not mean that the process that evolves in Hilbert Space is
> not completely deterministic.
Ok, I'm not going to pretend I understand all that! ;-) But from everything
I've read, the atomic decay of a given atom is supposed to be a genuine
random event. Was everything I read wrong, or was my understanding of it
wrong, or has more recent findings shown it to be wrong?
Denis Loubet
Are you saying it's a misconception that the atomic decay of a given atom is
a random event? In my readings, people still talk about it as if it is. They
even still talk about atomic decay as a source of true ramdom numbers, just
hook your software up to a detector.
Is that all completely wrong?
> Interpretations of QM exist that avoid the issue (eg quantum decoherence
> and many worlds).
I'm certainly not going to agree with the many worlds interpretation until
we can unambiguously determine there's more than one. I don't pretend to
know what the quantum decoherence interpretation is.
> My objection has to do with other things than the probabilistic nature of
> some interpretations of QM. When people speak of determinism they
> usually mean determinism in the sence of classical physics in which in
> principle everything has a value at all times and exists independent of
> being measured. If QM is true then we have a powerful theorem called the
> Kochen Specker theorem that says nature can't be like that:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
Yikes! (And that's only from my layman's understanding of the first few
paragraphs.)
But I don't see that there's a connection between even this interpretation
and free will. If one's will is a slave to a physical process, then that
physical process is the thing making decisions, not the "will". I still
don't see how anything called free will can possibly exist.
Denis Loubet
That's what "can't even compute them" means. And note that I have not said
they're not computable.
I compute that if I drop something, it will fall down.
> If an
> outcome is unknowable it doesn't
> matter whether it is inevitable or not.
But not all outcomes are unknowable. I dropped my pen and it fell down just
as my computation indicated it would. I successfully computed what was
inevitable.
>> > This is effectively free will.
>>
>> No, this is called making decisions without all the facts. This has
>> nothing
>> to do with free will.
>
> If it cannot be distingushed from free will
> then it doesn't matter whether it is free will
> or not.
Granted. But no one said that the facts have to have utility in order to be
facts or to be worth knowing.
And such inability to distinguish things usually indicates that the thing
doesn't actually exist.
> You may mastubate with the idealizations
> of determinism and free will all you want,
But of course, that's what we're both doing.
> but
> when it comes down to the mat what we have
> can be treated as if it were free will. We still
> have to make choices.
Sucks, doesn't it. But we don't *have* to fool ourselves with a happy
fiction. We can admit that we are automatons made of meat and get on with
our lives.
> Determinism is an idealization, and there are
> no ideals.
Unless you're suggesting that particles can whimsically decide to be here or
there, the universe is an idealization of itself.
> No perfect circles, no perfect beings,
> no perfect plans.
But the universe is perfectly itself.
Glenn Møller-Holst
...
> By this criteria, you're suggesting that agreement with the theory of
> gravity is just as valid as agreement with the claim that the tooth fairy
> exists.
No, that is not my purpose or goal.
> You're insisting that they're both "beliefs".
Yes, but I will of cause have greater believe in Science's achivements.
I have read e.g. that some of Physics equations fits with 8 figures.
and combined with 1930's and todays measurement that lead to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem
Quote: "...The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the
physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of
matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in
the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge..."
and
Physics and all of science is build on axioms (fundamental *assumptions*):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Quote: "...An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is accepted as the
first and last line of a one-line proof and is considered as obvious or
as an initial necessary consensus for the theory building or
acceptation. Therefore, it is *taken for granted* as true, and serves as
a starting point for deducing and inferencing other truths...In many
usages axiom and postulate or assumption are used as synonyms..."
- Leads me to the logical conclusion that we today do not have *exact*
mathematical description of the universe. What we have now, is just a
crude (ironically meant) model (science). In many cases it seems ok with
about 8 figures - other times, it does not predict correctly.
> We have mountains of evidence showing that matter acts according to strict
> physical law.
Yes, but only to some finite figure - around 8? Not exact!
> We have no evidence that matter acts outside the bounds of
> strict physical law.
Matter for a physician is "only" fermions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion
We do not know that dark matter exist (could resolve the Galaxy rotation
problem to some extent):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
or dark energy exists (could resolve the Galaxy rotation problem to some
extent):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
But there are also bosons e.g.:
*photon
*W-boson, Z-boson
*Gluon
But there are also hypothesized bosons:
*graviton
*Higgs-boson
Maybe these also exist?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparticle
E.g. we do not have a grand unified theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_theory
It is selfevident that our description of the universe is not
complete/exact. But I will enforce that science (incl.physics) is a
remarkable tool to gain more knowledge of the universe.
> I will therefore agree that matter acts according to
> strict physical law, and insist that my position is far better justified
> than a position that insists that matter acts outside the bounds of strict
> physical law.
That we today do not have *exact* mathematical/physical description of
the universe, do *not* falsify og proof:
*free will
*no free will
*determinism
It is as simple as that.
/Glenn
Martin Hogbin
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:wMXTg.69442$wg.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:DeOdnRdGNv8...@bt.com...
> |
> | "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
> news:ryMTg.67016$wg.3...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | >
> | > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> | > news:jv2dnTl3Tou...@bt.com...
> | > | I agree.
> | > |
> | > Who cares what you agree or disagree with, shithead?
> |
> | I see you are maintaining your usual standard of reasoned
> | argument.
>
> Not even interesting.
Not even original.
Martin Hogbin
Mike
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "A Troll" <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58...
> > Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
> > Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
> >
> > Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
> > which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
> > nonsense to me.
>
> post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may be
> interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
> determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
> correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden assumptions
> (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things exist
> independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and value
> definiteness (things have a definite value).
No assumptions, especially hidden. Determinism is the belief that there
is a causal explanation for everything that happens. Realists hold that
there are features of reality which take values independently of
observations. I cannot see how you tied the two beliefs together. It is
just a peculiar concidence that most realists also adopt deterministic
views. Do not forget that anti-realists views can also be compatible
with deterministic ones. The block universe of special relativity is
ssubject to extreme determinism also known as fatalism. Things will
happend no matetr what.
> If QM is true then the
> Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out the
> door. So far QM has yet to find exception.
Also, QM has to explain how uncertainty at the micro scale gives rise
to unprecedented certainty at the macro scale and there is no
convincing answer about this other than the statistical mechanics
approach.
Also, if what you said is true, then particle physicists are wasting
their time and tax money.
> Basing ones views on experiment
> rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it sounds
> like it (and to you at that) is not what science is about. Experiment asks
> questions of nature - those interested in science respect its answers.
>
The question is "what's the question" and most experimenters do not
know the question, they just see the answer related to the state of
their apparatus but are puzzled in reference to which questions this
answers.
Mike
> Thanks
> Bill
Mike
Bill Hobba wrote:
[snip]
>
> However it will not save determinism which is still based on naive realism.
Who says so? See my other post. Determinism is not based on any
realism, so much for naive although there are many different
variations. Anti-realists accounts can also be deterministic, even to
the extreme, like special relativity. You are confusing two different
issues here in your usual notorious way:
Determinists claim there is a causal explanation for everything
Realists claim independent of observation feautres of reality
Do you see any connection? I see none.
> Of course you are allowed to define determinism to exclude naive realism -
> which is fine - but is not what most people mean by deterministic eg in QM
> one can not at have momentum and position possess definite values
> independent of measurement context which is something most would say a
> deterministic theory should have. In decoherence the wave function has
> objective existence but it can never be assigned both a definite momentum
> and position at the same time. If you accept that wiedity then yes you have
> determinism - just of a rather strange type - so strange many including
> myself would say it is not deterministic.
>
You are confusing different issues (nothing new here). It is convinient
to you but not to us who have a clear understanding of them.
Mike
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Sorcerer
Bill Hobba
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 05:40:52 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And the collapse of the wave function by an observation is deterministic?
>
> The so-called "collapse of the wave function" is a remnant of the
> now-defunct Copenhagen Interpretation.
I beg to differ - although not my favorite interpretation (of the
conventional ones I like Consistent Histories) it is the one still held to
by the majority of physicists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
'According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen
interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of
quantum mechanics, followed by the Many-worlds interpretation. Although
current trends show substantial competition from alternative
interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen
interpretation has had strong acceptance among physicists'
>It was required to explain the
> deficiencies of first quantization, which does not allow for
> transitions. Second quantization allows for transitions and therefore
> there is no "collapse of the wave function" bullshit.
Second quantization is the foundation of QFT which has exactly the same
axioms as QM plus relativity - see Weinberg - The Quantum Theory of Fields
where he derives QFT from SR and QM (to be totally accurate he also uses the
cluster decomposition property). Indeed to support the assertion it is
derivable from QM and SR is why he wrote the book.
>
> The wave function in the absence of measurement in second quantization
> (aka "quantum field theory") is many body - there are no individual
> particles present only a variable number of identical particles. When
> a measurement occurs the many body wave function makes a completely
> deterministic transition to a single particle wave function. There is
> no need for any "collapse" nonsense.
In QFT observations still cause a collapse of the wave function. The issue
is if such is simply a mathematical device or something fundamental. I
believe it is nothing but a mathematical device. Consistent histories has
the following take:
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.html
'Wave function collapse (or reduction) was introduced by von Neumann as a
separate mode of time evolution for a quantum system, quite distinct from
the unitary time evolution implied by Schrödinger's equation. The concept
leads to a number of conceptual difficulties, and is one of the sources of
the widespread (but incorrect) notion that there are superluminal influences
in the quantum world. From the consistent histories perspective, wave
function collapse is a mathematical procedure for calculating certain kinds
of conditional probabilities that can be calculated by alternative methods,
and thus has nothing to do with any physical process. That is, "collapse" is
something which takes place in the theorist's notebook, not in the
experimentalist's laboratory. Consequently, there is no conflict between
quantum mechanics and relativity theory.'
However that is not the issue I have with claming QM is deterministic. It
has to do with the assumption of naive reality usually associated with
deterministic theories. Naive reality is ruled out by the Kochen Specker
theorem which is valid in both standard QM and QFT since QFT also includes
the axioms of QM and only those axioms are used in proving the theorem. If
you wish to claim it is deterministic and live with the absence of naive
reality that is fine by me - but IMHO that is not what most people mean by
deterministic. As admitted previously it is somewhat a semantic issue - and
I accept that. But by laying out exactly what is going on hopefully people
will understand the issue better.
Bill
Bill Hobba
<chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159791573.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Determinism: You have a differential equation, you have initial
> conditions, you have a uniqueness theorem for solutions, you have
> deterministic behavior. Determinism means that given the exact initial
> conditions, the exact final conditions are determined. Determinism does
> not hinge upon the existence of local variables, but a fundamental
> theory that is an exact differential equation in time.
> In the context of a SWE that is taken to be the fundamental theory
> (along with the existence of some pure state - which you take to be a
> naive realism),
Ahhhhhhhh - yes.
> the initial condition is the global state and not local
> variables (and especially not position and momentum). Given the initial
> state (a global state), the future state is determined. That is how it
> is deterministic.
In that sense I agree.
Thanks for the informed discussion.
Thanks
Bill
Denis Loubet
> Denis Loubet wrote:
> ...
>> By this criteria, you're suggesting that agreement with the theory of
>> gravity is just as valid as agreement with the claim that the tooth fairy
>> exists.
>
> No, that is not my purpose or goal.
Then why is it your conclusion?
>> You're insisting that they're both "beliefs".
>
> Yes, but I will of cause have greater believe in Science's achivements.
Why? You appear to dismiss science because it does not know everything.
> I have read e.g. that some of Physics equations fits with 8 figures.
>
> and combined with 1930's and todays measurement that lead to:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem
> Quote: "...The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the
> physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of
> matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in the
> mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge..."
>
> and
>
> Physics and all of science is build on axioms (fundamental *assumptions*):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
> Quote: "...An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is accepted as the
> first and last line of a one-line proof and is considered as obvious or as
> an initial necessary consensus for the theory building or acceptation.
> Therefore, it is *taken for granted* as true, and serves as a starting
> point for deducing and inferencing other truths...In many usages axiom and
> postulate or assumption are used as synonyms..."
>
> - Leads me to the logical conclusion that we today do not have *exact*
> mathematical description of the universe. What we have now, is just a
> crude (ironically meant) model (science). In many cases it seems ok with
> about 8 figures - other times, it does not predict correctly.
No one suggests that science knows everything.
>> We have mountains of evidence showing that matter acts according to
>> strict physical law.
>
> Yes, but only to some finite figure - around 8? Not exact!
So what? Are you suggesting that whimsey controls the behavior of matter
beyond 8 figures?
>> We have no evidence that matter acts outside the bounds of strict
>> physical law.
>
> Matter for a physician is "only" fermions:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion
>
> We do not know that dark matter exist (could resolve the Galaxy rotation
> problem to some extent):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
> or dark energy exists (could resolve the Galaxy rotation problem to some
> extent):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
>
> But there are also bosons e.g.:
> *photon
> *W-boson, Z-boson
> *Gluon
>
> But there are also hypothesized bosons:
> *graviton
> *Higgs-boson
>
> Maybe these also exist?:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparticle
>
> E.g. we do not have a grand unified theory:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_theory
>
> It is selfevident that our description of the universe is not
> complete/exact.
No one says it is. But that does not give us liscense to blame whimsey for
those things we haven't figured out yet.
> But I will enforce that science (incl.physics) is a remarkable tool to
> gain more knowledge of the universe.
No, apparently you don't believe that it grants knowledge, you believe that
it grants belief.
>> I will therefore agree that matter acts according to strict physical law,
>> and insist that my position is far better justified than a position that
>> insists that matter acts outside the bounds of strict physical law.
>
> That we today do not have *exact* mathematical/physical description of the
> universe, do *not* falsify og proof:
> *free will
Can you even define free will without resorting to a circular definition?
> *no free will
The definition of no free will is easy and obvious and requires no
additional entities.
> *determinism
The alternative is whimsey or randomness.
> It is as simple as that.
It's as simple as that.
Bill Hobba
No - I am saying in some interpretations while it looks random in reality it
isn't. For example in the decoherence paradigm (accepted by consistent
histories, many worlds, and the decoherence interpretation) the quantum
state of the atom is in constant interactions with its surroundings. The
assumption is that these interactions, while deterministic in the sense it
is described by some differential equation that has a unique solution, is
chaotic so that is seems to be probabilistic. But, as usually elucidated,
determinism includes more than that - it also includes the assumption things
exist independent of if we measure them or not and can be assigned some
value at all times - QM rules this out.
> In my readings, people still talk about it as if it is. They even still
> talk about atomic decay as a source of true ramdom numbers, just hook your
> software up to a detector.
The mathematical formalism is all QM theorists 100% agree about. In some
interpretations the collapse is real and is fundamentally probabilistic - in
others it is simply a mathematical device.
>
> Is that all completely wrong?
>
Not at all. This is a subtle issue. The bottom line is some
interpretations say QM is fundamentally probabilistic - others don't. For
the detail you really need to study the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
>
>> Interpretations of QM exist that avoid the issue (eg quantum decoherence
>> and many worlds).
>
> I'm certainly not going to agree with the many worlds interpretation until
> we can unambiguously determine there's more than one. I don't pretend to
> know what the quantum decoherence interpretation is.
>
>> My objection has to do with other things than the probabilistic nature of
>> some interpretations of QM. When people speak of determinism they
>> usually mean determinism in the sence of classical physics in which in
>> principle everything has a value at all times and exists independent of
>> being measured. If QM is true then we have a powerful theorem called the
>> Kochen Specker theorem that says nature can't be like that:
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
>
> Yikes! (And that's only from my layman's understanding of the first few
> paragraphs.)
>
> But I don't see that there's a connection between even this interpretation
> and free will.
The above is not an interpretation - it is a theorem. Remember I said 100%
quantum theorists agree on the mathematical formalism hence 100% of
theorists would agree with the Kochen Specker theorem since it uses only
that formalism - no interpretation is used. Naive realism is defined as the
belief that all quantities exist at all times independent of context. This
is the assumption on which classical mechanics is founded and on which the
ideas of determinism, volition, free will etc were couched all those
centuries ago. In QM one may still have the overall wave function of the
universe evolving in a perfectly predictable manner but some of the
quantities associated with that wavefunction (and they may very well be
properties we want to predict to make the claim behavior is determined hence
there is no free will) must violate naive realism. If that is the case you
can't even speak of people having those properties without reference to some
measurement context. I suggest such is not what people mean when they say
we don't have free will - it is all pre-ordained. I suggest they also mean
it exists independent of what behavior we decide to look at.
Thanks
Bill
Denis Loubet
"DaffyDuck" <daff...@spammersdie.mac.dot.com> wrote in message
news:2006100118510350073-daffyduck@spammersdiemacdotcom...
> On 2006-10-01 18:47:42 -0700, Hendrik Boom <hen...@pooq.com> said:
>
>> So you, inside the universe, are a machine.
>
> I think that is what he said, when he stated that "we're robots made of
> meat"
>
>> You are not a slave to the machine; you *are* the machine. Your decision
>> are the machine's decisions. YOu decide.
>
> Actually, bzzzt! No. If you are the 'machine' you do NOT decide. A
> 'machine', by it's very definition, does not decide, does not have the
> capability to decide - it only performs the task it is made for
> (disregarding the usual 'watchmaker' and 'intelligent design' arguments).
Indeed, saying a machine makes decision is like saying rocks decide to roll
downhill.
>> What would be the point of free
>> will, after all, if it weren't you making your decisions depending on
>> your
>> state, your beliefs?
>
> I think that's exactly the point - precisely, that if you are a machine,
> that you have no free will. You may *believe* you have a free will, you
> may be programmed to firmly believe so, but at the end of the day, you
> don't.
And in what sense are my beliefs mine? I never decided to dislike seafood,
thus I must conclude the dislike of seafood is imposed upon me by some
circumstance. It's only mine in the sense that I'm arbitrarily saddled with
it. And if such preferences are obviously imposed, what of more subtle
preferences and beliefs? Are they likewise arbitrarily imposed by
circumstance? My "state" isn't really mine, it's an arbitrary collection of
imposed preferences that I didn't choose.
Obviously, this means I'm like a computer program stuck with arbitrary
starting values in the variable slots. My decisions consist of comparing the
arbitrary weights of these arbitrary preferences with other arbitrary
preferences and mechanically spitting out a result. When I analyze my own
decision making, at no point do I feel anything that can be called free will
entering the picture. It's always a mechanical act.
> Not really a problem for me - I believe I have free will, even though I
> know I don't Smart people can internalize this. Dumb people get all bent
> out of shape.
Join the club! :-)
It's amazing what us robots can produce, isn't it?
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>I beg to differ - although not my favorite interpretation (of the
>conventional ones I like Consistent Histories) it is the one still held to
>by the majority of physicists.
Meaningless. Most of those physicists are not productive.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
You can't be serious.
>In QFT observations still cause a collapse of the wave function.
Define this "collapse" process.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>Ok, I'm not going to pretend I understand all that! ;-) But from everything
>I've read, the atomic decay of a given atom is supposed to be a genuine
>random event. Was everything I read wrong, or was my understanding of it
>wrong, or has more recent findings shown it to be wrong?
You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
particular atom decays.
To claim that radioactive decay is a random process because the time
when a particular atom decays is random is wrong. It shows that the
person making this claim does not understand physics.
Bob Kolker
>
> You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
> not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
> quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
> particular atom decays.
Random implies non-deterministic. If you the initial conditions are
random then so are the consequences. What you are saying is that if you
knew the initial conditions or boundry conditions you could predict the
outcome with certainty. And if my grandma had balls she certainly would
have been my grandpa.
In the practical sense, the outcome cannot be predict with certainty wo
you end up with a probalistic model which only works when dealing with
ensambles or sets. Bottom line: there is no practical difference between
metaphysical indeterminism and epistemological indeterminism. In either
case, you have a crap shoot.
Whatever model you use, if you shoot electrons through a Stern-Gerlach
magnet half have up spin and half have down spin and you cannot predict
either with certainty.
Bob Kolker
Mike
Non-sequitur.
QM SR
h=h h=o
c=inf c = c
of course there is conflict. Only a stupid physicist cannot see it.
Moreover, at some point these physicist/lawyers must tell us when
mathematics starts/end and physical reality takes over. It seems the
threshold is eclecticaly selected to suit ones own agenda.
> However that is not the issue I have with claming QM is deterministic. It
> has to do with the assumption of naive reality usually associated with
> deterministic theories.
"usually associated" is a better term now then the "based on naive
realism" you used in previous posts. Will you make up your mind at
last?
> Naive reality is ruled out by the Kochen Specker
> theorem which is valid in both standard QM and QFT since QFT also includes
> the axioms of QM and only those axioms are used in proving the theorem. If
> you wish to claim it is deterministic and live with the absence of naive
> reality that is fine by me - but IMHO that is not what most people mean by
> deterministic. As admitted previously it is somewhat a semantic issue - and
> I accept that. But by laying out exactly what is going on hopefully people
> will understand the issue better.
Determinism is the belief that everything has a causal explanation. You
can have deterministic chaos. Uncertainty does not preclude
determinism. It only has to do with the measurement of conjugate
variables like position and momentum. Furthermore, this does not imply
these variables are inherently uncertain. It only says that measurement
of one to arbitrary accuracy precludes measurement of the other to
arbitrary accuracy. But both variable can be measured at an arbitrary
accuracy although not at the same time.
Thus, your usual everyday use of the word "uncertainty" has a different
meaning in QM.
Mike
Mike
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Citizen Bob wrote:
> >
> > You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
> > not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
> > quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
> > particular atom decays.
>
> Random implies non-deterministic. If you the initial conditions are
> random then so are the consequences. What you are saying is that if you
> knew the initial conditions or boundry conditions you could predict the
> outcome with certainty. And if my grandma had balls she certainly would
> have been my grandpa.
Or a transexual....
Look, you are confused but this is nothing knew in these ngs.
Deterministic means that everything has a causal explanation. You can
have a deterministic system subject to random initial conditions. The
process is still deterministic since there is causality involved. Think
of a proximity switch activated by a fly to cause the light go on. The
system is deterministic because every time something activates the
switch the light goes on. Because you do not know when the fly will sit
on the switch and activate it that does not make the system
non-deteministic.
Acausal theories fail the test of counterfactuals. Every foken time I
hit the switch I get the light to go on. You cannot have an all
encompasing acausal theory of physical reality. It is plain crap.
Causality rules the world.
>
> In the practical sense, the outcome cannot be predict with certainty wo
> you end up with a probalistic model which only works when dealing with
> ensambles or sets. Bottom line: there is no practical difference between
> metaphysical indeterminism and epistemological indeterminism. In either
> case, you have a crap shoot.
>
First time I hear of a "difference" between "metaphysical
indeterminism" and "epistemological indeterminism". If you meant
ontological indeterminism that may make some sense..
> Whatever model you use, if you shoot electrons through a Stern-Gerlach
> magnet half have up spin and half have down spin and you cannot predict
> either with certainty.
and you think that has something to do with determinism? Let me laugh
:)
Mike
>
> Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
>
>
> Non-sequitur.
>
> QM SR
> h=h h=o
> c=inf c = c
>
> of course there is conflict. Only a stupid physicist cannot see it.
>
> Moreover, at some point these physicist/lawyers must tell us when
> mathematics starts/end and physical reality takes over. It seems the
> threshold is eclecticaly selected to suit ones own agenda.
QFT is reconciled with relativity. That is why it works and that is why
QED (quantum electrodynamics) is approximated by classical
electrodynamics in the macroscopical average. The Dirac Equation assumes
special relativity.
Our buddy Bob From Texas may be wierd, but he is not stupid.
Bob Kolker
Rudolf Drabek
Bill Hobba schrieb:
> "A Troll" <anobvio...@nothidingit.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns984E8FCCE...@217.160.217.58...
> > Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
> > Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
> >
> > Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
> > which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
> > nonsense to me.
>
> Since you posted to sci.physics.relativity and assuming you are not what you
> post under suggests then it appears you, or others reading this, may be
> interested in a scientific take on the issue. The science is very simple;
> determinism, like any other thing in science, lives or dies on
> correspondence with experiment. Determinism rests on two hidden assumptions
> (sometimes called naive realism) - non concextuality (things exist
> independent of context ie if they are being measured or not) and value
> definiteness (things have a definite value). If QM is true then the
> Kochen-Specker theorem says you can't have both so determinism is out the
> door. So far QM has yet to find exception. Basing ones views on experiment
> rather than what you arbitrarily call 'religious nonsense' because it sounds
> like it (and to you at that) is not what science is about. Experiment asks
> questions of nature - those interested in science respect its answers.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Isn't the double slot exp. an evidence for "free will"?
For me yes.
Rudi
Mike
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Non-sequitur.
> >
> > QM SR
> > h=h h=o
> > c=inf c = c
> >
> > of course there is conflict. Only a stupid physicist cannot see it.
> >
> > Moreover, at some point these physicist/lawyers must tell us when
> > mathematics starts/end and physical reality takes over. It seems the
> > threshold is eclecticaly selected to suit ones own agenda.
>
> QFT is reconciled with relativity. That is why it works and that is why
> QED (quantum electrodynamics) is approximated by classical
> electrodynamics in the macroscopical average. The Dirac Equation assumes
> special relativity.
QFT is an approximation although very useful. But it does not work at
very small scales, high energies or at high momentum.
In general, unification of SR and QM to cover all scales and energy
levels is impossible and you must agree with this statement.
Mike
Bob Kolker
>
> QFT is an approximation although very useful. But it does not work at
> very small scales, high energies or at high momentum.
>
> In general, unification of SR and QM to cover all scales and energy
> levels is impossible and you must agree with this statement.
Dirac managed to do it.
>
> Mike
bungalo...@yahoo.com
> Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
> Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
>
> Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
> which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
> nonsense to me.
Free will is just a convenient way to explain something we don't
understand (our brain), it's use today is common like the concept of
rain Gods was in the past to explain our weather.
To justify the existence of free will people have to explain it as an
artifact of something else they don't understand (and it has to be
something else they don't understand, otherwise it won't work). You can
see examples in the responses to your post (e.g., quantum mechanics.).
In the last two centuries electricity and magnetism were commonly used
to explain things we didn't understand, but not as much today because
these concepts are more well understood and the link is easily
debunked.
Since quantum mechanics in not completely understood any argument
claiming that quantum mechanics is proof of free will can't be proven
false, and to many, this reinforces the correlation between the two
("hey, he can't prove my idea false, therefore it must be true!", I
don't know why people think like this, but they do.)
Not until our brain is understood completely will the idea of free will
cease to exist, also if QM is understood beforehand, then it will be
replaced with something else as the "missing link".
Bill Hobba
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:37:38 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I beg to differ - although not my favorite interpretation (of the
>>conventional ones I like Consistent Histories) it is the one still held to
>>by the majority of physicists.
>
> Meaningless. Most of those physicists are not productive.
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
>
> You can't be serious.
>
>>In QFT observations still cause a collapse of the wave function.
>
> Define this "collapse" process.
Now you can't be serious eg measuring the position of an electron.
Bill
Bill Hobba
>
> "Citizen Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:452240f4....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:37:38 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I beg to differ - although not my favorite interpretation (of the
>>>conventional ones I like Consistent Histories) it is the one still held
>>>to
>>>by the majority of physicists.
>>
>> Meaningless. Most of those physicists are not productive.
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
>>
>> You can't be serious.
>>
>>>In QFT observations still cause a collapse of the wave function.
>>
>> Define this "collapse" process.
>
> Now you can't be serious eg measuring the position of an electron.
In QFT the number of particles themselves is an observable so a better
measurement in this context would be say the number of photons in a box.
Prior to the measurement the state was a superposition of states with
different particle numbers - after the measurement we know the number hence
the state has changed.
Thanks
Bill
Mike
bungalo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> A Troll wrote:
> > Determinism I understand. It's simple, and sensible. Cause and effect.
> > Makes sense. It's how everything seems to work in the world.
> >
> > Proponents of "volition" OTOH postulate some magical property of free will
> > which allows humans to be "free" of causality. Sounds like religious
> > nonsense to me.
>
> Free will is just a convenient way to explain something we don't
> understand (our brain), it's use today is common like the concept of
> rain Gods was in the past to explain our weather.
>
if your action in responding to the OP was not the outcome of free will
then you are a compulsive poster.
Mike
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>> Define this "collapse" process.
>Now you can't be serious eg measuring the position of an electron.
The measurement you describe does not require any so-called
"collapse". That is a remnant of first quantization which has no way
to deal with transitions among eigenstates.
Second quantization fixed the situation without resorting to hokey
crap like "collapse". The wave function makes a deterministic smooth
transition from a many body to a single particle wave function.
It has been said that the Copenhagen Interpretation, with its stupid
"collapse" and its stupid "cats in boxes" and its stupid "Moon
disappears when you do not look at it" cost quantum mechanics two
generations of advancement. It took quantum entanglement and Bell's
Theorems to show that it is truly stupid.
The reason "most physicists" still indulge in this stupidity is
because "most physicists" are unproductive in physics. The average
number of articles published by Ph.Ds per lifetime is 1, and that's
only because most are forced to publish their thesis. After that "most
physicists" do essentially nothing in basic physics research. Some
even publish science fiction.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>In QFT the number of particles themselves is an observable
Oh really. Then how come this number varies.
You need to learn many body quantum mechanics.
Ever hear of a Fermion?
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>> You have read the wrong things. The process of spontaneous emission is
>> not random. It is completely deterministic. What is random are certain
>> quantities associated with the process, such as the time when a
>> particular atom decays.
>Random implies non-deterministic.
There are so many different uses of the term "random" that anything
can be said about it.
>If you the initial conditions are
>random then so are the consequences. What you are saying is that if you
>knew the initial conditions or boundry conditions you could predict the
>outcome with certainty. And if my grandma had balls she certainly would
>have been my grandpa.
Typical 19th century thinking.
>Whatever model you use, if you shoot electrons through a Stern-Gerlach
>magnet half have up spin and half have down spin and you cannot predict
>either with certainty.
The process involved in that experiment is nevertheless completely
deterministic because it is governed by the Shrodinger Equation which
uses Unitary operators. That guarantees the process is deterministic.
The problem people have with determinism is that they insist on using
classical implementations. Quantum Determinism is not the same as
Classical Determinism. In quantum mechanics a process can be
completely deterministic (as it must be because it is governed by
Unitary operators) yet there are certain quantities that are
intrinsically unknowable that gives the *impression* that the process
is random.
But this confusion is not limited to quantum mechanics. Consider this
event: You are given a jar with white and black balls in equal number.
You reach in and retrieve a ball. The color of the ball is
instrinsically unknowable in advance. But the process of obtaining the
ball is completely deterministic. You may claim that the process is
"random" but it is not non-deterministic at all. There is nothing that
is non-deterministic about how you retrieved the ball, which is the
process by which you "measured" the event.
All I can do is warn you that the notion of randomness is very
confused. If you take the time to explore that statement, you will
discover it for yourself. Li and Vitanyi wrote a book that spends
considerable time explaining the many pitfalls that one encounters by
sloppy use of the term "random".
An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications
Li and Vitani
Hardcover: 642 pages
Springer Verlag
2nd edition (March 1997)
ISBN: 0387948686
William Feller has a lot to say about sloppy thinking in statistics.
An Introduction To Probability Theory and Its Applications
William Feller
Hardcover: 528 pages
Wiley Text Books; 3rd edition (1968)
ISBN: 0471257087
Quantum processes are completely deterministic. There are no
exceptions.