Einstein vs Bohr

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Peter Zohrab

unread,
May 5, 2001, 3:07:36 PM5/5/01
to
I have only junior high-school physics and maths in my formal education, but
I don't let little things like that stop me from thinking I might have a
contribution to make to particle physics ! Of course, it is possible that
my suggestion has already been made (and refuted) !

I recently saw a TV program (for the layperson, of course) on the Bohr vs
Einstein controversy which was pleasantly free of maths, and was more like
philosophy, as far as I could see. I believe that I can cope with
philosophy.

The (simplified) issues appear to me to be:

- How can paired photons apparently communicate with each other over
significant distances at a speed which is apparently greater than the speed
of light, which contradicts Einstein's Special Theory (I haven't look at any
account of the Special Theory for years, so I am taking this on trust, like
so much else) ?

- How can it be a random matter whether a particular paired photon has one
or the other of two complementary properties (whatever they may be ?)

The page http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Albert_Einstein says that Einstein:
"rejected many of the ideas and implications of quantum mechanics, becoming
famous for the phrase 'God does not play dice with the universe'. Einstein
believed that the apparently random elements in quantum theory would prove
to be not really random. As things are now, the evidence speaks against this
point of view. "

The page http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Quantum_Mechanics says:
"The equations of quantum mechanical threory have the odd property that
unlike older physical theories that predict the exact position, speed, and
other states of things, quantum equations produce probabilities of finding
things in a certain state. There are various competing interpretations of
what this means, including some that are very counter-intuitive.... The
theories and equations themselves have been well-tested and verified over
many years.

Points:

1. From an evolutionary stand-point, I assume that we cannot rely on the
fact that some idea is counter-intuitive as a reason for rejecting it, since
our intuitions have presumably not evolved to deal with sub-atomic
particles;

2. I assume that most readers would agree with that, but I would go on to
say that this opens the floodgates to theological, or quasi-theological
solutions, hinted at by Einstein's reference to "God" in "God does not play
dice with the universe." Since the Renaissance in Europe, western
scientists have been almost religiously secular in their assumptions, and I
wonder if this shows up as a prejudice in the current debate -- in other
words, a theological solution would be counter-intuitive to most western
scientists, but we seem to agree that intuitions cannot be relied on here;

3. I have not been a religious believer for 36 years, but I would like to
propose a (sketchy) model that admits of a theological interpretation,
although no theology is necessarily implicated:

- a) Photons (and other paired particles) do not communicate directly;
- b) Their respective paired properties are not decided until they are
observed;
- c) Nothing is faster than the speed of light in the Universe;
- d) The Universe is finite in space and time, being curved, and having had
a commencement date, and having possibly a termination in the future (the
details of this statement are not crucial to the rest of my proposal);
- e) The Universe is information, governed by a quasi-computer-program,
which has conditional subroutines in it governing quantum mechanics, so that
photons do not communicate directly, but only via the subroutine that
creates them anew each time the condition for their paired separation
exists -- i.e. each time they are observed.
- f) The speed of the operation of the subroutine is not governed by Special
Relativity, since the whole program is "outside" the Universe, so it can be
faster than the speed of light;
- g) I believe that this model accounts for the paradoxes in the
Bohr-Einstein controversy;
- h) The program may or may not be "God", and may or may not be administered
by "God";
- i) I have long been fascinated by the phenomenon of "rendering", as in the
way programming code (BASIC, Pascal, HTML, VRML -- to name the ones I have a
nodding acquaintance with) is interpreted by machines as outputs of various
kinds, so if anyone knows of any writings on the Philosophy of Rendering,
could they please let me know ?
- j) In passing, as a bonus, I would like to solve the Mind-Body/Brain
problem (!): The Mind is the rendered output of the operations of the
Brain.

(I hope this posting does not get blocked by some Moderator.)

Comments copied to to zoh...@xtra.co.nz please, because I can't guarantee
having the time to keep coming back to the newsgoups to see what has been
said.

Please feel free to be rude -- I can take it !

Peter Zohrab
--
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm (The Truth on Domestic Violence)
http://nzmera.terrashare.com/altmrfaq.html (alt.mens-rights FAQ)
http://www.landwave.com/family/ (More Truth on DV)
http://nzmera.terrashare.com/menlinks.html (1000 Men's/Dads' Links) An
"indigenous" people is that which committed the last complete genocide in
its area. http://nzmera.terrashare.com/contents.html (Sex, Lies & Feminism)


Paul Lutus

unread,
May 5, 2001, 4:44:58 PM5/5/01
to
"Peter Zohrab" <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:BcYI6.1642$1i5.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> - How can paired photons apparently communicate with each other over
> significant distances at a speed which is apparently greater than the
speed
> of light, which contradicts Einstein's Special Theory

This is what you get for relying on a popular TV treatment for your
understanding of relativity. It is information that cannot exceed the speed
of light. The described experiment doesn't violate this rule.

> - How can it be a random matter whether a particular paired photon has one
> or the other of two complementary properties (whatever they may be ?)

Quantum theory provides the randomness. Some properties of particles are
complementary like this example, so one particle has one property, while the
other has its complement.

--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com


Thu Nguyen

unread,
May 6, 2001, 1:38:39 AM5/6/01
to
I am Ph.D. student in History and Philosophy of Science as well as religion.
I have also studied under an astronomer during my master's. I highly
recommend that you read David Bohm. Bohm was a disciple of Einstein and
against the Copenhagen school of Quantum Physics. In that, he so very
desperately wanted to salvage the objective causal world. What brought this
world into a whirl was this.

Heisenberg called the central problem of Quantum Phyiscs is the Cartesian
dualism which separates the observer from the things observed. In that, the
momentum and position of a particle can not be simultaneously decided
according to Planck's constant. (The packets of light used to measure this
would disturb either one of them so as to make it difficult to measure them
both at the same time. This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.) In
this, there is a deep relationship between the observer and the observed.
Cartesian dualism no longer applies. This is also known as the measurement
problem.

This has a direct correlation to Schroedinger's wave function, which is
representative of the world existing in its potentia. When a wave function
collapses, the world comes out of its potentia and becomes actual. But this
is supposedly impossible without a human observer. So how does the objective
causal world exist? The Copenhagen School does not even answer the question.
Existence is quite and meaningless question in this case. Quantum phyiscs
interpreted by them can only describe what they see, not answer questions
about existence. It is strictly epistemological and does nothing to deal
with ontology.

Bohm's theory of Quantum Physics is ontological. I find Bom's theory the
most acceptable in explaining the measurement problem, that even at the
quantum level a cat or even proton can collapse its own wave function
without the need of a human observer, and bring itself into actuality. It
can do this because quantum systems contain their own little packets of
experience. Together with the arrow of time preserving the memory of each
actual occasion prevents our visible world from lapsing into chaos. The
other radical alternative is that the world is created through our human
observations, which I think is a matter of hubris. Also I have major
philosophical problems with it on many fronts to numerous to list. This is
an ontological explanation. It does not do anything to change the nature of
Quantum Physics, just re-interprets it away from the Copenhagen school which
is more epistemological basing itself upon Kantian Skepticism.

In a way, it also answers to the mind/body question, that how do inaminate
things such as atoms and protons come together to form animinate things like
ourselves. The answer, they are not inaminate, but to a lesser degree
animinate carrying with them the ability of actualizing themselves through
their own experiences, (or whatever you wish to call it.) So that the main
difference between a proton and a mind is a one of degree and not of kind.
To assert one of kind would get us right back to the old problem of
Descartes' dualism.

Bohm's very notion of attempting to salvage the objective and causal world
seemed attractive to me. Mathematical particles are not particles unless you
attach them to the world. The wave function is just an interpretation of the
world and not the world. This is what Berekeley called abstractionism which
he accused of Newton when Newton abstracted out Time and Space from moving
objects. Newton brought geometry down from its static Platonic heavens and
concretized it into something truly dynamic in explaing time and motion, but
the problem is he mistaken time and motion and the geometry it entails as an
actual thing.

Yet, Bohm in his attempt to salvage the objective and causal world went
mystical which is something I find hard to accept. But then, Galileo came
close to discovering gravity if it were not for the fact that he found it
too mystical himself to deal with.

"Peter Zohrab" <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:BcYI6.1642$1i5.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...

Dave Lewis

unread,
May 6, 2001, 7:43:18 AM5/6/01
to
It seems to me that your views are, in at least one sense, consistent with
Einstein's in that they claim knowledge of metaphysical truth. Depending upon
your take on metaphysics, one can, for example, either know what something is or
what it looks like. I consider scientific theories as a reflection of what the
theorist thought the universe acts like, not what it is. Metaphysics can become
like alchemy in a hurry, or so I believe.

Peter Zohrab wrote:

--
Dave Lewis
http://www.chaos-onomics.com
---------------
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth
can stand by itself.
-Thomas Jefferson

We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking.
-Mark Twain


Peter Zohrab

unread,
May 6, 2001, 10:14:42 AM5/6/01
to
Thank you all for the replies I have seen so far -- I am printing out Thu
Nguyen's posting, which contains much new material, to look at in detail.

I have studied some Philosophy of Science, and I think Dave Lewis'
characterisation of my views as metaphysical is a bit unfair. I think I
made it reasonably clear that I was offering a "model", rather than a
description of what anything "is". Any model involves aspects that are not
directly observable, and my understanding is that a scientist is supposed to
prefer models that have the fewest unobservables of the relevant competing
theories which are compatible with the observed data.

That is the spirit in which I offer my proposal.

Peter Zohrab

"Dave Lewis" <dave....@chaos-onomics.com> wrote in message
news:3AF538D6...@chaos-onomics.com...

Dave Lewis

unread,
May 6, 2001, 11:08:17 AM5/6/01
to
The issue, to my mind, is not one of "fairness" but of linguistic composition of
your model.

Your points were:

- a) Photons (and other paired particles) do not communicate directly;
- b) Their respective paired properties are not decided until they are
observed;
- c) Nothing is faster than the speed of light in the Universe;
- d) The Universe is finite in space and time, being curved, and having had
a commencement date, and having possibly a termination in the future (the
details of this statement are not crucial to the rest of my proposal);
- e) The Universe is information, governed by a quasi-computer-program,
which has conditional subroutines in it governing quantum mechanics, so that
photons do not communicate directly, but only via the subroutine that
creates them anew each time the condition for their paired separation
exists -- i.e. each time they are observed.
- f) The speed of the operation of the subroutine is not governed by Special
Relativity, since the whole program is "outside" the Universe, so it can be
faster than the speed of light;

I note point "e": "The Universe is information". This seems to me to be a
statement of the metaphysical nature of the universe. I might, if I agreed with
your view, write; "one can think about the universe as information" or "if we
assume that the universe is information". It might seem trivial but the more
often you repeat the statement to your mind, the harder it will be to discover
data which refute the view, in my opinion. This is not to argue that your view
is incorrect, rather my point is directed at the epistemological structure of
the theory.

Dave Lewis

unread,
May 6, 2001, 11:42:06 AM5/6/01
to
May I suggest reading Hume as well. Especially this:

"These two propositions are far from being the same, I have found that such an
object has always been
attended with such an effect, and I foresee, that other objects, which are, in
appearance, similar, will be attended with
similar effects. I shall allow, if you please, that the one proposition may
justly be inferred from the other: I know, in fact, that it
always is inferred. But if you insist that the inference is made by a chain of
reasoning, I desire you to produce that reasoning. The
connection between these propositions is not intuitive. There is required a
medium, which may enable the mind to draw such
an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning and argument. What that medium
is, I must confess, passes my
comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it, who assert that it
really exists, and is the origin of all our conclusions
concerning matter of fact."

Thu Nguyen wrote:

--

Nils-Erik Forsberg

unread,
May 6, 2001, 2:44:00 PM5/6/01
to
On Sun, 6 May 2001 07:07:36 +1200, "Peter Zohrab" <zoh...@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

>........


>The page http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Albert_Einstein says that Einstein:
>"rejected many of the ideas and implications of quantum mechanics, becoming
>famous for the phrase 'God does not play dice with the universe'. Einstein
>believed that the apparently random elements in quantum theory would prove
>to be not really random. As things are now, the evidence speaks against this
>point of view. "

>.......

Einstein did not rejected quantum theory as a method for predicting
large amount of appearences but it is not the final answere on the
cause of universe.

The infinite manifold appearing as universe is not statisticly
predictable.

Einstein based thinking about the measurable and relative (different
objects of energy, i.e. movement) on the fact that there always is an
existent being (subject, cause) behind the relative and non existent.
No one can act, including think and talk about anything, without
being.

Is it not clear by own experience as a being that there must be
someone who cause activity but possibly not anyone of us many beings
who participate in the activity we call universe?

However Einsten did not thought on the subject, the being, in the
definite relevant meaning, the being we participate in and thus being
parts of. Neither did Bohr. Therefore the dualistic and thus infinite
argumentation they had about the cause and meaning of energy.

The one or the other object (particularity) can possibly not be the
substantial cause of the other objects.

Nils F

Peter Zohrab

unread,
May 7, 2001, 1:20:50 PM5/7/01
to
That is a very pertinent quotation. It is startling how Hume asserts that
causation, which is the ultimate foundation of pre-quantum science, is "not
intuitive", but without producing any evidence to back up that claim. In
effect, he has an intuition that it is not intuitive.

Just as particle physics is in search of the ultimate, most fundamental
particle (correct me if I'm wrong here !), so Philosophy is in search of the
basic assumptions that underlie such phenomena as the human activity called
"Science". If causation is, contrary to Hume, a basic assumption or
intuition that cannot be broken down any further, then one is free to
question the notion of causation. But is science possible without causation
and is science possible without the Duality of Observer and Observed ?

My sketched model is intended to rescue causation, the Observer/Observed
duality, and science as we used to know it.

Peter Zohrab

"Dave Lewis" <dave....@chaos-onomics.com> wrote in message

news:3AF570CE...@chaos-onomics.com...

Peter Zohrab

unread,
May 7, 2001, 1:27:47 PM5/7/01
to
Thank you for your clarification. I agree with you totally.

I was writing in "real time", as now, and I made a metaphysical statement
where I would not, on reflection, want to make one.

So please consider the relevant sentece of e) (below) to be amended to read,
as you suggest,

"if we assume that the universe is information,.we can say that it is
governed..."

Thanks again. After a time I will hopefully rewrite my ideas in a way that
incorporates, or takes account of, this and other comments.

Peter Zohrab

"Dave Lewis" <dave....@chaos-onomics.com> wrote in message

news:3AF568E1...@chaos-onomics.com...

Dave Lewis

unread,
May 7, 2001, 3:10:27 PM5/7/01
to
My interpretation of Hume's view is that our views of causation are dependent on
conditions outside of our knowledge. To wit, I consider EVERY prediction of
science conditional upon, inter alia, the extent the universe contines to exist
as it has in the past. We cannot, I believe, know that the universe will
continue to exist. Nor is "it", i.e., the continued existence of the universe,
intuitive. Rather, to my mind, and I believe to Hume's, it is a matter of
faith.

Robo

unread,
May 7, 2001, 4:02:31 PM5/7/01
to
Peter Zohrab <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in article
<BcYI6.1642$1i5.2...@news.xtra.co.nz>...

> I have only junior high-school physics and maths in my formal education,
but
> I don't let little things like that stop me from thinking I might have a
> contribution to make to particle physics ! Of course, it is possible
that
> my suggestion has already been made (and refuted) !

[self-edujmacation iz best]


>
> - How can paired photons apparently communicate with each other over
> significant distances at a speed which is apparently greater than the
speed
> of light, which contradicts Einstein's Special Theory (I haven't look at
any
> account of the Special Theory for years, so I am taking this on trust,
like
> so much else) ?
>

> Points:

[like all of it]

> - i) I have long been fascinated by the phenomenon of "rendering", as in
the
> way programming code (BASIC, Pascal, HTML, VRML -- to name the ones I
have a
> nodding acquaintance with) is interpreted by machines as outputs of
various
> kinds, so if anyone knows of any writings on the Philosophy of Rendering,
> could they please let me know ?
> - j) In passing, as a bonus, I would like to solve the Mind-Body/Brain
> problem (!): The Mind is the rendered output of the operations of the
> Brain.
>

The mind is the rendered output of the brain. I think that's excellent.

It's printf'ing the program, but it's not the program itself; it's a system
continuity--rather than the discontinuous elements that compose the system;
object-oriented programming; integration, and on and on.

So where's the machine language?

BC

Peter Zohrab

unread,
May 11, 2001, 4:31:26 PM5/11/01
to
The machine-language would presumably be in chemical-electrical form,
detailing what goes on at the inter-neuron-level.

I haven't worked out the brain-computer analogy in any detail, as yet,
though I would like to -- if I had the time.

Perhaps someone else could ?

Peter Zohrab
--
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm (The Truth on Domestic Violence)
http://nzmera.terrashare.com/altmrfaq.html (alt.mens-rights FAQ)
http://www.landwave.com/family/ (More Truth on DV)
http://nzmera.terrashare.com/menlinks.html (1000 Men's/Dads' Links)

http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm (Child Abuse
Statistics) An "indigenous" people is that which committed the last complete


genocide in its area. http://nzmera.terrashare.com/contents.html (Sex, Lies
& Feminism)

"Robo" <gib...@home.com> wrote in message
news:01c0d728$fd2073c0$dac0...@cc1018219-a.mdltwn1.nj.home.com...

EL

unread,
May 11, 2001, 6:40:18 PM5/11/01
to

"Peter Zohrab"
<zoh...@xtra.co.nz>
wrote in message
news:01YK6.689$ia.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...

The machine-language would presumably be in chemical-electrical form,
detailing what goes on at the inter-neuron-level.

I haven't worked out the brain-computer analogy in any detail, as yet,
though I would like to -- if I had the time.

Perhaps someone else could ?

Peter Zohrab
===========
[EL]
Unfortunately, a brain-computer analogy had never been demonstrated to be a true concept.
If the brain was a sequential process in any way demonstrable we would never have the simultaneous comprehension we feel
instantaneously. Even the process of remembrance does not involve a fetch cycle with address retrieval, but brain processes are
based on paths and nodes in a fuzzy logic style of complex hierarchical branching with qualitative selectivity at each node. The
conscious interaction of the brain with information, being in-formation, in a continuous stream, is like modifying magnitudes of a
circuit at-tension depending on our attention. Simultaneity of crossing thresholds is the cause of node creation and enforcement and
remembrance.
My conclusion is that there is no brain-computer analogy but there is computer-brain-function-simulation. This style of natural
interaction in the brain does not only allow remembrance of information but also learned responses and skills which does not include
any explainable logic.
Seeing, for example, does not include any logic on interpreting what is being seen, and the image formation is complete before any
logic is involved. The same goes to sounds. It is only when sound-image correlations take place that a functional meaning is bound
through memorized sequences of events that symbolises the function of what is being seen-heard-sensed as an ensemble. This is done
by nodal threshold enforcement, and that is what we simulate on computers for learning algorithms
in "Neural-network-computing". That direction was the result of "Neural-molecular-biochemical-research". The problem is that
computers with "Address-Data-Busses" architecture is totally different from natural neural networks and while the former depends on
a sequential fetch cycle the later is almost parallel in its operations, where "almost" is due to time dependence for propagation
through nodes and branching and channelling in both, divergent and convergent networks. The most critical point in this subject is
the MODIFYABLE nodes and the mechanism of threshold adjustment for firing in response to input stimulation. Not only the chemistry
but also the wiring topology of the hemispheres and the cortex regarding functionality specialization.

Kind regards.

EL

Peter Zohrab

unread,
May 13, 2001, 3:17:56 AM5/13/01
to
Yes, I was aware of neural-network computing. Your post raises a lot of
issues in a compressed manner. I wish I were still on top of the stuff I
once read on some of this. When you talk of sound and vision, I assume you
have knowledge of Psych research in those areas, but I had the impression
that vision does impose "best-guesses" on data at a fairly early stage in
processing. Are you using the word "logic" to mean "formal logic" of a
sequential, quasi-linguistic sort, such as Propositional Calculus or
Predicate Calculus ?

Are we not saying that *present-day* computers do not resemble brains, but
that future computers might ?

Peter Zohrab
--
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm (The Truth on Domestic Violence)
http://nzmera.terrashare.com/altmrfaq.html (alt.mens-rights FAQ)
http://www.landwave.com/family/ (More Truth on DV)
http://nzmera.terrashare.com/menlinks.html (1000 Men's/Dads' Links)
http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm (Child Abuse
Statistics) An "indigenous" people is that which committed the last complete
genocide in its area. http://nzmera.terrashare.com/contents.html (Sex, Lies
& Feminism)

"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9dhqb8$9as$4...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...

EL

unread,
May 13, 2001, 8:04:53 AM5/13/01
to
[EL]
Dear Peter, I shall interleave my comments within your post as I see it could be more convenient to answer some issues.

"Peter Zohrab"
<zoh...@xtra.co.nz>
wrote in message

news:FAqL6.1158$ia.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...


Yes, I was aware of neural-network computing. Your post raises a lot of
issues in a compressed manner. I wish I were still on top of the stuff I
once read on some of this.

[EL]
Yes, and I was on the Quantum Mind list until they turned religious on moderation.
I unsubscribed instantly on that turn of an event.
***********

When you talk of sound and vision, I assume you
have knowledge of Psych research in those areas, but I had the impression
that vision does impose "best-guesses" on data at a fairly early stage in
processing.

[EL]
It depends on what we are talking about.
Animals do have brains, you know, and the cortex of a cat (house pet) is quite advanced, but they do not talk symbolically although
they do have an emotional audio-expression system. So you are correct on images in the vision context concerning an issue such as
"seeking a way back home".
Visual feedback reinforces remembrance during the guiding process, and such an activity does not include the auditory sense as a
primary factor. On the other hand, a cat can estimate the position of a mouse by listening to tiny sounds produced by nails'
friction with ground when the mouse moves.
Such an activity humiliates our best computers. When we take such an issue up to linguistic correlations, we have a stand alone
thought process that uses symbolic sounds, unspoken, yet certainly reproduced in the mind during the thought processing. In that
case visual images could be completely uninvolved. This should not make us overlook the fact that reaching the abstract levels is
achieved through a very long process of learning through audio-visual correlations. I believe that it was Jean Piaget (in his
cognitive theory and adaptation schema) who proved that children do not have any abstract meanings held in the brain while they
correlate items directly and unnaturally like drawing a fish in water with the river from top view while the fish is from a side
view and out of scale. Yet consequently, it is obvious that we have the seeds of an abstract relation between fish and water growing
here.
Therefore, data processing and early guessing is not "owned" by a sense, it is owned by the context.
****************


Are you using the word "logic" to mean "formal logic" of a
sequential, quasi-linguistic sort, such as Propositional Calculus or
Predicate Calculus ?

[EL]
No, not at all, I only meant the conditional logic used in computers such as the sequence, if condition A is true then branch to
such an algorithm else go somewhere else. There is no truth-table involved in the direct crossing of thresholds. Nevertheless,
biochemical concentration reached by addition through two processes can be seen as an "AND" logic. Also the firing of one cell by
stimuli from more than one input can be seen as an "OR" logic. We begin to get confused when we notice that it is not a fixed
threshold we are triggering by binary states but rather adjusting the analogue level of the firing threshold and by doing so we
modify the conditions that lead to firing that node.
What is the type of logic that can simulate that fuzzy behaviour?
*********************************

Are we not saying that *present-day* computers do not resemble brains, but
that future computers might ?

Peter Zohrab
[EL]
The issue was never an issue of computations.
If we force the issue then we might need a million "CRAY" to simulate one very slow brain.
Computer driven artificial "intelligence" is based on programming a robotic set-up to respond in an applicable range to predictable
situations. We are still trying to discover the electronic single living cell organelle, not a mammalian brain. :)
The future is not completely dark, but the answer is not in computers.

Kind regards.

EL

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages