| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jeff Relf" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2003 06:24:58 PM |
| Object: |
EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654@ , You say :
" In the EPR situation ,
we have what classically could only be interpreted as
instant communication between different places . "
Not so according to Gregory L. Hansen in Sci.Physics .
See <bitkdp$cug$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu> :
" Put a red ball and a blue ball in a cup , shake it around ,
and take one ball out without looking at it ,
package it , and go on a trip .
I'll take the remaining ball , package it ,
and go in the opposite direction .
When we're many miles apart you can look at your ball
and immediately know what color ball I have .
We can even arrange in advance
to perform action A if we get the red ball
or action B if we get the blue ball .
But that's not FTL communication ,
the result was determined before we left
and we chose not to peek at it right away .
The quantum case is more complicated , but analogous . "
What is your answer to this ?
.
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
06 Sep 2003 02:08:23 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:1oxaagzpqd5fs$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654@ , You say :
" In the EPR situation ,
we have what classically could only be interpreted as
instant communication between different places . "
Not so according to Gregory L. Hansen in Sci.Physics .
See <bitkdp$cug$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu> :
" Put a red ball and a blue ball in a cup , shake it around ,
and take one ball out without looking at it ,
package it , and go on a trip .
I'll take the remaining ball , package it ,
and go in the opposite direction .
When we're many miles apart you can look at your ball
and immediately know what color ball I have .
We can even arrange in advance
to perform action A if we get the red ball
or action B if we get the blue ball .
But that's not FTL communication ,
the result was determined before we left
and we chose not to peek at it right away .
The quantum case is more complicated , but analogous . "
What is your answer to this ?
Metaphysical bologna!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
06 Sep 2003 02:53:38 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:1oxaagzpqd5fs$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654@ , You say :
" In the EPR situation ,
we have what classically could only be interpreted as
instant communication between different places . "
Not so according to Gregory L. Hansen in Sci.Physics .
See <bitkdp$cug$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu> :
" Put a red ball and a blue ball in a cup , shake it around ,
and take one ball out without looking at it ,
package it , and go on a trip .
I'll take the remaining ball , package it ,
and go in the opposite direction .
When we're many miles apart you can look at your ball
and immediately know what color ball I have .
We can even arrange in advance
to perform action A if we get the red ball
or action B if we get the blue ball .
But that's not FTL communication ,
the result was determined before we left
and we chose not to peek at it right away .
The quantum case is more complicated , but analogous . "
What is your answer to this ?
That's a bad example. It is not analogous at all. Selecting a ball is a
deterministic process that presets a static condition - waiting to reveal
the color of the ball has no effect on the outcome of the process. In nature
an EPR entanglement is indeed a form of communication, one based on
stochastically random events. We humans tend to not classify it as a valid
form of communications because we can make no use of such random events. You
can't modulate a bunch of static. Since quantum processes are random,
stochastic information transfer is all that is needed and this criterion is
satisfied via entangled variables. As for our purposes, it would perhaps be
better to consider EPR as a signpost indicating FTL communications is
possible and not necessairly as a direct means of inducing human controlled
superluminal information transfer.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
06 Sep 2003 10:15:30 PM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<6og6b.11642$zC6.5227@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:1oxaagzpqd5fs$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654@ , You say :
" In the EPR situation ,
we have what classically could only be interpreted as
instant communication between different places . "
Not so according to Gregory L. Hansen in Sci.Physics .
See <bitkdp$cug$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu> :
" Put a red ball and a blue ball in a cup , shake it around ,
and take one ball out without looking at it ,
package it , and go on a trip .
I'll take the remaining ball , package it ,
and go in the opposite direction .
When we're many miles apart you can look at your ball
and immediately know what color ball I have .
We can even arrange in advance
to perform action A if we get the red ball
or action B if we get the blue ball .
But that's not FTL communication ,
the result was determined before we left
and we chose not to peek at it right away .
The quantum case is more complicated , but analogous . "
What is your answer to this ?
That's a bad example. It is not analogous at all. Selecting a ball is a
deterministic process that presets a static condition - waiting to reveal
the color of the ball has no effect on the outcome of the process. In nature
an EPR entanglement is indeed a form of communication, one based on
stochastically random events. We humans tend to not classify it as a valid
form of communications because we can make no use of such random events. You
can't modulate a bunch of static. Since quantum processes are random,
stochastic information transfer is all that is needed and this criterion is
satisfied via entangled variables. As for our purposes, it would perhaps be
better to consider EPR as a signpost indicating FTL communications is
possible and not necessairly as a direct means of inducing human controlled
superluminal information transfer.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Just wondering, in which reference frame are the events, the
collapsing of the wave function of the other particle's spin once the
first particle's spin is determined, or whatever happens,
synchronized? Are they from the particle that generated them? And if
so... what happens if the 'particle' that generated them was light?
What if you designed an experiment where mutliple photons were
entangled, with the right state of motion, so that if you look at the
first photon, you know what the second one is, and then the third, and
then the fourth? If you do it right then it should just be like a
signal being sent to the past.
If so, is it possible to create a contradiction that crashes the
universe? Like when the fourth signal happened it set off a fifth,
which interacted with a sixth which forces the first one to be the
opposite of what it was whichever one is chosen? Then what happens?
I'd like to see these experiments tried.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ghytrfvbnmju7654" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
07 Sep 2003 10:30:04 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0309061915.4ac8eb19@posting.google.com>...
Just wondering, in which reference frame are the events, the
collapsing of the wave function of the other particle's spin once the
first particle's spin is determined, or whatever happens,
synchronized? Are they from the particle that generated them? And if
so... what happens if the 'particle' that generated them was light?
No matter which reference frame you use, the results will be the
same.
What if you designed an experiment where mutliple photons were
entangled, with the right state of motion, so that if you look at the
first photon, you know what the second one is, and then the third, and
then the fourth? If you do it right then it should just be like a
signal being sent to the past.
The EPR setup does not allow meaningful communication, only strange
correlations among random noise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Correlations . |
07 Sep 2003 12:52:28 PM |
|
|
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654 ,
You say " The EPR setup
does not allow meaningful communication ,
only strange correlations among random noise . "
Very well put .
And as we all know , correlations can be very deceiving .
Hospitals are correlated with sickness .
Correlations don't show cause .
" Put a red ball and a blue ball in a cup , shake it around ,
and take one ball out without looking at it ,
package it , and go on a trip .
I'll take the remaining ball , package it ,
and go in the opposite direction .
When we're many miles apart you can look at your ball
and immediately know what color ball I have .
We can even arrange in advance
to perform action A if we get the red ball
or action B if we get the blue ball .
But that's not FTL communication ,
the result was determined before we left
and we chose not to peek at it right away .
The quantum case is more complicated , but analogous . "
-- Gregory L. Hansen in Sci.Physics
news:<bitkdp$cug$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Bell's Inequalities . |
07 Sep 2003 11:06:07 PM |
|
|
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
Referring to Gregory L. Hansen in Sci.Physics
news:<bitkdp$cug$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu> You say :
" This analogy is wrong ;
several people have pointed this out to you ... "
That doesn't mean that these people are right .
For now at least ,
I have to take Greg's word over yours .
I know and trust him ... Not you .
As far as I can tell , No one , including you ,
has even begun to explain why Greg is wrong .
.
|
|
|
| User: "ghytrfvbnmju7654" |
|
| Title: Re: Bell's Inequalities . |
09 Sep 2003 03:24:56 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<jylkkvs9bkze$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
Referring to Gregory L. Hansen in Sci.Physics
news:<bitkdp$cug$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu> You say :
" This analogy is wrong ;
several people have pointed this out to you ... "
That doesn't mean that these people are right .
For now at least ,
I have to take Greg's word over yours .
I know and trust him ... Not you .
As far as I can tell , No one , including you ,
has even begun to explain why Greg is wrong .
I took a look at Hansen's post. He was explaining why
_practical_ communication via entanglement was not possible.
This is totally irrelevant to the issue. He was not trying
to give a complete description of the idea. He left out the
details that demonstrate that there is a problem with the
hidden-variable theories you support, because they weren't
relevant to his point. You left out the last part of his post,
in which he briefly mentions what happens in the
real situation. Note that he uses the language of quantum
mechanics to make his point. Classical mechanics
would not do; it would imply some sort of FTL communication
was going on that for some reason couldn't be used for
practical purposes. So don't say you trust him; he probably
doesn't even agree with you. (I say this because, due to the
fact that he uses Dirac's bra and ket notation, he demonstrates
that he has had an education. And no educated person would
agree with what you've been saying; it flies in the face of
the facts.) Go ahead and ask him if he thinks there is such
a thing as pure chance, if you trust him.
The analogy is incomplete because in the EPR paradox, there
is more than one way the particle can be measured, whereas
the ball can only be measured in one way (red or blue).
These details are crucial to an understanding of the paradox.
But I'm not going to post a lengthy description of it all
just so you can say, "I don't believe you." Go
educate yourself. The facts are the facts;
whether you believe them or not is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: More of an Empiricist . |
09 Sep 2003 04:20:31 PM |
|
|
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
Speaking of Greg , You say :
" Go ahead and ask him if he thinks there is such
a thing as pure chance , if you trust him . "
Are we having a semantic problem ?
Do you know that I'm talking about _ Material _ determinism
Not _ Scientific _ determinism ?
I'm not saying that
the weather could ever be perfectly predictable ...
Not at all !
I'm just saying that
It's our ignorance that causes the imperfect predictions .
Not some randomness that's somehow intrinsic to nature .
Do you disagree ?
I think Gregory L. Hansen takes no stand on ,
or even interest in , _ Material _ determinism .
In other words :
He's probably more of an empiricist than a cosmologist .
.
|
|
|
| User: "ghytrfvbnmju7654" |
|
| Title: Re: More of an Empiricist . |
09 Sep 2003 09:52:00 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<6luscq224myo.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Are we having a semantic problem ?
Do you know that I'm talking about _ Material _ determinism
Not _ Scientific _ determinism ?
I'm not saying that
the weather could ever be perfectly predictable ...
Not at all !
I'm just saying that
It's our ignorance that causes the imperfect predictions .
Not some randomness that's somehow intrinsic to nature .
Do you disagree ?
Absolutely. It is not our ignorance alone that causes imperfect
predictions. Randomness is intrinsic to nature. Or, if
you side with the many-worlds interpretation, the randomness
is caused by there being many "you"'s in the future, and you not
knowing which one you'll be. The EPR-based experiments demonstrate
that either there is non-determinism, or there are many worlds,
or there are non-local (i.e., FTL) interactions. Take your
pick, but I'd probably go with one of the first two, just
because of the large amount of evidence on the side of QM.
Nor is my view of randomness uncommon. For example, see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9egdch%24gat%241%40flotsam.uits.indiana.edu
Or just read a textbook on QM, any textbook; heck, I could
probably find mention of this idea in most freshman physics
texts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ghytrfvbnmju7654" |
|
| Title: Re: More of an Empiricist . |
09 Sep 2003 10:27:05 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<6luscq224myo.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
Speaking of Greg , You say :
" Go ahead and ask him if he thinks there is such
a thing as pure chance , if you trust him . "
Are we having a semantic problem ?
Do you know that I'm talking about _ Material _ determinism
Not _ Scientific _ determinism ?
I'm not saying that
the weather could ever be perfectly predictable ...
Not at all !
I'm just saying that
It's our ignorance that causes the imperfect predictions .
Not some randomness that's somehow intrinsic to nature .
Do you disagree ?
I think Gregory L. Hansen takes no stand on ,
or even interest in , _ Material _ determinism .
In other words :
He's probably more of an empiricist than a cosmologist .
Hey, wait a second! (after searching through newsgroup archives
a little more) You've had this same argument last year, with
(guess who) Gregory L. Hansen! I must say that you're the most
stupid, stubborn, ineducable people I know of. Or as "Uncle Al"
would put it,
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
I've had it. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with
religious fanatics (You do remember the post in which you said,
"My religion says that randomness is merely befuddlement," don't
you?) who refuse to listen to experimental evidence. What are
you doing posting on this newsgroup? Didn't you notice the
"sci" in front of the physics. That stands for science (since
you have trouble reading, it's pronounced SIE-ens), and in
sci-ence, we like to test our ideas with actual experiments.
That's right, Ex-per-i-ments. Those who get their ideas by
reading popularizations and magazines, or by citing other people
without thinking, should consider other fields. Well, at least
you should stop posting here. It's not that you disagree with
us; we welcome people with brains who do so. It's not that
you're annoying; we can always just ignore your posts. It's
that it's depressing to see the full depths of human stupidity.
You know, real scientists change their minds when the evidence
is against them. It happens all the time. You can break the
chains of ignorance! Oh, wait, I forgot, you're just stupid.
You can't change. Ever. Never mind that. Go back to spewing
out trash onto USENET, or whatever you were doing. At least you
won't be wasting _my_ time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Communication Problems . |
09 Sep 2003 10:51:00 PM |
|
|
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You say :
" I've had it .
I'm not going to spend any more time
arguing with religious fanatics ... "
There are often communication problems on Usenet .
I doubt that you really understand Greg's take on
absolute material determinism .
Greg doesn't believe in scientific determinism ,
Neither does Hawking , and neither do I .
Gödel's incompleteness theorem stands in the way of that .
Not not mention nature's infinite complexity .
But scientific determinism is not not Not
the same thing as absolute material determinism .
Randomness can't be intrinsic to nature ,
otherwise it'd be useless to learn more about it .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
07 Sep 2003 03:36:22 PM |
|
|
On a side note, the paper at the following address shows how incompatible
Relativity and QM are the fundie level where EPR is operative.
http://www.allocations.cc/this_paper_shows_how_difficult_i.htm
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ghytrfvbnmju7654" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
06 Sep 2003 04:00:16 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<1oxaagzpqd5fs$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654@ , You say :
" In the EPR situation ,
we have what classically could only be interpreted as
instant communication between different places . "
Not so according to Gregory L. Hansen in Sci.Physics .
See <bitkdp$cug$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu> :
" Put a red ball and a blue ball in a cup , shake it around ,
and take one ball out without looking at it ,
package it , and go on a trip .
I'll take the remaining ball , package it ,
and go in the opposite direction .
When we're many miles apart you can look at your ball
and immediately know what color ball I have .
We can even arrange in advance
to perform action A if we get the red ball
or action B if we get the blue ball .
But that's not FTL communication ,
the result was determined before we left
and we chose not to peek at it right away .
The quantum case is more complicated , but analogous . "
What is your answer to this ?
First, you are twisting my words. I said _classically_, that is, without
QM, the results can only be _explained_ through some sort of instant
communication. Which implies that the classical model of attraction
Y. Porat was proposing (which, by the way, had numerous other flaws) was
wrong. I did _not_ say that it does involve FTL communication, or that
it can be used for practical FTL communication (which it cannot).
If you read about the actual results of the experiment, it will clarify
what I am saying. Hansen's analogy is only an analogy, and not a very
precise one, either. The situation Hansen describes is explainable
without QM; the actual results of the EPR experiment are not. What Hansen
is trying to explain by the analogy is roughly how QM explains the
phenomenon without FTL communication. He is explaining that the
correlation, according to QM, does not travel FTL; it existed prior
to the measurements. However, QM allows some weird results that
would not be explainable classically without FTL communication.
.
|
|
|
| User: "François Guillet" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
06 Sep 2003 12:42:32 PM |
|
|
"ghytrfvbnmju7654" <ghytrfvbnmju7654@mail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
cb623e6.0309060100.348b0c10@posting.google.com...
... However, QM allows some weird results that
would not be explainable classically without FTL communication.
You don't need FTL if you assume a time reversal travelling wave as in the
transactionnal interpretation
(http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html).
FG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR is Not FTL Communication . |
06 Sep 2003 08:12:50 PM |
|
|
Hi François Guillet ,
You say " You don't need FTL
if you assume a time reversal traveling wave
as in the transactional interpretation . "
You're so right . Faster than Light ? My ***** .
What does " Speed " even mean when
all we can see is stochastic outcomes ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Define " Speed " . |
06 Sep 2003 08:23:51 PM |
|
|
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
Speaking of Gregory L. Hansen You say
" He is explaining that the correlation , according to QM ,
does not travel FTL ;
it existed prior to the measurements . "
Right , so you agree with his assessment then I assume .
Then you add " However , QM allows some weird results
that would not be explainable classically
without FTL communication . "
Like what ?
What does the " Speed " of stochastic positions even mean ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ghytrfvbnmju7654" |
|
| Title: Re: Define " Speed " . |
07 Sep 2003 12:20:06 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<7leg7ryui6i1.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Then you add " However , QM allows some weird results
that would not be explainable classically
without FTL communication . "
Like what ?
Not only the result of the measurement of the first particle,
but also the way it is measured affects the probability of the
various results of the measurement of the second particle.
But don't take my word for it; get on Google or some other
search engine and search of "EPR paradox" or "Bell's Inequality."
What does the " Speed " of stochastic positions even mean ?
It is not positions that appear to be moving faster than the
speed of light here, but information. Nevertheless, the speed
of a stochastic position is meaningful; for one thing, one can
easily define an average speed; one can also decompose the
wavefunction into states of various momenta.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: What Information ? |
07 Sep 2003 12:04:16 PM |
|
|
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654 ,
Speaking of the EPR experiment , You say the following is
an example of ( Pseudo ? ) faster than light communication :
" Not only the result of the measurement
of the first Particle , but also the way it is measured
affects the probability of the various results
of the measurement of the second particle . "
I fail to see how you can agree with Gregory L. Hansen's point
and yet claim that some mysterious " Way of measuring "
is a ( Genuine ? ) faster than light communication .
You say " It is not positions that appear to be moving faster
than the speed of light here , but information .
Nevertheless ,
the speed of a stochastic position is meaningful ;
for one thing ,
one can easily define an average speed ;
one can also decompose the wavefunction
into states of various momenta . "
In QM , How could anyone ever know if the exact same
" Particle " is ever being measured a second time ?
Like Willis Lamb ,
I have considerable doubt that particles genuinely exist .
A " Particle " may be nothing more than
some scientist's " Perception " of some very dynamic ,
yet highly attenuated , wave packet .
So what is it that you say is moving so fast ?
Information ? What information ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ghytrfvbnmju7654" |
|
| Title: Re: What Information ? |
07 Sep 2003 10:46:03 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<1gh7ltgqrm4wj.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654 ,
Speaking of the EPR experiment , You say the following is
an example of ( Pseudo ? ) faster than light communication :
" Not only the result of the measurement
of the first Particle , but also the way it is measured
affects the probability of the various results
of the measurement of the second particle . "
I fail to see how you can agree with Gregory L. Hansen's point
and yet claim that some mysterious " Way of measuring "
is a ( Genuine ? ) faster than light communication .
1) I do not have time to describe the entire idea to you here.
There are an insane amount of websites dedicated to the EPR
paradox, so there should be no need.
2) Look carefully at what I said. _Classical_ mechanics can
only explain it with FTL communication. With quantum mechanics,
this position is debatable, and different "schools" of interpretation
say different things.
You say " It is not positions that appear to be moving faster
than the speed of light here , but information .
Nevertheless ,
the speed of a stochastic position is meaningful ;
for one thing ,
one can easily define an average speed ;
one can also decompose the wavefunction
into states of various momenta . "
In QM , How could anyone ever know if the exact same
" Particle " is ever being measured a second time ?
Well for one thing, there could be no other identical particles
around. In various situations, it could be distinguished in
all sorts of different ways. But I didn't claim that setup
would always work.
Like Willis Lamb ,
I have considerable doubt that particles genuinely exist .
A " Particle " may be nothing more than
some scientist's " Perception " of some very dynamic ,
yet highly attenuated , wave packet .
Irrelevant. Waves can be decomposed into parts with different
velocities. This is done by Fourier transforms.
So what is it that you say is moving so fast ?
Information ? What information ?
Go read about the EPR paradox so that when I say something,
you at least have a clue what I'm talking about!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Three Kinds of Physics . |
07 Sep 2003 11:49:11 PM |
|
|
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You say :
" Look carefully at what I said .
_ Classical _ mechanics
can only explain it with FTL communication .
With quantum mechanics , this position is debatable ,
and different ' schools ' of interpretation
say different things . "
I don't like to mix physics like that .
I tend to divide the universe into three categories :
- High Energy physics ,
Where SR and Minkowskian spacetime rules .
( Including probabilistic and imaginary values ,
despite the underlying material determinism . )
- Classic physics ,
Where Newton and Euclidean space and time rule .
( Material determinism is more obvious here . )
- Cosmic physics ,
Where GR and Einsteinian spacetime rules .
( Where material determinism is Very obvious . )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: The Copenhagen Interpretation . |
08 Sep 2003 04:59:22 PM |
|
|
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You say :
" The world is not deterministic . "
You obviously don't understand the Copenhagen Interpretation .
Bohr and Heisenberg would never be so bold as to say that
pure nature does not have absolute material determinism .
They only said that the _ Measurements _ are stochastic ,
Not pure nature .
Hawking certainly believes in absolute material determinism .
As did J.S. Bell and Einstein .
( Not to mention James Maxwell and Sir Isaac Newton . )
I trust them ... Not you .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation . |
08 Sep 2003 11:28:55 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<qadgx2ej65xm.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You say :
" The world is not deterministic . "
You obviously don't understand the Copenhagen Interpretation .
Bohr and Heisenberg would never be so bold as to say that
pure nature does not have absolute material determinism .
They only said that the _ Measurements _ are stochastic ,
Not pure nature .
Hawking certainly believes in absolute material determinism .
As did J.S. Bell and Einstein .
( Not to mention James Maxwell and Sir Isaac Newton . )
I trust them ... Not you .
Regarding Hawking's views on determinism, here is part of a summary of
a lecture he gave at UC Davis on 3-31-03:
In his second lecture, titled "Gödel and the End of Physics," Hawking
seemed to paint a less tidy picture of the search for a Theory of
Everything. He began by citing 18th- and 19th-century mathematician
Pierre Simon de Laplace, whose theory of determinism proposed that if
the current state of the universe in other words, the positions and
velocities of every particle in it could somehow be determined, all
future and past states would be known with perfect certainty,
predictably following unbreakable physical laws like a giant
clockwork. A Theory of Everything that accomplished this would
effectively end physics as a theoretical science.
But then, Hawking said, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics
reduced determinism to predicting probabilities, not certainties.
While those probabilities could still be predicted, what was left was
a determinism that Hawking said was "half of what Laplace thought it
was."
Hawking further suggested that the deterministic assumptions that
underlie searches for a Theory of Everything may themselves be doomed.
He cited the 20th-century mathematician Kurt Gödel, who proved that
any finite mathematical system will always have statements it cannot
prove independently in other words, that mathematical systems are
always incomplete or inconsistent.
Hawking compared physical theories to mathematical systems, saying
that a theory such as relativity, quantum mechanics or M-theory could
not escape from the universe it describes. The implication, he said,
is that any theory can never completely describe the universe: the
search for a Theory of Everything could be futile.
Still, rather than despair, Hawking said he was excited by the
prospect of ever-present possibilities for discovery that would keep
mathematicians and physicists in business forever.
http://www.californiaaggie.com/_articles/6042.taf
Double-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation . |
08 Sep 2003 11:52:19 PM |
|
|
"Double-A" <double-a@hush.com> wrote in message
news:79094630.0309082028.4d78e008@posting.google.com...
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:<qadgx2ej65xm.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You say :
" The world is not deterministic . "
You obviously don't understand the Copenhagen Interpretation .
Bohr and Heisenberg would never be so bold as to say that
pure nature does not have absolute material determinism .
They only said that the _ Measurements _ are stochastic ,
Not pure nature .
Hawking certainly believes in absolute material determinism .
As did J.S. Bell and Einstein .
( Not to mention James Maxwell and Sir Isaac Newton . )
I trust them ... Not you .
Regarding Hawking's views on determinism, here is part of a summary of
a lecture he gave at UC Davis on 3-31-03:
In his second lecture, titled "Gödel and the End of Physics," Hawking
seemed to paint a less tidy picture of the search for a Theory of
Everything. He began by citing 18th- and 19th-century mathematician
Pierre Simon de Laplace, whose theory of determinism proposed that if
the current state of the universe - in other words, the positions and
velocities of every particle in it - could somehow be determined, all
future and past states would be known with perfect certainty,
predictably following unbreakable physical laws like a giant
clockwork. A Theory of Everything that accomplished this would
effectively end physics as a theoretical science.
But then, Hawking said, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics
reduced determinism to predicting probabilities, not certainties.
While those probabilities could still be predicted, what was left was
a determinism that Hawking said was "half of what Laplace thought it
was."
Hawking further suggested that the deterministic assumptions that
underlie searches for a Theory of Everything may themselves be doomed.
He cited the 20th-century mathematician Kurt Gödel, who proved that
any finite mathematical system will always have statements it cannot
prove independently - in other words, that mathematical systems are
always incomplete or inconsistent.
Well, Quantum Theory is not an 'outside the box' theory. Any TOE that
doesn't have at least some outside the box aspects to it will never be
complete. And at the cornerstone of the whole mess is the measurement
problem. At least Bohm made an attempt to pound the square peg of quantum
theory into the round hole of assumptions via his interpretation of things.
Can we really have classical epistemology with quantum ontology? What will
we end up with -statistical gynecology? Don't look too closely or you may
be damaged for life...
Hawking compared physical theories to mathematical systems, saying
that a theory such as relativity, quantum mechanics or M-theory could
not escape from the universe it describes. The implication, he said,
is that any theory can never completely describe the universe: the
search for a Theory of Everything could be futile.
It will stay futile until we can agree just what 'everything' actually is,
you know.
Still, rather than despair, Hawking said he was excited by the
prospect of ever-present possibilities for discovery that would keep
mathematicians and physicists in business forever.
Yes, as long as the Classical philosophers and the Quantum professors keep
slagging each other off on all the talk shows, they can stay on the dole for
life.
http://www.californiaaggie.com/_articles/6042.taf
Double-A
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eray Ozkural exa" |
|
| Title: Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation . |
09 Sep 2003 08:55:58 PM |
|
|
(Double-A) wrote in message news:<79094630.0309082028.4d78e008@posting.google.com>...
Hawking further suggested that the deterministic assumptions that
underlie searches for a Theory of Everything may themselves be doomed.
He cited the 20th-century mathematician Kurt Gödel, who proved that
any finite mathematical system will always have statements it cannot
prove independently ? in other words, that mathematical systems are
always incomplete or inconsistent.
I think the views presented in http://digitalphysics.org might be
relevant to this discussion.
There is a lot of intuitive appeal for thinking that the physical
universe is actually a Turing-complete computer. Some sort of cellular
automata. Why not? [1]
I wonder if that could ever be answered! Can you guys think of an
experiment to prove or disprove such a hypothesis? Or do you think the
truth of that would transcend us?
I am in favor of Fredkin's views about physics but I also think it
might require empirical evidence, especially for particle physics
although they deny such a requirement:
"No theory, which uses in any way experimental data in order to obtain
mathematical models of the physical world, should be considered to be
DP or part of DP."
Funny, maybe Fredkin's thesis itself is an undecidable question that
we can never hope to answer! (Universe and we ourselves being
computers, etc...)
Regards,
__
Eray Ozkural
[1] That should also put a full-stop to all the silly discussions on
philosophy of mind! Visit comp.ai.philosophy if you wonder how bad it
can get.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Always Incomplete . |
09 Sep 2003 10:34:02 PM |
|
|
Hi Eray Ozkural exa ,
You cite http://digitalphysics.org Which asks :
" Is it possible to describe
the whole Universe as a computer program ? "
Obviously not .
The complexity of the universe is surely infinite .
So scientific determinism Must always be incomplete .
Then add to that Gödel's incompleteness theorem .
Still , nature Must be static . Spatial .
The future must be immutably fixed .
Absolute material determinism is most likely .
So all randomness , entropy , and free will
must be biased and absolutely artificial .
Otherwise , if nature is _ Intrinsically _ random ,
it'd be useless to discover it's secrets .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Always Incomplete . |
10 Sep 2003 04:20:01 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf wrote:
Hi Eray Ozkural exa ,
You cite http://digitalphysics.org Which asks :
" Is it possible to describe
the whole Universe as a computer program ? "
Obviously not .
The complexity of the universe is surely infinite .
Not if the Kosmos is finite. Do you know is the Kosmos is finite or not?
I will bet you do not.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eray Ozkural exa" |
|
| Title: Re: Always Incomplete . |
10 Sep 2003 12:04:59 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<bjmqc4$kj6r3$2@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Not if the Kosmos is finite. Do you know is the Kosmos is finite or not?
I will bet you do not.
It seems as if the space is infinite.
But, I don't think an infinite universe necessarily entails infinite
algorithmic complexity!!!!
This is just intuition, I didn't verify it mathematically. Any
thoughts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6del's_Incompleteness_Theorems_=2E?= |
10 Sep 2003 03:11:54 PM |
|
|
Hi Eray Ozkural exa ,
You correctly say :
" It seems as if the space is infinite . "
Exactly . That's just the most likely reality .
But then you make a mistake by saying :
" But , I don't think an infinite universe
necessarily entails infinite algorithmic complexity !!!!
This is just intuition ,
I didn't verify it mathematically . Any thoughts ? "
The infinite complexity of the cosmos ,
coupled with our limited mental capacities ,
means that we'll never fully understand it .
That's why we can never produce the perfect weather forecast .
That's why QM is stochastic .
Add to that Gödel's incompleteness theorems ,
and absolute scientific determinism must be impossible ,
despite nature's absolute material determinism .
Gödel basically proved that all
mathematical theorems are incomplete .
They all require " Givens " . External assumptions .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eray Ozkural exa" |
|
| Title: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6del's_Incompleteness_Theorems_.?= |
16 Sep 2003 07:20:45 PM |
|
|
Hi Jeff,
Regarding this point:
Jeff Relf <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message news:<5hy86bxr14av.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>...
But then you make a mistake by saying :
" But , I don't think an infinite universe
necessarily entails infinite algorithmic complexity !!!!
This is just intuition ,
I didn't verify it mathematically . Any thoughts ? "
The infinite complexity of the cosmos ,
coupled with our limited mental capacities ,
means that we'll never fully understand it .
As somebody else said on digital-philosophy mailing list, most of the
space is probably empty. Then we can't claim that infinite space
entails infinite complexity!
Regards,
__
Eray Ozkural
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: A Local Phenomenon . |
16 Sep 2003 08:19:16 PM |
|
|
Hi Eray Ozkural exa ,
You say :
" most of the space is probably empty . "
Just because Einsteinian spacetime Seems empty
that doesn't mean that it likely is ...
In fact it likely isn't perfectly empty .
It contains gravity , if nothing else .
Gravity is ultimately a local phenomenon .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
