Quantum Mechanics: Paradoxical?

[Mentat]

First let me define my use of the word paradox, in this thread. A paradox is a self-contradictory statement, or one that cannot be true, but also cannot be false.

Alright, now, some have said that Quantum Mechanics meets this criteria, because it states that something can be both alive and dead at the same time. If this is what it said, then I would agree that it was paradoxical, because "dead" is the opposite of "alive" and so you cannot be both.

However, it is my current opinion that that is not what QM implies. I have read that Schrodinger's (sp?) Cat is not alive or dead, it is 1/2 of each. It is in a half-way state, until an observation is made, and then it becomes one or the other.

Is my understanding of "Schrodinger's Cat" correct. If not, is Quantum Mechanics paradoxical?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
First let me define my use of the word paradox, in this thread. A paradox is a self-contradictory statement, or one that cannot be true, but also cannot be false.

Alright, now, some have said that Quantum Mechanics meets this criteria, because it states that something can be both alive and dead at the same time. If this is what it said, then I would agree that it was paradoxical, because "dead" is the opposite of "alive" and so you cannot be both.

However, it is my current opinion that that is not what QM implies. I have read that Schrodinger's (sp?) Cat is not alive or dead, it is 1/2 of each. It is in a half-way state, until an observation is made, and then it becomes one or the other.

Is my understanding of "Schrodinger's Cat" correct. If not, is Quantum Mechanics paradoxical?

The example you use (Schodingers cat) is an interpretation of Quantum physics that is not supported by all physicists. Why would the cat depend on it being observed before it can be determined if the cat would be alive or not. Why hasn't the cat itself observer states? etc.

I think it is an uneasonable interpretation of quantum physics. Quantum physics takes place in the micro universe, and not in the macro universe. If this interpreation would be true, then it leads to several other paradoxes. For instance the observer that first sees the cat, would determine by his/her observation (the collapse of the wave function) if the cat is alive or not. But why wouldn't the observer itself be in a same kind of state as the cat and the experiment itself. Being halfway observing a dead cat, and halfway being observing a life cat. And so on.

For this obvious reasons, this kind of interpretation is assumed wrong.

[Tom Mattson]

One important point is being missed here.

"In his original thought experiment, Schrodinger imagined that a cat is locked in a box, along with a radioactive atom that is connected to a vial containing a deadly poison. If the atom decays, it causes the vial to smash and the cat to be killed. When the box is closed we do not know if the atom has decayed or not, which means that it can be in both the decayed state and the non-decayed state at the same time. Therefore, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time - which clearly does not happen in classical physics."

Originally posted by heusdens
But why wouldn't the observer itself be in a same kind of state as the cat and the experiment itself.


Because the observer is not coupled to a quantum mechanical system that can kill him (namely, a radioactive atom).

edit:

The above makes me wonder: Why introduce the cat at all?

I mean, the state of the cat is supposed to be analogous to quantum mechanical wave functions, but the fate of the cat is controlled by none other than a quantum mechanical wave function of a radioactive nucleus! Why not just look at that directly?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
One important point is being missed here.

"In his original thought experiment, Schrodinger imagined that a cat is locked in a box, along with a radioactive atom that is connected to a vial containing a deadly poison. If the atom decays, it causes the vial to smash and the cat to be killed. When the box is closed we do not know if the atom has decayed or not, which means that it can be in both the decayed state and the non-decayed state at the same time. Therefore, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time - which clearly does not happen in classical physics."



Because the observer is not coupled to a quantum mechanical system that can kill him (namely, a radioactive atom).

edit:

The above makes me wonder: Why introduce the cat at all?

I mean, the state of the cat is supposed to be analogous to quantum mechanical wave functions, but the fate of the cat is controlled by none other than a quantum mechanical wave function of a radioactive nucleus! Why not just look at that directly?

Yes, but the cat is an observer. Would it be different if the cat were a human? The cat observes, prior to possible being killed, the espace of gas or not. So, why wouldn't that collapse the wave function?

And the explample of the (second) observer, opening the box, that would suppose in this example to cause the collapse of the wave function. Why only then? It can be argues as well, this observer then becomes part of and connected to the system in a dual state, and becomes part of that dual state: observing a dead cat or observing a life cat.

[wuliheron]

Quantum physics takes place in the micro universe, and not in the macro universe.

This statement is not quite correct either. Bose-Einstein condensates, for example, have been created which incorporate hundreds of molecules. What seems to matter is the extremes of the situation, not simply size. At extremely cold temperatures, high energy levels, small sizes etc. quantum effects can be observed in any system. According to calculations and observations, certain neutron stars displays Quantum effects on a truly large scale.

As for Shrondenger's Cat, that is merely one effect of the central paradox of Quantum Mechanics, the Uncertainity Principle. This couples all the observable characteristics of particles in ways which make no common sense whatsoever. Mass and momentum, spin and momentum, etc. are all intimately connected so that it is impossible to effect one without effecting the other.

What's more, this effect is precisely balanced and not simply arbitrary. If a flying ball hits a wall it may fall to the floor resting in one spot while still spinning, but not so with Quanta. The energy they contain, including their momentum, is quantized.

This a bit along the lines of Zeno's paradox. If I take a step and then half of that and so on I will never reach my destination. However, Quantum Mechanics demonstrates it is impossible past a certain point to further subdivide my steps. What's more, as something influences my steps it also influences everything else about me.

Some have suggested that what Quantum Mechanics really describes are really waves, that everything is made out of waves of energy and this explains how influencing one characteristic of a "particle" effects all the others. However, ordinary waves can theoretically be infinitely subdivided and do not display both the properties of a particle and a wave.

Is it mass, is it energy, is it a particle, a wave, alive, dead, a thing, or a non-thing? No one can say for sure. Thus they are described as Indeterminate and paradoxical. All that can be said for sure is they obey stritch rules of indeterminacy which defy everyday experience.

As for the "observer" and Shrondenger's Cat observing itself, recent experiments suggest it is not so much an observer collapsing the wave function but environmental noise. The state of somehow alive and dead last for perhaps a few femto seconds until environmental noise effects it. In other words, the weird indeterminate state of quanta increases with isolation, yet another extreme.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As for the "observer" and Shrondenger's Cat observing itself, recent experiments suggest it is not so much an observer collapsing the wave function but environmental noise. The state of somehow alive and dead last for perhaps a few femto seconds until environmental noise effects it. In other words, the weird indeterminate state of quanta increases with isolation, yet another extreme.

That is what I think indeed happens. The kind of interpretation this experiment initially was given, serves a philosophical viewpoint of Idealism (which states that an objetive outside reality does not exist, and is dependend on the mind/observer). However, any observation is an act of "the flesh" not of "the mind", and thus does not raise the kind of paradox suggested here.

[wuliheron]

That is what I think indeed happens. The kind of interpretation this experiment initially was given, serves a philosophical viewpoint of Idealism (which states that an objetive outside reality does not exist, and is dependend on the mind/observer). However, any observation is an act of "the flesh" not of "the mind", and thus does not raise the kind of paradox suggested here.

No, it doesn't raise the kind of paradox referred to here, but it doesn't discount it either or that of the Hegelians' fascination with infinity either. If anything, it focuses the discussion more on seriously self-referential and self-contradictory paradox itself.

Ninty five percent of all the scientists that have ever lived, are alive today. Despite this and the inordinate amount of money spent on science, the paradox of existence has only deepened. Thus it presents a ground for simultaneously unifying all these disparate views and placing them at odds to each other. In other words, progress as we've come to know the meaning of the word. :0)

[with.buddha]

i like the noise theory, it makes sense.. but the many-worlds theory should be mentioned.

let's say we are all together when we set up the box.. everybody leaves and i'm the first one back after an hour. i'm so curious, i open the box and find the cat dead - theoretically collapsing the wave-function and "making" the cat dead. then i seal the box again.

i leave and someone else comes back and opens the box - the cat will be dead. BUT the 2nd person didn't collapse the wave-function... i did.

the many-worlds theory allows for this, and also allows for the cat to act as an observer by stating that all potentialities actually do exist and we are constantly splitting paths.. like, the "you" that almost got hit by a car actually did get hit by a car in MANY other "worlds", but the "you" that is sitting here now is your current reality.

it's crazy, but not impossible. as my username suggests, i'm into buddhism and this theory fits nicely with the philosophy..

it's almost like your consciousness is a bubble surfing through this one set of many-worlds and when you die, you could be born again in a this "world", but that world would diverge depending on how you choose to live.

it's like a video game where you play over and over again and can sometimes follow similar paths and sometimes play a completely different character..

i hope i made sense, i haven't slept in awhile.. but this theory is one that has come up to eliminate the paradox..

but, like i said, the environmental noise theory sounds much more realistic....

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, but the cat is an observer. Would it be different if the cat were a human? The cat observes, prior to possible being killed, the espace of gas or not. So, why wouldn't that collapse the wave function?

And the explample of the (second) observer, opening the box, that would suppose in this example to cause the collapse of the wave function. Why only then? It can be argues as well, this observer then becomes part of and connected to the system in a dual state, and becomes part of that dual state: observing a dead cat or observing a life cat.

heusdens,

I think you are not understanding the intent of the experiment. I agree with Tom. It didn't need to be a cat. It could have been anything. The point of this thought experiment was to show how absurd the copenhagan interpretation was. It was an attempt to link the weird events in the quantum world with the classical world that we know, to illustrate the absurdity. The fact that the macro world object was a cat, which can be argued to be conscious, has nothing to do with the experiment at all.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Personally, I think Tom really cleared the whole matter, with the analysis he presented with the excerpt from the book.

Further, I should like to make clear the fact that for one, cats, including any other living thing under the curse of death, is dying. Yet, a "living thing" is considered to be alive, although it is dying ("dying" should not be misconstrued to be portending a future event, but it should contrued to specify a present state). So, I guess with such minute reasoning, one can conclude it is vaguely possible to be "alive and dead" at the same time?(not rhetorical)

[jammieg]

Is this experiment demonstrating
that in quantum mechanics things
are too small and moving too fast to
"open the box" and see atoms dead and
alive all the time? Is it that they say the
cat is half dead and half alive to mean
that we can't see all the atoms all the time so we give them probabilities and possibilities? If so I think it's a very round about way of saying this.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Welcom to PFs[;)]

Didst thou read this, Jammieg? (forgive me if I have mispelled your screen name). I think Tom's post explains it very well.


Originally posted by Tom
One important point is being missed here.

"In his original thought experiment, Schrodinger imagined that a cat is locked in a box, along with a radioactive atom that is connected to a vial containing a deadly poison. If the atom decays, it causes the vial to smash and the cat to be killed. When the box is closed we do not know if the atom has decayed or not, which means that it can be in both the decayed state and the non-decayed state at the same time. Therefore, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time - which clearly does not happen in classical physics."

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As for the "observer" and Shrondenger's Cat observing itself, recent experiments suggest it is not so much an observer collapsing the wave function but environmental noise.[/B]

Are you talking about decoherence? AFAIK, no experiment can be interpreted as supporting such idea. It is an interesting interpretation, I agree, but its predictions do not differ from those of any other interpretation of QM (since the formal machinery is the exact same one).

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Tom
Because the observer is not coupled to a quantum mechanical system that can kill him (namely, a radioactive atom).


Why is it not coupled?

Both the cat and the observer are aggregates of a very big number of quantum systems, each of which follows the rules of QM (unitary evolution).

Think of the wavefunction associated to such aggregate (the "wavefunction of the observer"). After opening the box, such wavefunction will have very different spacetime probability distributions: in one case it will have a big probability of smiling, and of feeding and playing with a cat after the experiment; on the other, such probability is zero.

While the box is closed, the wavefunction for the radiactive atom is such that

|state at probing time> = |decayed> + |notDecayed>

The cat+atom system is set so that its state rigth after that time is

|decayed,dead> + |notDecayed,alive>

And the cat+atom+observer system is such that, once opening the box, it should be

|decayed,dead,grieving> + |notDecayed,alive,playingWithCat>

However, our perceptions apparently show that, at some point, the system went from the above state to one described by only one of the two terms.

It is not just a matter of knowing vs not_knowing, since quantum superposition does have physical effects (as in the double slit experiment).

The above makes me wonder: Why introduce the cat at all?

Just for the dramatic effect it has. People may have no problem with an atom behaving in an odd way, but having a half-alive, half-death animal was better for Schrodinger to make people think twice about the Copenhagen interpretation.

We can also think about arranging the experiment so that, if the cat dies, a city is built in his name; if not, then a cruise ship is built for the cat to take a vacation.

The QM description of the full system after 10 years would then be

|decayed,dead,grieving,CatCity> + |notDecayed,alive,playingWithCat,USSfelineVacation>

Or isn't it? did the first observer collapse it? the cat? the construction workers? why?

An observer who stayed in Australia for those ten years would describe the full system as a superposition (why would he stop the unitary evolution description?), and yet, once he returns to LabCity, the state has to be described by only one of those terms.

If those terms could interfere, then a "double slit experiment" would be able to show a physically real interference pattern on a TV screen until the moment he looks at the result; from then on, the interference pattern would dissappear, and he would see only a big spike in the slit corresponding to, let say,

|notDecayed,alive,playingWithCat,USSfelineVacation>

[Mentat]

I thank you all for your replies.

However, no one has yet answered the real question of this thread: Is "Schordinger's Cat" paradoxical?

with.budda, I like that you brought the many-worlds idea, because that seems to resolve this problem. In the many-worlds reality, there is not paradox.

[wuliheron]

So... a cat being both alive and dead, a particle being also a wave, mass being energy, etc. all based on the most accurate physical theory in history which no one can say exactly what the theory is about.......is not paradoxical. This is rhetorical nonsense that flies in the face of science and philosophy.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Mentat
First let me define my use of the word paradox, in this thread. A paradox is a self-contradictory statement, or one that cannot be true, but also cannot be false.

Is my understanding of "Schrodinger's Cat" correct. If not, is Quantum Mechanics paradoxical?

If we use words in a loosely defined manner, then it is easy to form phrases like

"According to QM, the atom has decayed and has not decayed"

Which is a blatantly self-contradictory statement. However, such description is a childishly oversimplifying rendering of what QM actually says about the state!

It is analogous to going from: "You have a wet tongue and a dry skin" to a cheating description like "you are dry and wet", and then happily saying "you are paradoxical!".

QM is definitely not paradoxical in the predictions it makes. If it was able to produce mutually contradicting predictions, it would have no use as a physical theory.

Much to the contrary, the theory is extremely well defined, and it clearly states what we will find out of an experiment.

The problem comes when people try to describe the outcome in terms of everyday-life words, which are of course derived from everyday-life objects and interactions.

Instead of saying "it is a paradox, as everything else... beware the power of paradox!", I find it much more useful to try and understand the subtleties in the process of translating measurements into interpretations. Such approach sheds light on the understanding of the subatomic world, the process of assigning descriptions, and the construction of interpretations, instead of stopping at the awe produced by a "paradox" based on ambiguous concepts, imprecise meanings and incomplete descriptions.

[wuliheron]

QM is definitely not paradoxical in the predictions it makes. If it was able to produce mutually contradicting predictions, it would have no use as a physical theory.


If you are going to be picky about semantics and use of the word paradox, you should be careful yourself. What you are talking about the application of the theory, not the theory itself or what it describes.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
What you are talking about the application of the theory, not the theory itself or what it describes. [/B]

Despite popularization books, QM is a physical theory. It does not ever talk about dead cats and paradoxical decayed-and-not atoms. It has to do with physical states, Hilbert spaces, probabilities and experimental predictions. There are no inconsistencies or "paradoxes" in it.

What you may be refering to are the informal descriptions portrayed on popularization books and tv programs, in which the puzzling aspects (what you may call "paradoxical features") of the theory are strongly emphasized in order to keep the attention of the general public.

As I said, these "paradoxes" are just the result of a faulty description.

The theory does reflect the fact that microscopic ojbects behave in a way that conflicts daily life notions, but why would you expect otherwise?

[wuliheron]

This "popular" misconception you speak of extends to the greatest founding members of the theory including Heisenburg, Einstein, and Feignman and extends to such renouned institutions as Standford univeristy. Deny it all you want, it is widely recognized within scientific and academic circles.

The mathematics of the Hilbert spaces, probabilities, and predictions you speak of are based on paraconsistent logic
( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ ) repleate with contradictions which defy classical Aristotelian logic. Hence, QM is considered a break from classical physics and is referred to as modern physics.

To contest these facts is as absurd as the theory itself is.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
[B]This "popular" misconception you speak of extends to the greatest founding members of the theory including Heisenburg, Einstein, and Feignman

(minor correction: Heisenberg, Feynman)

They all gave serious thought to the interpretation of QM, and none of them gave up by saying "gee, it is just a paradoxical theory, let's leave it at that".

Deny it all you want, it is widely recognized within scientific and academic circles.

Exactly what do you say is "widely recognized"?
That the theory is self-contradictory? that it is a "paradoxical theory"?

It is widely recognized that its interpretation breaks some rules that hold in macroscopic physics, and that different interpretations exist for it, all of which were obtained from the same formalism.

The mathematics of the Hilbert spaces, probabilities, and predictions you speak of are based on paraconsistent logic

No, they are not. I have taken six courses on QM and QFT (one of which was precisely about t he interpretation of QM). Paraconsistent logics are not needed in the least to develop Hilbert spaces. They are a perfectly consistent, paradox-free piece of math, very much like any vector space.

Hence, QM is considered a break from classical physics and is referred to as modern physics.

It is, but not because it is "full of contradictions" as you try to portray it.

[wuliheron]

They all gave serious thought to the interpretation of QM, and none of them gave up by saying "gee, it is just a paradoxical theory, let's leave it at that".


Many have accused Bhorr of just the opposite, of making questioning the theory heresy, but this is off the subject. The subject is not whether we should or shouldn't look for alternatives, the subject is whether what we have today is paradoxical or not.

Exactly [B]what do you say is "widely recognized"?
That the theory is self-contradictory? that it is a "paradoxical theory"?

It is widely recognized that its interpretation breaks some rules that hold in macroscopic physics, and that different interpretations exist for it, all of which were obtained from the same formalism.


By widely recognized I mean this is the scientific and academic consensus at this time.

The current understanding of the philosophical implications of the theory rest in particular on Bell's Theorem. Essentially he demonstrated any explanation for the theory must be nonlocal and defy causality. This is not say a reasonable explanation will never be discovered, just that the current theory is paradoxical and defies logic.

Exactly what QM describes is the huge debate that has raged since its inception. How it describes phenomena is not debated, it describes them in contradictory terms. Effects without causes are a paradox, a particle that is also a wave, is a paradox.


No, they are not. I have taken six courses on QM and QFT (one of which was precisely about t he interpretation of QM). Paraconsistent logics are not needed in the least to develop Hilbert spaces. They are a perfectly consistent, paradox-free piece of math, very much like any vector space.


Duh! What you still seem intent on obfuscating and avoiding is that their use within the theory of QM incorporates paraconsistent logic. Follow the link to Stanford I provided and see for yourself if honesty and integrity mean anything to you and you are so mathematically literate.

[drag]

Greetings !

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with ahrkron here.
Despite the fact that QM has basic principles
that are different from those in classical
physics and do not seem to fall under our
definition of "normal" applied logic it can
be represented by a different reasoning system.

Such terms as instant action and uncertainty that
were "ruled out" since the times of ancient Greece
are still no more paradoxical than any other
in a Universe that has the paradox of existence
as an unsaprable part.

However, it should be noted that the attempt to
settle our seemingly real reasoning system with
that of QM does lead to unsolvable problems (so far).
Which also means that the attempt to use QM
in its role as a physical theory to explain our
"reality" does lead to paradox in such an interpretation.

And yet, "reality" is paradoxical in many other ways
too so - who cares as long as the predictions are
correct ? [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[ahrkron]

Glad to see that you have changed you position from

The mathematics of the Hilbert spaces, probabilities, and predictions you speak of are based on paraconsistent logic

to

The mathematics of the Hilbert spaces ... incorporates paraconsistent logic.

Which is clearly a much less commited statement. "Incorporates" can be interpreted as anything from "introduces unavoidably" to "includes a loose resemblance to".

It is precisely this kind of ambiguity in the use of language that I am refering to. When a quantum state is described as a superposition of two different states, it is easy to form phrases like "it is spin up and down at the same time!". This may suit the goal of making things look strange and "paradoxical", but it is a very bad description. What actually happens has nothing paradoxical into it. The state is such that it has components from the two spin states, and a measurement will project the state into one of them.

QM is internally consistent. That is "widely recognized".

Follow the link to Stanford I provided

I did. It mentions Bohr's theory of the atom as an example in which paraconsistent logic can be applied. Does that mean that modern QM is self contradictory? no, since Bohr's model was incomplete and "patched" together, incorporating components from classical and the then incipient quantum mechanics.

and see for yourself if honesty and integrity mean anything to you and you are so mathematically literate. [/B]

Stick to content.

[wuliheron]

Obviously no integrity or honesty in your content. Nothing but more obfuscation, misdirection, and general BS.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
Obviously no integrity or honesty in your content.
Nothing but more obfuscation, misdirection, and
general BS.
temper... temper... wuliheron ! [;)]
What's so paradoxical about QM that
distinguishes it ? The occasional lack of proper
cause and effect connections for example ?
So when every cause has an effect it is "reasonable" ?
Well let's see: cause & effect, cause * effect, cause &...
Wait a minute ! What's the first cause ?! What's the
last effect ?! [;)]
QM is no more and no less paradoxical than our
"normal reasoning". So, what IS your point ?

Live long and prosper.

[ahrkron]

Essentially he demonstrated any explanation for the theory must be nonlocal and defy causality.

Which means that its behavior is (very) different from that of macroscopic objects, a reasonable thing to expect.

This is not say a reasonable explanation will never be discovered

What would you consider a "reasonable explanation"? one in which the fundamental constituents of matter are seen to obey the same laws that we are trying to explain?

The search for those fundamental constituents stems precisely from the need to explain those laws in terms of others. It would be naive to assume that the ultimate constituents of a rock (and their behavior) are just smaller versions of the same rock, ad infinitum. There is most probably a lowest limit, and objects of that realm can be reasonably expected to have a much different behavior.

just that the current theory is paradoxical and defies logic.

Only if you define "logic" as "those things that one expects of macroscopic objects"

Exactly what QM describes is the huge debate that has raged since its inception.

Yes, but the existence of such debate does not mean that the theory is self-contradictory. Also, none of the interpretations assume or find (much less proof) that the theory is "paradoxical".

There are different interpretations, yes, but all of them are self consistent (or at least try to be). The problem is similar to that of relativity: it is far from everyday-life experiences. The way people obtain paradoxes in QM (and SR) is by confronting the predictions of the theory with the "logic" of classical mechanics.

How it describes phenomena is not debated, it describes them in contradictory terms.

Again, "contradictory" when you try to use classical mechanics for the description.

Effects without causes are a paradox

Yes, by the definition of "cause" and "effect". But, how does such statement apply to QM?

a particle that is also a wave, is a paradox.

Only because, classically, people use to think that objects are either waves or particles, but quantum objects are neither exclusively.

Here is why: when we say "particle" or "wave" in the context of QM, we refer to a certain characteristic of the state. In everyday life, we are used to find objects that are either totally-wave or totally-particle.

This would be as if every object you ever knew was either a square or a circle. You would probably think that it is a "logical necessity" that everything should be either one or the other.

However, you some day find a cylinder. From the top, it is a circle, but it is also a square if you look at it from the side.

Is that a "paradoxical" object? would you say then that the geometry of cylinders is a "paradoxical theory"?

I would rather say that the square-cylinder logic is incomplete as a result of a limited range of observations, and that the statement

"a square that is also a circle, is a paradox"

does not contribute much to the understanding of the cylinder phenomenon.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

temper... temper... wuliheron ! [;)]
What's so paradoxical about QM that
distinguishes it ? The occasional lack of proper
cause and effect connections for example ?
So when every cause has an effect it is "reasonable" ?
Well let's see: cause & effect, cause * effect, cause &...
Wait a minute ! What's the first cause ?! What's the
last effect ?! [;)]
QM is no more and no less paradoxical than our
"normal reasoning". So, what IS your point ?

Live long and prosper.

You are correct of course that everything can be viewed as paradoxical, but this defeats the usefulness of logic which is demonstrable. Therefore we choose a starting point and an end point for logical arguments. We impose limits upon words and discussions for the sake of practicality.

An effect without a cause is what is commonly called magic, the supernatural, or absurd. Logic and reason are both founded upon the concept that some things are just patently absurd (note: an imposed limit) and paradoxes are one of these.

A cause without an effect is about as paradoxical as anything ever gets, a rudamentary paradox that defies the principle of synergy. It is the equivalent of saying you can have an up direction without a down, an outside without an inside, etc. or in other words, anything is possible.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Obviously no integrity or honesty in your content. Nothing but more obfuscation, misdirection, and general BS.

Lose the attitude.

Ahrkron is right. I printed out that "Paraconsistent Logic" article the first time you pointed it out to me, and I read it. It talks about the Bohr model, which is a Frankenstein-monster put together from classical mechanics and classical EM. The mechanical side predicts a stable solar system model, whereas the EM side predicts that such an orbit must be unstable. The bolts holding the two parts together is the ad hoc hypothesis: Allowed orbits are nonradiating.

That is indeed paraconsistent logic, but it is not quantum mechanics.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron

There are different interpretations, yes, but all of them are self consistent (or at least try to be). The problem is similar to that of relativity: it is far from everyday-life experiences. The way people obtain paradoxes in QM (and SR) is by confronting the predictions of the theory with the "logic" of classical mechanics.


The person who started this thread defined paradox in terms of the classical Aristotelian definition of the word. A quanta cannot be considered true or false by this definition, hence it is paradoxical.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The person who started this thread defined paradox in terms of the classical Aristotelian definition of the word. A quanta cannot be considered true or false by this definition, hence it is paradoxical.

???

In any logic (Aristotelian or otherwise), a noun cannot be "true" or "false". I'm not sure what you meant to say.

In any case, Mentat posted

First let me define my use of the word paradox, in this thread. A paradox is a self-contradictory statement, or one that cannot be true, but also cannot be false.

and asked if QM is paradoxical.

QM does not contain self-contradictory statements; hence, it is not paradoxical.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Mentat
First let me define my use of the word paradox, in this thread. A paradox is a self-contradictory statement, or one that cannot be true, but also cannot be false.


Wuli, the classical Aristotelian definition of the word implies that we are focusing our attention on a subset of the set of statements. Quanta are not even on the table here.

[wuliheron]

Wuli, the classical Aristotelian definition of the word implies that we are focusing our attention on a subset of the set of statements. Quanta are not even on the table here.

Yes, you are correct. Sorry about.

In any logic (Aristotelian or otherwise), a noun cannot be "true" or "false". I'm not sure what you meant to say.


What I meant to say is that QM describes that which is neither true nor false, but the Indeterminate or absurd.

QM does not contain self-contradictory statements; hence, it is not paradoxical.


A cat being both alive and dead at the same time is self-contradictory and is neither true nor false, real or unreal. By classical standards of logic and classical definitions of the word paradox, which is being used here, it is an absurdity.

The author of this thread did not ask if QM is self-consistent alone, but whether it fits the classical definition of paradox and the absurd which it most definitely does.

[Mentat]

Thanks very much for the responses. As I see it, I'm going to have to much more research into Quantum Theory. Fortunately, I like that! [:D]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron

A cat being both alive and dead at the same time is self-contradictory and is neither true nor false, real or unreal. By classical standards of logic and classical definitions of the word paradox, which is being used here, it is an absurdity.

The author of this thread did not ask if QM is self-consistent alone, but whether it fits the classical definition of paradox and the absurd which it most definitely does.

Well, actually, I did ask if it was self-contradictory. As you know, that's my favored definition of "paradox". I think you are absolutely correct, that QM could be considered "absurd" by classical reasoning, and thus it is, in one form, paradoxical. But, I meant the self-contradictory type of "paradox".

[wuliheron]

Well, actually, I did ask if it was self-contradictory. As you know, that's my favored definition of "paradox". I think you are absolutely correct, that QM could be considered "absurd" by classical reasoning, and thus it is, in one form, paradoxical. But, I meant the self-contradictory type of "paradox".

Being alive and dead at the same time is a contradiction, inhabiting two different locations at the same time, and an entire slew of contradictions such as this are possible according to QM.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
You are correct of course that everything can be viewed as paradoxical, but this defeats the usefulness of logic which is demonstrable. Therefore we choose a starting point and an end point for logical arguments. We impose limits upon words and discussions for the sake of practicality.

An effect without a cause is what is commonly called magic, the supernatural, or absurd. Logic and reason are both founded upon the concept that some things are just patently absurd (note: an imposed limit) and paradoxes are one of these.

A cause without an effect is about as paradoxical as anything ever gets, a rudamentary paradox that defies the principle of synergy. It is the equivalent of saying you can have an up direction without a down, an outside without an inside, etc. or in other words, anything is possible.
What's up with you in this thread wuliheron ?
You're (delibratly ?) twisting things. I never
said ABSENSE of cause - I said they get messed up.
I believe that the true absense of cause is indeed
impossible to formalize in the form of any
reasoning system - it hits right on the rock bottom =
the PoE. However, that is NOT the case in QM (I'd
think you'd know that [;)]).

Anyway, rereading the original defintion of paradox
which Mentat introduced here ("cannot be true, but also
cannot be false") I tend to agree that this particular
type of paradox indeed exists in QM.

HOWEVER, it should be noted that the above definition
of paradox is true here when viewed from the perspective
of one who adopts "normal" logic. In "QM logic" a dead/
undead cat CAN be true.

So in fact, the paradox as defined in this thread
is one that depends upon perspective really. ALL
paradoxes can not be proven as absolute, but some
remain "solid" - unsolved for now. That is not the
case with this one - it is only real in one particular
reasoning system (that most of us happen to adopt [;)]).

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

What's up with you in this thread wuliheron ?
You're (delibratly ?) twisting things. I never
said ABSENSE of cause - I said they get messed up.
I believe that the true absense of cause is indeed
impossible to formalize in the form of any
reasoning system - it hits right on the rock bottom =
the PoE. However, that is NOT the case in QM (I'd
think you'd know that [;)]).


Sorry, but I don't know that. The only recognized "cause" for Quantum Mechanical events is random chaos. In other words, QM implies the entire universe and existence itself may be magical.

HOWEVER, it should be noted that the above definition
of paradox is true here when viewed from the perspective
of one who adopts "normal" logic. In "QM logic" a dead/
undead cat CAN be true.


Yes, but this is contradictory paraconsistent logic that defies everyday observation. In other words, a paradox by certain definitions.

So in fact, the paradox as defined in this thread
is one that depends upon perspective really. ALL
paradoxes can not be proven as absolute, but some
remain "solid" - unsolved for now. That is not the
case with this one - it is only real in one particular
reasoning system (that most of us happen to adopt ).


Paradoxes are not proven to be absolute or relative, quite the contrary their very existence much less their definition is as vigorously debated today as it has been historically. What has changed is western science's acceptance of their usefulness.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

What's up with you in this thread wuliheron ?
You're (delibratly ?) twisting things. I never
said ABSENSE of cause - I said they get messed up.
I believe that the true absense of cause is indeed
impossible to formalize in the form of any
reasoning system - it hits right on the rock bottom =
the PoE. However, that is NOT the case in QM (I'd
think you'd know that [;)]).

Anyway, rereading the original defintion of paradox
which Mentat introduced here ("cannot be true, but also
cannot be false") I tend to agree that this particular
type of paradox indeed exists in QM.

HOWEVER, it should be noted that the above definition
of paradox is true here when viewed from the perspective
of one who adopts "normal" logic. In "QM logic" a dead/
undead cat CAN be true.

So in fact, the paradox as defined in this thread
is one that depends upon perspective really. ALL
paradoxes can not be proven as absolute, but some
remain "solid" - unsolved for now. That is not the
case with this one - it is only real in one particular
reasoning system (that most of us happen to adopt [;)]).

Live long and prosper.

Actually, you missed something. You see, a dead/undead cat can be true, but it seems (seems, mind you) to contradict itself. By classical/usual reasoning dead - being the opposite of living - doesn't allow for the entity to also be living.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by drag
HOWEVER, it should be noted that the above definition of paradox is true here when viewed from the perspective of one who adopts "normal" logic. In "QM logic" a dead/
undead cat CAN be true.

"Normal" logic can be applied to QM; what changes is the set of premises to be used.

The apparent problems between "normal logic" and what you call "QM logic" is not the rules of logic, but the assumptions we usually make ("a cat cannot be dead and alive at the same time"). When using the right set of premises, QM works perfectly fine, without the need of a "new logic".

The problem is similar to what happens while learning relativity: in different reference frames two events can have different time orders, and as long as you keep the assumption that simultaneity is absolute, you can only regard the effect as "illogical" or "self-contradictory", which it is not.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The only recognized "cause" for Quantum Mechanical events is random chaos.

Maybe (in a very restricted sense). But it is fair to say that such statement overlooks the very many symmetries and constraints that strongly regulate quantum behavior.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that the terms "cause", "random" and "chaos" are not the technical ones, but their "normal use" versions.

In other words, QM implies the entire universe and existence itself may be magical.

Well,... if by "magic" you mean "that which behaves in a way incompatible with everyday observations/common sense/perceived laws" then yes, quantum phenomena are "magical".

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by ahrkron
"Normal" logic can be applied to QM; what
changes is the set of premises to be used.

The apparent problems between "normal logic"
and what you call "QM logic" is not the
rules of logic, but the assumptions we
usually make ("a cat cannot be dead and
alive at the same time"). When using the
right set of premises, QM works perfectly
fine, without the need of a "new logic".

The problem is similar to what happens
while learning relativity: in different
reference frames two events can have
different time orders, and as long as
you keep the assumption that simultaneity
is absolute, you can only regard the
effect as "illogical" or
"self-contradictory", which it is not.
Indeed. However, I must point out that that
means stretching the bounderies of "normal logic"
a lot according to some defintions of it.
What's yours ?
Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but I don't know that. The only
recognized "cause" for Quantum Mechanical
events is random chaos. In other words,
QM implies the entire universe and
existence itself may be magical.

Ha ! That is NOT what we're discussing.

The HUP is a BASIC principle of QM. It is as
basic as the particles and space-time for example
in other theories. Hence, it is NOT "magic"
unless you consider all the other basic things
in physics to be magical too(which may be the
case, but was not part of this discussion).

The HUP is ordered - it is limmited by rules of a
physical theory - it is NOT total chaos, which
would indeed probably(never can be certain [;)])
defy explanation.

Whay was discussed here(as far as I'm concerned) is
the possibility of stuff like cause after effect and
simultainity. And these effects can be "normalized"
when viewed through the appropriate reasoning
system or possibly through different assumptions
in our r.s. like ahrkron mentioned (although I'm not
sure how this is still supposed to remain our "normal"
r.s. in such case).

What's a reasoning system ?
It's a system that accepts certain principles as
basic - axioms. So, in QM when you accept its
axioms the rest is a natural result. As for the
axioms themselves having no apparent reason or
explanation - well, that's always the case in
physics(so far and probably forever).
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, you missed something. You see,
a dead/undead cat can be true, but it seems
(seems, mind you) to contradict itself. By
classical/usual reasoning dead - being the
opposite of living - doesn't allow for the
entity to also be living.

That's exactly my point...[;)] It's self-contradicting,
that is - paradoxical according to the definition
you introduced in this thread - FOR "normal"
logic (with its current premises, at least).
But in "QM logic" it is perfectly fine because
the theory clearly states - it is a basic
result of its axioms - that before we actually
observe the cat we can assume he is in that
state (even in the REAL world).

Although, I heard that modern experiments indicated
that WF collapse is very delicate and hence the
above (a whole cat ! [:D]) is extremely unlikely -
but it IS possible still according to the theory.
Which is also exactly why Shcrodinger thought
of this example - a demonstration of the new
"reality" of QM - the one that makes sense for it.

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Ha ! That is NOT what we're discussing.

The HUP is a BASIC principle of QM. It is as
basic as the particles and space-time for example
in other theories. Hence, it is NOT "magic"
unless you consider all the other basic things
in physics to be magical too(which may be the
case, but was not part of this discussion).

The HUP is ordered - it is limmited by rules of a
physical theory - it is NOT total chaos, which
would indeed probably(never can be certain [;)])
defy explanation.


Exactly what the HUP describes is the huge debate in QM. To claim you have the answer that has evaded physicists for over a hundred years is rather arrogant to say the least. That everything in physics may ultimately be magical and without a cause implies paradox, thus it is exactly what the discussion is about.

Whay was discussed here(as far as I'm concerned) is
the possibility of stuff like cause after effect and
simultainity. And these effects can be "normalized"
when viewed through the appropriate reasoning
system or possibly through different assumptions
in our r.s. like ahrkron mentioned (although I'm not
sure how this is still supposed to remain our "normal"
r.s. in such case).

What's a reasoning system ?
It's a system that accepts certain principles as
basic - axioms. So, in QM when you accept its
axioms the rest is a natural result. As for the
axioms themselves having no apparent reason or
explanation - well, that's always the case in
physics(so far and probably forever).

The question is not what is a reasoning system, but does QM defy classical logic by presenting a genuine paradox. The answer is most emphatically yes, it certainly does appear to do that.

Ahkron has attempted to redefine the concept of "truth" in classical Aristotelian logic as "reality" in my opinion, but this defeats at least half the purpose of logic. Logic is not aimed so much at affirming or describing the truth, but instead is more pointedly aimed at discerning the truth.

Aristotle himself used absurdities to support the validity of his logic. These absurdities he used are essentially no different from the ones described by QM, that is, contradictions and paradoxes. Thus either we decide Aristotle was just speaking in paradoxes and we can interpret his logic and QM anyway we want or we assume he was attempting to create a useful method of analysis as he clearly said he was and as all his actions indicate he was.

[Lifegazer]

Whether QM is viewed as a paradox is dependent upon your view of reality. I think QM is viewed as a mystery when relative to a materialist's viewpoint. However, the fundamental indeterminism of
source-energy is to be expected in relation to my own philosophy, and everything actually makes sense. I.e., there is no 'paradox'.
It's not so important that you discuss my philosophy. What is important is that you realise that universal-phenomena can sometimes seem like a paradox/mystery in relation to our beliefs about reality. And clearly, those beliefs are open to debate. So, therefore, is any discussion about 'paradox'.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Whether QM is viewed as a paradox is dependent upon your view of reality. I think QM is viewed as a mystery when relative to a materialist's viewpoint. However, the fundamental indeterminism of
source-energy is to be expected in relation to my own philosophy, and everything actually makes sense. I.e., there is no 'paradox'.
It's not so important that you discuss my philosophy. What is important is that you realise that universal-phenomena can sometimes seem like a paradox/mystery in relation to our beliefs about reality. And clearly, those beliefs are open to debate. So, therefore, is any discussion about 'paradox'.

Exactly what does and doesn't make sense, what is and isn't a paradox by whatever standards you might care to use, is another issue altogether. Please stay on topic.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly what does and doesn't make sense, what is and isn't a paradox by whatever standards you might care to use, is another issue altogether. Please stay on topic.
The topic asks if QM is paradoxical. I don't think it is, since the indeterminism of QM is to be expected within my philosophy. You, however, do think that it is, since your philosophy of existence mirrors a materialistic reality. I was merely pointing-out that the view of any individual within this topic is utterly dependent upon his/her underlying philosophy.

[wuliheron]

The topic asks if QM is paradoxical. I don't think it is, since the indeterminism of QM is to be expected within my philosophy. You, however, do think that it is, since your philosophy of existence mirrors a materialistic reality. I was merely pointing-out that the view of any individual within this topic is utterly dependent upon his/her underlying philosophy.

Again, this thread specifically asks if it is paradoxical by the standards of Aristotelian logic.

In addition, my philosophy is about as far removed from materialism, realistism, or idealistic philosophies for that matter as you can get. At the same time, it does not discount these philosophies but instead, includes them. Such confusion over just exactly what my philosophy is and isn't is quite common. Paradox is as slippery a concept as you can find and possibly ultimately even ineffable.

Hense, my philosophy is simultaneously both a target for attacks and a welcome matt for any and all. You alone can decide which it is for you at any given moment. :0)

By the standards of Aristotelian logic the concept of actual infinity is paradoxical. In addition, as I've already pointed out, Aristotelian logic is founded upon faith in the concept of the absurd. Hence, your own philosophy is absurd and paradoxical by the standards of Aristotelian logic no matter how much you care to deny this.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
To claim you have the answer that has evaded physicists for over a hundred years is rather arrogant to say the least.


But to claim that he cannot have it, simply because others before him have not gotten it, is much to complacent, and destroys the need for any further research into the matter.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The topic asks if QM is paradoxical. I don't think it is, since the indeterminism of QM is to be expected within my philosophy. You, however, do think that it is, since your philosophy of existence mirrors a materialistic reality. I was merely pointing-out that the view of any individual within this topic is utterly dependent upon his/her underlying philosophy.

Well that's a good point, and you are correct. However, the specific philosophy that I'm looking for is the one that Schrodinger used. I want to understand why theoretical physicists don't think that the "Schordinger's Cat" phenomenon is paradoxical.

BTW, I have no opinion either way, right now. I just want input, so that I can create an opinion.

[(Q)]

Schrodinger's Cat is not paradoxical primarily due to the logical consistency of a theory's plausibility. Economy is another, and famously encapsulated in Occam: "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity."

The "many worlds" hypothesis for example, which enjoys some appeal, makes nonsense of this principle of economy. Another time honored criterion of empirical science consists in the question of whether the phenomena at issue are open to public inspection. Therefore we must ask: Can we observe these other worlds? Or must we remain forever "blissfully" ignorant of them? A third criterion bears directly on fundamental symmetries of nature and their related conservation laws: Do these hypothetical worlds possess mass/energy? If so, where does this mass/energy, a conserved quantity, come from? Another problem concerns the wave function itself: It supposedly evolves smoothly, except when being observed, which is happening continually. So the wave function is smooth, except when it's not, which is all the time.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly what the HUP describes is the huge
debate in QM. To claim you have the answer
that has evaded physicists for over a hundred
years is rather arrogant to say the least.

What are you talking about ?!
I wasn't talking of any interpretation !
I was talking about the well defined and known
formulas energy/time and mommentum/location
uncertainties. These are strictly defined
through the theory's equations.
Originally posted by wuliheron
That everything in physics may ultimately be
magical and without a cause implies paradox,
thus it is exactly what the discussion is about.

Nope, we're discussing Mentat's definition not the PoE.
[;)]
Originally posted by wuliheron
Ahkron has attempted to redefine the concept of
"truth" in classical Aristotelian logic as
"reality" in my opinion, but this defeats at
least half the purpose of logic. Logic is not
aimed so much at affirming or describing the truth,
but instead is more pointedly aimed at discerning
the truth.

Aristotle himself used absurdities to support
the validity of his logic. These absurdities he
used are essentially no different from the ones
described by QM, that is, contradictions and
paradoxes. Thus either we decide Aristotle was
just speaking in paradoxes and we can interpret
his logic and QM anyway we want or we assume he
was attempting to create a useful method of
analysis as he clearly said he was and as all
his actions indicate he was.
I strongly agree with what you're saying about
the purpose of an r.s. and logic in particular.

You'll notice that I aksed ahrkron about his
definition of "normal" logic. And now that you
come to remind us of the main purpose of an r.s.
I think I'll return to my original opinion -
that QM violates "normal" logic.

I respect ahrkron's "premises" argument but
what's the point really in having an r.s. that
can change its premises like that ? If you
want an r.s. that can tell you something about
the Universe - be of use, you need to limmit -
focus it as much as possible. And if it fails -
get a new one.

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

What are you talking about ?!
I wasn't talking of any interpretation !
I was talking about the well defined and known
formulas energy/time and mommentum/location
uncertainties. These are strictly defined
through the theory's equations.

This is what you wrote:

Ha ! That is NOT what we're discussing.

The HUP is a BASIC principle of QM. It is as
basic as the particles and space-time for example
in other theories. Hence, it is NOT "magic"
unless you consider all the other basic things
in physics to be magical too(which may be the
case, but was not part of this discussion).


Instantaneous teleportation through walls, being in two places at the same time, etc. is magic. Sure, the equations are nice and quite respectable, but the things they imply are outrageous. The HUP itself is the center of all this attention because of its indeterminacy.

Nope, we're discussing Mentat's definition not the PoE.

Where have you been. This is what Mentat defined as a paradox:

First let me define my use of the word paradox, in this thread. A paradox is a self-contradictory statement, or one that cannot be true, but also cannot be false.


By definition anything that defies such a strict Aristotelian logic is either axiomatically false or magical.

I respect ahrkron's "premises" argument but
what's the point really in having an r.s. that
can change its premises like that ? If you
want an r.s. that can tell you something about
the Universe - be of use, you need to limmit -
focus it as much as possible. And if it fails -
get a new one.


Or, you simply need to be flexible. This is what Quantum Mechanics provides through the ambiguity of Indetermancy. Describes not only the more mechanical and predictable Newtonian Mechanics of everyday existence, but also the bizarre realm of the wavefunction.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by drag
I strongly agree with what you're saying about
the purpose of an r.s. and logic in particular.

What does "r.s." stand for?
(reasoning system?)

You'll notice that I aksed ahrkron about his definition of "normal" logic.

First order logic (propositional logic plus quantifiers).

I think I'll return to my original opinion -
that QM violates "normal" logic.

I think you are confusing logic (the structural rules to make inferences) with content (which has to do with the premises used).

The logic used in QM is not "abnormal" in any sense. It produces inferences in exactly the same way as your everyday logic. The difference is in the realization that many things we usually assume (i.e., use as premises) in everyday life do not hold for small objects.

A simple example of that is that, for everyday objects, it is true that

A system has to be in a single definite state at all times

so that, when you learn that

System A has only two possible states: A1 or A2

and that

Today, system A is on state A2

You can conclude that

Today, system A is not on state A1

In QM, on the other hand, the first assumption (A system has to be in a single definite state at all times) does not hold.

Such being the case, it is clear that even if you learn that the other two premises are true, you still cannot reach the same conclusion.

This is not because a different "logic" is used, but because many of the "starting assumptions" we normally use in everyday life are not applicable at the high energies/small scales of the quantum realm.

I respect ahrkron's "premises" argument but what's the point really in having an r.s. that can change its premises like that?

Science works like this. It tries to extract the minimum set of assumptions that can account for observed phenomena. When new data is gathered that contradicts the current model, such assumptions are scrutinized and modified if necessary (think of C violation, P violation and CP violation: all of them were thought to be valid assumptions until experiments showed otherwise).

... actually, the one thing that does not change is the inference system.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron

Science works like this. It tries to extract the minimum set of assumptions that can account for observed phenomena. When new data is gathered that contradicts the current model, such assumptions are scrutinized and modified if necessary (think of C violation, P violation and CP violation: all of them were thought to be valid assumptions until experiments showed otherwise).

... actually, the one thing that does not change is the inference system. [/B]

Exactly, but it is an inference system ultimately based on Indeterminacy or paradox.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, but it is an inference system ultimately based on Indeterminacy or paradox.

Not at all. The indeteminacy is not even an assumption!

The assumptions of QM are statements about hermitian operators, eigenvalues, measurements and probabilities. They are all (both the postulates and the concepts they're built upon) well defined and unambiguous.

The HUP can be derived from these postulates, and it does not mean that measurements are "self-contradictory"; in a sense, quite the contrary: they show that, upon measurement, a quantum object will show either its "wave" aspect or its "particle" aspect, not both.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, but it is an inference system ultimately based on Indeterminacy or paradox.

Also, I tried to make clear that the inference system has nothing to do with the HUP.

To make it clearer: the inference system used to develop, learn and do research on QM is normal everyday logic (not even modal, fuzzy, paraconsistent or any other sort of fancy logic).

The difference is not on the reasoning system, but in the initial assumptions. It is those assumptions that allow for conclusions that conflict our everyday experiences.

How do you think a researcher makes inferences about QM? by saying "here, I conclude that the answer is YES, but since QM allows contradictions, then it is also NO"? or "then, by paradox, the result is..."?

Predictions, models and interpretations are developed using formal reasoning of the same kind you find in any calculus or geometry investigation, without any reference (or assumption) about the "paradoxical" character of some people's account of the theory.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Not at all. The indeteminacy is not even an assumption!

The assumptions of QM are statements about hermitian operators, eigenvalues, measurements and probabilities. They are all (both the postulates and the concepts they're built upon) well defined and unambiguous.

The HUP can be derived from these postulates, and it does not mean that measurements are "self-contradictory"; in a sense, quite the contrary: they show that, upon measurement, a quantum object will show either its "wave" aspect or its "particle" aspect, not both.

Theoretically, there are only two possibilities. Either the wavefunction is a crazy unimaginable state like shrondenger's cat or a new universe is created for everything that doesn't happen in this one. If either one of those makes perfect sense to you there is a rubber room waiting for you somewhere.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Either the wavefunction is a crazy unimaginable state like shrondenger's cat

The "magic" and "craziness" of QM is not on the wavefunction, but in the effect that a measurement has over it and, mainly, in the unjustified expectation that quantum systems should agree with classical mental models.

or a new universe is created for everything that doesn't happen in this one.

Not necessarily, but even if that was the case, scientific models may be surprising and (again) very different from your everyday-life ideas, but why do you think models are proposed (and later on accepted)? It is precisely because, once all details are investigated thoroughly, they do make sense of known experimental results. That is precisely what science is all about.

Again, the fact that QM is seems to conflict daily life experiences comes from the fact that if you assume daily-life rules to work on atoms, then calculate what you should see, and then make an experiment, the result of the experiment does not match your calculation.

Once you make many more experiments and find a model for how the atom behaves, you end up:
1. understanding that there were many hidden assumptions on the original calculation,
2. realizing that those were unwarranted assumtions, that do not hold at quantum level,
3. finding that using the right assumptions for the behavior of quanta, not only the original experiment makes sense, but also many other macroscopic behaviors are explained.

It is differerent from what "common-sense" expects, but it does make sense.

Don't forget that "common-sense" or "normal-logic" is basically a set of assumptions based on a very limited set of conditions (small velocities, small energies, "meduim" sizes, low temperatures, low pressures, small gravitational fields) and filtered through a very useful, but also very limited, set of perceptual mechanisms. The fact that many of those assumptions are wrong should not be a big surprise, neither be food for assuming that the conflict comes from "essential paradoxes". The conflict is a rather natural result of the limited range of what constitutes the human perceptions.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron

The "magic" and "craziness" of QM is not on the wavefunction, but in the effect that a measurement has over it and, mainly, in the unjustified expectation that quantum systems should agree with classical mental models.

That assumes that the Many Worlds theory is false, which has not been proven. According to Quantum Decoherence and the Many Worlds theory observers and measurements are irrelevent. All of the possible states are present in the system to begin with and one is realized locally upon interacting with anything.


Not necessarily, but even if that was the case, scientific models may be surprising and (again) very different from your everyday-life ideas, but why do you think models are proposed (and later on accepted)? It is precisely because, once all details are investigated thoroughly, they do make sense of known experimental results. That is precisely what science is all about.

Again, the fact that QM is seems to conflict daily life experiences comes from the fact that if you assume daily-life rules to work on atoms, then calculate what you should see, and then make an experiment, the result of the experiment does not match your calculation.

No, it is not merely everyday experience QM conflicts with, it conflicts with formal logic. This is a much deeper issue than simply conflicting with what we are used to. The earth is round even though for millennia we thought it was flat, that is a simple conflict with human perception of reality but QM is another animal entirely. It insists in a sense that the earth is both round and flat at the same time or a new earth is created everytime and interaction takes place.

It may be that theories like M-theory may eventually provide some kind of reasonable explanation for QM, but it hasn't happened yet.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by ahrkron
What does "r.s." stand for?
(reasoning system?)

Yep, too long to write it all the time. [:)]
Originally posted by ahrkron
First order logic (propositional logic plus quantifiers).

I ask forgiveness for my ignorance, but I'm not
aware of the official definitions of these terms yet.
(Tom suggested this Karl Popper Web site, but I didn't
have time to take a serious look at it.)
Originally posted by ahrkron
I think you are confusing logic (the structural rules to make inferences) with content (which has to do with the premises used).

How can you have independent structural rules ?

The PoE makes any absolute rules impossible.
It seems useful and more potenitally rewarding
to me to limmit and focus one's r.s. as much as
possible - thus achieveing maximum results -
exploitation of each system. (Of course, when the
system eventually leads to a problem(as it must [;)])
it's probably more usefull to ty other systems.)

I realize that my ignorance is evident here
because the distinction you indicated - structural
rules/inferences is probably the one currently accepted,
but eventually I can't view such distinction as
more than historical scientific development based or
in other words sentimental attachment - because the
discoveries of the past are not an indication for
future discoveries(as was shown many times).
Originally posted by ahrkron
The logic used in QM is not "abnormal" in any sense.
It produces inferences in exactly the same way as
your everyday logic. The difference is in the
realization that many things we usually assume
(i.e., use as premises) in everyday life do not
hold for small objects.

In my case, these premises are part of the r.s.
I would call "normal" logic. In "my QM" logic the
premises are those of QM and hence everything (the
parts of QM)make perfect sense.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That assumes that the Many Worlds theory is false

No, it doesn't. The many worlds interpretation does assume an event at the time of measurement.

All of the possible states are present in the system to begin with and one is realized locally upon interacting with anything.

That is what I am talking about. The wavefunction is not "crazy". It just follows a set of rules different from the ones we used to train our everyday-intuition. It is good that you bring up QDecoherence, since it is an interpretation that makes things even more "normal": if true, then the reduction of the wavefunction happens because of the instability of coherent quantum states, instead of anything having to do with an "observer".

No, it is not merely everyday experience QM conflicts with, it conflicts with formal logic.

It does not. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't become true.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron
No, it doesn't. The many worlds interpretation does assume an event at the time of measurement.


Yes, but these events do not collapse a wavefunction in the Many Worlds theory as other interpretations insist they do. The act of measurement/observation does not change the logic of the system from Quantum logic to classical, the logic remains classical throughout.



That is what I am talking about. The wavefunction is not "crazy". It just follows a set of rules different from the ones we used to train our everyday-intuition. It is good that you bring up QDecoherence, since it is an interpretation that makes things even more "normal": if true, then the reduction of the wavefunction happens because of the instability of coherent quantum states, instead of anything having to do with an "observer".

I'm sorry, but words such as "crazy", "supernatural", "paradox" etc. have meaning only because people give them meaning. Those meanings are based on human perception, not mathematical consistency or experimental results. Often QM is compared to Alice in Wonderland precisely because of its craziness. Mathematically the stories may be self-consistent just as the artwork of MC Echer is self-consistent and these mathematics may closely parallel those of QM, but they are crazy nonetheless by definition.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it is not merely everyday experience QM conflicts with, it conflicts with formal logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't become true.

Every explanation for QM incorporates nonlocal effects which defy the true or false, here or there, black or white and-never-the-two-shall-meet criteria of classical logic. No matter how many times you deny this, it remains a widely accepted fact within the physics community.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
QM is definitely not paradoxical in the predictions it makes. If it was able to produce mutually contradicting predictions, it would have no use as a physical theory.

I think you're missing the point here. Imagine, if you will, that all cats turned into frogs at midnight for several minutes. Now, the fact that we can accurately predict that my cat will start croaking at midnight does not mean that there isn't something 'mysterious' going on within that event itself.

[Mentat]

I think I'm going to agree with Ahrkron (sp?) on this issue. That's not to say that others haven't presented meritable arguments. It's just that people seem to keep sticking to "common sense" reasoning. Obviously this is not always a good idea. "Common sense" is for common circumstance, and the Quantum world doesn't meet that criteria.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
I think I'm going to agree with Ahrkron (sp?) on this issue. That's not to say that others haven't presented meritable arguments. It's just that people seem to keep sticking to "common sense" reasoning. Obviously this is not always a good idea. "Common sense" is for common circumstance, and the Quantum world doesn't meet that criteria.
It's strange how you agree with Ahrkron, and then state that QM doesn't appeal to common-sense. Did I miss something?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
It's strange how you agree with Ahrkron, and then state that QM doesn't appeal to common-sense. Did I miss something?

Possibly. You see, I said that it didn't appeal to common sense. Then I said that common sense is for common circumstance. Then I said that Quantum Mechanics doesn't deal with common circumstances. Conclusion: A different line of reasoning, then that which is "common", is required to understand the Quantum world. This new line of reasoning is still logical (or so it seems to be, after having read Arkhron's posts), it is just better suited for dealing with the "uncommon".

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The "magic" and "craziness" of QM is not on the wavefunction, but in the effect that a measurement has over it and, mainly, in the unjustified expectation that quantum systems should agree with classical mental models.



Not necessarily, but even if that was the case, scientific models may be surprising and (again) very different from your everyday-life ideas, but why do you think models are proposed (and later on accepted)? It is precisely because, once all details are investigated thoroughly, they do make sense of known experimental results. That is precisely what science is all about.

Again, the fact that QM is seems to conflict daily life experiences comes from the fact that if you assume daily-life rules to work on atoms, then calculate what you should see, and then make an experiment, the result of the experiment does not match your calculation.

Once you make many more experiments and find a model for how the atom behaves, you end up:
1. understanding that there were many hidden assumptions on the original calculation,
2. realizing that those were unwarranted assumtions, that do not hold at quantum level,
3. finding that using the right assumptions for the behavior of quanta, not only the original experiment makes sense, but also many other macroscopic behaviors are explained.

It is differerent from what "common-sense" expects, but it does make sense.

Don't forget that "common-sense" or "normal-logic" is basically a set of assumptions based on a very limited set of conditions (small velocities, small energies, "meduim" sizes, low temperatures, low pressures, small gravitational fields) and filtered through a very useful, but also very limited, set of perceptual mechanisms. The fact that many of those assumptions are wrong should not be a big surprise, neither be food for assuming that the conflict comes from "essential paradoxes". The conflict is a rather natural result of the limited range of what constitutes the human perceptions.

How can a particle know how to interact with any other particle if it isn't even sure of who it is? We may be UNCERTAIN about the particle's state functions but I think it knows very well who it is at every moment in time. I've got three words for you: Einstein's hidden variables.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
How can a particle know how to interact with any other particle if it isn't even sure of who it is? We may be UNCERTAIN about the particle's state functions but I think it knows very well who it is at every moment in time. I've got three words for you: Einstein's hidden variables.

You think the particle knows something? I have a question for you, why does it take our complex assortement of particles (our brains) to create a consciousness that we exist, while other animals (who also have - slightly less complex - assortments of particles) do not have this level of consciousness?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Eyesee I've got three words for you: Einstein's hidden variables.

[:)]
The problem with those three words are two other words: Bell's theorem.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
You think the particle knows something? I have a question for you, why does it take our complex assortement of particles (our brains) to create a consciousness that we exist, while other animals (who also have - slightly less complex - assortments of particles) do not have this level of consciousness?


I find your rebuttal question inadequate. My question was directed at the fundamental properties of the particles themselves whereas yours address the different arrangements of particles resulting in different properties- the former is about apples, the latter, of orangutangs. And even then, I think you answered your own question in your question: our assortment of particles is different than other animals- it would only be amazing if we were the same and not different. Would you expect your car keys to open the front door of your house?

So, again, how can a particle know how to behave if it wasn't sure of itself? If you were an electron and you weren't sure you were going east or west, how can you respond to some proton that approaches you? As a matter of fact, according to the schizophrenic interpretation of the universe given by QM, the proton itself wouldn't be sure if it was approaching the electron from the east or west either, so how can momentum between this simple system of particles be conserved 100% of the time?

------------------------------------------------------------
The universe exists for Helen Keller the same way as it does for every one else.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Eyesee
So, again, how can a particle know how to behave if it wasn't sure of itself? If you were an electron and you weren't sure you were going east or west, how can you respond to some proton that approaches you? As a matter of fact, according to the schizophrenic interpretation of the universe given by QM, the proton itself wouldn't be sure if it was approaching the electron from the east or west either, so how can momentum between this simple system of particles be conserved 100% of the time?

Wavefunctions and quantum fields are well defined (notice I am not talking about what we call "particles"). They do have many symmetries, some of which imply that a subset of our interactions with them (those we call "experiments") conserve momentum and other quantities.

The confusion arises when we try to use categories ("electron", "wave", "trajectory") that are not well suited for their description.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Wavefunctions and quantum fields are well defined (notice I am not talking about what we call "particles"). They do have many symmetries, some of which imply that a subset of our interactions with them (those we call "experiments") conserve momentum and other quantities.

The confusion arises when we try to use categories ("electron", "wave", "trajectory") that are not well suited for their description.

Ok, this reply makes much sense.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
Possibly. You see, I said that it didn't
appeal to common sense. Then I said that common
sense is for common circumstance. Then I said
that Quantum Mechanics doesn't deal with
common circumstances. Conclusion: A different
line of reasoning, then that which is "common",
is required to understand the Quantum world.
This new line of reasoning is still logical
(or so it seems to be, after having read
Arkhron's posts), it is just better suited
for dealing with the "uncommon".
What does "logical" mean to you ?
I proposed a nearly similar solution. However,
my solution is that of a totally different
reasoning system (different common sense).

The difference is that in that case my definition
of "logical" is just that the new r.s. does
not result in internal paradoxes - it is consistent.

Ahrkron's definition, with which you claim to agree,
is that "logical" means more than that - there
are some general criteria which define what
is "logical" and this new r.s. is the same in this
respect as that what you call "common sense".

However, is there anything you can be certain of
in the Universe to create such criteria ?
Hasn't reality shown us repeatedly that what
we consider absolute and certain is not really so.
(I should point out that my current ignorance
about what ahrkron called "structural rules" for
"logical" systems may in fact mean that they're
the same as my self consistency consideration above
and nothing more, and I simply didn't know that.
But, all those rules and stuff he mentioned sounds
like too many limmitations to me.
What can I say ? I'm foolish and I'll have to study
this stuff before I can express a really educated
opinion on this.)
Originally posted by Eyesee
How can a particle know how to interact with
any other particle if it isn't even sure
of who it is? We may be UNCERTAIN about the
particle's state functions but I think it
knows very well who it is at every moment
in time. I've got three words for you:
Einstein's hidden variables.

QM crushes the classical physics trait
of individuality. It is not possible to
distinguish between similar particles
more than it is possible to distinguish
between individual water drops in the ocean.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
I find your rebuttal question inadequate. My question was directed at the fundamental properties of the particles themselves whereas yours address the different arrangements of particles resulting in different properties- the former is about apples, the latter, of orangutangs. And even then, I think you answered your own question in your question: our assortment of particles is different than other animals- it would only be amazing if we were the same and not different. Would you expect your car keys to open the front door of your house?

So, again, how can a particle know how to behave if it wasn't sure of itself? If you were an electron and you weren't sure you were going east or west, how can you respond to some proton that approaches you? As a matter of fact, according to the schizophrenic interpretation of the universe given by QM, the proton itself wouldn't be sure if it was approaching the electron from the east or west either, so how can momentum between this simple system of particles be conserved 100% of the time?

------------------------------------------------------------
The universe exists for Helen Keller the same way as it does for every one else.

You may have missed the point of my rhetorical question (afore-quoted), so I will try to be more clear: Why do you think that a particle knows something? You keep speaking of particles as individual, conscious, entities - when they are, in fact, neither individual or conscious.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
[B]Greetings !

What does "logical" mean to you ?
I proposed a nearly similar solution. However,
my solution is that of a totally different
reasoning system (different common sense).


"Logic" is the use of reasoning systems (to be absolutely basic). So, it doesn't matter what reasoning system you use, or what premise it's based on, you still have something "logical".


Ahrkron's definition, with which you claim to agree,
is that "logical" means more than that - there
are some general criteria which define what
is "logical" and this new r.s. is the same in this
respect as that what you call "common sense".


Yes, it's in the same respect as "common sense" because it's the same reasoning system, merely without the premise: "an individual object can exist in only one state, at any given time".