Is the self-consistency principle a scientific or philosophical idea?

  • A
  • Thread starter Spathi
  • Start date
  • #1
9
1
Summary:
I have heard that the Novikoc's self-consistency principle is a consequence of the stationary-action principle in quantum mechanics. Does this mean that it is scientific?
As I understand it, the Novikov's principle is either philosophical or scientific. I heard that it is a consequence of the stationary-action principle (principle of least action) in quantum mechanics. Does this mean that Novikov's principle is scientific?

I also heard the following: in quantum mechanics, instead of the stationary-action principle, there is a functional integral that diverges for closed timelike curves. Is this so, and what does this mean?

My question can be formulated differently - does modern physics allow time travel (if it does, then obviously Novikov's principle is a scientific hypothesis). I do not understand the article by S. Lloyd “Closed Timelike Curves via Postselection: Theory and Experimental Test of Consistency”. In this article, the authors describe an experiment where they tried to cause a time paradox and a random factor counteracted this. It seems to me that if Novikov's principle worked in its original understanding, the universe would not have allowed Lloyd to conduct this experiment, in the same way as the universe does not allow a time traveler to kill his grandfather (as it is described in popular sci-fi).
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
17,291
8,692
does modern physics allow time travel
Only in the forward direction and only at one second per second unless you want to get into time dilation, but that requires enormously expensive rockets and stuff.
 
  • #3
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,367
4,696
Self-consistency is a logical principle. Logic underlies both philosophy and science. In this sense, the self-consistency principle is more fundamental than any purely philosophic or purely scientific principle. In my opinion, the Novikov self-consistency principle is almost a tautology, i.e. it makes no sense to question the validity of it. Instead, what has to be questioned in the presence of CTC's is the assumption that humans have free will, or more mathematically, that in principle any initial condition is physically possible.
 
  • #4
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
19,296
10,806
Self-consistency is a logical principle. Logic underlies both philosophy and science. In this sense, the self-consistency principle is more fundamental than any purely philosophic or purely scientific principle. In my opinion, the Novikov self-consistency principle is almost a tautology, i.e. it makes no sense to question the validity of it. Instead, what has to be questioned in the presence of CTC's is the assumption that humans have free will, or more mathematically, that in principle any initial condition is physically possible.
It's not so much "free will" - I don't believe in that as a thing in itself. It's about the complex biological systems that can reason about the universe. It's difficult to imagine that this ability to respond to stimuli would somehow be constrained in ways that are almost superdeterministic.

For example, suppose I am close to developing the technology to transport myself back one day (through a CTC). I can have my plan all ready in advance. The CTC machine is built and:

1) If I appear from tomorrow, then I am not going to get into the CTC "time" machine.

2) If I don't appear from tomorrow, then I am going to get into my CTC "time" machine the next day.

It's difficult to see what would force me to change my plans. Perhaps, indeed, in respect of getting into the CTC machine I and my future copy will become like automatons and be unable to execute my disruptive plan. I will somehow be compelled to do everything as "remembered" by my future self. In other respects, I can stick to my plans.

It seems to me equally plausible that the self-consistent principle is invalid. That I will be able to stick to my disruptive plans and that if the laws of physics allow a CTC of this sort, then they must allow some sort of MWI-like branching.

I can't see there is any way to disentangle this unless we can do an experiment and see what happens.

It's possible that nature finds a way to enforce consistency and in the above scenario my future self and I can have a laugh about the things that we are allowed to do and the things that we know we can't do, even if we can write them down as a plan and think about them.
 
  • #5
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
19,296
10,806
A further thought about this is that it's related to the idea of a machine that could predict precisely what a person is going to do. This is plausible as long as the person does not see the prediction. But, if they see the prediction, then a self-referencial loop is set up that could break the system. Either:

1) The machine works and the person is strangely compelled to do what it says. It would be like they had been hypnotised. In particular, they would be conscious of their inability to carry out any preconceived plan not to do what the machine says.

2) Such a machine is impossible for sufficently complex systems, such as human beings.

A CTC in the scenario I described could be used to construct such a situation, with the future self acting like a prediction machine. Again, it could all be pre-planned that the future self carries a written record of the activities of the day before. To maintain consistency, both would need to be effectively hypnotised into following the instructions.

Again, this can't simply be a case that they don't know what they are doing. Intelligence and the ability to conceive of a plan to break the system must lead to a realisable compulsion to do things. I'm not saying this is impossible, but I'm saying that we would be able to arrange the circumstances where we are conscious of the compulsion.

In a way, it might not feel so different from the daily compulsions we feel to do some things and not others. That said, it seems to me that it would feel an extremely powerful impulse to do something - that it would be physically impossible to do otherwise. And, of course, we would know in advance what we are bound to do.

Finally, of course, the original self would be compelled to get into the CTC machine and disappear; and the future self would equally be compelled not to! You would remain with a memory of the strange day spent with your future self, of getting into the CTC machine, then the day repeated with your past self - two memories of the day, one from each perspective!
 
  • #6
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,367
4,696
@PeroK Stop thinking of the ##t## variable in equations as "time"! Instead, think of it as a spacial variable, or just as an abstract mathematical variable without any physical interpretation. Then, suddenly, all your arguments above stop to make any sense and self-consistency becomes paradox-free, doesn't it?

Another way to say the same thing is that one has to take the block-universe point of view. See also my https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/259
 
  • #7
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,367
4,696
1) The machine works and the person is strangely compelled to do what it says. It would be like they had been hypnotised. In particular, they would be conscious of their inability to carry out any preconceived plan not to do what the machine says.
Of course. Even without CTC's, I don't see how can humans be any different from machines, if we assume that both are governed by the laws of physics. Either humans are machines or the laws of physics are not universally valid. See also my https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0338
 
  • #8
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,367
4,696
It's difficult to see what would force me to change my plans.
Replace "me" and "my" with "machine" and "machine's", and everything should become crystal clear.
 
  • #9
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
19,296
10,806
Replace "me" and "my" with "machine" and "machine's", and everything should become crystal clear.
I don't think you can satisfactorily think about the universe without acknowledging that human intelligence creates the ability of the system to analyse itself. And, in a similar way to how Goedel got mathematics to talk about itself, this creates a nontrivial complexity.

I've no argument with the question of free will, but I would argue against the inability of humans to self analyse.

Otherwise, I believe you are into superdeterminism and everything, including your arvix papers, are just meaningless random gibberish.

We've had this difference of opinion before regarding mathematics, which I don’t believe is an illusion created by random quantum phenomena. The ability of humans to produce abstract mathematical models of the universe - and abstract mathematics generally - is one strong piece of evidence that intelligence is a complicating factor in all this.

The one thing I am certain of is that it is not valid to dismiss consciousness and the potential for the universe to self analyse as irrelevant.
 
  • #10
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
19,296
10,806
Immediately you have a paradox that if you believe you are no different from an unconscious, unintelligent machine, then there is no basis on which your philosophy of physics has any merit! It's just random noise.

You deny the very thing that is needed to give what you think and write any meaning.
 
  • #11
9
1
It seems to me equally plausible that the self-consistent principle is invalid. That I will be able to stick to my disruptive plans and that if the laws of physics allow a CTC of this sort, then they must allow some sort of MWI-like branching.
Maybe different types of time travel are possible: a travel to another universe, which does not cause a paradox, and a travel to your own universe, for which the principle of self-consistency works?

I can't see there is any way to disentangle this unless we can do an experiment and see what happens.

But it seems that S. Lloyd has conducted such an experiment:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2219.pdf

Here's a quote from that article:

FIG. 4: Probability that time travel succeeds and the probes are found in the same state (red circles) or in opposite states (blue diamonds). When the quantum gun “misfires”, the polarization qubit is not flipped and the probe qubits are found in either the 00 or 11 state. As the accuracy θ of the quantum gun increases from 0 to π, the probability that the teleportation succeeds decreases. When the quantum gun “kills” the photon (flips the polarization qubit), the probes record opposite values (01 or 10). The probability that the probe qubits are found in either the 10 or 01 state is 0.01 ± 0.04, indicating that the photons never succeed in travelling back in time and killing their former selves. Solid curves correspond to theoretical predictions.

I do not understand how this experiment was carried out, and why the universe did not prevent Lloyd from conducting it. If we expand this reasoning, it is not clear why we exist at all, if the universe protects itself from paradoxes and, accordingly, from the emergence of civilizations that can cause a paradox.
 
  • #12
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,367
4,696
@PeroK you missed a part of my point. If you are right that humans are not machines in a way you suggest, I'm fine with this, but then physics as we know it is incomplete. Hence, when a part of physics clashes with such understanding of humans, then it's very likely that this part of physics is wrong. In this case, it seems reasonable to assume that the part of physics that predicts CTC's is wrong. Which resolves the paradox.
 
  • #13
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
19,296
10,806
@PeroK you missed a part of my point. If you are right that humans are not machines in a way you suggest, I'm fine with this, but then physics as we know it is incomplete. Hence, when a part of physics clashes with such understanding of humans, then it's very likely that this part of physics is wrong. In this case, it seems reasonable to assume that the part of physics that predicts CTC's is wrong. Which resolves the paradox.
We are biological machines but we are intelligent machines. I don't see it as a question of physics being incomplete. There is nothing magical or unphysical about intelligence. It arises through the laws of physics. But, once evolved it can analyse the universe.

As an example, take the difference between a tree and a car. You might argue they have both evolved through the laws of physics. But, I see a fundamental difference between them. The modern motor car has evolved because intelligent life evolved and, unlike nature, applied intelligent design. The car's components were chosen not randomly but with planning (I.e. the foreknowledge of how they would operate).

It's this foreknowledge of what we expect to happen that distinguishes intelligent analysis of the universe from lower level quantum mechanical processes.

I don't believe there is anything missing in the evolution of intelligence. It's that as the complexity of a system grows it may develop characteristics that are not inherent in the fundamental processes.

This is why we can see a potential paradox in CTC. On the one hand we are governed by fundamental processes, which in principle we cannot overrule. But, on the other hand we can plan to subvert those processes. And plan in advance to do something that the laws of physics suggest we are not allowed to do. At the very least, we are conscious of what's happening.
 
  • #14
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,367
4,696
This is why we can see a potential paradox in CTC. On the one hand we are governed by fundamental processes, which in principle we cannot overrule. But, on the other hand we can plan to subvert those processes.
Fine, but then we know that those two principles are not equally fundamental. The first, that we cannot overrule, is fundamental and hence always valid. The second, that we can plan to subvert, is not fundamental so does not necessarily need to be valid. The second principle is emergent, meaning that it can only emerge when the conditions needed for its emergence are fulfilled. If, along CTC's, those conditions are not fulfilled, then in such conditions the second principle does not emerge. Paradox resolved.

Here is an analogy. Usually a bird can plan to move in all 3 dimensions. But if you put the bird in a planar cage, then she can only move in 2 dimensions and cannot plan to move in the 3rd dimension. As simple as that. If the bird lived in the planar cage for the whole life, she would not even feel that she misses something by not being able to move in the 3rd dimension. It will never occur to her mind that she could decide to move in the 3rd dimension, just as it never occurs to your mind that you could decide to move in the 4th spatial dimension.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
19,296
10,806
I'm different from a bird - although some corvids have high intelligence - I can learn mathematics. I can conceive not only four spatial dimensions, but understand something abstract like ##n## dimensions where ##n## is arbitrary.

An atom cannot do that, nor a cell, but if atoms are arranged in a sufficiently complex system, then the whole system transcends the abilities of the components.
 
  • #16
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,367
4,696
I'm different from a bird - although some corvids have high intelligence - I can learn mathematics. I can conceive not only four spatial dimensions, but understand something abstract like ##n## dimensions where ##n## is arbitrary.

An atom cannot do that, nor a cell, but if atoms are arranged in a sufficiently complex system, then the whole system transcends the abilities of the components.
So what? Does it contradict anything I said in #14?
 
  • #17
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
19,296
10,806
So what? Does it contradict anything I said in #14?
Perhaps not.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier

Related Threads on Is the self-consistency principle a scientific or philosophical idea?

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
136
Views
18K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top