Non-local effects and information

[mosassam]

Please clarify the following view:
An EPR-Bell experiment - when one particle in a Bell correlation is measured, this instantaneously affects the properties of the second particle. To me this seems as if information concerning the measured particle has "arrived without travelling" to the second particle. Has an exchange of information occurred in these experiments? ["exchange" may be the wrong word as the information seems to be directed in only one way, however, words like "transmission" or "transfer" imply a movement which does not take place (ie: instantaneous)]
If all defintions of 'information' imply a "materialistic" cause it may be that the definition has to be changed.
Maybe...
PS: I must stipulate my layman status so try and keep it "real".

 

[AnssiH]

Please clarify the following view:
An EPR-Bell experiment - when one particle in a Bell correlation is measured, this instantaneously affects the properties of the second particle. To me this seems as if information concerning the measured particle has "arrived without travelling" to the second particle. Has an exchange of information occurred in these experiments? ["exchange" may be the wrong word as the information seems to be directed in only one way, however, words like "transmission" or "transfer" imply a movement which does not take place (ie: instantaneous)]
If all defintions of 'information' imply a "materialistic" cause it may be that the definition has to be changed.
Maybe...
PS: I must stipulate my layman status so try and keep it "real".

Well, where should I begin...

No one really knows what is happening in those experiments. There are many models (interpretations) that offer their own explanation; some explain it via spacetime (transactional interpretation), some explain it via multiverse (MWI) and so on.

In some views it would be proper to say "exchange" and "instantaneous", in some it would not.

For example, when we talk about it in terms of relativistic spacetime, the particle measurement events are separated by a space-like distance. In other words there is no telling which particle was measured first, and the particles don't really move when viewed from spacetime.

I think it is helpful to look at all the different ways people have explained this phenomenon in their minds, and perhaps try to invent own ways to explain it. At this time it is impossible to choose between different paradigms.

For one, take a look at:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130623
and as a related note:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=140257

As you probably know, I don't really believe into the models I am talking about above. But that doesn't mean they aren't true. Suffice to say, Bell correlation is one of the trickiest things to explain in terms of "real motion", while in terms of "static spacetime" it is actually quite trivial.

(I.e. we should ask ourselves, since when is locality required for realism? This is so only in terms of relativisticspacetime, and if we use relativistic spacetime, Bell correlation is trivially explained without non-local effects)

I hope this is helpful.

EDIT: Changed "spacetime" to "relativistic spacetime" to avoid confusion

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

(I.e.

we should ask ourselves, since when is locality required for realism? This is so only in terms of relativisticspacetime, and if we use relativistic spacetime, Bell correlation is trivially explained without non-local effects)

The Rational Mind seems to work in a 'Newtonian way' (ie:Reductionism may not be a 'discovered' method but a reflection of the properties of Rational Mind), this may be why QM can be so difficult to fathom, because QM does seem to be reaching for the Unified Whole that exists beyond the scope of Rational Mind.
Once again, thanks for the clarity of the posts you directed me to (although I'm still wallowing out of my depth). In trying to get a handle on non-locality I am going to stick with the Unified Whole view as I find it very helpful. For instance, let's say that in the Unified Whole view, not only do all "things" exist but also all trajectories/connections/relationships (TCR's) between all things. I can now view the two particles in an EPR-Bell type experiment as part of a single system. All information concerning the two particles exists as part of their TCR (their "information thread"). In a Newtonian sense, when the properties of one particle are measured, information concerning these properties "instantly arrives" at the second particle, thus transforming its properties. In a Unified Whole sense, the information exists as part of a single system, so no "travelling" or "arriving" is necessary. The properties noted in the second particle depend solely on which specific aspect on the information thread we have chosen to measure in the first particle.
Obviously, the system (particles and TCR) does not exist separately from the Unified Whole, this separation occurs when the Rational Mind "decides" to measure (ie: fracture the Unified Whole).
Please clarify any erroneous thinking on my behalf and forgive any enthusiasm I have for the Unified Whole/Fallacy of Identity. I'll be careful not to turn it into dogma.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

my take on the subject is that the wave function of the two particles exists not only over an amount of space but also over an amount of time. So if you draw a world line of the problem, using the y-axis as time and the x-axis as space, you'd see a "V" shape as the two particles move away from each other over time. This shape is the wave function I'm talking about. When you make a measurement on one side of the V, the whole wave function collapses and you can know an aspect of the other side of the V. The entanglement spans both time and space, but I've read that you can't send information in this way.

 

[ZapperZ]

The Rational Mind seems to work in a 'Newtonian way' (ie:Reductionism may not be a 'discovered' method but a reflection of the properties of Rational Mind), this may be why QM can be so difficult to fathom, because QM does seem to be reaching for the Unified Whole that exists beyond the scope of Rational Mind.

You seem to have introduced something "Unified whole" without defining what it is. Considering that this isn't part of physics, then don't you think it is prudent for you to clarify what you are using?

Furthermore, your efforts in trying to get a handle on quantum mechanics based on your "familiarity" of classical physics http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-is-quantum-mechanics-so-difficult.html" , especially without understanding the mathematical formalism of it.

my take on the subject is that the wave function of the two particles exists not only over an amount of space but also over an amount of time. So if you draw a world line of the problem, using the y-axis as time and the x-axis as space, you'd see a "V" shape as the two particles move away from each other over time. This shape is the wave function I'm talking about. When you make a measurement on one side of the V, the whole wave function collapses and you can know an aspect of the other side of the V. The entanglement spans both time and space, but I've read that you can't send information in this way.

This is rather puzzling. You DO know, of course, that there is a time-independent Schrodinger equation, and a time dependent Schrodinger equation. There is no ambiguity on how the solution to such equations evolve with time.

Still, this has no relevance to the issue at hand. The world line that is obtained from Special Relativity "appears" to not be relevant in the entanglement phenomenon. That is the whole point of the Bell-type experiments.

Zz.

 

[mosassam]

You seem to have introduced something "Unified whole" without defining what it is. Considering that this isn't part of physics, then don't you think it is prudent for you to clarify what you are using?

My definition, such as it may be, can be found on the "Solipsism redefined" thread, post #46.

Furthermore, your efforts in trying to get a handle on quantum mechanics based on your "familiarity" of classical physics http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-is-quantum-mechanics-so-difficult.html" , especially without understanding the mathematical formalism of it.

I am an out and out layman, and as distasteful as you may find this, am concerned with the philosophical outcomes of QM. My "familiarity" of classical physics pretty much ends with the notion that everything works like a machine and can be broken down to its constituent parts to provide an overview of how the whole works. A view that sadly lacks any capacity to describe such trivial things as "Life" or "Consciousness". As a living, conscious entity, I find myself fascinated by the possibilities, philosophically speaking of course, that QM has opened up. Particularly Uncertainty, as I suspect, philosophically speaking, that this reflects the true nature of the human condition. Aristotle's either/or, true/false paradigm may well be coming to and end, and with it the ability of classical physics to speak of "reality".
But I may be wrong
PS: What did you think of the Unified Whole explanation I presented (obviously one of numerous models and without the necessary mathematics). Please try and keep your criticism constructive.:tongue2:

 

[ZapperZ]

My definition, such as it may be, can be found on the "Solipsism redefined" thread, post #46.I am an out and out layman, and as distasteful as you may find this, am concerned with the philosophical outcomes of QM. My "familiarity" of classical physics pretty much ends with the notion that everything works like a machine and can be broken down to its constituent parts to provide an overview of how the whole works. A view that sadly lacks any capacity to describe such trivial things as "Life" or "Consciousness". As a living, conscious entity, I find myself fascinated by the possibilities, philosophically speaking of course, that QM has opened up. Particularly Uncertainty, as I suspect, philosophically speaking, that this reflects the true nature of the human condition. Aristotle's either/or, true/false paradigm may well be coming to and end, and with it the ability of classical physics to speak of "reality".
But I may be wrong
PS: What did you think of the Unified Whole explanation I presented (obviously one of numerous models and without the necessary mathematics). Please try and keep your criticism constructive.:tongue2:

There is a serious problem (and often, absurdity), in any attempt to applying principles of QM into human and social interactions. Postmodernists have tried it with hilarious outcome. It was so bad, that Alan Sokal decided to demonstrate how ridiculous it is using his infamous hoax.

In all of this, the central message has always been: don't try to applying something that one doesn't understand.

And with respect to QM (assuming you did not want to read the link I gave you), my assertion has always been that unless one is willing to live by with understanding something just superficially, one will never understand even the fundamentals of QM without actually studying it, and that means the mathematical formalism. There's no shortcut here. "God is in the details", and never more so for QM. In fact, in many academic institutions, majoring in philosophy of science actually requires a candidate to actually take classes in physics, including quantum mechanics. I knew personally of a philosophy major at Columbia University who had to take some of the same undergraduate physics classes as other physics majors. There is just no way around it.

But again, if you are comfortable with simply applying something that you don't quite understand, or only have a superficial knowledge of it, into other parts, then that's a different matter and it is entirely your business. However, if it is done on PF and you are applying something that is erroneous, then it is still subjected to our global guidelines.

I personally do not care about yours or anyone else's philosophical beliefs or arguments in here. I do care, however, when physics principles and ideas have be bastardized and chopped up into unrecognizable pieces, which is why I and other mentors have to come into the Philosophy forums lately and do a major clean up. So I am definitely not here to discuss with you your philosophical ideology.

Zz.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

You seem to have introduced something "Unified whole" without defining what it is. Considering that this isn't part of physics, then don't you think it is prudent for you to clarify what you are using?

Furthermore, your efforts in trying to get a handle on quantum mechanics based on your "familiarity" of classical physics http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-is-quantum-mechanics-so-difficult.html" , especially without understanding the mathematical formalism of it.



This is rather puzzling. You DO know, of course, that there is a time-independent Schrodinger equation, and a time dependent Schrodinger equation. There is no ambiguity on how the solution to such equations evolve with time.

Still, this has no relevance to the issue at hand. The world line that is obtained from Special Relativity "appears" to not be relevant in the entanglement phenomenon. That is the whole point of the Bell-type experiments.

Zz.

I have studied Intro to Quantum Mechanics 2nd by David Griffiths in my senior QM course up through ch. 7 (time-independant perturbation theory). I haven't studied this problem since I haven't taken a graduate level QM course. You can solve for the time independant wave function between the origin of the two correlated particles and where they are detected. When you measure one of the particles, you collapse the wave function, and you can know something about the other particle, because the wave function describes the whole system. So far so good?

What I was trying to explain is that the particles move through space over a period of time, and I intuitively think of them as tracing out a wave function through this span of space and time. If you imagine the wave function collapsing at a finite "speed" (just as to illustrate), you'd see it start to collapse where you made a measurement, and it would collapse down the "V" world line, and back up to the other side, sort of moving back in time to where the two particles are linked and back forward in time (only this time arriving at where the other particle is) to the time where you made a measurement of the first particle. Of course this is very hand waving and intuitive on my part. But that is what I mean when I mention time dependance, I know it's wrong to say they are at specific locations at certain times when you know where they are going to be detected, since that is a bound state, not a scattering state (I think).

 

[ZapperZ]

What I was trying to explain is that the particles move through space over a period of time, and I intuitively think of them as tracing out a wave function through this span of space and time.

Come again? What "wavefunction" is this? From the way I am reading this, you somehow are giving the "wavefuction" a property as if it is a "wake" in response to the motion of the particle. This is not right.

There's a very simple way to solve this ambiguity. Could you write down the exact wavefunction that you are thinking of that clearly is applicable to this very situation that you are describing?

If you imagine the wave function collapsing at a finite "speed" (just as to illustrate), you'd see it start to collapse where you made a measurement, and it would collapse down the "V" world line, and back up to the other side, sort of moving back in time to where the two particles are linked and back forward in time (only this time arriving at where the other particle is) to the time where you made a measurement of the first particle. Of course this is very hand waving and intuitive on my part. But that is what I mean when I mention time dependance, I know it's wrong to say they are at specific locations at certain times when you know where they are going to be detected, since that is a bound state, not a scattering state (I think).

But there is no such time dependence! So isn't this all rather moot?

Zz.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Come again? What "wavefunction" is this? From the way I am reading this, you somehow are giving the "wavefuction" a property as if it is a "wake" in response to the motion of the particle. This is not right.

There's a very simple way to solve this ambiguity. Could you write down the exact wavefunction that you are thinking of that clearly is applicable to this very situation that you are describing?



But there is no such time dependence! So isn't this all rather moot?

Zz.

It's hard for me to understand without time dependence. For example, suppose you separated the origin of the particles a half an astronomical unit away from detector a, and an astronomical unit away from detector b. You then solve the wavefunction of the system. Then you do the experiment. You will detect an aspect of the state of the particle heading to detector b before it gets there, since the measurement at detector a collapses the wave function. So in the experiment, the wave function isn't paragmatically time independant is it?

 

[ZapperZ]

It's hard for me to understand without time dependence. For example, suppose you separated the origin of the particles a half an astronomical unit away from detector a, and an astronomical unit away from detector b. You then solve the wavefunction of the system. Then you do the experiment. You will detect an aspect of the state of the particle heading to detector b before it gets there, since the measurement at detector a collapses the wave function. So in the experiment, the wave function isn't paragmatically time independant is it?

Not in the entangled properties. That's the whole point of the EPR paper and the whole point of the Bell-type experiments! Look at the entanglement of a bipartite system. Do you see any time "evolution" of any kind?

Zz.

 

[AnssiH]

Please clarify any erroneous thinking on my behalf and forgive any enthusiasm I have for the Unified Whole/Fallacy of Identity. I'll be careful not to turn it into dogma.

Well that would have been my first warning to you :)
I guess it is easier to remember the dangers of dogmas with this view since it explicitly states all views are just semantically different and none can be considered true to reality.

There are many ways to understand QM systems, and QM behaviour certainly seems to imply that some particularly sticky assumptions we have intuitively made about reality are false. We just don't know which ones (note how different interpretations each assume a different assumption as the false one... MWI; the assumption that there is just one universe. Transactional interpretation; the assumption that motion is real, etc...)

Another thing I'd like to note is:

Obviously, the system (particles and TCR) does not exist separately from the Unified Whole, this separation occurs when the Rational Mind "decides" to measure (ie: fracture the Unified Whole).

This sounds like an assumption about consciousness having an effect to the QM system. It is assuming a lot larger role to the rational mind than just to break reality into "sensible components". In fact it is assuming more than the modern version of copenhagen interpretation. Remember that there are some very strange time-wise aspects on quantum systems, regardless of the identity of the "components" we imagine in our minds.

So if you are saying what I think you are saying, I'd advice to take a good hard look at various quantum systems and thinking about the different views people have taken on those systems, and in particular how certain assumptions about reality constrain the nature of other things (like time) in that particular paradigm.

Like is the case with time or with any ontological question, there are no trivial answers to be found here I'm afraid...

 

[AnssiH]

In fact, in many academic institutions, majoring in philosophy of science actually requires a candidate to actually take classes in physics, including quantum mechanics. I knew personally of a philosophy major at Columbia University who had to take some of the same undergraduate physics classes as other physics majors. There is just no way around it.

That is very true.
I'm also thinking that perhaps we should require physicists to take some courses in philosophy... It could make these two fields understand each others better. Right now they are just too far apart for much of a synergy to occur.

I can totally understand why physicists feel the problem is that philosophers don't understand enough physics, while philosophers feel physicists don't understand enough philosophy.

-Anssi

 

[heusdens]

Please clarify the following view:
An EPR-Bell experiment - when one particle in a Bell correlation is measured, this instantaneously affects the properties of the second particle. To me this seems as if information concerning the measured particle has "arrived without travelling" to the second particle. Has an exchange of information occurred in these experiments? ["exchange" may be the wrong word as the information seems to be directed in only one way, however, words like "transmission" or "transfer" imply a movement which does not take place (ie: instantaneous)]
If all defintions of 'information' imply a "materialistic" cause it may be that the definition has to be changed.
Maybe...
PS: I must stipulate my layman status so try and keep it "real".

There is no instantanious transfer of information and/or energy.

If there would have been an instantanious transfer of information, this would logically also mean instantanious transfer of energy (else, how would information be transfered?).

It is however sufficient to show that no information in the real sense gets transfered, since only after both observers compare notes, they can discover that a change in the measurement apparatus at A correlates to a change in the measurement at B. In the real sense so, no information can be transferred in this way.
Since you can not compare those notes at superluminal speeds, no real instantanious transfer of information needs to take place.

What one however needs to "give up" is local realism.
Local realism is the idea that the full identity (property) of the local particle is somehow "fixed" (ie independend of the other particle of the entangled pair's state). The outcomes of the EPR experiments however mean that no local "hidden variable" theory can explain it.

 

[ZapperZ]

That is very true.
I'm also thinking that perhaps we should require physicists to take some courses in philosophy... It could make these two fields understand each others better. Right now they are just too far apart for much of a synergy to occur.

I can totally understand why physicists feel the problem is that philosophers don't understand enough physics, while philosophers feel physicists don't understand enough philosophy.

-Anssi

Except there is a difference, and this is where I always get into trouble, especially in here.

Physicists do not need to know any formal knowledge of philosophy to do physics. Philosophers of science DO! In fact, many advances in physics in turn influences many aspect of philosophy, whereas today, physicists can be completely ignorant of what is going on in the formal study of philosophy without making a single dent on their ability to be a physicist.

So yes, I fully agree that physicists don't understand many aspect of philosophy, or even the philosophy of what they are doing. This is because they don't have to. But can a philosopher afford to be ignorant of physics and about physics?

Zz.

 

[mosassam]

This sounds like an assumption about consciousness having an effect to the QM system. It is assuming a lot larger role to the rational mind than just to break reality into "sensible components".

The most obvious assumption to me must be the unified whole/fallacy of identity itself, but only when I try to communicate it. As a personal experience it seems beyond doubt but as soon as I try to define it, it "disappears". Also, I feel that "breaking reality into "sensible components"' does have a genuine effect on the QM system, that it is more than just semantics. I have heard that in some interpretations of QM, when one takes a measurement of a system, that measurement "collapses the wavefunction".
Is this not a genuine effect of the rational mind on a QM system?
At the moment I am grappling with 'entanglement' as I intuitively feel this may be the key to 'communicating' the unified whole. Does entanglement exist when we are not measuring a QM system? If so, to what extent?

 

[mosassam]

So yes, I fully agree that physicists don't understand many aspect of philosophy, or even the philosophy of what they are doing. This is because they don't have to. But can a philosopher afford to be ignorant of physics and about physics?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Einstein, Bohr and all the early pioneers of QM became more engrossed with the philosophical implications of QM than anything else, and it was in delving into these philosophical issues that allowed them to come to the understandings they did. Their initial source of confusion seemed to be the fact they were physicists and not philosophers. I doubt that any out and out physicist would have made any headway in the Alice in Wonderland world of QM. You must surely agree that any interpretation given in QM can be considered fundamentally philosophical in nature.

 

[AnssiH]

Except there is a difference, and this is where I always get into trouble, especially in here.

Physicists do not need to know any formal knowledge of philosophy to do physics.

Of course not. I am referring to the way some physicists tend to make rather shaky philosophical assertions about reality/ontology. Like assertions about the reality of MWI. Some physicists have a better grasp at philosophy (at epistemology, making them able to see the difference between mental/physical models and reality), and this often makes them able to also formulate new and potentially more accurate models.

Einstein, for example, needed fairly good grasp at philosophy before he could toy with the idea that simultaneity may not be objectively "real" phenomenon, but just something we tacitly assume to be so. He was probably helped a lot by having read Hume.

And also the same grasp at philosophy makes you able to see that relativity of simultaneity is also a way to handle the situation in one's own mind, in that it includes assumptions that are not observable. What we do observe is such a topology of spacetime (events) that would be explainable by relativity of simultaneity, but nothing says this is ontologically correct; i.e. nothing says if in reality there are such things as "simultaneity planes" in any sense or if they are only abstractions.

So, you are quite right in that a physicist doesn't need much philosophy to be able to make their job, but then they must also remember that their job is not so much to produce ontological assumptions about reality, but rather to produce valid models (valid in that they make correct predictions). Ontological interpretation of that model cannot be done with shaky understanding of philosophy (each interpretation of QM is ontological claim), yet too many physicist do. See what I mean?

But can a philosopher afford to be ignorant of physics and about physics?

Most certainly not.

-Anssi

 

[AnssiH]

The most obvious assumption to me must be the unified whole/fallacy of identity itself, but only when I try to communicate it. As a personal experience it seems beyond doubt but as soon as I try to define it, it "disappears". Also, I feel that "breaking reality into "sensible components"' does have a genuine effect on the QM system, that it is more than just semantics. I have heard that in some interpretations of QM, when one takes a measurement of a system, that measurement "collapses the wavefunction".

This is just one way to express the situation. It should not be taken as an ontological claim. Bohr and Heisenberg were necessarily vague about what it means to measure the quantum system. It should not be taken as a literal claim about consciousness collapsing the wave function (although you can interpret it that way and people tend to; too readily in my opinion).

What "collapses the wave function" has been developed further since but we don't have any final answers; different paradigms don't even talk about it in terms of wave functions.

If you are toying with the idea that when the mind classifies reality into sensible objects it changes the system that is being observed, you must be able to explain how and why we should expect it to be so. There exists some material about this, but it is problematic view because we don't know what consciousness is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

Is this not a genuine effect of the rational mind on a QM system?
At the moment I am grappling with 'entanglement' as I intuitively feel this may be the key to 'communicating' the unified whole. Does entanglement exist when we are not measuring a QM system? If so, to what extent?

It depends on what is meant with entanglement. Usually it is just referring to the way some part of the system is affected by earlier state of another part of the system (and vice versa), and if you look at that in terms of "wave collapse", it makes quantum systems seem pretty strange indeed.

In my opinion it is precisely the bell correlation that needs to be explained first, and its explanation will naturally also say something about the reality of "wave functions".

-Anssi

 

[ZapperZ]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Einstein, Bohr and all the early pioneers of QM became more engrossed with the philosophical implications of QM than anything else, and it was in delving into these philosophical issues that allowed them to come to the understandings they did. Their initial source of confusion seemed to be the fact they were physicists and not philosophers. I doubt that any out and out physicist would have made any headway in the Alice in Wonderland world of QM. You must surely agree that any interpretation given in QM can be considered fundamentally philosophical in nature.

But you seem to be forgetting that they were physicist first, and then, after QM came into existence, they battle the meaning of it. No one would accuse any of them of not knowing the physics they were discussing intimately.

On the other hand, many philosophers, and certainly those who want to discuss these stuff on here, only know of the physics they're discussing superficially. There's a big difference.

Finally, practicing physicists do not need to go into "Alice in Wonderland" world at all to function and make progress in physics. Even Feynman would say "Shut Up And Calculate". For the majority of physicists, the philosophical interpretation or implication doesn't even come into play at all. Just go, for example to the APS March Meeting that is going on right now this week. It is the largest yearly gathering of physicists anywhere in the world. I will put it to you that 99% of the presentations there (and there are thousands of presentations at one of these) have absolutely nothing to do with anything dealing with philosophy.

The mathematical formulation will be the same whether you call it Blue, Green, Indigo, etc... The problem here is that people who want to talk and discuss it in here, don't even know the mathematical formulation. They only know about the Blue, Green, and Indigo.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Of course not. I am referring to the way some physicists tend to make rather shaky philosophical assertions about reality/ontology. Like assertions about the reality of MWI. Some physicists have a better grasp at philosophy (at epistemology, making them able to see the difference between mental/physical models and reality), and this often makes them able to also formulate new and potentially more accurate models.

I agree. I often think that some physicists get into trouble (and get the rest of physics into trouble also) by delving into such things. But, to the credit of the field as a whole, this isn't done by everyone. Like I have said earlier, the majority of physicists don't even care about such thing, mainly because they can function and make progress without resorting to any philosophical issues.

The question of the philosophical implication of physics is such a small issue in the field of physics. For many, it is almost non-existent. Even when issues about "local realism" and such are being discussed, it is more in the context of the physics of measurement, rather than esoteric word play. Why? Because this is something that physics CAN measure and distinguish. If not, it is philosophy, which is the common criticism against String Theory right now.

Zz.

 

[mosassam]

But you seem to be forgetting that they were physicist first, and then, after QM came into existence, they battle the meaning of it. No one would accuse any of them of not knowing the physics they were discussing intimately.

I responded to your claim that physicists need know nothing about philosophy. You now begrudgingly acknowledge, through what appears to be a haze of loathing for philosophy, that these brilliant PHYSICISTS (as if I'd somehow forgotten that) did indeed have to "battle with the meaning of it". A task usually reserved for the philosopher.
Can a philosopher function without a knowledge of physics? My answer must be a resounding YES! Physics, and all knowledge for that matter, can be seen as a sliver of the spectrum of human consciousness. Science, religion, philosophy, politics, should not be viewed as things we have "discovered" or "invented" but as manifestations of who we are. The goal of any philosopher should be to quietly observe their own consciousness, its workings and its contents (which include science, religion, politics, philosophy etc., the workings of thought, emotions and experience) without judgement, prejudice, conditioning, praise, condemnation or any of that, for these things belong to the contents of consciousness. The scientific cry of "Prove it" (the Solipsists wet dream) reveals the limitations of the rational mind. Prove thought, prove the rational mind, prove feelings, prove intuition (the Eureka moment), prove the Self, prove consciousness. How many of these nonprovable things does the physicist rely on?
I am no philosopher, physicist or mathematician. On every level I am a layman. I came to this forum because I'd had the personal insight that Time doesn't objectively exist. This may be prehistoric news to you but it was a shocker to me. Since then I've been guided to a new level of comprehending that which I'd previously taken for granted by some amazing heads on this forum. I have the sole talents of asking a good question and understanding a decent explanation. I have personally benefitted immensely from this forum and I feel I have made (a few) good contributions. I am in the process of growing and learning, and the only complaint I would have concerns the profound dogma that certain individuals display.
"If you ain't growin' yer dyin'. If you ain't dyin', yer dead" - my Dad

 

[ZapperZ]

I responded to your claim that physicists need know nothing about philosophy. You now begrudgingly acknowledge, through what appears to be a haze of loathing for philosophy, that these brilliant PHYSICISTS (as if I'd somehow forgotten that) did indeed have to "battle with the meaning of it". A task usually reserved for the philosopher.

Actually, there are two wrong statements in here.

1. My apparent "loading" for philosophy. That would be strange since I was the ONLY physics major in my graduating class at UW-Wisconsin that had actually taken anything in philosophy (actually, 2 different courses in philosophy of science). However, I took those classes because, for a change, it was taught by someone with a physics background. Dan Siegel not only had a Ph.D in physics, but also was a practicing physicists when he changed careers and went into philosophy of science. Instead of making students read texts such as The Tao of Physics, he made students read papers that actually contained valid physics as the starting point to discuss possible implications. Never once did I recall him stepping beyond the established knowledge and going into absurdity. My criticism of how the "philosophical" discussion is going on in here should never be confused with my "loading" of the subject matter.

2. Please pay attention to how Einstein and Bohr and those people conduct their discussion on the "meaning" of QM, and then compare that to how you are doing it here. I will put it to you that physicists can follow rather easily the Einstein/Bohr discussion, but not what you have discussed. There's a difference. Why? Because Einstein and Bohr clearly understood that every concept and ideas in physics have clear, underlying mathematical definitions that impose a severe set of conditions. This dictates what they are, and how they can be used. You simply can't mix and match things weely neely. When Einstein tried to show how QM may be incomplete, he didn't argue it via hand-waving arguments, but he came up with the EPR paper that is based on an intimate knowledge of QM. THAT is how physicists discussed physical meanings and implications.

Can a philosopher function without a knowledge of physics? My answer must be a resounding YES! Physics, and all knowledge for that matter, can be seen as a sliver of the spectrum of human consciousness. Science, religion, philosophy, politics, should not be viewed as things we have "discovered" or "invented" but as manifestations of who we are. The goal of any philosopher should be to quietly observe their own consciousness, its workings and its contents (which include science, religion, politics, philosophy etc., the workings of thought, emotions and experience) without judgement, prejudice, conditioning, praise, condemnation or any of that, for these things belong to the contents of consciousness. The scientific cry of "Prove it" (the Solipsists wet dream) reveals the limitations of the rational mind. Prove thought, prove the rational mind, prove feelings, prove intuition (the Eureka moment), prove the Self, prove consciousness. How many of these nonprovable things does the physicist rely on?

You are forgetting that to be able to "prove" such a thing, it must be defined first. And in this particular forum, it appears that people can somehow make up their own ideas and definitions. Again, this can't be done in physics (luckily).

I am no philosopher, physicist or mathematician. On every level I am a layman.

Then maybe you need to find someone who is a philospher and ask him/her if it is really true that he/she need not know anything about physics. If not, then you're just making an uninformed decision based on a profession that you don't know anything about. Notice the pattern here?

I came to this forum because I'd had the personal insight that Time doesn't objectively exist.

This is another can of worms that I do not wish to tackle here. I've asked many people who have made the same claim to come up with a complete description of the dynamics of a system without using any "time". None of them have had any satisfactory answer to that. Why is that?

Zz.

 

[mosassam]

1. My apparent "loading" for philosophy. That would be strange since I was the ONLY physics major in my graduating class at UW-Wisconsin that had actually taken anything in philosophy (actually, 2 different courses in philosophy of science). However, I took those classes because, for a change, it was taught by someone with a physics background. Dan Siegel not only had a Ph.D in physics, but also was a practicing physicists when he changed careers and went into philosophy of science. Instead of making students read texts such as The Tao of Physics, he made students read papers that actually contained valid physics as the starting point to discuss possible implications. Never once did I recall him stepping beyond the established knowledge and going into absurdity. My criticism of how the "philosophical" discussion is going on in here should never beconfused with my "loading" of the subject matter.

Firstly, the word is loathing.
Secondly, from post #7 "I personally do not care about yours or anyone elses philosophical beliefs or arguments in here (this forum)". And you're a mentor for the Philosophy Forum.
Thirdly, you have the gall to dismiss someone like Fritjof Capra.

2. Please pay attention to how Einstein and Bohr and those people conduct their discussion on the "meaning" of QM, and then compare that to how you are doing it here. I will put it to you that physicists can follow rather easily the Einstein/Bohr discussion, but not what you have discussed. There's a difference. Why? Because Einstein and Bohr clearly understood that every concept and ideas in physics have clear, underlying mathematical definitions that impose a severe set of conditions. This dictates what they are, and how they can be used. You simply can't mix and match things weely neely. When Einstein tried to show how QM may be incomplete, he didn't argue it via hand-waving arguments, but he came up with the EPR paper that is based on an intimate knowledge of QM. THAT is how physicists discussed physical meanings and implications.

Is the EPR Paradox physics, philosophy or both?
Is Schrodingers Cat physics, philosophy or both?
Is Bohm's Implicate Order physics, philosophy or both?
Is Bell's Theorem physics, philosophy or both?

You are forgetting that to be able to "prove" such a thing, it must be defined first. And in this particular forum, it appears that people can somehow make up their own ideas and definitions. Again, this can't be done in physics (luckily).

This is such a facile answer to the points made that I only bring it up to dismiss it.

Then maybe you need to find someone who is a philospher and ask him/her if it is really true that he/she need not know anything about physics. If not, then you're just making an uninformed decision based on a profession that you don't know anything about. Notice the pattern here?

Oh, I have noticed a pattern alright. A dogma shaped pattern.

This is another can of worms that I do not wish to tackle here. I've asked many people who have made the same claim to come up with a complete description of the dynamics of a system without using any "time". None of them have had any satisfactory answer to that. Why is that?

So Time does objectively exist! Or maybe the word 'dynamics' implies Time? D'oh

 

[ZapperZ]

Firstly, the word is loathing.
Secondly, from post #7 "I personally do not care about yours or anyone elses philosophical beliefs or arguments in here (this forum)". And you're a mentor for the Philosophy Forum.
Thirdly, you have the gall to dismiss someone like Fritjof Capra.

1. I was in a hurry to run my seminar. If that is one of my worse "crimes" on here, I'll take it.

2. As in "it doesn't matter to me", meaning you can hold ANY personal or philosophical beliefs and it is fine with me as they do not bother nor affect me one least bit. Why is this "loathing"? You read MORE into that than what I've written.

3. I do, as do many others! And why is this any worse than you dismissing physics by indicating that time doesn't exist?

4. I am NOT the "mentor for the Philosophy Forum".

Is the EPR Paradox physics, philosophy or both?
Is Schrodingers Cat physics, philosophy or both?
Is Bohm's Implicate Order physics, philosophy or both?
Is Bell's Theorem physics, philosophy or both?

In my profession, they are all physics except for "Bohm's Implicate Order", because I don't know the details of it and it would be inappropriate for me to use something I barely know (hint).

So Time does objectively exist! Or maybe the word 'dynamics' implies Time? D'oh

Sorry, but I'm not playing this game. If you look in other threads in here, people are tripping over themselves trying to argue on the meaning of the word "exists" and if such-and-such exists. If this is what occupies people's time and effort, more power to all of you. However, when you invoke physics concepts and you ignore the accurate understanding of what they are, then expect that you will be questioned for it.

Zz.

 

[AnssiH]

I agree. I often think that some physicists get into trouble (and get the rest of physics into trouble also) by delving into such things. But, to the credit of the field as a whole, this isn't done by everyone. Like I have said earlier, the majority of physicists don't even care about such thing, mainly because they can function and make progress without resorting to any philosophical issues.

That's true, and I quite like the shut up and calculate attitude. In fact it seems to me to be the most "valid" approach at the moment snice we know so little about the ontological side of QM.

(Note Mosassam that the "rational mind" or the "fallacy of identity" view pretty much promotes this null interpretation in the sense that it would not be valid to call any interpretation as the absolutely correct one, albeit some interpretations would still be more correct than others... just we don't know which ones :)

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

(Note Mosassam that the "rational mind" or the "fallacy of identity" view pretty much promotes this null interpretation in the sense that it would not be valid to call any interpretation as the absolutely correct one, albeit some interpretations would still be more correct than others... just we don't know which ones :)

The unified whole/fallacy of identity thing was just a bunch of words I wrote down trying to express a personal reality. Hardly physics, hardly an interpretation or model of anything. My inability to desribe this insight mathematically or scientifically in no way detracts from the reality of the insight. It merely detracts from my inability to communicate it. If it can be said that physics tries to 'describe reality', then I must bend my brain to find a way to bridge the gap betwen my personal insight and physics. I see things about 'Holographic Universes' and "Quantum Gravity Loops' which seem to be possible avenues of exploration but I have no chance of bridging this gap from the physics side, I have no option but to try from my own side of personal insight (as much as some may loathe this). At the moment I am trying to get to grips with Bell correlations. My thinking at the moment is this - a Bell correlation has been demonstrated in certain experiments, but does this correlation still exist when the experiments aren't being conducted? Philosophically speaking, is everything part of a Bell correlation? It seems that a lot of quantum "weirdness' (using a laymans expression) is discussed in the laboratory/experimental setting, but this implies that these effects only occur in experiments. Surely this is not the case.
If there are models or interpretations that exist that posit a unified whole I feel compelled to follow these avenues as to do otherwise would fly in the face of my personal insight. I know there exist multitudinous logical arguments against this course of action but I must view them as mere wordgames generated by the words I have had to use in describing an experience beyond words and concepts (as all experiences are). As you have said before - the map is not the territory. The map is words and concepts, the territory is personal experience.
(once again, I've just made all this up off the top of my head )

 

[moving finger]

"If you ain't growin' yer dyin'. If you ain't dyin', yer dead" - my Dad

If we also accept that one cannot be both dying and dead at the same time, the the logical conclusion from this is that if one is dead, one is growing!

MF

proof :
1 : Anything which is not growing is dying
2 : Anything which is not dying is dead
3 : No object can be both dying and dead
Hence :
4 : All non-dying objects must therefore be growing objects (from (1))
5 : The set of all non-dying objects is a subset of all dead objects (from (2))
Conclusion :
6 : All dead objects are growing objects (from (3), (4) & (5))

 

[mosassam]

If we also accept that one cannot be both dying and dead at the same time, the the logical conclusion from this is that if one is dead, one is growing!

You begin by "accepting" one cannot be both dying and growing yet your 'conclusion' accepts one can be growing and dead.
Hmmm.
Isn't logic strange?
I think you may find that the quote you were analysing consists of three mutually exclusive 'states' - growing, dying, dead
Not growing = dying or dead
Not dying = growing or dead
Not dead = dying or growing
Conversely,
growing = not dying and not dead
dying = not growing and not dead
dead = not growing and not dying

 

[moving finger]

You begin by "accepting" one cannot be both dying and growing yet your 'conclusion' accepts one can be growing and dead.

Yes - because "dying" and "dead" are mutually exclusive states (something can be one or the other, but not both at the same time).

I think you may find that the quote you were analysing consists of three mutually exclusive 'states' - growing, dying, dead
Not growing = dying or dead
Not dying = growing or dead
Not dead = dying or growing

Nope. The original quotation does not in fact say that "not growing = dead" - if it did then it would be self-contradictory, because the logical conclusion (as I have shown) from "if you ain't growin' you're dyin', and if you ain't dyin' you're dead" when combined with "nothing can be both dead and dying" is that "if you're dead you're growin'"
:yuck:

 

[mosassam]

Sticking strictly to the quote you have decided to analyse.
Growing and Dying are presented as mutually exclusive states. When introduced to your 'proof' you will find point 4: contravened.
Are you familiar with the phrase 'figure of speech'?
Do you have anything to add to the actual thread?

 

[moving finger]

Sticking strictly to the quote you have decided to analyse.
Growing and Dying are presented as mutually exclusive states. When introduced to your 'proof' you will find point 4: contravened.

Nope - point 4 simply says that all non-dying objects are growing objects (which is completely consistent with dying and growing being mutually exclusive).

I agree this is off topic, so I'm happy to stop here

 

[D_Arsonval]

The original post on this was during February?
Oh Well.

I would suspect it’s important to plead ignorance before uttering
a single “key-stroke”.

Especially when replying to something like Non-Local Effects/affects.
(Of which the topic seems to have dried-up based on the last post(s) dated nearly a long “time” ago.)

Never the less. Here’s some more “hash” to add to this thread.

“Time”, and the moment of time when an observation is made seems to trump a lot of stuff.

For as time elapses, so do all of the other measured/observed treasures.

To acknowledge, and accept such a stark fact can at times be humiliating.

Of course it’s changed! It’s right now, and not just a moment ago!

In the meantime?

John