0n0w1c

i would be interested in discussing cause and effect. cause and effect in the light of quantum mechanics that is.

for example, how could the cause and effect of classical mechanics create a probabilistic outcome, if the cause is in fact the cause? where does one distinguish a cause from the event? can we isolate a system to a degree where we are confident that no other "causes" exist in the system to study the "cause" in question. is it meaningful to separate events into cause and effect or is it simply up to the opinion of the observer?

does this make sense? i have posted this on another site and was attacked for my use of the words cause and effect. that i was using them in a non-normal or invalid manner. i have no desire to go through that again.

when i refer to cause and effect, i am refering to "the" cause and effect which is the subject of study in an experiment. not a usage similar to "i flipped a light switch and caused the light to come on." this is a very removed cause. i am not looking for discussions on vague or broad scoped usages, something more exact.

0n0w1c

maybe i should word it like:

what are the implications of quantum mechanics on our macro experiences of the universe? can a ball rolled off of a table actually rise rather than fall? can the observer be separate from the observed?

Lobstrosity

I'm still not 100% clear what you're asking here. It sounds like you want to have someone explain quantum mechanics to you. If this is so, I'd be glad to oblige. Until I get some clarification, however, I'll respond with the following:

Quantum mechanics tells us that essentially everything in this world is probabilistic at the smallest levels. In a lot of ways you can honestly expect that almost anything is possible. Microscopic particles can tunnel through barriers or diffract as they pass through an aperture. Particles with mass can interfere with each other as if they were waves to produce diffraction patterns. In the macroscopic world, however, all of this quantum weirdness averages out into the classical physics we learn in school. Quantum physics in general only rears its head when you are dealing with the very microscopic. The probabilities that allow for what we view as strange behavior become incredibly miniscule on the macroscopic scale. If you run into a wall enough times you could in theory tunnel through, but I wouldn't hold my breath. If you look at the equations for transmission probabilities when sending projectiles at a barrier, you find that T = e^-(10^27) when you use the macroscopic parameters V0 - E = 1 erg, barrier width a = 1 cm, and mass of the projectile particle m = 1 g. Can you fathom how small e^-(10^27) is??? (hint: you probably can't) This is why you will never ever see a macroscopic ball roll off a table in a vacuum and actually appreciably rise. Similarly, it is theoretically possible that all of the air molecules in a room could find themselves in one corner at the same time, leaving the rest of the room a vacuum. Brownian motion could physically result in this--it is not impossible. Not surprisingly, however, you don't see such a thing all that often because the probability of that is not very large (only a select few states would allow for such a configuration). Feynman Path Integrals are another example of how quantum "absurdities" average away as you tend towards the macroscopic.

Also, could you clarify what you mean by your question "can the observer be separate from the observed"? I'm not completely sure I follow you but what I suspect you're asking is whether it's possible to make an observation without affecting the very thing you're observing. If that's the question then the answer is no, it is not. Every observation you make has an effect on what you are measuring. Specifically, in quantum mechanics, each time you measure the state of a particle you collapse its wave function into one specific state (the state you measure). Prior to the measurement, the wave function could have been incredibly complex and allowed for any multitude of states, but the measurement destroys all that and sets the wave function to represent just one of those allowed states. Then this leads into the whole notion of commuting operators... At any rate, before I continue my rambling, perhaps you can tell me whether I even remotely adressed what you wanted me to address.

0n0w1c

Lobstrosity, thanks for your reply.

yes, you are in the neighborhood. i find the quantum world interesting, not only from the scientific viewpoint but also from a philosophic viewpoint. can i be more clear in what i ask?... i will try as long as you are willing to listen/read.

feel free to say i am nuts or ignorant of the concepts and ideas concerning quantum mechanics and my interpretations. the topic interests me in general so feel free to bring up any concept.

what i am thinking about is the concept of "cause and effect", the basis of classical mechanics. i feel i understood that which you relayed concerning quantum mechanics. i doubt i can talk much in mathematical formulas but i feel i have a reasonable grasp of the concepts. you of course can and please do provide any formulas you wish to attempt to explain it to me... i do follow them, i just do not know them myself.

how does a cause create a probabilistic effect? from a classical mechanics view, an effect is the result of a force in a direction. the effect should always be the same (exactly) as long as the cause is consistant. i understand that the effect is described by a wave function, but how does "cause" create probabilistic effects which are described by the wave functions? what about the cause in one instance is "different?" to produce a different effect. or is it that the "cause" is not the reason of the probabilistic effect, but rather the nature of the effects or the interaction of matter/energy?

i hope this makes sense...

p.s. yes, you understood what i was asking about the observer and the observed... that discussion will go down the philosophic trail if you wish to go there.

Bob K

Quantum Mechanics probability theory is derived from the fact that when dealing with small stuff we cannot observe and not disturb and therefore, theoretically, we cannot determine a particle's velocity and position simultaneously.

Hence, not being able to determine both a particle's velocity and position, we are limited to probabilistic predictions instead of true deterministic predictions.

But is determinism alive and well at the level of small stuff?

The Theory of the Perfect Observer

Imagine being a Perfect Observer, a PO, able to observe and not disturb small stuff (as well as big stuff). Imagine having the perceptual capability of perceiving directly and instantaneously all things and events without the perceptual problems inherent in our perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste/etc., with the result that what is perceived is perceived immediately and without distortion.

NOTE: If you are not willing to accept the premises of this gedankenexperiment (German: thought experiment, intuitive imagining), then you will miss the logic of how the premises of the PO Theory lead to the conclusion.

What would we find?

Would we find chaos, or would we find determinism, properly called causality, in which the things and events present in the Now, the current configuration of the matter/energy present in the universe, as effects from previous causes are causes of future effects?

Would we observe every possible configuration of matter/energy (all possible universes) or only the one-and-only actual configuration (the one-and-only universe)?

I vote for causality, and, therefore, the one-and-only universe.

Back-to-reality: The fact is that QM probabilistic theories work well. Where we cannot directly observe individuals members of a crowd of small stuffs, we can observe the crowd and develop averages of the crowd's behavior and therefore make predictions based upon that knowledge, inductive reasoning leading to deductive reasoning.

The PO Theory nevertheless shows us the reality of causality at all levels of observation including the level(s) of small stuffs.

Feather

That's an especially tough question.

Consider this, though: the "probabilistic" aspect of QM doesn't exist without constraint. Every system consists of some constraining parameters (more technically known as "potentials") that determine the shape of the probability wave function.

The probability distribution of a particle, in other words, is strictly dependent on the forces that can affect the particle under whatever system one is studying.

See the dilemma? How is it that deterministic potentials give rise to probabilistic interactions? I haven't heard a satisfactory philosophical answer to that yet.

But, practically speaking, QM "works," so there's no good reason to doubt its veracity. Whether that means the universe is deterministic or not is largely an irrelevent question from this point of view. The universe simply is. We may or may not be able to describe the laws of the universe properly. Anything more restrictive is merely speculation.

(If it's interesting/relevent to you, I'm firmly in favor of the philsophy of determinism.)

Bob K

Feather:From the Theory of the Perfect Observer, the PO would observe the velocities/positions of all particles, total omniscience, and would therefore be able to determine the deteminism/causality of all particles and therefore the determinism/causality which would enable him/her to create perfect predictability.

Thus, the deterministic realities, no longer deterministic potentials, herein would give rise to perfect predictions and not probabilities.

This is, however, and obviously, intuitive speculation.

The reality is that no one is perfectly omniscient and therefore does not have the deterministic/causal knowledge needed for perfect predictability. As we experience ourselves, our immediate physiologies change and cause our momentary priorities to change even though we have long-term priorities which average out over long periods of observation of ourselves, and of ourselves by others, and which generate our personalities, our consistent actions/reactions in similar situations as caused by our long-term desires, fears and priorities. As we experience ourselves change because of our physiology, we experience a sense of indeterminism, a sense of free will, which may be an illusion in the sense that if we were Perfect Observers and therefore could observe and track the velocities/positions of all particles in the universe we would then know what would be the future velocities/positions and therefore know that the universe is deterministic, that we are deterministic, and that, therefore, there are no probabilities.

For example, evolution is caused, in part, by mutations caused by cosmic rays, but if we were POs and could observe and therefore know and predict the velocities/positions of the cosmic ray particles, as well as the velocities/positions of the particles in the biology about to be hit by the cosmic rays, then, again, we would have perfect determinism and therefore perfect predictability and zero probability.

Agnosticism recognizes that not all questions have to be answered for humans to have enjoyable lives, a sort of philosophy of blissful ignorance.

I therefore agree with you on the following:

ekorczynski

Two points I'd like to add here:

1. The "Perfect Observer" concept IMHO completely violates the principle of Relativity, and even as a thought experiment it requires a prior assumption of an "objective non-relative universe", which in turn disallows any discussion of quantum physics. That is, if you want to engage in contemplating a "Perfect Observer" then you can only do so within the context of a universe completely describable by classical (non-relativistic) physics. Or I suppose one could argue that the "universe" "is" "truly" non-relativistic and thus hypothetically completely observable by a hypothetical "perfect observer", and it is only our relative perspective that limits us to experiencing relativity (but I'm fairly certain that this perspective has zero evidence to back it and plenty of evidence to contradict it). So, I consider the concept of the "Perfect Observer" to be a complete waste of time.
I take for my inspiration "Science and Sanity" (1932) by Korzybski, in which he thoroughly explains that this thought experiment is full of inherent contradictions; "instantaneous" is false to facts, "perception" is inherently relative, etc.

2. I feel compelled to correct your casual misstatement regarding the agnostic perspective,"Agnosticism recognizes that not all questions have to be answered for humans to have enjoyable lives, a sort of philosophy of blissful ignorance." IMHO, the agnostic perspective recognizes that not all questions CAN be answered (at least by us, right now), which seems quite different. Instead of summing this up as the insulting "blissful ignorance" (even meant as a joke, it perpetuates a very wrong inpression), a more accurate representation would be "principled non-belief." The bliss derives not from ignorance, but from the freedom of non-belief (and "non-belief" in this context implies that many beliefs have first been properly considered and rejected). Indeed, I would argue that both theist and atheists are typically highly ignorant of their blatant assertions and unexamined assumptions, it's just that the bliss doesn't follow.

Your Transcendent Skeptic friend,
edo

Bob K

You missed the point.

Here is the basic quote concerning The Theory of the perfect observer:
A. Einstein believed in a causal/deterministic universe, as evidenced by his complaint that "God does not play dice!" in response to claims concerning the indeterminacy of the universe derived from QM theory.

What is causality? Causes causing effects, right? Physical thingsd/events causing physical things/events, right? Something comes from something, and nothing comes from nothing, right?

What's the problem for which QM is needed? The fact that we at present cannot observe and not disturb individual small stuffs, and, consequently, we cannot observe both the velocity and the position of an individual small stuff, and, therefore, we cannot predict what the small stuff will do next, right?

Eliminate the problem by finding a way to observe and not disturb, so we can observe both the velocity and positions of individual small stuffs, and we find causality, and, therefore, determinism, at the microlevel.

Focus upon causality and skip the relativistic mysticism, accept the premises of the gedankenexperiment, and the conclusion is obvious.

If you refuse to accept the premises of the gedankenexperiment, then you will never understand the conclusion, and you will never be able to accept it.

I have never claimed that Perfect Observers actually exist. I qualified the theory by stating that the theory was derived from a gedankenexperiment.

Nevertheless, the Theory of the Perfect Observer shows us what we would have to accomplish--observe and not disturb small stuffs--if ever we are to determine if or not there is determinism at the level of small stuffs.

POs could exist and offer the possibility of 100% predictability for a given crowd of small stuffs and QM theory would continue to be a workable means of predicting the averages for crowds of small stuffs, and in all probability would be the preferred method of making such predictions in preference to assembling huge crowds of POs to observe individual small stuffs for the purpose of assembling the information needed to identify patterns of activity and to make predictions resulting from those observations.

Bob K

I have never read K's book.

I am not aware if or not anyone else has proposed a Theory of the Perfect Observer. Your quote seems to indicate that someone has proposed such a theory, and that K has responded to it.

If someone else has proposed a Theory of the Perfect Observer exactly as, if not better than, the Theory I have proposed, and K is responding to it, then he has missed the essential point. No one is claiming that POs actually exist, because the theory was designed as a gendankenexperiment only for the purpose of identifying what we would have to accomplish to be POs, but if it were possible for us to be POs, for POs to exist, and to observe and not disturb, and to observe instantaneously and thereby eliminate time dilation mirages, then the activity of small stuffs would be observable for both velocities and positions and causality and determinism at the microlevel of small stuffs would be established, regardless of K's opinion.

Your quote re: your acceptance of K's opinions, however, is proof that you cannot accept the premises of the gedankenexperiment and that, therefore, you are incapable of accepting the conclusion.

Again, I assert that ours is a causal universe, a non-flaky/non-mysterious universe, where causes cause effects, somethings come only from somethings and nothings come from nothings, and that once the observation problem--the recognized problem that we cannot observe and not disturb individual small stuffs and therefore we cannot observe/determine both the velocities and positions of individual small stuffs and therefore we cannot predict the future velocities/positions of individual small stuffs--is eliminated, observers of small stuffs, POs, at least concerning small stuffs, would observe causality--causes causing effects, somethings coming from somethings and nothings coming from nothings--and therefore determinism and predictability of individual small stuffs.