Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
This is a common misunderstanding about QM.


Strictly speaking, the entirety of quantum mechanics is based on the fact that we cannot simultaneously know the position and velocity (or energy and momentum) of a particle and that this uncertainty in both position and momentum has a limit and is expressed dp x dx > h / (2 x pi) h is plancks constant.

All this means is that we must express the position and velocity of the particle in terms of probabilities (wave functions). Long story short, since we don't know the exact state of the universe now, we can't exactly predict the state of the universe in the future.

Heisenberg himself wrote...
It is a misinterpretation to say QM implies uncaused events. Everything still has a cause...we just can't exactly predict the future because we can't exactly measure the present.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Wiploc

I'd give you a hug if I thought that was true. I wanted it to be true for so long.

Over a period of years, I would ask the physicists I ran across how they got from, "we don't know where the particle is," to "the particle doesn't have an actual location." They couldn't explain how they got there to this layman, but it was clear that they got there.

And I'm told that they have experimental confirmation: solid state computers are designed based on the belief that electrons don't have real locations. Since computers do run, the version of quantum mechanics that you call a "misinterpretation" is known to be correct.
crc

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

wiploc,
Right. See this is the part where you've been presented with facts (dx x dv <h/(2*pi)) and you reply with rhetoric ('I knew a guy who once said that....')

Better yet the 'argument' you present to support your belief is basically...

'computers therefore uncaused events'


?


You should really think about this some more.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

Bell's Theorem wasn't even published until 1964. From what year did you get your Heisenberg quote? I'd be willing to bet that it was from before this.

As far as I'm aware, Bell's Theorem removed the last hope for causal quantum mechanical events. If you're know of something new, please expand.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Not sure...

Just to clarify a bit, Bells theorem is an insight about Reality (yes...capital R) that is a development of Einstein, Podolski and Rosen's famous EPR experiment. This was the famous experiment that showed 'non-locality' or 'spooky action at a distance' or 'quantum entanglement'.

Bells theorem simply states that one of the following 3 assumptions is false.
1-Logic is valid.
2-There is a reality separate from its observation
3-Locality.

I believe the position you are presenting is that assumption 2 is false: That is there is no reality separate from its observation.
I say this because this position could be loosely misconstrued as 'Causality is undefined.' However, this is not strictly true.
It would be more accurate to say 'The observer causes the measured value'.

I (and many others) think 3-Locality is suspect. In fact non-locality has been illustrated at pretty large distances (10 km). In addition it can be exploited to do really phreakin cool things like quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation and quantum communication.


Essentially K, all I am saying is that its perfectly fine if you hold that 2 is false...however causality will be the least of your worries my friend. You'll have far bigger philosophical problems...namely, what in God's name (pardon the pun) is observing the rest of the universe when we aren't looking at it.





Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

the_cave

I disagree; it was the best the thinkers could come up with at the time.

Well, if we don't know what "first cause" is, why does anybody get to talk about it? As a matter of fact, we do talk about it, because we have ideas about what such a thing could be. We can also argue about what it could not be. Not just theologians; cosmologists as well.

Don't assume I have a definition of God that includes more than "just a 'first cause'". "God" includes the idea "first cause" (and indeed, "first cause" is technically a more recent term than "God"), so I'm willing to start with just that meaning of the word, if need be. It has nothing to do with being dishonest. It's a word, and I can use it in legitimate ways. And I'm certainly not the first to use it in this way, either. I'm also leaving the language open to possibilities of meaning; and if those possibilities do not arise, so be it. I'm not afraid of words.

Whew. Talk about postulating unobservables! Hey atheists, you going to call this one or not? Where are you guys?

But alright, I'll grant you your cosmological theory, as I am not that picky. First, please don't try to scare me off by calling the universe "puny". Clearly it's not, and it makes me feel like you're being dishonestly cynical in order to try and win an argument. But it could just be carelessness, so it's ok I'm still friendly.

Could be, I suppose, that a) there is some sort of space in which some sort of events happen, and b) only a few of these events have stable enough properties to inflate into a cosmos like ours. Could be, ok. Who knows, right? So, if this is so, then a) this space, whatever it is, is a pretty incredible place, and b) our universe is a pretty incredible thing. Trying to brush it off as "Two 5-d [!] things [!] that bumped [!] into each other [?]" seems to me like more cynicism; come on, this is a pretty colossal collision here! (Or whatever it is we are actually talking about...? I do basically know what you mean, though.) I'm quite willing to give it all kinds of grand names.

I've already commented above on the "baggage" of the term "God", so I think I'm done.

K

SOMMS:

Do you agree that Bell's Theorem eliminated hidden variables underlying the apparent randomness in quantum mechanics? If so, how can an event (such as a radioactive decay) possibly be causal?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Well...that's exactly what we are talking about. Bell's Theorem states that one of the following is false:

1-Logic is valid.
2-There is a reality separate from its observation. (There exist hidden variables)
3-Locality. (Events propagate at the speed of light)

His theorem didn't really say '2 is false'...it just says one of the above is false.


I guess I don't understand your question. How would radioactive decay imply non-causality? Could you expand this a bit...I'm not following.



Here's what I find curious about your position K. You are essentially holding that 2 is false (which is fine). However, I don't think you realize the implications for God if this were the case.

It would almost assuredly prove God's existence. What 2 is saying is that the universe exists only in its perception...there is no objective universe other than what is being percieved. Thus someone (call he/she/it X) is perceiving the universe (in essence...causing it to 'be'). Moreover, this X would have percieved every sub-atomic particle for all time. X sure sounds a whole lot like God.


I am not directly disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that if you *really* do think 2 is false then you need to stop right now, take your American Association of Athiests card out of your wallet, cut it up then drive immediately to your nearest Sunday School. Like I said, causality is the last thing an athiest has to worry about when they claim 'hidden variables don't exist'.






Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Biff the unclean

The_Cave: Don't assume I have a definition of God that includes more than "just a 'first cause'".
I believe it was the caterpillar, who chastised Alice by saying, "Who is to be the master? Me or the word?" It is no less absurd when you say it. If you are going to take common English words and ascribe your own definitions to them you might have a future waiting for you in politics.

"God" includes the idea "first cause"…
No, it includes only a myth of the "first causer." It has nothing to do with first cause except being a fairytale about it.

It has nothing to do with being dishonest.
I'm afraid that when you make a positive claim about something that you have no way of knowing and you distort the meaning of words it can hardly be seen as honesty.

It's a word, and I can use it in legitimate ways. And I'm certainly not the first to use it in this way, either.
Then please start using it in legitimate ways.

I'm also leaving the language open to possibilities of meaning; and if those possibilities do not arise, so be it. I'm not afraid of words.
I must be reading this incorrectly, please forgive me for doing so, but this seems to be something only a scoundrel would boast.

the_cave

How could the concept of a "first causer", however mythical, not have to do with the idea "first cause"?

I'm not sure what positive claim I've made of that sort, but I would be sincerely happy to respond to whatever it is you're thinking of.

I will continue to maintain that I'm not distorting the meaning of the word "God", which surely has a wide variety of meanings across cultures and philosohies.

Alright, I'll give you an example, as I sincerely don't mean to use words in illegitimate ways. I'm no Spinoza scholar, but from what little I have learned of his thought second-hand, it seems that there is an example of a perfectly well-respected thinker who used the term "God" to refer to nature, exactly and equivalently. Presumably, this term would then also refer to a natural first cause. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Spinoza, but that is different from distorting the meaning of a word, and it is certainly different than being dishonest.

Let's say I saw a bouquet of flowers, thought they were rather pretty, and said to someone "the flowers were triumphant". For all I know, this is a coined phrase--and it is certainly the case that flowers have no volition, and therefore cannot "really" be triumphant. But am I then being dishonest in uttering those words?

No problem, you're entitled to your reactions. I suspect you're reading it incorrectly. How can we avoid not leaving language open to possibilities of meaning? Let's say someone asks me how much sugar I would like in my tea. I might say "some", not really knowing exactly how much I want, nor really caring, so long as it is more than none and less than "a lot", but likewise not really knowing the exact boundaries of that range; and then see how much they put in it. However much they put into it, becomes the meaning of "some" in that instance. And I'm perfectly happy with that, and so are they.