Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Quantum Reality And Objectivism

Rate this topic


Guest Jerry

Recommended Posts

All the arguments made for the 'strangeness' of quantum mechanics violate the laws of logic and the law of identity. Any attempts to explain them in contradiction to these laws automatically invalidates them. For example - seeing the 'strangeness' of a pencil being 'bent' when placed into water and trying to explain such 'strangeness' by claiming water is an example of a violation of the law of identity and so identity (and not the conclusion in contradiction to it) is invalid.
Could you give some examples of this please? I dont understand how Copenhaganism or hidden variable theories in particular violate the law of identity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

An example? Ok - take the polarizer experiment. Except for Little's Theory of Elementary Waves, I know of no theory which does not require the principle of locality to be violated. Each theory allows for the *instantaneous* transfer of information across arbitrarily large distances. In other words, a transmission of effect with no means - ie a violation of identity.

If you want more info on this, I suggest reading works by Stephen Speicher - and even communicating with him via email. He is quite knowledgable on the topic and is usually more than willing to provide information to those who are seriously interested in the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example?  Ok - take the polarizer experiment.  Except for Little's Theory of Elementary Waves, I know of no theory which does not require the principle of locality to be violated.  Each theory allows for the *instantaneous* transfer of information across arbitrarily large distances.  In other words, a transmission of effect with no means - ie a violation of identity.

If you want more info on this, I suggest reading works by Stephen Speicher - and even communicating with him via email.  He is quite knowledgable on the topic and is usually more than willing to provide information to those who are seriously interested in the topic.

I was under the impression that most non-local causation theories 'only' required information to travel faster than the speed of light, rather than 'instantenously'? I suppose 'instantenously' is one interpretation, but I don't think its actually required, or a consequence of most explanations.

I dont claim to have any real knowledge on the subject beyond pop-science texts however; I'm not a physicist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap,

What do you mean by "distance" and "instantaneous"? Under relativistic geometry, such a concept as "instantaneous" does not exist without specifying an observer, and the concept "spacial distance" as well. "Spacetime distance" exists independent of the observer, but it precludes the idea instantaneousness: two different observers can very well observe two different events (coordinates in spacetime) happening in different orders, depending on the velocities.

All observers, however, can agree that a certain velocity is either slower than the speed of light, exactly equal to it, or faster than it. Perhaps you meant something along those lines ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

CapitalismForever says:

It is easy to see, isn't it, that the analogy cannot just as simply be extended to light: water waves arise from the motion of water molecules; sound waves arise from the motion of air molecules; light waves arise from the motion of ... BLANK OUT! Until (or rather, unless) we discover some day that there is an ether which is composed of little dotlike things whose motion results in light, much the way the motion of water molecules result in waves, we cannot objectively call light a wave in anything.
This is wrong.

Just to clarify, as I understand it, when light is referred to as an electromagnetic wave, it simply means that the strength of the electrical field and the magnetic field of light oscillates with time and distance in a particular pattern. In a sense, this is all that light is--self-sustaining electrical and magnetic fields that propagate through space, even in a vacuum. It does not require some sort of particles in motion bouncing off each other in the manner of air molecules in a sound wave. Rather, it is an energy field that changes regularly in intensity over time. Similarly, a sound wave is a propagating oscillation in pressure, and a water wave is an oscillation in the height of the water surface above or below average height.

The word wave does not necessarily imply a wave in physical particles or matter.

RadCap says:

Except for Little's Theory of Elementary Waves, I know of no theory which does not require the principle of locality to be violated. Each theory allows for the *instantaneous* transfer of information across arbitrarily large distances. In other words, a transmission of effect with no means - ie a violation of identity.

I do not think that violating the principle of locality in any way violates the law of identity. Locality is a specific, technical matter of physics, and whether or not action-at-a-distance is possible is irrelevent to the fundamental truth of the law of identity. Excellent discussions of this issue can be found here:

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/tn_bell_5.htm

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_tew.htm

I am hesitant to disagree with you RadCap, because on the whole you are completely correct:

Ibridges is talking nonsense. No experiment can contradict the law of identity, since this law is the basis for the very concept of experimentation and of knowledge in general. Nothing in the actual experimental observations that underlie quantum mechanics contradicts Objectivism, nor is it possible that any scientific observations, ever, could contradict the Objectivist positions regarding identity, causality, or the objectivity of reality. What Objectivism does reject is the assertions that QM does in fact "refute" the law of identity, or that QM proves that consciousness determines reality, or any of the other mystical interpretations of QM. Objectivism also rejects as arbitrary the current theories in physics that are not based on empirical observations, but on "free creations of the human mind," like the 23 dimensional string theories, or the theories that claim there is no such thing as time, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, as I understand it, when light is referred to as an electromagnetic wave, it simply means that the strength of the electrical field and the magnetic field of light oscillates with time and distance in a particular pattern. In a sense, this is all that light is--self-sustaining electrical and magnetic fields that propagate through space, even in a vacuum. It does not require some sort of particles in motion bouncing off each other in the manner of air molecules in a sound wave. Rather, it is an energy field that changes regularly in intensity over time. Similarly, a sound wave is a propagating oscillation in pressure, and a water wave is an oscillation in the height of the water surface above or below average height.
Water waves and sound waves are traditional mechanical waves which propagate through a medium. In an elastic media more than one wave can travel through the same space independently. The reason for this is that it is not the medium which moves -- a mechanical wave such as water or sound transmits energy from one part of the medium to the next, in effect creating a disturbance which propagates through the medium itself. There is no bulk movement of the entire matter of which the medium is composed.

The problem with your "self-sustaining electrical and magnetic fields that propagate through space, even in a vacuum" is that either a field is something, or it is not. I grant that electromagnetic radiation need not, of necessity, be propagation through a medium in the same sense as with mechanical waves of water and sound. But, if electromagnetic radiation is decribed through the field equation, then the field equation is primarily a description of the medium. Clearly there is something missing in terms of the physics describing this phenomena. What is missing is the separation of electromagnetic behavior into its particle nature and its wave nature, with each being a physical existent. The field concept is, if you will pardon the metaphor, an attempt to have electromagnetic radiation, and eat it too.

I do not think that violating the principle of locality in any way violates the law of identity.

That statement has been refuted so many times, in so many ways, that I even lack the motivation to argue anything beyond stating, most emphatically, that it is philosophically absurd.

If you are going to appeal to the words of others, then I would appeal to someone more knowledgeable of Objectivist philosophy. About a year ago on HBL I stated:

"My position on nonlocality is unequivocal and unbending: it is a philosophical absurdity and a scientific insult. No physical action occurs instantaneously or without any means, and to do so would violate the law of identity."

To which Harry Binswanger replied with two words: I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stephen speicher said:

I grant that electromagnetic radiation need not, of necessity, be propagation through a medium in the same sense as with mechanical waves of water and sound. But, if electromagnetic radiation is decribed through the field equation, then the field equation is primarily a description of the medium. Clearly there is something missing in terms of the physics describing this phenomena. What is missing is the separation of electromagnetic behavior into its particle nature and its wave nature, with each being a physical existent. The field concept is, if you will pardon the metaphor, an attempt to have electromagnetic radiation, and eat it too.
I agree with you. I agree that the description of electromagnetic radiation I gave is incomplete. I was only pointing out what the first sentence in the above quote repeats--that to be a wave (or to have wave-like properties, or whatever) light does not have to consist of "little dot-like particles" bouncing off each other like sound waves in air. You are attacking a position I did not assert. In other words, I said that light involves oscillating electrical and magnetic fields, which is true. I did not say that this was the complete description, or that it suffices to describe how it propagates or what it propagates through.

regarding locality:

That statement has been refuted so many times, in so many ways, that I even lack the motivation to argue anything beyond stating, most emphatically, that it is philosophically absurd.
Regardless, might I ask that you give me your argument briefly for why locality violates identity? I am simply curious. If you won't, can someone else?

Can you explain what you think is wrong with Harriman's statement:

Furthermore, if an action at location A causes a change at location B, metaphysics alone does not tell us that there was a time delay while something moved from A to B. It is not the function of metaphysics to answer questions such as: when one sits on a teeter-totter, does the other end simultaneously rise?
I cannot see how this statement could be false. Isn't it the function of physics, not metaphysics, to say whether the effect of a particle on another particle depends on how close the particles are?

If you are going to appeal to the words of others, then I would appeal to someone more knowledgeable of Objectivist philosophy.
Well, yes, I generally appeal to the words of physicists to explain physics to me, since I am not a physicist. And I certainly view Dr. Binswanger as an authority on Objectivism, but I am not in a position to say whether Harriman or Norsen have a "proper" level of knowledge of Objectivism. I only know that their statements in the articles I linked are logical. I can only assume that you are engaging in ad hominem because you disagree with them on locality.

"My position on nonlocality is unequivocal and unbending: it is a philosophical absurdity and a scientific insult. No physical action occurs instantaneously or without any means, and to do so would violate the law of identity."
I agree with that statement as well--at least the part that says an action occuring without any means would violate identity. But why can't an action occur instantaneously and with a definite means? Again, the answer has to come from physics, not metaphysics.

And just to be clear, I have no opinion whatsoever on whether locality is or is not an actual physical law, because I have no knowledge of the evidence either way. I simply hold that non-locality could theoretically exist and not contradict the law of identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to be clear, I have no opinion whatsoever on whether locality is or is not an actual physical law, because I have no knowledge of the evidence either way.  I simply hold that non-locality could theoretically exist and not contradict the law of identity.

Nonlocality is instantaneous action-at-a-distance, and it is easy to show philosophically why that contradicts identity. Here is just a part of my many discussions about this on HBL. This one focuses more on the "instantaneous" part, because you asked "why can't an action occur instantaneously?"

The idea of the 'instantaneous' or the 'immediate' is an invalid concept, at least as far as an actuality is concerned. To say that any effect occurs instantaneously is to assert that the effect occurs without any means. Just as physical existents must be finite in size, so too the separation of causally connected events must be finite in time. To quote Dr. Binswanger: "The idea of an infinitely small amount of length or temporal duration has validity only as a mathematical device useful for making certain calculations, not as a description of components of reality."

Any causal process must be connected across a period of time, lest it lose all meaning in regard to causality. Note that when we speak of causality, ultimately we mean the actions of entities. To assert that a change to a physical system "instantaneously redounds throughout the whole" is to assert that a change occurs absent of action. An action without duration is an action without identity.

I strongly believe that nonlocality is not just wrong, but that it is an invalid concept, just as defined by Miss Rand. To remind, in ITOE Miss Rand says that invalid concepts are "...words that represent attempts to integrate errors, contradictions or false propositions, such as concepts originating in mysticism -- or words without specific meanings, without referents..."

p.s. I chose to ignore your personal remarks. If you do not tone it down and just deal with the facts, do not expect any further replies. This issue of nonlocality is tiresome to me because I have explained it many different times, and in many different ways. I do not need too much of an excuse to walk away from it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose to ignore your personal remarks. If you do not tone it down and just deal with the facts, do not expect any further replies.
Consider that when you said the following:

If you are going to appeal to the words of others, then I would appeal to someone more knowledgeable of Objectivist philosophy.
it was stated as a rejection of the articles i gave by Norsen and Harriman. So, at that point, you had asserted only that their arguments were invalid because they are ignorant of Objectivism. I invite you to explain to me why I should not have interpreted this as ad hominem.

The only thing you can accuse me of when I said:

I can only assume that you are engaging in ad hominem because you disagree with them on locality.
is speculation as to your motives. I acknowledge that you may have said this in merely an offhand way, or that it was necessarily a blanket statement because you did not want to explain yourself further, or even that it was only a mild instance of ad hominem, but it remains an invalid argument--detailed knowledge of Objectivism is not necessary to be able to make a rational judgement about the issue of locality.

At any rate, I fail to see how the single "personal remark" i made constitutes a hostile tone.

Mr. Speicher, do not expect me to grant you the right to scold me for being petty when I point out an obvious error in your logic. If my refusal to do so means that you will no longer discuss this with me, so be it, but that would be unfortunate because I am interested in your point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Let me provide a little context.

I am usually quite a benevolent fellow with a sincere interest in understanding the thinking of other people. I enjoy finding ways to communicate complex ideas to people who want to learn. On the other hand, I do not abide with those who are belligerent or are not serious about ideas. I go by my own name and do not hide behind anonymity. I am not ashamed or afraid to be seen as I am.

There are a small group of people who, not being able to get their way on moderated groups, follow me around from time to time on public groups, spreading lies about me and about some things I value. They are mean little doggies snipping at my heels, and I choose to ignore them. It is because of such dishonest people that I no longer discuss Little's Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) except on groups with rational moderation.

Now, I am not accusing you of being one of these same people, but, as an anonymous person, out of the blue you dredged up a two-and-one-half month-old post and responded to a comment by RadCap on the TEW, shortly after I joined this group. I was reluctant to even comment -- and, frankly, sorry that I did -- especially about a subject which has been so thrashed out, so many times, and so misrepresented by some of the very same people to whom I refer. Let's say that, mildly speaking, I have become sensitized to the prospect of less than honest behavior on the part of some people, in regard to certain issues.

Now, with that said, if you were offended by any of my words, I apololgize for that.

All that I have to offer in way of explanation is what I have written above. But, I do note that, with prodding, I did respond, and the overwhelming bulk of my words consisted of a direct response to the issue of nonlocality which you brought up, even specialized to focus on the "instantaneous" because you had singled that out as a question. Your choice was to ignore all of that content, and to write a longer post focusing on other personal matters. If such was more important to you, that was your choice, and since I have apologized I grant you the right to have done so.

But what you do now is also your choice. You can deal with the philosophical arguments I presented, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speicher, I responded first to the matter of the alledged personal remark because it takes a good deal more time to figure out how to address your philosophical views.

Now, I am not accusing you of being one of these same people, but, as an anonymous person, out of the blue you dredged up a two-and-one-half month-old post and responded to a comment by RadCap on the TEW, shortly after I joined this group.
This is because I too have only recently joined this group. Also, I have only recently developed an interest in the issue of objectivity in quantum mechanics. Before posting my response to RadCap I had heard of Lewis Little's TEW on the HBL list, but I did not take much notice of it. I looked into it when it was brought up several months ago only to the extent that I found the articles which I already mentioned. Now, since you responded to me I have done some digging, and it seems that I missed out on whatever controversy existed on that list over this theory (I have only subscribed for 5 or 6 months). I now see that you have debated Norsen on this before, and that there is more invested personally in this matter than I was aware of. The point is, I assure you I am not a mean little doggie, because the issue is new to me.

But, I do note that, with prodding, I did respond, and the overwhelming bulk of my words consisted of a direct response to the issue of nonlocality which you brought up
And I thank you for your responses and your time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of the 'instantaneous' or the 'immediate' is an invalid concept, at least as far as an actuality is concerned. To say that any effect occurs instantaneously is to assert that the effect occurs without any means. Just as physical existents must be finite in size, so too the separation of causally connected events must be finite in time.
Assuming for a moment that the law of identity does indeed prohibit instantaneous action, I have one question: If you replaced, in descriptions of non-locality, the word instantaneous with "occurring in an extremely small, or even in the smallest possible real time interval," wouldn't this allow for the observations that are reputed to show non-locality, while still allowing for the propagation of action, albeit at a speed that is many times greater than light speed? If this speed was beyond the limit of any human instrument to detect, wouldn't it appear to be instantaneous while not contradicting your position?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming for a moment that the law of identity does indeed prohibit instantaneous action, I have one question: ...

In this post, and in the immediately prior one, you have asked a couple of scientific questions that I would be most happy to answer. However, before we move on to science I want to make sure that we are in agreement about the more fundamental philosophical principles. So, rather than "Assuming for a moment ..." I would first like a direct response to the philosophical issue which you initially raised, and which I directly addressed. I offered philosophic arguments as to why nonlocality is a violation of identity. At least one noted philosopher has even stated that such philosophical arguments are not even necessary and that common sense is sufficient to refute nonlocality.

So, I ask you directly: Do you or do you not agree that instantaneous action-at-a-distance is a violation of identity?

I am leaving shortly and will gone for most of the day, but when I return I will look for your response, and if we are in agreement on the philosophy, I will be delighted to move on to the scientific questions. If you are not in agreement with the philosophical issue of nonlocality as described above, then please tell me your reasons why and let us debate that issue before we move on to science. I also noted an interesting question from (if I recall correctly) MinorityOfOne. I will also respond to that question, and others which may arise, when I return late in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a comment regarding the Harriman quote discussed in this thread.

Furthermore, if an action at location A causes a change at location B, metaphysics alone does not tell us that there was a time delay while something moved from A to B. It is not the function of metaphysics to answer questions such as: when one sits on a teeter-totter, does the other end simultaneously rise?

I would agree that it is absurd that the action of an entity at one location could cause a change in another entity at another location, without something "going on in between." If this is what is meant by "non-locality" and "action at a distance," I can see why one would rule it out. It would be magic.

But the Harriman quote, or at least his example, deals with the case of a single entity that is set in motion. And here there is no "action at a distance" if one part starts moving simultaneously with another. An entity is not at a distance from itself.

Remember that we get the very concept of "action" from watching entities like teeter-totters move. And indeed, to our eyes, it does seem as if both ends are set in motion at once. There is no apparent "causal process" involving the impact on one end "redounding throughout the whole" across time. The entity just starts moving (as far as we can tell by sense perception alone), and the cause is grasped as the perceivable impact on one end.

It is from observations like these that we also get the concepts/axioms of identity and causality. To attempt to deduce from these that there must be a causal process across time internal to the entity - a process not perceivable by us and not part of the basis for our original grasp of identity, action and causality, is pure rationalism. And it is reversing the hierarchical order of "entity" and "action."

Maybe the ether is one big entity, and an impact here on earth causes an instantaneous change in the next galaxy - a change in the *same* entity. Tortuous deductions from axioms cannot tell us one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that it is absurd that the action of an entity at one location could cause a change in another entity at another location, without something "going on in between." If this is what is meant by "non-locality" and "action at a distance," I can see why one would rule it out. It would be magic.

But the Harriman quote, or at least his example, deals with the case of a single entity that is set in motion. And here there is no "action at a distance" if one part starts moving simultaneously with another. An entity is not at a distance from itself.

Remember that we get the very concept of "action" from watching entities like teeter-totters move. And indeed, to our eyes, it does seem as if both ends are set in motion at once. There is no apparent "causal process" involving the impact on one end "redounding throughout  the whole" across time. The entity just starts moving (as far as we can tell by sense perception alone), and the cause is grasped as the perceivable impact on one end.

It is from observations like these that we also get the concepts/axioms of identity and causality.

First, I will point out that this is actually part of a package-deal in the full context of Harriman's remarks. The issue of nonlocality arose specifically in regard to the EPR-type experiments, where two individual photons are separated without regard for the extent of the distance between. In principle the separation can be at two ends of the universe. In practice the experiment has been done with miles inbetween. The implication of this "rigid body" was that somehow, by some unspecified means, these two physically separated photons are magically connected as if they were some sort of rigid body physical system, which is patently absurd. Here are the original words from Harriman:

"we cannot even deduce that all interactions must 'propagate'; metaphysics cannot rule out the existence of "rigid bodies," i.e., physical systems that are interconnected in such a way that a change at one location instantaneously redounds throughout the whole."

Second, if we were to rely only on observation of a teeter-totter for the perceptual data upon which we based our philosophical principles, then indeed we might be misled. But, fortunately, we live in a world in which we make countless observations which contradict the inference drawn from a teeter-totter. Even a child experiences the gradual bending of objects when forces are applied. If the whole world were a teeter-totter we could perhaps develop the Philosophy of Teeter-Totterism, but I am thankful that that is not the world that I live in.

An analogy would be: If all we ever observed is a stick bent in water, we would never learn that the stick itself was actually straight. But, that is not the world we live in, and we compare what appears to be the case with other sensory data. The world is not composed of only teeter-totters and bent sticks, and that is why we can develop philosophic principles such as causality and identity, and we can offer, as I did, very specific philosophical arguments against instantaneous action. If we have an observation which appears to contradict those principles, then we need to discover some explanation, but we do not abandon our fundamental principles because we saw a teeter-totter or a stick in the water.

To attempt to deduce from these that there must be a causal process across time internal to the entity - a process not perceivable by us and not part of the basis for our original grasp of identity, action and causality, is pure rationalism. And it is reversing the hierarchical order of "entity" and "action."

Maybe the ether is one big entity, and an impact here on earth causes an instantaneous change in the next galaxy - a change in the *same* entity. Tortuous deductions from axioms cannot tell us one way or the other.

The juxtapostion of this latter statement with the accusation of rationalism in the former, is, indeed, quite precious. I suppose if we ignore all of our observations we might make such as a statement as has been made right above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Speicher writes:

Here are the original words from Harriman:

"we cannot even deduce that all interactions must 'propagate'; metaphysics cannot rule out the existence of "rigid bodies," i.e., physical systems that are interconnected in such a way that a change at one location instantaneously redounds throughout the whole."

David Harriman published his article on the Objective Science web site on November 13, 2001. The very next day, he emended the section Speicher quotes above, presumably because he thought it was imprecise and did not fully reflect his views. The emended version was the quote I gave in my post.

It is all documented here:

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_tew.htm

Stephen Speicher knows all of this perfectly well. He deliberately misrepresents Harriman's views. His describing the formulation he quotes as Harriman's "original words" is meant to insulate him from any charge of dishonesty by being "technically correct."

Well, draw your own conclusions.

As for the rest of his post, Speicher gives no arguments from metaphysics why an entity cannot move as a whole, or why Harriman is incorrect. Cracks about "The Philosophy of Teeter-Totterism" is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He deliberately misrepresents Harriman's views.

Well, this is a really good one, even from someone posting with anonymity. It truly stretches one's imagination to be accused of misrepresentation by providing an accurate quotation!

In fact, Harriman created three different versions of the offending phrase, all of which were refuted when originally presented, and are refuted by what I said here. Here are the three different versions, in chronological order.

1) (On the Yahoo group TEWLIP)

"Furthermore, we cannot even deduce that all interactions must 'propagate'; metaphysics cannot rule out the existence of 'rigid bodies,' i.e., physical systems that are interconnected in such a way that a change at one location instantaneously redounds throughout the whole."

(2) (On the Yahoo group objsci)

"Furthermore, we cannot deduce from metaphysics that all interactions must 'propagate' between the parts of a physical system; perhaps certain actions upon some physical systems cause an immediate change to the system as a whole."

(3) (On HBL and as modified on objsci)

"Furthermore, if an action at location A causes a change at location B, metaphysics alone does not tell us that there was a time delay while something moved from A to B."

In this context there is no meaningful distinction between "instantaneously," "immediate," and no "time delay." All are expressions of nonlocality, which was refuted by arguments I have presented.

Well, draw your own conclusions.

At least one conclusion is perfectly clear: "ragnarhedin" chose not to respond with argumentation against any of the substantive arguments which I made. Instead of arguments, all he offered were unwarranted personal accusations and unsubstantiated opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The personal accusation made against Stephen Speicher was not unwarranted. I explained why "providing an accurate quotation" constitutes misrepresentation. It does so because Speicher knows perfectly well that the "accurate quotation" he provided was a formulation quickly emended by the author.

He also knows very well that there is indeed a "meaningful distinction" between the quotes. There is a good reason why the original formulation was emended; it is the same reason why Speicher likes to quote it. The first formulation could be taken to imply that something moves from A to B in no time, which is of course impossible, whereas Harriman's actual position is that we cannot rule out on metaphysical grounds that action at A can cause a change at B without something moving between them - as when A and B are different points of an entity which starts moving.

Speicher likes to argue against the former position, which is easy. He then pretends he has disproven the second position, and when challenged on this, he refers back to his arguments against the first position and claims that these have not been rebutted. Well, of course they haven't, since they're right. But they're irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"ragnarhedin" wrote:

"The personal accusation made against Stephen Speicher was not unwarranted"

"He deliberately misrepresents ..."

"... constitutes misrepresentation" 

"Speicher knows perfectly well ..." 

"Speicher likes to argue ..." 

"He then pretends ..." 

Okay, I will grant that "ragnarhedin" does not like me.

But, instead of personal accusations, perhaps we can focus on the facts. Here are some questions for "ragnarhedin."

(1) I wrote: "In this context there is no meaningful distinction between 'instantaneously,' 'immediate,' and no 'time delay. All are expressions of nonlocality, which was refuted by arguments I have presented."

"ragnarhedin" disagrees. If there is a meaningful distinction between "instantaneously," "immediate," and no "time delay," what is it? They all look the same to me.

(2) "ragnarhedin" wrote: "Maybe the ether is one big entity, and an impact here on earth causes an instantaneous change in the next galaxy - a change in the *same* entity. Tortuous deductions from axioms cannot tell us one way or the other."

How can our galaxy and the next galaxy be the same entity? They are separate, distinct things with separate properties and denoted by separate words ("our," "next"). Is "ragnarhedin" saying that something -- let's say a beam of light -- can move from our galaxy to the next galaxy either "instantaneously," "immediately," or with no "time delay?" Or, is he saying that since our galaxy and the next galaxy are really the same entity, that the light beam isn't really moving anywhere?

Either one seems self-contradictory and contrary to experience and common sense.

(3) "ragnarhedin" wrote: "But the Harriman quote, or at least his example, deals with the case of a single entity that is set in motion."

I went back to the Harriman article (http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_tew.htm) and it began with this summary: "In my judgment, violations of the Bell inequalities in 'double-delayed-choice' (DDC) experiments have proven the existence of "non-local" interactions."

So, the context of his remarks are the experiments. The DDC experiments involve two separate particles moving in opposite directions through space, and two individual detectors separated by miles. How can they be an examples of a "single entity" or a "rigid body" that acts as a whole? Or are the particles not really moving in opposite directions but really moving in unison somehow? How can something be "rigid" and have internal, separately moving parts?

(4) Does Harriman endorse nonlocality? In the cited article, it certainly seems as if he does. If so, what does he mean by "non-locality" which is different from what I have objected to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1)

The point is not so much any distinction between 'instantaneously,' 'immediate,' and 'no time delay,' but whether it is implied by the wider context of the sentences that, say, a series of motions could take place in no time. A phrase like "instantaneously redounds throughout the whole" could be interpreted this way, and was therefore changed. Or so I assume - I am certainly not speaking for David Harriman.

2)

The purpose of my thought experiment was to illustrate that there is very little physics we can deduce from philosophical axioms alone. I am therefore not going to entertain detailed questions about the physical properties of my scenario. The question is not, How could this be the case? I have no idea how or whether it could be the case. It probably isn't. If one knows something of physics, one might well be in a position to say it certainly isn't. But one cannot sit and deduce this stuff from axioms. On that basis, one can merely rule out that which directly contradicts the axioms. And it really has to be direct and obvious.

(3)

I have no idea how this relates to the DDC experiments. That would be physics, not metaphysics. Maybe the change in one particle effects the "little stuff" in a way that causes a change in another particle somewhere else. Maybe the "little stuff" is really the "big stuff." And maybe not. And maybe physics can prove that this could not be the case. But not metaphysics.

(4)

I can't answer for Harriman on anything. But there is nothing in his considered statement that implies either that there could be magical "action-at-a-distance," if this means that some entity can have direct causal efficacy where it is not, OR that there could be motion without time, or anything that that one could rule out by A is A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harriman's actual position is that we cannot rule out on metaphysical grounds that action at A can cause a change at B without something moving between them - as when A and B are different points of an entity which starts moving.

Speicher likes to argue against the former position, which is easy. He then pretends he has disproven the second position, and when challenged on this, he refers back to his arguments against the first position and claims that these have not been rebutted.

Again, I realize I am not liked.

The fact is, I did directly address this position in my post. The essence of my argument was:

We do not get our fundamental philosophical principles (identity, causality, etc.) only from an observation of a teeter-totter, which for a thick-enough board it may appear there is no delay between a force applied and the movement of the whole. (Of course, scientifically we know that the interatomic forces are transmitted internally at the speed of sound in the material. But, here we are discussing philosophy, not science.)

We have many, many other observations of the connection between a cause and an effect, and of the time delay between the two. Even a child bending a stick observes and grasps that, in "ragnarhedin's" own words, "the action at A can cause a change at B," and that, in fact, we do see the time delay. It is from hundreds, thousands, and more of these observations that we learn that a causal process must be connected across a period of time. That is what causality requires.

So, we develop our philosophic principles based on these and other observations and then, if we see something like the teeter-totter, we do not throw out causality and identity. Since we know causal connections must be connected across time, we realize there is a time delay, even if it is too fast to see. In fact, just as with the stick that appears to be bent when in water, our observation is giving us additional evidence about reality. For the bent stick -- refraction of light. For the teeter-totter -- elastic deformation.

Just as we do not discard our philosophical principles because we see a bent stick, we should not discard our philosophical principles when we see a teeter-totter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"ragnarhedin"'s answers are puzzling and raise more questions. I'll take his answers one at a time to keep the postings from getting too long.

I asked:

(1) I wrote: "In this context there is no meaningful distinction between 'instantaneously,' 'immediate,' and no 'time delay. All are expressions of nonlocality, which was refuted by arguments I have presented."

"ragnarhedin" disagrees. If there is a meaningful distinction between "instantaneously," "immediate," and no "time delay," what is it? They all look the same to me.

"ragnarhedin" answered:

The point is not so much any distinction between 'instantaneously,' 'immediate,' and 'no time delay,' but whether it is implied by the wider context of the sentences that, say, a series of motions could take place in no time.

Well, does it imply that a series of motions could take place in no time? Why or why not?

A phrase like "instantaneously redounds throughout the whole" could be interpreted this way, and was therefore changed. Or so I assume - I am certainly not speaking for David Harriman.

Since "ragnarhedin" says he is certainly not speaking for David Harriman, it follows he is talking for himself, which is what I assumed in the beginning.

So let's get back to my first question for "ragnarhedin": If there is a meaningful distinction between "instantaneously," "immediate," and no "time delay," what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second question for "ragnarhedin":

I asked:

(2) "ragnarhedin" wrote: "Maybe the ether is one big entity, and an impact here on earth causes an instantaneous change in the next galaxy - a change in the *same* entity. Tortuous deductions from axioms cannot tell us one way or the other."

How can our galaxy and the next galaxy be the same entity? They are separate, distinct things with separate properties and denoted by separate words ("our," "next"). Is "ragnarhedin" saying that something -- let's say a beam of light -- can move from our galaxy to the next galaxy either "instantaneously," "immediately," or with no "time delay?" Or, is he saying that since our galaxy and the next galaxy are really the same entity, that the light beam isn't really moving anywhere?

Either one seems self-contradictory and contrary to experience and common sense.

"ragnarhedin" answered:

The purpose of my thought experiment was to illustrate that there is very little physics we can deduce from philosophical axioms alone. I am therefore not going to entertain detailed questions about the physical properties of my scenario. The question is not, How could this be the case? I have no idea how or whether it could be the case.

If "ragnarhedin" says he has "no idea how or whether it could be the case," then why did he bring it up? As I stated in my question above, his thought experiment is "self-contradictory and contrary to experience and common sense." The "thought experiment" should either be retracted, or defended.

"ragnarhedin" continued:

But one cannot sit and deduce this stuff from axioms. On that basis, one can merely rule out that which directly contradicts the axioms. And it really has to be direct and obvious.

I have not deduced "this stuff from axioms," but I have shown that nonlocality does contradict the axioms. Why isn't this enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third question for "ragnarhedin":

I asked:

(3) "ragnarhedin" wrote: "But the Harriman quote, or at least his example, deals with the case of a single entity that is set in motion."

I went back to the Harriman article (http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_tew.htm) and it began with this summary: "In my judgment, violations of the Bell inequalities in 'double-delayed-choice' (DDC) experiments have proven the existence of "non-local" interactions."

So, the context of his remarks are the experiments. The DDC experiments involve two separate particles moving in opposite directions through space, and two individual detectors separated by miles. How can they be an examples of a "single entity" or a "rigid body" that acts as a whole? Or are the particles not really moving in opposite directions but really moving in unison somehow? How can something be "rigid" and have internal, separately moving parts?

"ragnarhedin" answered:

I have no idea how this relates to the DDC experiments.

Then why bring up the article at all?

The article defended nonlocality on the basis of the DDC experiments. The "single entity" example was meant to show that nonlocality is consistent with the DDC experiments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fourth question for "ragnarhedin":

I asked:

(4) Does Harriman endorse nonlocality? In the cited article, it certainly seems as if he does. If so, what does he mean by "non-locality" which is different from what I have objected to?
"ragnarhedin" answered:

I can't answer for Harriman on anything. But there is nothing in his considered statement that implies either that there could be magical "action-at-a-distance," if this means that some entity can have direct causal efficacy where it is not, OR that there could be motion without time, or anything that that one could rule out by A is A.

Fine, then answer for yourself. You say (above) that Harriman's stated view of nonlocality does not violate the axioms. I have argued that they do. How do you answer my arguments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...