Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What Do Bell's Inequality And Modus Operandi Imply?

Rate this topic


Starblade
 Share

Recommended Posts

What mechanism allows the universe to be perceived as statistical? Is it true that we are observing all the possible information about the universe, or only that segment of the information which is available to us? IE, are there different parts of the universe which are fundamentally inaccessible for which the universe, in the context of these different parts, is completely deterministic, and since we are only limited to a certain part of the universe we see things as if they were indeterministic? While indeterminism alone isn't enough to imply a multi-manifold universe (I refuse to use the nonsense term multiverse) the spooky action at a distance implied by Bell's Theorem and Modus Operandi taken together does seem to imply it.

What can be said about taking Bell's Theorem in the context of Modus Operandi, and vice versa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What mechanism allows the universe to be perceived as statistical? Is it true that we are observing all the possible information about the universe, or only that segment of the information which is available to us?
To take just these two parts, we don't perceive the universe as statistical, and it doesn't mean anything to "perceive the universe as statistical". We are only, at this moment, observing specific aspects of the universe, and we are not observing any information about the universe.
IE, are there different parts of the universe which are fundamentally inaccessible for which the universe, in the context of these different parts, is completely deterministic, and since we are only limited to a certain part of the universe we see things as if they were indeterministic?
There are certainly parts of the universe which are inaccessible to us; I don't know what difference you're implying with "fundamentally". This has nothing to do with determinism. I don't think you're asking the real question that you intended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not see the universe as "indeterministic". That is simply a poor conclusion reached using the wrong philosophical principals as starting points. Similar to the environmentalist's wacko's conclusion that man is somehow causing a warming of the earth while ignoring the fact that any heat on the earth is caused by energy from the Sun and that the Sun is in a period where it's energy output is increasing. It is increasing at a rate such that if a graph of energy output from the Sun vs time where overlayed on a graph of mean global temperature vs time on Earth they would nearly perfectly match. Wow what a concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starblade:

Have you read Little's Theory of Elementary Waves? I looked that up after my Mod Phys class today, which gave me a headache because the teacher spent the whole time discussing the theory of relativity and how two lights flashing at the same time flashed both simultaneously and non-simultaneously, depending on where you observed them from. Me: Well, what you see is different, sure. But what's the point?

Teacher: No, the lights themselves flash both simultaneously and non-simultaneously Me: ...

Heh, and then there's Schroedinger's Cat. I don't like Mod Phys very much. I did enjoy reading the paper on TEW though.

Here's a link to the paper on TEW:

http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html

Edited by non-contradictor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not see the universe as "indeterministic". That is simply a poor conclusion reached using the wrong philosophical principals as starting points.

Okay, perhaps I should rephrase that. A thing's MEASURED characteristics are correlated statistically rather than statically.

Similar to the environmentalist's wacko's conclusion that man is somehow causing a warming of the earth while ignoring the fact that any heat on the earth is caused by energy from the Sun and that the Sun is in a period where it's energy output is increasing.
How is this not a false analogy? BTW, it's not about making a correlation between two things and implying causation. It's about identifying something and then associating a cnocept with it. Two completely different processes. One is about comparing two processes with eachother, the other is about comparing sensory information against previously existing concepts.

It is increasing at a rate such that if a graph of energy output from the Sun vs time where overlayed on a graph of mean global temperature vs time on Earth they would nearly perfectly match. Wow what a concept.

Your sarcasm does not amuse. Especially since it's based on a false analogy.

BTW, weren't we not supposed to make personal attacks? This comes pretty close.

Starblade:

Have you read Little's Theory of Elementary Waves? I looked that up after my Mod Phys class today, which gave me a headache because the teacher spent the whole time discussing the theory of relativity and how two lights flashing at the same time flashed both simultaneously and non-simultaneously, depending on where you observed them from. Me: Well, what you see is different, sure. But what's the point?

Teacher: No, the lights themselves flash both simultaneously and non-simultaneously Me: ...

Heh, and then there's Schroedinger's Cat. I don't like Mod Phys very much. I did enjoy reading the paper on TEW though.

Here's a link to the paper on TEW:

http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html

TEW sounds like it's based on classical thinking. Also, it may not violate a specific version of Bell's Inequality, but how does it stand up to the concept as a whole?

Why do so many Objectivists misunderstand relativity and quantum physics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me I misunderstand neither relativity not QM. Normal interpretations simply MUST be wrong because they violate philosophical principals such as causality and identity.

Normal interpretations neither violate causality nor identity.

GR, for instance, is about causal fields, if you understand what I'm saying. Causation definately applies, and identity is a COMPOSITE function. Measurement only reveals one component of the identity because we have to take into account reference frame.

QFT simply asks us to reconsider what causality and identity actually mean. It simply states that the specific measurements are not a relevant part of the identity, and that you cannot measure both. A thing's identity is not its measured properties but a composite, spread out waveform. Causation is simply defined as a noncontradictory change or set of changes. Whether they are throughout space or time is not relevant at high energy scales but highly relevant at low energy scales because of the laws of thermodynamics.

We can only define things such as causation and identity from our experience. We KNOW they exist, and can come up with a set of defining characteristics, but HOW they exist, IE what the details are, is a matter of looking at the real world. The real world operates differently depending on context. We can't expect the concept of a thing in one context to spill over into other contexts indiscriminantly. A concept is formed, for one, when we recognize to units and integrate them. Recognizing one unit is simply recognizing an object, which is different. Our concepts of specific things in specific contexts don't change, but our general concepts must.

BTW, I asked the question about Bell's Inequality and Modus Operandi because I wanted to ask if, in light of evidence of Bell's Inequality, and the logic of Modus Operandi, some kind of multi-manifold theory can be implied without violating Occam's Razor. That does not mean I believe it, because there are several other explanations. There is a problem in that there is no mechanism known for why we travel along one worldline and not another. There are other mechanisms but I do not know about them, however all single manifold deterministic interpretations I know of must violate Bell's Inequality, and all single manifold indeterministic interpretations I know of must violate Modus Operandi. Notice how I'm putting it in the context of my knowledge. As for that TEW thing, I'm going to have to present it to a physics newsgroup, a THOUGHTFUL one, to "get" it.

Edited by Starblade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QFT simply asks us to reconsider what causality and identity actually mean.

This is why the normal interpretations MUST be wrong, because science can NOT negate philosophical principals and be true in reality. Also, while GR is true beyond doubt, I hope you don't take the standard interpretation that spacetime is "curved" as actually possible in reality. Space and time are concepts relating to relationships between existents NOT entities in themselves that can magically morph their "shape". But this off your topic so I'll drop it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normal interpretations neither violate causality nor identity.

(...)

QFT simply asks us to reconsider what causality and identity actually mean. It simply states that the specific measurements are not a relevant part of the identity, and that you cannot measure both. A thing's identity is not its measured properties but a composite, spread out waveform. Causation is simply defined as a noncontradictory change or set of changes. Whether they are throughout space or time is not relevant at high energy scales but highly relevant at low energy scales because of the laws of thermodynamics.

I dont know much about physics so I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that QFT doesnt specify a quantum physics interpretation - its just a mathematical framework within which physical theories can be constructed. Any interpretation of quantum physics which was comptaible with the standard mathematical QM formalism would by definition be compatible with QFT, because QFT is built on the QM axioms, not the physical interpretation of these.

This is why the normal interpretations MUST be wrong, because science can NOT negate philosophical principals and be true in reality. Also, while GR is true beyond doubt, I hope you don't take the standard interpretation that spacetime is "curved" as actually possible in reality. Space and time are concepts relating to relationships between existents NOT entities in themselves that can magically morph their "shape". But this off your topic so I'll drop it here.

Leaving aside the more complex question of spacetime and just concentrating on space, it would be perfectly coherent to say that space is curved. This is still compatible with the idea of space being a relational concept, because saying that space is a relation doesnt imply that Euclidean geometry describes the physical world. A non-Euclidean geometry would still have its physical distances defined as 'relations between objects'.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know much about physics so I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that QFT doesnt specify a quantum physics interpretation - its just a mathematical framework within which physical theories can be constructed. Any interpretation of quantum physics which was comptaible with the standard mathematical QM formalism would by definition be compatible with QFT, because QFT is built on the QM axioms, not the physical interpretation of these.

Largely right, except it's not a matter of definition and there are technical subtleties. But the upshot is that various interpretations of QM can be cast without much effort into interps of QFT. E.g. Bohm's interp.

Leaving aside the more complex question of spacetime and just concentrating on space, it would be perfectly coherent to say that space is curved. This is still compatible with the idea of space being a relational concept, because saying that space is a relation doesnt imply that Euclidean geometry describes the physical world. A non-Euclidean geometry would still have its physical distances defined as 'relations between objects'.

I sympathize with the direction youre going -- a branch of philosophy doesn't imply things like "the angles of a triangle sum to pi". But the ultimate solution to this question is to recognize that there is no vacuum, that distance is not just a property of two points, but also of the plenum or ether or whatever that is inbetween them. And recognizing that fact is already suggestive of differential geometry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sympathize with the direction youre going -- a branch of philosophy doesn't imply things like "the angles of a triangle sum to pi". But the ultimate solution to this question is to recognize that there is no vacuum, that distance is not just a property of two points, but also of the plenum or ether or whatever that is inbetween them. And recognizing that fact is already suggestive of differential geometry.

This I actually fully agree with.... woo-hoo. But anyway, it leads me to a question for you. I just want to see where you stand on the "Big Bang" and expansion issue?

For context, I don't doubt there was such an event, but I think it was actually a phase transition in an eternally existing universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why the normal interpretations MUST be wrong, because science can NOT negate philosophical principals and be true in reality.

I hate to break this to you, but philosophical principles just do not derive from a vacuum. They derive from our knowledge of reality. If that knowledge of reality is wrong then the philosophical principles are wrong.

The concept of identity does not have to be changed in its general form, but that a thing has an identity does not imply that a thing HAS to also have the characteristics we normally associate with objects. See the lego brick analogy. That a thing has an identity does NOT imply that it has precicely measurable characteristics OR hidden variables. In fact, it doesn't even imply that we can form any level of precision.

As for causality, we know as a fact that things have natures, but implicit in your discussion about causality is that it involves pure time, IE time as something through which we MUST travel and NOT go back. This we only know because of our experience, but we've experienced much different on particle scales than on cosmological scales. If causality requires pure time, then we need another word for causality, one that's not based on a fallacy.

Also, while GR is true beyond doubt, I hope you don't take the standard interpretation that spacetime is "curved" as actually possible in reality. Space and time are concepts relating to relationships between existents NOT entities in themselves that can magically morph their "shape". But this off your topic so I'll drop it here.

Well it's not THAT off my topic. It related to causality and identity.

Edited by Starblade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That a thing has an identity does NOT imply that it has precicely measurable characteristics OR hidden variables. In fact, it doesn't even imply that we can form any level of precision.

[Q: Emphasis mine.]

It does however imply that the thing itself has precise characteristics. The law of identity, as you correctly interpret, says nothing directly about our ability to perceive or measure these characteristics, but it does say that the characteristics themselves are definite and precise, observation and measurement aside. A thing without any specific identity is a thing without any specific identity, i.e. without identity, i.e. non-existent.

The classical interpretation simply makes no sense in light of observed facts. If quantum particles are 'fuzzy,' then so should be everything they compose, yet this table <points> is not fuzzy. The cat in the box may have fur, but it is either alive or dead, not some bizzare mixture of the two.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good answer Qwertz! It is true that that philosophical principals are (and should be) derived from reality. But basic philosophical principals such as identity and causality are deduced philosophically via man's senses and his rational faculty NOT scientifically (although they can of course be later proven scientifically since they ARE TRUE). Any scientific theory that claims to contradict these facts MUST be by there nature WRONG. Science does NOT negate philosophy, but is an extention of it and cannot contradict its base via rationalism if the scientific theory that is proposed is supposed to be accepted as true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does however imply that the thing itself has precise characteristics. The law of identity, as you correctly interpret, says nothing directly about our ability to perceive or measure these characteristics, but it does say that the characteristics themselves are definite and precise, observation and measurement aside. A thing without any specific identity is a thing without any specific identity, i.e. without identity, i.e. non-existent.

That is an abuse of logic. A thing can exist without having precice characterstics. Imagine that there is only one thing in the universe. We know this is not true, but just bear with me. How would this one thing have ANY characteristics other than existing if there were no other things in the universe?

Did you even READ the lego block analogy? Even if it HAS a precice identity, does that necessarily mean that the characteristics we identify at large scales compose it in smaller portions at smaller scales? If you really believe that, you are engaging in the fallacy of division.

The classical interpretation simply makes no sense in light of observed facts. If quantum particles are 'fuzzy,' then so should be everything they compose, yet this table <points> is not fuzzy. The cat in the box may have fur, but it is either alive or dead, not some bizzare mixture of the two.

-Q

That is false. You are engaging in the fallacy of composition. Though I bet you do know anyway. Why, exactly, you would engage in such a fallacy to defend a concept proven WRONG by experimentation is beyond me.

BTW, I suggest you read this page. It might help. This goes for EVERYONE who believes in the 'common identity' line of reasoning given against modern physics.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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