To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/11/04 05:54
Subject: Re: Time (was Re: [K-list] RE: fate, destiny, subtle body and s
From: Ville Vainio
On 1999/11/04 05:54, Ville Vainio posted thus to the K-list:
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Martin Thompson wrote:
> >Yes, for any *being*. Universally it's insignificant whether some
> >phenomenon can be observed.
>
> Maybe; it depends on the ultimate purpose of it all, if any, I suppose.
> In terms of quantum mechanics though, if something isn't observed, it
> may not be "real" in the every-day sense of the word (the Schrodinger's
> Cat problem), i.e., may exist simultaneously in every possible state
> until "observed". If you accept instead the "Many Worlds" formulation of
> quantum mechanics, i.e., that every possibility does in fact exist, but
> in parallel Universes, then that particular reality problem is solved.
I see that this "web" of perceptions is *determined*, all the perceivers
are moving at speeds that are the only ones possible for them in their
current dimensional continuum. Deterministic universe is not a cylinder
(sausage where each "slice" determines what happens at that timeslice" but
more like spaghetti. Wonder if that makes any sense to anybody but me,
though...
> > Determinism is impossible to disprove
> >physically (we will never know everything about the universe, so there
> >will always be hidden variables... even when we thought we have plunged
> >all the way to the core) and determinism is the only rational model.
> Ultimate determinism is not clearly supported by quantum mechanics as
> far as I can tell. However, from the point of view of gross matter such
> as ourselves, the seemingly random behaviour of particles at the quantum
> level is fundamental and may determine our behaviour, but it is only
> statistically predictable. This weakens the odds that determinism is
> fundamental. Also, hidden variables of the sort searched for so far have
If anything is undeterministic, then everything is undeterministic. There
is no "golden middle" here.
> been ruled out by experiment and are inconsistent with current theory
> (which is subject to modification, of course).
It doesn't matter if the scientists ruled out every single hidden variable
they could find. They are still that far from "ultimate reality" that the
true variables will be beyond their reach. If I was christian I would
bring up the god-variable, which at least remains outside particle
accelerators and other gadgets...
> >Could you elaborate which part of quantum mechanics? I didn't study too
> >much physics (being a IT major) but what I studied didn't seem to disprove
> >determinism - it only emphasized how little is really known about that
> >stuff.
> The difficult thing about quantum mechanics is that, unlike older
> physical theories, it seems to place probability at the centre of
> reality. This is not, apparently, just a cover for more fundamental
Probability has always been a tool that people use to serve as a walking
stick when they have no real knowledge of the phenomena. Ditto with
quantum mechanics. For now (perhaps forever), probabilities are the best
tool to explain why something happens.
> variables that we don't understand or haven't discovered yet:
> mathematical analysis has proved that such variables as we might expect
> to find cannot account for quantum behaviour. Nobody has as yet figured
Again, the part such "variables _as_we_might_expect_to_find_" explains
everything.
> This means that instead of our old, relatively comprehensible friends
> matter, energy, time and space as the fundamental building blocks of
> reality, we have probability and perhaps information - whatever the heck
And again, probability. We will use it until (if ever) someone finds out
what the real stuff behind is. For now, probability works just fine as far
as physics is concerned.
> more. This formulation goes right through quantum mechanics. And it
> works experimentally. This means that we need to regard the probability
> as being more fundamental than the particle, in the same general sense
> as we regard an atom as being more fundamental than a lump of rock.
It doesn't matter if probability is more fundamental that particle: it
might be better approximation of reality than a particle, but that doesn't
make it fundamental. Nothing of the stuff we know in physics these days is
fundamental. Shoot me if I misunderstood the word fundamental (English is
not my native language).
> The two sides of this determinism/indeterminism argument essentially
> revolve around the EPR paradox on the one hand and Bell's Theorem on the
> other. The EPR paradox (Einstein, Rosen, Podolski) is that if you create
[snip]
> In 1964, Bell, using Boolean logic, produced a mathematical proof that
> if there are hidden variables such as EPR proposed, then a certain value
> in certain experiments should be positive. Alain Aspect and various
How could anyone prove something like that? If the proof is mathematical,
how can it rely on some experiments? If the mathemathics is used as a tool
if physics, it's allright, but it should *not* have the "authority" we put
on mathematics.
> This leaves us with only two viable interpretations of quantum mechanics
> at present, as far as I know. The Copenhagen Interpretation says that
> things are not "real" until observed (their probability wave function
> doesn't collapse to a specific value), and the act of observation at
> least in part creates the observed reality.
Doesn't contradict with determinism (observation=event).
> So determinism sucks, but quantum mechanics sucks harder!
Quantum mechanics is trying to swallow too big a piece when it tries to
explain away reality. It's better left for practical calculations. Where
ontological philosophies regarding quantum mechanics go wrong is that they
overestimate the significance of time & space. Reality goes much deeper
that that, as far as dimensions are concerned. And surprise, it's
deterministic all the way. This is clear to me according to my samadhi
experience and subsequent rational thinking.
Ville Vainio - vvainioATnospamtp.spt.fi http://www.tp.spt.fi/~vvainio
We're all puppets
The first step on the path to understanding is seeing the strings
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.