To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/11/04 14:07
Subject: Re: Time (was Re: [K-list] RE: fate, destiny, subtle body and s
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/11/04 14:07, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
14:54:34 Thu, 4 Nov 1999
Ville Vainio at Ville Vainio <vvainioATnospamtp.spt.fi> writes:
>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...
>
I think we have to decide what we each respectively mean by determinism,
I suppose. From the point of view of gross creatures such as ourselves,
we may not have any control over the factors that determine our
behaviour - thus, for us, reality would be deterministic. At the quantum
level, the behaviour of a particle such as an electron is determined by
its properties, of course, but it seems to turn out that those
properties include a probabilistic element - so the determinism is of a
sort that is unpredictable. This is unlike the traditional "billiard-
ball" determinism of classical (i.e., old) physics, in which if you knew
the position and disposition of all particles you could predict their
future behaviour exactly (in theory). In the new physics, a) you can't
know the exact disposition of any particle (some quantities disappear if
you try and measure others exactly) and b) the outcome is based on
probability not certainty.
>> 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.
>
I am assuming that "fundamentally and absolutely unpredictable even in
theory" (the credo of quantum mechanics) is the equivalent of
undeterminstic. Strictly, predictability and determinism are separate
concepts, however. Determinism as a philosophical idea seems
incontrovertible to me: things happen because that's how they are.
However, I feel it is worth exploring unpredictability, to see what
might come up.
>> 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...
>
As I mentioned, the god-variable idea is most obviously consistent with
the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, since it seems to require an
observer capable of observing the entire Universe. The arbitraryness of
the way the CI requires a wave function to collapse, with no mechanism
for this specified, and no definition of what constitutes an observer,
leaves me preferring the Many Worlds Interpretation. I suspect that even
if there is a God, the MW will be closer to the truth, since the deity
seems to enjoy hiding.
>
>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.
>
Yes: we cannot assume infinite knowledge on our part. But remember that
physics is in effect a map of our own minds and is limited by what we
are capable of understanding. We find it difficult to understand the
notion of no hidden variables, but it doesn't mean it ain't so. We find
undetermined (probabilistic) behaviour peculiar and incomprehensible too
- but maybe it is that way. Or maybe that is the best we can understand
and such hidden variables as there may be are of a sort we could never
comprehend. We can't tell from our vantage point, having limited
capacities. Either possibility could be correct from the point of view
of an infinite being. The argument stops there because we reach the
boundary of our knowledge.
>> 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.
>
It works, but it provides little illumination, as you point out.
>> 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).
>
My use of fundamental is that it implies that there is nothing behind
it, no other mechanism driving this property. An atom was once thought
to be a fundamental particle, but it turned out to be made of yet
smaller particles. A particle that is not made from anything other than
itself would be a fundamental particle.
Probability is fundamental *as far as we know* - but we can't know
everything.
>
>> 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.
>
All physics experiments are designed to test a theory. The theories are
expressed mathematically. Bell produced a theory that was tested by
experiment and the result was that *known* types of hidden variables
(those known to mathematics and physics) wouldn't account for the
quantum behaviour Bell predicted. I recommend the Scientific American
article if you can find it! It takes substantial concentration to read
and understand it, but the logic seems impeccable.
>> 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).
>
I agree - it just makes the determinism unpredictable by us.
>> 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.
Maybe. Einstein was into time and space, of course. Quantum Mechanics
doesn't really have much time for either, though!
> 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.
>
I don't see how it could be otherwise.
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
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.