PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
This does appear to be what Legion is saying.Cause the brain is quantum it gets too complex and magically becomes immeasurable?
Breaking it down we are talking about atoms and chemicals and cells all reducible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free will?
- Thread starter Skeptisch
- Start date
This doesn't make any sense, unless you think that quantum processes aren't part of reality. If quantum processes are unmeasurable, and are part of reality, then this alone means something about the relationship between QM and reality. Additionally, it's rather central to almost everything I am saying.
Cause the brain is quantum it gets too complex and magically becomes immeasurable?
No. Not at all.
Quantum mechanics, which is irreducible, describes the constituents of all matter. Which means that there is a limit to our ability to reduce systems. An absolute limit (if quantum theory is correct), because there is a point at which any attempt at "reduction" makes the act of reducing irrelevant. This is the uncertainty principle in its basic form: at some point, we can't (even in principle) understand what is going on.
Complex systems in general present a different sort of problem. When a nonlinear system is said to be "indeterministic" this almost always means epistemic indeterminancy (i.e., in principle, if we could know everything about the system at some time t, we could determine how it would change in time, but as we can't do this because we lack the ability). One is an ontological limit, in that the quantum processes and quantum systems cannot even in principle be measured (and therefore we can't know their nature), and the other is epistemic, in that we could know if we had better technology or something.
The problem is that all matter is composed of atoms, and as much as we would like there to be this nice dividing line between quantum dynamics and "classical" dynamics, we don't no where this line is. At the moment, we know that molecular processes involve quantum processes and require quantum formalism. We know that biological systems are made up of molecules. And we have plenty of different types of studies (some of which I've referred to) which argue or indicate that the relationship between the quantum world and the macroscopic world of cells and neural networks is non-trivial.
Last edited:
This uncertainty principle doesn't mean it is immeasurable. Just that it is random but it should be possible to trace the route of cause and effect once it has happened. Regardless of the uncertainty aspect, only one casual chain will surface. I do believe that the quantum aspects leave room for more than one possible outcome at the same time but I do not believe that this somehow violates the casual chain.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
It's hard to construct causality in quantum physics because of the superposition principle, and the fact that "all" intermediate states happen at once and can cancel each other out.
It's easy to tune into a signal once it is there. Tuning into the signal before it appears is much more difficult.
No doubt but after it is done there is only one casual chain determined, the superpositions and possible paths not taken fade out leaving only one possibility.
Hmm, where would you tend to draw the causality chain from the data points marked here? The intermediate states that cancel each other out don't contribute to the outcome? Are you certain?
Hmm, where would you tend to draw the causality chain from the data points marked here? The intermediate states that cancel each other out don't contribute to the outcome? Are you certain?
If it contributes then it would be part of the casual chain. However influence alone is not enough as in the example of the cause fading or being cancelled out.
If the cause fades or cancels out, how will you detect it afterwards?
Detecting it afterwards is more about looking at the answer and going backwards. It isn't to detect influences that ultimately didn't matter. The issue that I see being discussed regarding the maths is a problem of not being able to predict to any degree of certainty, which i don't think is a casual issue, just an issue of not being able to calculate all the variables and therefore not being able to know which of the possibilities will pan out. With that and the brain, complex becomes an understatement.
This may help us get over the speed bump?
[youtube]lFLR5vNKiSw[/youtube]
Why Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate - YouTube
[youtube]lFLR5vNKiSw[/youtube]
Why Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate - YouTube
Insofar as by "uncertainty" we mean that formulated by Heisenberg, then the issue is the extension of classicality to quantum reality and the result. Classical mechanics is all about motion and particles. Let's say I'm sitting near a road known to be rather infrequently traversed, but as a result of this (and how straight it is), when cars do go by they go by very fast. But they don't all go by at the same speed; some go only a bit over the speed limit, while others zoom by at speeds most cars could not travel at. I set up a device which records how fast a car is going when it crosses a certain "line" in the road.
For each car then, I measure not only where it is, but how fast it's going (or, even more precisely, it's velocity- both speed and direction). This is of fundamental importance to all of physics because whatever I call a system (whether it is the climate, a brain, a pendulum, a computer, or cars on a road), the dynamics of the system are (classically) where and how fast the parts of the system move in relation to time (just like my knowing this about cars on the road).
For Heisenberg, this was impossible for quantum systems. The more I know about where a "particle" is, the less I know about it's speed and the direction it's going in. Alternatively, the more I know about it's speed and direction (velocity) the less I can know about where it is.
Once what has happened? The fundamental problem is not that we can't measure a quantum system, or this wave-particle duality nonsense, but that "things" at the quantum level don't actually have a position or a speed. Particles in the classical sense are "points" in space, in that they occupy a place in space. They also interact with other things in space through contact in a shared region (If I kick a soccerball, I have to touch it). Classical "fields" work in a different way (like waves) but classical electrodynamics still requires that waves interact at shared regions of space.
What quantum theory seems to imply is that this idea of reality is fundamentally wrong. There are no particles. There are no classical "waves" either. Rather, we have "particles" which are in many places at the same time.
However, this doesn't correspond to what we experience. And we can't directly observe these many-located particles, because when we do (regardless of when we do it) we find not a superpositioned particle, or a particle in many locations at once, but rather a specific region of spacetime in which the "particle" interacted with whatever we used to measure it.
The "uncertainty" aspect is fundamentally related to causality and why the trend has been to treat quantum mechanics as statistical or (more recently) an information theory. Because once we get to quantum field theory, we run into a rather serious problem: if the formalism behind a quantum system truly is that quantum system, then that system exists at more than one region of spacetime.
This seems to (and has been interpreted as) a fundamental violation of classical causality, in that causation can be nonlocal. However, there is no agreed upon way to resolve this. But in whatever way we choose, we have only a limited number of types of choices: admit that quantum theory is formally incomplete, admit that reality is fundmentally contrary to our perception of it in that we observe local, deterministic dynamics, but all reality is in fact nonlocalized, or we go with some manipulations of the math, the interpretation, both, etc., such that we force quantum theory to be complete and yet retain classical theoris of the macroscopic world.
However, in none of these types of solutions do we have the ability to know what's actually described by the symbols used for things like wavefunctions.
How does it not?
That's the problem. The only reason there are "paths not taken" is because we made that happen. And what's worse is that it seems we can "make it happen" after it already has. This was Wheeler's variant on the double-slit experiment. The simple version shows that if we shoot light "particles"/photons (although this is actually true of all "particles") at the screen with slits, and then allow them to hit a detection screen of some sort, the resulting pattern recorded by the screen is completely inconsistent with classical physics, because it demonstrates that "particles" can pass through both slits at once (and actually through as many as we want at once), but if we had two slits and set up a device to record whether or not a "particle" of light passed through one slit, we get a different result. We "force" the light "particle" to pass through one or the other, but not both.
Things get worse, however, when we change the experiment such that we don't have a device which measures light right near the slit, but rather allows the light to go through both (in the way the pattern seems to show they do when we don't do anything until the light hits the detection screen). Instead, we allow them to go through, and then look through some telescope-type device to see which path the "photon" took. But this means that we can determine (or force) the "photon" to take one path vs. another after it has already gone through.
Last edited:
Because what the slit experiments also show that we can interfere, physically, with the wave function without collapsing it. The interference pattern shows particles, though in a state of superposition, are following classical laws of physics like that of the wave of water molecules going through the slits.
The experiments also show that the particle will only choose one path and will not remain in two places at the same time even though it shows evidence of it.
Great discussion guys and it will go on for a while yet, in many circles.
Lets not forget what Richard Feynman appeared to have said:
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
Well, actually, there are some instances where the photon does split and lights up both particle detectors, albeit faintly.
I just read about C.G. Jung and that he believed in astrology, spiritualism, telepathy, telekinesis,clairvoyance and ESP. In addition to believing in a number of occult and paranormal notions, Jung contributed two new ones:synchronicity and the collective unconscious.
Your quote sounds pretty fitting :magic:
They aren't. That's the whole point of the experiment. If we observe thm, they follow the classical laws and we don't get that interference pattern. If we don't, then we get "interference" even if we send a single "photon".
Again, the entire point of the experiment (at least now and for the past century or so) is the opposite. The intereference "pattern" is utterly inconsistent with classical physics (how could a "particle" show interference when there is nothing for it to interfere with?).
The original double-slit (sort of) experiment "proved" that light was a wave. But that didn't explain why hitting a metal surface with light (akin to the classical gold-foil experiment of Rutherford) knocked out electrons the way it did. In brief: classical waves have a velocity defined in terms of two things: wavelength and frequency. However, the intensity of wave also has to do with amplitude. To oversimplify a bit, amplitude is how big the wave is. And here actual ocean waves are a handy illustration: if you are in the ocean and a little wave comes by at a certain speed, you may barely feel the effects. If, however, a 50 foot wave hits you going the exact same speed as the little wave, you are going to feel it.
Classical waves are supposed to work more or less like that, including light. The problem with light was that Young, the guy who showed light was a wave using special mirrors, made it difficult to explain what happens when you hit metal with light in a certain way.
Let's say you shine a light in the visible spectrum, but towards the higher end (in terms of frequency and wavelength, i.e. velocity), like violet or blue. As expected, the "wave" of light knocks electrons out of the metal. Also as expected, they come out at a certain speed (after all, you are "hitting" the metal with waves travelling at a certain speed). But here's the (first) problem: if you "up" the intensity by increasing the "size" (amplitude) of the blue or violet light, you'd expect the speed of the electrons flying out to increase. If a bunch of people are standing at the edge of the shore watching small crabs scurry about while little waves travelling pretty fast hit their ankles, they can watch the crabs get knocked back. If someone (Poseidon) keeps the speed constant, but "ups" the amplitude/size to 50 foot waves, not only are those crabs going to fly back much faster, so will everyone on the shore.
The problem is that doing the same with light (shining the blue or violet light but "upping" the amplitude) doesn't make the electrons come out any faster. It just makes more of them come out at the same speed. The same thing happens as we go down the visible spectrum into yellow and orange. The speed of the electrons slows (because the frequency of the light wave is decreased), but upping the amplitude simply makes more electrons come out at the same speed.
Not only that, but if you continue down the spectrum far enough into the "red zone", no matter how much you increase the amplitude, no electrons come out at all.
That's not how waves work, to put it mildly. Einstein won the nobel prize for explaining this by saying that light was made up of "quanta" or pieces, not a wave. So when more electrons fly out at the same speed as you increase the amplitude of a given color of light, it's because you aren't realling increasing the amplitude, you are sending out more quanta of light. And at a red enough light, the reason no electrons come out no matter what the amplitude is because it's like using an air rifle to pierce a tank. You can shoot as many pellets as you like, but they won't have any effect.
Now that we "know" light is really quanta called photons, we need to explain why Young got it wrong. It should be simple: we're no longer splitting a wave, but rather sending photons, so however many we send, they will be split into to groups, half going one way and half the other.
Only it doesn't work that way. When you the photons "split" into groups, and we have a detector to see how they land, we continue to find the interference pattern we'd expect from the splitting of a wave. Even if you send single photons down, you get the interference pattern you'd find with the "wave" interpretation of light. But how can a single photon interfere with itself?
So we have on the one hand Einstein's photons, which explain the non-wave nature of light hitting metal, but which fails to explain what happens with Young's "proof" that light is a wave (that the wave is split in two, and like all waves which connect you get an interference effect).
But here's where Born's nobel prize comes in: he explains the inteference patterns which are inconsistent with classical particles by explaining that when they photons are "split" they don't go one way or another, but the state of the photon changes so that it goes both ways at the same time or is in two places at once. This is the "superposition" state.
In the double-slit experiment, we can allow light to enter in only one slit, or both. And we can see how it behaves by observing the "patterns" of the photons hitting some detection screen after the "split". Born's explanation works perfectly to explain why even firing single photons at the double-slit "splitter" results in an interference pattern.
Naturally, we'd want to confirm what Born's claiming. After all, who could believe that a photon could be in two places at once (and many more places, if we made more slits)? So we put some detection device right near one of the slits, or both, so we can ensure that a photon does indeed travel down both. Only now we have a problem. The moment we put that device there, we no longer get the interference pattern. And Wheeler made things even worse: we fire photons at the splitter, they start landing at the detection screen and we get the expected interference, but then as we are still firing photons we suddenly remove the screen and behind it are two nifty telescopes devices which allow us to see the photons which have already interacted with the "splitter" and which would (had we not removed the screen) continue to show the interference pattern.
Except we continue to see photons even after encountering the splitter going one way or the other. So the same photons which would show the interference pattern had we not removed the screen fail to act like this even when they are supposed to be in that superposition state.
How is this possible? The photons are going through the slits, behaving like waves, and as this is happening and certain photons have already encountered the slits (and would, if we left the screen their, show an interference pattern indicating that they were in two places at once) we take the screen away and we don't see this superposition state or this interference "wave-like" quality of light. We've somehow ensured that the same photons which would have acted like a wave if we'd left the screen there suddenly do not. So we cannot see this superposition state, but we can only observe its nature after the light hits the detection screen.
No matter what we do, any attempt to "see" a photon in two or three or four places at once changes the result: no interference pattern. And that's true of all superposition states of all "particles": we cannot ever observe it, only its effects. If we try to observe it, we don't get that effect because we've fundamentally changed the state of what we were trying to observe.
Last edited:
Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. ~~Steven Hawking
-source-
-source-