Do probabilities avoid both cause and explanation?
The Laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated through the use of traditional mathematics that provide only one specific outcome for any precise starting point/cause. This is why the philosophy of Determinism forms such a dominant part of scientific thinking.
Senior scientists such as Nima Arkahni-Hamed can also be seen on video lectures saying that the laws of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, in combination, make all activity in our universe inevitable - the determinist principle - including everything that everyone thinks and does, from the creativity of Einstein and the Beatles, to your everyday thoughts and deeds.
The opposites of strict causality (cause & effect) are :-
Spontaneity - something happening without a cause, and
Randomness - more than one outcome may arise from a single precise start point, for no apparent cause.
Yet in recent years younger scientists have tried to argue that true randomness does exist in the world due to the findings of Quantum Mechanics. If true, this would mean that Determinism is not the whole story, although it might apply to some aspects of the purely physical universe.
Scientists in the field of Quantum Mechanics try to reconcile their 'random' findings with the Determinism apparent in the Laws of Physics & Chemistry by deploying their own type of mathematics. The key Philosophical feature in this mathematics is a heavy use of probabilities within the equations.
The significance of this is that probabilities are an admission that we have multiple outcomes for no apparent cause.
Now do not get me wrong - the use of probabilities in these circumstances applies the best tool that we have available, but by failing to provide an true single outcome, this type of mathematics becomes a description rather than an explanation.
A lot of scientists fall into the trap of thinking that a description is an explanation, when it isn't.
The question we should ask is - what does this apparent lack of cause represent?
Is it just a hidden cause - ie. a factor within Matter/Energy that we have yet to discover?
Could it be factors that lie outside the realm of our physical Matter/Energy - ie. a different type of stuff that could interact with it to preserve causality?
Or could it be that there is true randomness and spontaneity in the Universe?
Senior scientists such as Nima Arkahni-Hamed can also be seen on video lectures saying that the laws of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, in combination, make all activity in our universe inevitable - the determinist principle - including everything that everyone thinks and does, from the creativity of Einstein and the Beatles, to your everyday thoughts and deeds.
The opposites of strict causality (cause & effect) are :-
Spontaneity - something happening without a cause, and
Randomness - more than one outcome may arise from a single precise start point, for no apparent cause.
Yet in recent years younger scientists have tried to argue that true randomness does exist in the world due to the findings of Quantum Mechanics. If true, this would mean that Determinism is not the whole story, although it might apply to some aspects of the purely physical universe.
Scientists in the field of Quantum Mechanics try to reconcile their 'random' findings with the Determinism apparent in the Laws of Physics & Chemistry by deploying their own type of mathematics. The key Philosophical feature in this mathematics is a heavy use of probabilities within the equations.
The significance of this is that probabilities are an admission that we have multiple outcomes for no apparent cause.
Now do not get me wrong - the use of probabilities in these circumstances applies the best tool that we have available, but by failing to provide an true single outcome, this type of mathematics becomes a description rather than an explanation.
A lot of scientists fall into the trap of thinking that a description is an explanation, when it isn't.
The question we should ask is - what does this apparent lack of cause represent?
Is it just a hidden cause - ie. a factor within Matter/Energy that we have yet to discover?
Could it be factors that lie outside the realm of our physical Matter/Energy - ie. a different type of stuff that could interact with it to preserve causality?
Or could it be that there is true randomness and spontaneity in the Universe?
Comments (84)
This is the faulty logic, or rather, the incorrect observation, or incorrect interpretation of theory, that you use as a premis for your thesis.
If this were true, I would both be a man and a woman, as well as a tree branch, a 35.3 cubic foot space and Zimbabwe's national debt. My leg would be all: a leg, an arm, a kidney, a stone in the park, and a carburetor. Maybe even a Louis IVX prophylactic as well.
But my leg is my leg, and not all those other things.
There are no multiple outcomes of any causational event. There is just one effect of each causational event.
You can figure out the rest of how this mistake renders your theory wrong.
Your beliefs are clearly Materialist/Determinist and that is fine, but they are not the only beliefs.
As long as there are scientifically proven examples which challenge this philosophy then open-minded people have the right to consider other possibilities.
There are many such examples in science - indeed, you need look no further than every time science deploys probabilities in its mathematics. Your assumption that all answers must be found as a 'hidden variable' (ie. something within Matter/Energy that we have not yet discovered), is fine too, but as shown above, it is not the only possibility.
I am surprised by the ridiculous arguments you presented (eg. that you can be both a man and a woman), .... which scientific mathematical formula suggested them? None. I also think that you have missed the core logic too, because probabilities do not apply to objects. They only apply to events.
What you cannot say is that the logic I presented is flawed. The basic logic is undeniable. That is why science uses probabilities - to recognise different outcomes when it has no explanation. This reasoning has been successfully defended on many occasions. Your only option is to prefer one of the three explanations.
I would be interested to know which of the options other people prefer, and why.
The assumption that there's some sub-level to reality that is more fundamental, and that macroscopic, causal effects are the consequence of random quantum phenomena, I think is mistaken.
I posit that the nature of reality is causal and focused at the macroscopic level; such that QM is essentially, the science of the frayed edge of reality. Quantum objects exhibit strange behaviours as a consequence of lacking existential properties conferred on matter at the causal focus.
That so, causality is universal, but quantum objects are so small - they are variously effected by existential forces. Quantum objects actually have velocity but not location. They pass through both slits at the same time, or rather, don't quite pass through either - being, not entirely here nor there.
Mathematicians can only give a probability that an object is in a particular place, or travelling at a particular velocity - because it has in fact, not been determined. It's not an epistemic problem; it's the frayed edge of reality, on a scale so small that existence bleeds into nothingness.
This is called 'the measurement problem': wavefunction evolve deterministically according to the many-body Dirac equation, but those wavefunctions correspond to multiple measurement outcomes. Which outcome... uh... comes out is probabilistic.
But...
Quoting Gary Enfield
Quantum mechanics *is* backwards deterministic, that is: the cause of a measurement is fully determined by the outcome. It's the other way round that's problematic: the effect is not predictable.
Quoting Gary Enfield
There are other options.
1. Multiverse-type realities in which all possible outcomes are actual outcomes (e.g. the many worlds interpretation).
2. No causal arrow of time, such as was discussed here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9391/determinism-reversibility-decoherence-and-transaction/p7
3. Quantum mechanics is an approximation to a more fundamental theory that applies only at statistical scales.
Thanks for your well considered responses.
I was beginning to get worried that this subject, which is a fundamental underpinning to most philosophical debates, would not be taken seriously.
I will respond to you individually below…. and apologies that I am still learning how to use the site and still haven’t seen how to use quotes.
Like you, I believe that strict causality underpins the vast majority of the physical environment – at least at the level we occupy.
My question is whether it can cover everything? If it does cover everything then the Determinist viewpoint is correct, and nothing can ever change the inevitable sequence of events that will unfold… and that gives me pause to consider, because instinctively I do not feel that we are all acting out an inevitable script.
If life, or indeed anything else, has any opportunity to change the course of the future, it must break strict causality – even if It is to a very limited degree (to avoid chaos).
Die hard Determinists say that we really are acting-out an inevitable script, and that the illusion of free will, (ie. our ability to not follow an inevitable path), is just because people confuse their flawed ability to predict the future with the underlying inevitability of physical matter,( ie.we cannot always know everything at play in any given scenario).
I personally believe that the universe does have a limited ability to change course, and not just follow an inevitable script. If this is correct – and I am still wanting to explore the possibilities one way or the other – then some ability to break the mould must exist, even if the touch points between the inevitability of Matter/Energy and this other capability, are quite small, (thereby limiting the opportunity for chaos).
When you say:-
“Quantum objects exhibit strange behaviours as a consequence of lacking existential properties conferred on matter at the causal focus.”
I’m not sure what that means. What do you regard as ‘the causal focus’?
I can understand the suggestion that if the universe of Matter/Energy has either formed certain rules, or just abides by those rules as imposed from somewhere, then anything which emerges within the universe that doesn’t have a full structure may somehow be made to conform to ‘our norm’, if it is to survive in our realm. But is that what you meant?
In terms of strict science, I think it is incorrect to say that sub-atomic particles have velocity but no location. Heisenberg said that we can measure one or the other but not both at the same time, because our only ability to measure these things will inevitably pump more energy into them – thereby changing them. He did not say that those factors didn’t exist.
Equally, you are presuming what is happening in the dual slit experiments. There are many theories. None are proven, and many directly challenge the evidence of how things operate everywhere else in reality, (eg. wave/particle duality), which makes people suspicious of them.
I do not challenge the use of probabilities. I endorse it. But I do ask that we see probabilities for what they, are and resist the temptation to draw conclusions from a false premise – that they explain something, when they don’t.
Probabilities give us a description, and rarely if ever, give us an explanation, (see my response to Kenosha Kid below).
In our ordinary lives we see deterministic explanations for events that have multiple outcomes because we see additional factors that will perfectly explain each result using specific individual scientific laws. That is not true at the quantum level, or in scenarios of prime origin, or life, etc.
QM probabilities mean that given initial conditions and laws of nature it is impossible to derive (and thus predict) a single future outcome. Nature may still be deterministic in the sense that all possible outcomes happen with certainty (we just observe one of them and the probabilities express their frequencies) and even that they already exist if time is just a kind of space, a timeless mathematical structure.
As you acknowledge, I do not object to the use of probabilities, because they are the best tool that we have, but I think we both now recognise that there are limits to how far they can be used.
In his books, Finipolscie makes one point that I did not refer to, but which you have… that we might derive some deterministic rules from the range of probabilities observed. Thinking about it, it’s a good point…. if only having limited use. (So let’s add it to the list).
The way that he put it is that : if the pattern of outcomes from experimentation gives us a very limited range of possibilities, then the very fact that there is such a limited set of options suggests that some underlying rule is probably in operation. Conversely, if the range of outcomes is very wide, then it is much less likely that a discernible pattern or rule will emerge, and therefore it may be more likely to be evidence of true randomness or spontaneity.
The point that we have to recognise in relation to Quantum Mechanics is that nobody can directly see what is happening, or be sure of all the influences at play. We only have the technology to detect after effects of experiments, and not directly observe in real time - because of the Heisenberg principle.
So the difficulty in your ‘backwards deterministic’ argument is that it is very easy to draw the wrong conclusion by looking backwards in time, for a cause – because you may not be aware of all the factors at play in any scenario. If you are a true materialist, then you must suppose that there are hidden variables/unknown factors that account for the differences in outcome.
Yet, as mentioned already in my 3 original options – we can look for causes that lie outside the parameters of our model, (ie. outside Matter/Energy), but only if there is evidence to suggest that such factors are necessary.
I am personally not persuaded that anything can mess with Time, and if it were truly possible to change the sequence of causal events in that way, the rest of existence would be in deep trouble. We should also be able to see lots more evidence of this ‘lack of causality’ at the level of existence we occupy…. but we don’t.
There are much more simple explanations which don’t require us to change our general perception of reality that much.
To tackle your other main suggestion, Max Tegmark came up with his Multiverse Theory because he was unable to resolve some of the fundamentals of the creation debate in any other mathematical way. But his Multiverse theory, (possibly achieved through hidden dimensions), essentially gives us hidden influences outside the realm of our Matter/Energy…. one of my original 3 options.
As further evidence for that option, we might consider the findings of various Double Slit experiments. The lingering point here is less about the light and dark pattern, but, as Finipolscie points out, the remarkable width of the pattern.
Due to the results from the single photon or electron experiments, (including the Quantum Eraser experiments), we have two basic potential scenarios. Either
- the photons/electrons stay as a single particle all the way through the slit – in which case we have to determine how they might interact to form the pattern; or
- people have argued that each particle turns into a wave as it senses the approach of one or two slits, then interfering with itself, before re-combining on the other side screen to form a single dot particle again, (known as wave particle duality – and requiring these particles to have sufficient knowledge of what is about to happen, to adjust its state of being).
As you may be aware from my other posts, I feel that the concept of wave particle duality contradicts every other thing that we know about Matter/Energy behaviour, and has no real evidence to justify it, other than there being very few other theoretical ways to explain what is happening.
But there ARE other simpler conceptual ways to do so.
Finipolscie’s suggestion was that the width of the pattern is the key to this. It is always many times wider than the double slits in the screen. He then points out that in every other scenario in nature, waves are generated when an object (like a ship in water, or a train through air) passes through a pool of some other stuff.
If we run with that scenario, we can see that if a photon or electron were to cause a wave as it passed through another type of stuff, (say the elusive ‘Dark Energy’ that must be everywhere, if it exists at all), then the particle could stay as a particle, riding the troughs of the wave and still get deposited in a light/dark pattern, (because of those waves), onto the wall/detector beyond. In this scenario it would be the hidden pool of stuff that causes the pattern and the distribution of the particles, and this would preserve all of the other known characteristics of Matter/Energy that we come to expect. It is the simplest explanation that I have come across, and has no other challenge than identifying the ‘hidden pool’... not a small one I admit, but far less demanding than a Multiverse in my opinion.
This is just one of the range of scenarios that Finipolscie lays out, leaving people to make up their own mind.
I personally reject certain options if my experience and knowledge says that those would cause more problems than they solve. I am also inclined to the belief that the simplest and most straightforward options are generally the most likely to be correct. However, the argument is not settled yet.
Are you suggesting A) that the outcome/effect can *ontologically* determine its cause(s)? Or only B) that we can at times *epistemologically* determine cause(s) by the outcomes/effects that are observed?
If (A) - if the effect ontologically determines its cause - by what means can the notions of cause and effect retain their cogency?
I find that, here, the cause becomes synonymous to the effect just as the effect becomes synonymous to the cause. For a cause is that which determines its respective effect.
As an aside, in notions of retrocausality (regardless of their validity) this relation between cause and effect is preserved (wherein the cause determines the effect), only that they are taken to occur backwards via some universalized background of time - such that the effect is temporally antecedent to its cause.
To be honest, your post is rife with misconceptions. Right from the start:
Quoting Gary Enfield
One can perhaps get such an impression from high school science classes, but that is because they cover very basic material, and probability is taught little if at all at that stage. In reality there are plenty of probabilistic relationships and equations in physics, chemistry and other sciences.
Quoting Gary Enfield
Uh, younger scientists? You mean like Heisenberg and Bohr? Just how old are you? :lol:
Seriously though, fundamental physicists do seem to favor determinism. Take so-called black hole information paradox: the reason it is thought of as a paradox is that loss of information implies indeterminism - the kind of indeterminism that doesn't go away in a suitable interpretation of quantum mechanics, because it violates QM's fundamental unitarity.
But I am not sure that that attitude generalizes across sciences - even across all of physics, of which fundamental physics is a rather small niche.
For philosophers who have tackled causality and explanation, probability is not necessarily problematic. Indeed, some theories of causation are explicitly probabilistic: the basic idea is that causes raise the probability of their effects. One well-known modern development of that idea with practical applications is causal Bayesian network.
B.
Given an effect (state of the world at time t) and laws of nature, the cause (state of the world at time t-1) can be *logically* derived. That may include both ontological and epistemic determination. The difference between the cause and the effect is given by the arrow of time (causes precede effects), which is the result of the second law of thermodynamics.
That said: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9391/determinism-reversibility-decoherence-and-transaction
Some quick tips on how to use he forum. If you move your mouse to where it says "7 hours ago" - bottom left of a post you wish to respond to, a little curly arrow will pop up. Hit that, and it will 'reply' - by inserting hypertext in the text box.
The person will then get a notification of your reply - and probably respond quicker than 7 hours ago!
To quote something:
Quoting Gary Enfield
Like so, highlight the text you wish to quote, and click on the quote button that pops up!
Again, this will be magically transported to the text box below.
Welcome to the forum!
Quoting Gary Enfield
At the macroscopic level - where we live, and stuff is made out of atoms, and events can be described in terms of cause and effect - I posit, that there's a nexus of forces - gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong interactions, acting on things at the atom plus scale, and conferring existential properties: mass, location, velocity etc.
Below the sub-atomic scale, those forces have less, or no effect on quantum objects - and so existential properties are not conferred, and quantum phenomena exhibit strange behaviours, like passing through both slits at the same time. Causality pertains universally, but quantum objects are so small - they are only partially effected.
There are 16 fundamental particles known, and proof of my theory, I imagine, would be had from examining how the four forces interact with different kinds of particle. I cannot do the math!
Are you aware of other challenges to Determinism - like chaos theory? Have you seen a video of a double jointed pendulum? I'll Bing it:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+double+jointed+endulum&view=detail&mid=B40D889E34DF3DF0B3A9B40D889E34DF3DF0B3A9&FORM=VIRE
Causality and randomness!
Its a very unique way of defining both effects and causes as "states of the world". A billiard ball's motion as cause for another billiard ball's motion as effect is not "a state of the world at time t" unless one equates the billiard ball's motion at time t to the state of the world at time t - which we don't do in practice.
But more to the point, to logically derive a cause is to epistemically determine what the cause was. To be clear about what you're saying, are you by the underlined sentence affirming that logically deriving what a particular cause was is - or at least can be - what determines (sets the limits or boundaries of) the given cause's occurrence ontologically? In other words, are you saying that our reckoning what the cause was is of itself what ontologically determines the cause's occurrence - such that an observed effect is ontologically uncaused up until the time we logically determine what its cause was?
Please keep in mind that I'm not affirming what I take causality to be but am only interested in clarifying what it is that you've stated causality to be.
You might have been better served pointing me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser - something I've been acquainted with almost since the time of the first experiment. As it is, the wiki article is a shorter read than the thread you've linked to and, it seems to me after skimming the thread, more to the point here addressed.
All the same, the issue I was asking about regarded what causation is - its nature of being - which is an a priori, metaphysical issue that gets applied to a posteriori, empirical observations of the physical. Even Hume made ontological, i.e. metaphysical, commitments in defining what causality is prior to affirming that our knowledge of what causes what cannot be deductively obtained, but can only be inductive. Seeing how QM is a posteriori, I find that referencing QM does not address the a priori issue of causality I've previously asked about.
I think you might have taken a different point than I intended. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics is what I had in mind, wherein physical events such as emissions are triggered in part by future events (in this case absorption).
Quoting javra
You asked me about my response to Gary's OP. Whatever you might have been discussing beforehand or since is irrelevant to that. It's not all about you, dude :rofl:
Hi Counterpunch
Thanks for the tutorial on how to use some of the features. I'm still experimenting!
Re: your comments, you have an interesting viewpoint in relation to how the effects of forces may impart characteristics on objects passing through them. I can see the general idea which has existed for some time, (though effected in different ways), but I wonder if this has already been investigated and found to be unpersuasive?
Quoting counterpunch
Even if the generality were correct, I don't see how you could partially affect causality, even at the sub-atomic level.
Hi Litewave
As I mentioned to Kenosha Kid, in relation to your quote below, while it may be possible to guess some ways in which a result has been achieved, you could rarely be certain.
Quoting litewave
If you cannot be sure of all the active factors at play before any outcome, you can only guess as to the true combination of causes that may have produced a particular result. As a simple example:-
Looking back in time, there could be many ways to achieve the result "2" but only one will be correct.
Hi Sophisticat
My comment was about the principles of science which have achieved the status of Laws.
Quoting SophistiCat
I don't deny this, and the use of probabilities in applied science is well known even in schools. They cover scenarios where events happen in uncontrolled conditions, but they still use Laws which I understood to be formulated on a deterministic basis.... which is why the senior scientists that I have heard lecturing default to a deterministic viewpoint, even if they acknowledge the experimental results show multiple outcomes for the factors they are monitoring.
The assumptions which those men have made are that there will ultimately be shown to be hidden variables within Matter/Energy that will ultimately explain the results. But that is a belief not a fact. Equally, belief in true randomness and spontaneity (as I defined earlier) is a belief not a fact. We can only look for evidence and then honestly recognise how far that evidence can take us.
In terms of the quip about age, Heisenberg and Bohr weren't that old when they made their suggestions, even if they would have reached very old age by now had they still been alive! They certainly came into conflict with the older EPR trio!
Just to clarify though, do you believe it's been investigated and found to be unpersuasive? And if so, could you point me in the right direction?
Because I thought, in my infinite ignorance - that the confusion was the consequence of a false assumption carried into QM unexamined, that if you keep taking something apart - you find out what it's made of - which wouldn't be the case if the fundamental seat of reality is here, at the macroscopic level - and QM is the frayed edge and just bleeds into the void.
Quoting Gary Enfield
Nor do I, really, to be honest - but I'm trying to explain EPR, double slit, quantum tunnelling and so on - these weird quantum behaviours, in terms of a causal reality. And to be fair, on the surface of things - the idea that quantum objects are too small to be effected by gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, or only partially effected, doesn't seem any madder than supposing spooky action at a distance!
Hi Counterpunch
Like you, I think we are all hypothesising because there are no proven answers.
Objects either have to carry an intrinsic set of characteristics that make them what they are and how they operate, or that profile is imposed on them by some sort of 'Framework of Existence' as Finipolscie terms it. The forces of nature may be part of this, but I read somewhere that there are 6 key parameters which also set the strength and other characteristics of the existence we occupy.
Changes to the settings on any of those 6, (which from memory extends to the number of dimensions, etc), would radically change how nature is perceived and operates. Conceptually it is hard to see how any of those settings could emerge from physical characteristics. The logic I have seen is that it must work the other way round - ie. the settings must either come first and be imposed; or simply be a balance of other factors in some unknown way.
I can't point you to any research that has tested your theory, but because the general idea has been around for a while then I just wondered why someone wouldn't have explored it before... and if they did, is that why it hasn't taken off? I don't know.
Chaos Theory, as I understand it, is still deterministic, and applies the same Laws of Science, but is really just covering-off the issue of predictability as opposed to the underlying reality.
All of the awkward experimental results must ultimately be explained, and then reconciled with perceptions of origin and life. Did you see Finipolscie's explanation of the Dual Slit experiment that I tried to outline earlier, to Kenosha Kid? It avoids all of the major problems in terms of particles becoming waves, and then recombining; as well as the timing issues brought about by the Quantum Eraser experiments. We would only have to look for the other stuff implied by the theory - which could be 'Dark Energy' - as identified as a theoretical additional substance by scientists in the field of cosmology.
Who knows?
But at the core of all this speculation we keep coming back to the fundamentals of strict causality because that is one of the few solid observations about nature that can act as a reliable yardstick with which to assess experimental findings. That is why the loophole free Bell Test experiments were so important.
Bell's inequality can be explained with Bohmian Mechanics. You have a 3n-dimensional (n elementary particles) quantum potential, which is non-local. If you move one particle, it immediately affects all the others through the quantum potential.
It is like walking on a landscape. If you walk to the west, the slope can change in the north-south direction. In classical mechanics, the (for example) z-axes of the particles are parallel, in quantum mechanics they are perpendicular to each other. Thus are the formulas.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10007/awareness-in-molecules/p1
This all seems very Teilhard Du Chardin to me; an interesting writer to read, but wildly speculative, and not to be taken entirely seriously. ...say I, while nonetheless advancing my own amateur hour crackpot theory.
No worries. I'll keep looking. Dinner time. Logging off!
That's epistemology for you: if you lack data, you lack certainty. Causality isn't special in this regard.
But if you know the final state of something and you have all information about the environment it evolved in, in principle the initial state is exactly knowable. Yes, there are other ways to get to that final state, but they will in principle be discernable through interaction with the environment.
Yes, in everyday life we just say that one ball caused another ball to move but this couldn't happen without the world in which it happened, which includes space, time, distribution of matter in space and time, and laws of physics (which are regularities in the distribution of matter in space and time). So the whole world caused the second ball to move, but in practice we can predict the causal effect fairly accurately while neglecting much of the world and just considering the two billiard balls, their immediate environment and laws of physics.
Quoting javra
My unstated assumption was that the world has a logical structure. That just means that every object in the world is what it is and is not what it is not (law of identity or non-contradiction) and every object is a collection of objects (non-composite objects being empty collections). The structure of every such world is described by pure set theory, which is a foundational theory for all mathematics. So, if the world has a logical structure, our logical derivation of causes from effects (or in classical determinism also effects from causes) is a description of the structure of the world. Our description (an epistemic determination) does not ontologically determine causes from effects; it just states how causes are ontologically determined from effects in the structure of the world.
Historically, Law nomenclature has been used to refer to important regularities that can be formulated in a single statement or equation. You will find such laws both in fundamental physics and in applied sciences. And within that context a law can express a fundamental feature of a theory (e.g. Newton's laws of motion) or a phenomenological relationship (e.g. Hooke's law). Laws can be either deterministic (Maxwell's laws) or probabilistic (Boltzmann's distribution law).
Well, dude, I asked you about what on Earth your statement of backwards determinacy was supposed to mean in terms of causation. Making my two posts to you mostly about you. The vacuousness of you sending me to read your entire thread on QM as a followup reply seems to be lost on you, righteous one. But you’re not one to be bothered with explaining your extraordinary statements on a philosophy forum; in this case, that of quantum causes being fully determined by their effects; fine, got it.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Bull. I answered your question quickly and unambiguously. The link was not by means of an explanation for that (hence "That said..."), it was just in case you were interested. If you're not, okay. But to complain after the fact that my original post to another user didn't address a question you were asking (presumably someone else) is just bizarre. I have no idea what's going on in your head and no inclination to find out.
And I was supposed to somehow mind-read your cryptic intended point? The "its not all about you" snide followed by laughter was not ... um, constructive. C'est la vie.
Sorry, presumed English was okay. Which tbf it often isn't.
Hi Solarwind
Is there an article you can point me to, to explain this... hopefully in a way that non-specialists can understand?
The only things I have seen to date are findings which suggest that the Bell Test results can be brought back within expected norms if we take entanglement into account - but there is no explanation for entanglement either.
Hi Counterpunch
I don't have any problem with Finipolscie using a pseudonym. He clearly shows where his facts originate, and either his ideas are logical and viable like anyone else's or they are not. They seem logical possibilities to me.
Everyone's ideas are speculative because nobody can prove their case. Finipolscie at least shows us the full range of thinking and doesn't promote any single explanation.
From Goodreads, I gather that the use of a pseudonym was because he wanted people to focus on the evidence and the logic surrounding the issues, rather than the personalities. If he has a career to protect in science, that wouldn't be surprising.
I think you were talking about physical constants as a framework of existence. Quantum physics has added to the list - and now there are supposed to be 19. It rather complicates things for me, because it's basically impossible to know if these are real physical constants, like the speed of light, plank length, gravitation - intelligible concepts; or mere consequences of the math. I mean, what in Roddenberry's name are:
9 Yukawa couplings for the quarks and leptons
2 parameters of the Higgs field potential,
4 parameters for the quark mixing matrix,
3 coupling constants for the gauge groups SU(3)?×?SU(2)?×?U(1)
Align the phase coils and engage the inertial dampeners! Anyhow, I should apologise for giving your previous post short shrift, but I really was just sitting down to dinner - and thank you for entertaining my little theory, but I don't see how we can productively pursue this any further - if you can't give me a definite reason why I'm wrong, we're both kinda batting in the dark!
I don't have a link. It's the way I think of it. I assume knowledge of Bohmiam Mechanics and quantum potential, I can't explain that too.
Take two particles with coordinates x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2, then the quantum potential is Q = Q(x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2,t). We simplify and are only interested in the z-coordinates and also consider Q as constant in time: Q = Q(z1,z2). Then take a landscape with x = z1 and y = z2 and the height z = Q(z1,z2) = Q(x,y).
The two particles are one particle in this representation, where the x-coordinate belongs to particle 1 (z1) and the y-coordinate to particle 2 (z2). If one now moves the "double particle" in the x-direction, the inclination in the y-direction can change. The movement of one particle directly affects the other.
From the point of view of quantum theory, the coordinates z1 and z2 are perpendicular to each other (configuration space), in classical mechanics they are parallel, lying on top of each other.
Hi Counterpunch
I raised the issue of awareness in molecules because it was mentioned in one of his books, along with the scientifically proven evidence that posed the question. The references are there to follow to validate that evidence. If you dispute the evidence then you dispute it from impeachable scientific sources.
If you accept the evidence, then it has to be explained, and Finipolscie's question is quite obvious to anyone who knows the evidence because there is no credible theory to explain it.
I acknowledge that it is bizarre to think about that possibility, and that was my immediate reaction when I read it.... but I wanted to see if I was misssing something, which is why I wanted to see reactions on this site... and in truth, apart from re-stating that it is bizarre nobody has come up with a better suggestion.
(However if you wish to follow through with this part of our discussion, please do so under that topic).
The reason why I defend that here is because the same principles apply to this debate. If the evidence is valid then it is open to logical interpretation and criticism by anyone. If it is logically wrong then fine - point it out. But if the logic is right and there is no evidence to dispute that notion, then it is as valid as any other unproven notion... regardless who raised it.
This is a philosophy forum and therefore we should be exploring the logical validity of any ideas that can provide a firm foundation for any onward analysis, and I feel the mathematical implications of probabiities is one such thing
There was a time when I thought the same as you do. But in researching the topic I have moved on:
By strict definition, a receptor-effector complex represents a fundamental unit of perception. Protein perception units provide the foundation of biological consciousness. Perceptions “control” cell behavior, though in truth, a cell is actually “controlled” by beliefs, since perceptions may not necessarily be accurate. - Bruce H. Lipton, PhD ( 2012)
"Powerful! Elegant! Simple! In a style that is as accessible as it is meaningful, Dr. Bruce Lipton offers nothing less that the long sought-after “missing link” between life and consciousness. In doing so, he answers the oldest questions, and solves the deepest mysteries, of our past. I have no doubt that The Biology of Belief will become a cornerstone for the science of the new millennium."
First I've heard of it, and we're 21 years into the new millenium! One might have imagined someone answering "the deepest mysteries and oldest questions" would be more well known! But okay then, let's do some research. Lipton begins:
"Though a human is comprised of over fifty trillion cells"
Over 50 trillion????
Bing! How many cells are in the human body?
ANSWER FROM 2 SOURCES
Humans are complex organisms made up of trillions of cells, each with their own structure and function. Scientists have come a long way in estimating the number of cells in the average human body. Most recent estimates put the number of cells at around 30 trillion. Written out, that’s 30,000,000,000,000!
How Many Cells Are in the Human Body? Types, Produ…
healthline.com
Scientists are still debating the exact number, which currently remains a conundrum. Cells are the building blocks of the human body. But what is the total number of cells in a typical human? The short answer is that the body of an average man contains around 30 to 40 trillion cells.
How many cells are in the human body?
medicalnewstoday.com
If he opens with a radical over-estimation of the number of cells in the human body, do I need to go on? He's only over-estimated it by 30-40%. As a measure of accuracy, I think there's no point. I'd be wasting my time with something that's over 40% wrong.
Perhaps you should look harder. There is a plethora of information in the fields of cellular biology, microbiology, plant neurobiology, and quantum biology. Or at least provide a proof of your assertion that molecules such as cellular proteins have no conscious - not just an opinion based in ancient assumption. What proof do you have that cellular proteins are not conscious? An absence of proof to the contrary, dose not cut it anymore, as there now is actually quite a lot proof to the contrary.
So determinism with a slight element of randomness causing emergence in its path.
I didn't give an opinion on Homolgous Recombination. I did say my instinct suggests chemical valances and electron transport are at work - rather than consciousness, but that was in the context of admitting I don't know - and suggesting that the idea of molecules with consciousness seems wackadoodle. It does. It's a surprising idea. It's not your run of the mill causal explanation.
All this, in turn, was in the context of suggesting Finopsicle's pseudonym makes it impossible to judge his scientific credentials; on this subject... or his work in quantum mechanics!
Quite the jack of all trades - is his not? A Renaissance man...or possibly a hack writer making money duping the rubes with "I Want to Believe" misinterpretations of the real work of actual scientists.
Quoting Pop
I just ate a beef sandwich and it didn't run away!
I hope the Prion in the beef can not read. :lol: They can survive cooking and they cause mad cow disease. A fuller explanation of prions is available in the molecular awareness thread.
As I said before, I was once of the same opinion as you, and through researching the topic as widely as possible, I have changed my mind. It is not something one can decide upon on the basis of one or two opinions, It requires years of research, as what is at stake is Dualism vs Monism.
What's at stake is the existence of the human species. It follows from causality and evolution that the organism cannot be wrong, or it is inevitably rendered extinct. At the physiological level, and at the behavioural level - the organism is crafted in relation to a causal reality by the function or die algorithm of evolution. Just as DNA unzips down the middle and attracts its chemical opposite from the environment to reproduce, organisms ingest energy and excrete waste, and a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs - not because it knows and plans ahead, but because other behaviours were extinguished.
The organism has to be true to reality from the DNA up, and we are no different. We need to be intellectually correct to reality; but we made a mistake. We discovered the means to establish scientific knowledge of reality, and used that knowledge to create technologies - but did not observe a scientific understanding of reality. We applied technologies for military power and industrial profit - not as directed by a scientific understanding of reality. That's why we are facing extinction.
Believing any old thing was fine when we were running around naked in the forest, poking each other with sharp sticks, but we cannot believe the same silly ideas - and have the ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons, or we will die out.
The Amish have got something right. They believe in God and they don't use technology. Fine. What's the worst they can do? Cut each others beards off? (That actually happened!) But we cannot have primitive pre-scientific religious misconceptions of reality as a basis to apply high tech technologies. We have to be responsible to the level of scientific understanding that allows for the technologies we employ, or we will inevitably become extinct. Cave men with machine guns won't end well.
:up:
Quoting counterpunch
Yes , I agree, evolution is a form of consciousness itself - causing other forms of emergent consciousness in its path.
An algorithmic process that has the effect you have described is a form of mind, in my understanding. There is no conscious entity behind it, but it is a form of logic that we find ourselves in and arise out of.
This being the mind of the situation we find ourselves in - figuratively, not literally.
Evolution is not conscious. It's not trying to create anything. It's random genetic mutation - tested by natural selection in relation to a causal environment. If you're not correct to reality, then you're dead - rendered extinct by cause and effect. Human beings are the only intellectually intelligent creature ever to have existed on earth; perhaps, in the entire history of the universe. If we are not intellectually correct to reality we will die out - soon.
Quantum mechanics - not really understood, but used to undermine causality, and thereby truth, homolgous recombination - seeking to locate consciousness in molecules; it all has that same "I Want to Believe" vibe, that muddying the waters looking for a back door to reality vibe. Anything but the "looking reality square in the eye and doing what's right because it's true" vibe!
Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, and major funding. His thesis is consciousness is fundamental - it is contained in everything. Koch, Tononi, and many others are also of the same opinion. Cellular consciousness is where this will be resolved. Lipton thinks the brain of the cell is in the cellular membrane, Roger Penrose and co, think it is in the microtubules. Its a different way of understanding and it works better then the old assumption. It is a monist understanding. As I said before, it requires personal research. Please do the research, and come back and tell me why motor proteins are not making decisions, and then we will have something to talk about.
Pop / Counterpunch
I have been distracted from the site for a few days, but on returning I have been fascinated by your conversation, and I think we are pursuing 2 lines of debate, which may be worth splitting - so I will establish a new thread to do that,
However to address a few things mentioned in your dialogue....
Quoting counterpunch
Yes - I think we all agree with that, but as Pop indicated, there are some fundamentals about what we observe which break the principles of chemical, and even Quantum Mechanical operation. We begin by acknowledging the nature of the issue being observed. Then, when you stop and consider what's involved in some of these activities, there's a clear step-change in capability because of the apparent decision-making that is going on, every time these actions are observed.
Neither Pop, nor myself, are commenting on one-off co-incidences. This analytical capability is apparent every time the process is observed.
Individual molecules should not be capable of any analysis. They are generally only capable of preserving the integrity of one chemical reaction - that's it. There is no computer, and there is no deviating from one outcome.
But in the example of Homologous Recombination, and the route planning of Motor Proteins, that is clearly not the case, because there are different ways to achieve one outcome from a multitude of start points.
When you have even a vague theory of how that might be achieved by single molecules then we will all be extremely interested, but clever deterministic minds have been dwelling on this for ages without success. It may be possible that something new will emerge in future, on the philosophical principle of hidden causes/variables - but the reason why this seems unlikely to me is because the things we observe break deterministic principles and would not just require one hidden variable, but many.
Quoting counterpunch
It is precisely in forums like this that we do exercise peer review. Just 'not liking' the implications of what he says is not a critique. Besides - his argument is simple - here's the evidence, (referenced and undisputed); what does it remind you of; and if we can't explain it in normal ways, could it be pointing us to something new?
I really don't see what's needs a scientific peer review here. At the time of writing to you now, it remains true that no computational model can in any way come close to re-creating the implicit logic of Motor Proteins of Homologous Recombination enzymes, based on a few molecules.
Quoting Pop
I think that's bang on Pop - and the Dualism/Monism aspect helps to re-focus this topic on the original OP.
Quoting Pop
I didn't know that .
Hi Tres Bien
Quoting Tres Bien
This is an interesting point, which returns us to the theme of this topic - thank you.
The mathematics involved in the Laws of Physics and Chemistry are clearly deterministic and say that everything that occurs should be inevitable. The use of probabilities (before the introduction of Quantum Mechanics), was largely confined to the issue of applied physics in the real world, where the contributing influences to any outcome were assumed to conform to the Laws, and the necessity for probabilities reflected the fact that the activities in the real world were not being scrutinized or controlled sufficiently to explain each outcome precisely.
The step change was when multiple outcomes were regularly observed from a precise start point, for no apparent reason. This rocked the scientific community because for once, in controlled circumstances, the outcomes could not be explained by known factors, and no other factors were perceived to be possible, after extensive research. This launched a new and very different use of probabilities, which we should all be mindful of.
However, your point extends this question even further.
At one level, Chaos Theory simply tries to explain away our inability to predict outcomes beyond a small number of consequential reactions further down the line. This of course may mask a hidden cause/variable.
But more importantly I see that you did not specifically target Chaos Theory, but the idea of chaos itself.
If you believe that before order there was chaos, without any structure, then the implication is that the rules of existence must have been applied after any creation event, or before order was achieved.
I have also wondered about this, and and if we recognise the mathematical element, and the Deterministic view that this must intrinsically come from the 'chemistry' that it represents, then there is a fundamental question about how chaos, without order and therefore without chemistry, was able to do this?
A very good point. Thanks again.
Can I ask that from now on, we please confine this topic from now on, to the subjects of
- the use of probabilities, or
- Dualism vs Monism, or
- factors which seem to break the principles of strict cause and effect, that lead to us all acting-out an inevitable script.
Thank you
The whole molecular consciousness thing seems to be a part of panpsychism, a retreat of dualism away from homocentrism where the monists hopefully won't find them.
Quoting Gary Enfield
Chaos theory isn't really about disorder. Chaotic systems are completely deterministic, but extremely sensitive to their initial state and any perturbations. If gravity, for instance, was chaotic, an object of 1 gram might happily rest on the surface of the earth while one of .99999999 gram might be catapulted toward the sun.
Looking back in time, and assuming that known laws of physics are complete and constant in space and time, the current state of our universe can only have a single cause (or single set of causes): Big Bang singularity some 13.8 billion years ago. That's backwards determinism.
Hi Litewave
Quoting litewave
That is effectively the logic on which the philosophy of Determinism was founded - a total belief in the Laws of Physics & Chemistry which apply traditional mathematics without probabilities.
However there is now a century of detailed experimentation which shows that those Laws cannot (yet) be applied to all circumstances to achieve a single outcome. And this is not a factor confined to one narrow aspect of research. It is across the board from Cosmology to Biochemistry.
That is why Quantum Mechanics uses probabilities - because the old Laws were fine for their task, but they don't cover all circumstances. If Determinism doesn't cover all circumstances, then you cannot claim that the Universe has a single set of causes within Matter/Energy alone.
Logic also suggests that without proof to the contrary, it might be that true Randomness and Spontaneity are possible, (as defined above), in which case there could easily be something more than Matter/Energy at work.
I however, am not fascinated. I've tried to make myself clear. I do not believe anyone here has the ability to judge arguments about quantum mechanics or molecular biology on merit. I certainly don't, and I am not about to develop such an ability without many years of specialist education. It is therefore rather easy for people like Finopsicle, or Hoffman to make overblown claims they are very well aware - certain people want to believe.
"Is consciousness deepest reality, the ground of being of the cosmos? If the question is "What brought all into existence?" the answer is "Consciousness". Some say this is a 'cosmic consciousness' of which our personal consciousness is a small part. Others, that the ultimate consciousness is God. Others, that consciousness and cosmos are both deep reality."
I prefer to speak in terms of things that I am able to know - than imply what I want to believe from what I am not able to understand. Now let that be an end to the matter.
In quantum mechanics it is not possible to derive a single outcome from a given cause but it is possible to derive a single cause from a given outcome. At least that's how I understood Kenosha Kid's claim that QM is backwards deterministic.
Gravity is chaotic!
Do you mean unstable?
There is another issue, often ignored, about determinism. And that is, determinism is actualism. This is simply a misunderstanding. We can talk about determinism in a phenomenon without having to prove its actuality. The maximum speed of a curve on a roadway is provided to avoid skidding. The sharpness of the road affects how fast you can drive without skidding -- not skidding is the point here. Our cause is sound because skidding does not happen.
Hopefully I'm making sense here, if not, it's my limitation in ability to explain, not the example, so if anyone can expound on this, I'd appreciate it.
I didn't know this.
It comes from the horses mouth, and he is also promising a mathematical theory of emotion! So that should be interesting.
The road that you are heading down was first explored by Verela and Maturana in the seventies. They are part of the Santiago school of cognition. They form the embodied or holistic movement, which uses a systems theory logic. A current advocate is Fritjof Capra, his pearl of wisdom is ; "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". Their term for what is happening is autopoisis. A recent variation of what they started would be Neil Theise, and his self organizing universe, which uses complexity theory logic. I came across all this by noticing that human consciousness is entirely a form of self organization, where every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization.
This whole thing is best understood from a complexity theory perspective, where disparate elements when combined can form a synergy that gives rise to emergent function or properties not present in any of the elements individually. This is best illustrated when amino acids of different shape, size , and charge are combined to form proteins that have emergent function.
This pattern of combination giving rise to synergetic emergence is illustrated in atoms when combined forming molecules , in molecules when combined forming amino acids, in amino acids forming cellular proteins, in cellular proteins forming cells, in cells combined forming organs, in organs combined forming bodies, in bodies combined forming communities. At each of these levels there exists a system of self organization. Human consciousness results from and is embedded in all of this, as a system of self organization. Specifically human consciousness relates to extracellular self organization.
All of this is caused by a goldilocks pocket of order in the universe. So the cause of consciousness extends beyond the complex biological organism to a pocket of order outside the system. The pocket of order forms a field that percolates and can self organize, and form molecules, and this may start the whole process ( this is my own speculation ).
A "goldilocks" rocky planet with water, and a sun in the just the right position is helpful, but its the order that causes more ordered states, in my opinion. A determinism with a slight element of randomness seems to be at play, and interrelational evolution is taking place, where molecules are more stable then atoms, and so on.
This video is an excellent overview of complexity theory.
Hi litewave
Quoting litewave
I'm not sure that's correct, because if it were, we would be able to have laws that precisely define what happens in each circumstance, and I don't believe that we do.
As far as I'm aware, there are many aspects of QM, (and indeed, some within the level of reality that we occupy), where no known cause can account for the outcome. We need look no further than the Double Slit experiments to know that.
Some people choose to believe that determinism applies everywhere, which is fine, but it doesn't mean they the rest have to accept it until they can prove their case.
Hi TMF (sorry I find it uncomfortable to use your web name)
Quoting TheMadFool
I understand what you say, but I think that it's entirely possible for objects that are deterministic to exist in a broader environment that is chaotic, (and possibly vice-versa).
The broader question is what non-determinism represents (as per the 3 options in the op).
Hi Pop
Thanks for the pointer to these authors.
Because I have a lot on my plate at the moment I won't be able to follow through with them in the short term, but I will at some point!
For this reason I can only comment on what you said.
Quoting Pop
Perhaps it's just the way that you phrased it, but while cognition may occur as a reaction to a disturbance, that doesn't mean that we have an explanation of what cognition is, (any more than we know how self-organisation is achieved).
If something stands out as unusual we first acknowledge that it does occur, and then have to specify why it seem to represent something different, at its most basic functional level. One way to identify difference is through an apparent breach of either deterministic principles or scientific Laws. Another way is to see at what level of existence the effect seems to apply to.
Gisin's experiments across Lake Geneva to demonstrate that entanglement was real, and that the seemingly impossible connections between particles communicated at over 10,000 times the speed of light, is a case in point, by seemingly breaking several Laws and Principles. Science cannot now deny the reality of these events and it has simply accepted that this is now a reality without explanation - but any explanation is now likely to include some unknown additional factor because in a scientific world dominated by matter/energy these is no conceivable way for this to happen, (and the communication does produce real-world effects). In this case, the maths can only work by assuming a missing hidden factor to produce the effect in some unknown way.
Perhaps a simpler example would be the invention of 'Dark Energy' to plug a logical gap in observed stellar activity. However, once again, we have a hidden invented variable to make the maths work.
For your example, you returned to the theme of consciousness and awareness, and we are all familiar with the power of our brains, which employ trillions of cells. There can be speculation that computer-like processing might occur at a lower/smaller level of existence if multiple connections can be formed in the alternate circumstances, but where we can show that complex activity is happening at the most miniscule scale, below where it should be possible, then that is another way to demonstrate a new/different capability.
I think we can all acknowledge that perfect circumstances with almost impossible odds might arise once purely by chance - but those conditions then have to be exploited by something that can take advantage of them - whether that is our planet in the Goldilocks zone, or the formation of the first living cell. The difficulties to this type of thinking arise where the impossible odds have to occur more than once in the same place for a supposed miracle to emerge by this means alone.... another way to demonstrate an unusual capability.
My point is that we should try to be more specific about the capability we are puzzled by, before we can say whether it is produced 'from within', or is a consequences of influences around any particular phenomenon.
When trying to identify such a factor(s) we can only follow a logical chain of known capability and see where it breaks down - but it will generally be where we see the use of probabilities.
Dear Wayfarer
I'm really not sure of the point you are trying to make?
At face value, your comment is misplaced as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not comment on the presence or absence of determinism/materialism. It merely states that there is a measurement problem in one particular circumstance - where it is necessary to determine the precise speed, location and mass of a single sub-atomic particle at any point in time. It says that you can do some measurements accurately but not all, as the act of measurement would change one or more of the parameters.
That is all it says, so it can apply whether or not a circumstance demonstrates the presence or absence of determinism.
From a determinist/materialist viewpoint, there can still only be one outcome from any single event, but if that example requires accuracy in all 3 measurements of a single particle, you won't be able to verify all of those aspects. However most, and probably all of the examples I have quoted do not refer to this circumstance. So the Uncertainty Principle would not apply.
If you take the non-determinist viewpoint, Heisenberg's Principle would make evidence of spontaneity or randomness less reliable if the circumstances were founded on all 3 measurements of a single particle -
but again, the examples are not based on this.
If your only point is that the Uncertainty Principle can very occasionally introduce a requirement to use probabilities - then fine, but it will only reflect one factor at play - a hidden variable. It does not argue for or against the determinism or non-determinist effects that may underpin any scenario.
Of course it does. The whole point about physical determinism, is that the rules which govern the motions of atoms govern all else. It is a lineage that comes from the early atomists - Democritus, Lucretius, and others, revived by the French philosophes of the Enlightenment. ‘All I see are bodies in motion’, says D’Holbach. You can draw a straight line from there to today’s materialism.
You may recall the notion of LaPlace’s daemon. LaPlace, as you will know, was ‘France’s Newton’, the originator of many modern concepts of cosmology and statistical science and all-around genius. His ‘demon’ was described thus:
I think that is as succinct a statement of determinism as you’re likely to find.
Just as Newton’s laws accurately describe the motions of bodies from the celestial to the mundane, so here the presumption is that perfect knowledge of laws of that kind will provide perfect foreknowledge of the future movements of everything in the Universe.
But the ‘uncertainty principle’ applies to just those purportedly fundamental constituents of reality - those very ‘items’ which LaPlace assumes nature is ‘composed’ from. It completely torpedoes that notion of determinism, holes it beneath the water line. Einstein was very unhappy about quantum physics. He fervently believed that science ought to provide certain knowledge of objects independent of any role for the observer.
One of the useful books I read about this was David Lindley’s ‘Uncertainty: Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and the Battle for the Soul of Science’. This is not a fringe book or quantum mysticism. The cover blurb says:
Ask yourself why a book about this subject would have that sub-title.
Bohr, in due course, lectured the confident positivists of the Vienna Circle in the 1950’s, but was dismayed by their polite applause at the end of his lecture. ‘If you’re not shocked by quantum physics’, he told them, ‘you haven’t understood it’. (This anecdote was relayed by Heisenberg.)
So - I suggest you do some more reading on this subject. That book I mentioned is a good one, also Manjit Kumar’s Quantum. Passages from Heisenberg’s Physics and Philosophy are readily available online.
The meaning of all this, and the ontological status of the probability wave, are among the outstanding philosophical problems left by the 20th century. Your sanguine assurances of ‘nothing to see here’ conveys an absence of insight into that.
QM, as with the rest of physics, respects the light speed limit. It follows from time dilation, which is fact rather then theory. What we are seeing here is a new phenomenon rather then communication.
Bell himself proposed Superdeterminism as an explanation:
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the 'decision' by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already 'knows' what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."
Who, other then theoretical physicists, would be ready to accept superdeterminism? :sad:
Quoting Wayfarer
I think this is overreach. I remain very impressed with a statement by a Caltech professor ( I cannot remember his name) who stated that what we are seeing at the quantum level is not behavior associated with materials - suggesting a new category is in order. Quanta, when combined together, becomes a molecule, and the rules of QM no longer apply, the rules of CM do. It would seem materials emerge from the synergetic self organization of quanta - this would be how complexity theory could account for what we are seeing. Of course, as you say, all of this is yet to be fully understood.
Manjit Kumar’s Quantum was a very enjoyable book. I wonder what those Copenhagen guys would have put together if they had systems and complexity theory at their disposal. I imagine something very similar to Neil Theise's self organizing universe.
In an article published in The Monist for January, 1891, I endeavored to show what ideas ought to form the warp of a system of philosophy, and particularly emphasized that of absolute chance. In the number of April, 1892, I argued further in favor of that way of thinking, which it will be convenient to christen tychism (from tyché, chance). A serious student of philosophy will be in no haste to accept or reject this doctrine; but he will see in it one of the chief attitudes which speculative thought may take, feeling that it is not for an individual, nor for an age, to pronounce upon a fundamental question of philosophy. That is a task for a whole era to work out. I have begun by showing that tychism must give birth to an evolutionary cosmology, in which all the regularities of nature and of mind are regarded as products of growth, and to a Schelling-fashioned idealism which holds matter to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind. - C.S. Peirce, "The Law of Mind", 1892.[2]
Hi Waferer
Sadly, I cannot see how your replies clarify what your point is. Perhaps you could say it more clearly or directly? In saying this...
Quoting Wayfarer
... you seem to begin by admitting that the Uncertainty Principle has no impact on assessing the issue of whether determinism or non-determinism applies in any circumstance, because it is an entirely separate issue. Yet later you said...
Quoting Wayfarer
No it doesn't - for the clear reasons that I stated before:-
Just because the Laws of Physics & Chemistry cannot predict 100% what some sub-atomic particles will do, it does not mean that the underlying reality of existence is either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination of the two. The Uncertainty Principle is merely a comment on our ability to predict.
When commenting on LaPlace you said....
Quoting Wayfarer
Let me tell you that Thomas Acquinas said it a lot more succinctly in his Cosmological Argument centuries earlier, and he used it to try to prove the existence of God, by making God the only thing able to spontaneously start existence.... the breaking of determinism through spontaneity.
You also said
Quoting Wayfarer
That is a simple statement of a belief without evidence... because it implies that determinism applies to everything everywhere - whereas the Laws of Physics only seem to apply determinism in certain specific circumstances.... which exclude those which apply probabilities.
Hi Pop
Quoting Pop
To be precise, this will not be a new phenomenon as we do not have the ability to alter nature. All we have revealed, at best, is a capability that had not been witnessed before, and which does seem to break our previously assumed limits. Assumptions can be wrong.
Equally, if the method of such experiments is to affect one of the paired particles in order to prompt a near instant and opposite effect in the other paired particle, I do not see how this can avoid being labelled as a communication.
If Gisin's faster than light experiment is evidence of other capabilities beyond Matter/Energy, (as we know & currently define it), then it falls into the 2nd category of possibilities that I stated in my OP - to bring potentially non-deterministic factors back within the deterministic fold using an external influence. But equally, these experiments do not disprove spontaneity or randomness.
All that any of us can do is to be honest and acknowledge the possibilities either way, because in the many key examples that exist, there is no deterministic explanation.
I return to the principle I quoted earlier.... that if an unexplained effect can be repeated with either a single predicted outcome or a very limited set of potential outcomes, we are more likely to find a deterministic cause at some stage - even if it/they lie outside Matter/Energy.
But those circumstances/experiments which produce a broad and very varied set of potential outcomes, are where we are more likely to find evidence of something non-deterministic.
When I said 'of course it does', I meant 'Heisenberg's discovery of uncertainty tends to undermine the causal determinism that is implied LaPlace's 'daemon', on the grounds that this model presumes that cause and effect can be predicted with absolute precision, whereas the uncertainty principle undercuts that.'
You already noted in your OP
Quoting Gary Enfield
Someone points out that these scientists include Bohr and Heisenberg, who were the founders of QM. There does seem to be a truly unpredictable element according to them, which is what caused Einstein to grumble about God playing dice.
Quoting Gary Enfield
But that is a contested point. It is called the 'epistemic intepretation', as I understand it. There are other interpretations which claim that that there really is no existent particle designated as an electron until the measurement is made. That is what all the bafflement about the 'collapse of the probability wave'.
Quoting Gary Enfield
The laws of physics are held to be the fundamental laws of the whole Universe by physicalism, with everything else being derived from, or supervening, on them. And physicalism is a very influential attitude.
Hi Wayfarer
We seem to be talking at cross purposes here, despite you quoting me....
Quoting Wayfarer
While there may be doubt about whether the underlying nature of things is entirely deterministic, or only partially so, there is no dispute about what I said - the Uncertainty Principle is only about measurement and our ability to precisely predict in certain circumstances.
There will be questions over the presence of determinism or non-determinism in any event, but they lie at a different level to the Uncertainty Principle. That is all I was saying.
When you said...
Quoting Wayfarer
I do not deny that materialism is a very powerful voice in the world of science, but it is not the only voice. It is defended by those who want it to be true... and I have no problem with the truth, if it is proven to be so. But in this case the belief hasn't been proven. So such views remain a faith/opinion like all others.
As Finipolscie pointed out, it is a big ask for materialists to ask everyone to deny all the experiences of their lives (and everyone else's throughout history) in order to justify a materialist belief/faith when everyone's day to day experiences are of non-inevitable acts by living beings.
On such a major point we have the right to demand that materialists prove their case before we abandon our entire life's experiences and accept the consequences of an existence where we are supposedly acting out an inevitable script in everything we think and do.
Quoting Gary Enfield
...latest data error from the giant white elephant!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z-jU8k4wA8
Counterpunch -
I see that you are resorting to a 2019 clip by a disgruntled scientist whose only comment is that he believes that CERN is looking in the wrong place - while ignoring the discovery of the Higgs Boson, as well as the current discovery - neither of which seen to be being challenged by the scientific community....
I think the entire field of quantum mechanics is misconceived - and the comments made support my view. I do not believe there is anything "fundamental" to find. I think the fundamental seat of reality is causal - and that quantum mechanics is the science of the frayed edge of reality, were something bleeds into nothing.
See third comment on page one of this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/495006
I haven't overlooked anything. After the "discovery" of the Big Hose On - the greatest achievement of this trillion dollar scientific instrument is cooking weasel!
That money would have been better spent on something practical - like drilling for magma, to provide the world with limitless amounts of clean energy. Instead, they're fiddling the data while the world burns! For shame, science!