God/Gods?

[erislover]

Lib, an objective metaphysical reference frame is impossible (with caveats) because all metaphysical reference frames are hidden behind a phenomenological barrier. This is the first level of abstraction and seperation, and without direct action from Gods and Goddesses (Hail Eris!) the barrier is unable to be penatrated.

for any arbitrary particle, its distance from any other particle at any time is an exact sum of Planck distances. Thus, the objective grid is the grid whose coordinates are Planck distances apart.

The recognition of Plank length, time, and so forth, are all made from within the confines of human measurement and inference on those measurements, as well as blatant theorizing which has nothing to do with reality (i.e.—we can trust our senses in specific cases) and literally cannot be tested.

Comparing grids to say that one is more objective, better at explaining star formation, or best deals with human social interaction is an act of observing grids through a grid.

Consider the thought experiment where Einstein attempted to develop a theoretical test to measure complimentary qualities of particles (such as position and momentum) and each time we found that our instruments themselves were subject to uncertainty, too, so no matter what we were screwed. This is just an analogy, but note the ways in which QM has been metaphysically interpreted: Copenhagen Interpretation, Many Worlds Theory, Hidden Variables… etc. They are all consistent with data and answer untestable questions, but all must assert properties of existence which cannot be tested.

You can never measure anything more accurately than your instruments allow, and the existence of the Plank length is asserted as a consequence of the combined theory and evidence of QM.

But that reference frame fails to account for something as (seemingly) ubiquitous as human morality. So what makes this such a good reference frame again?

Nothing.

What frame would you need to use to view all frames with, including itself? You know?

[erislover]

Of course, it should be noted without irony that postulating the phenomenological barrier is no less of a grid over pure chaos than anything else.

And that thinking of chaos as being disordered (in this context) is a concept based on the Eristic Illusion.

[rsa]

I just need to point out here that the inability to precisely measure both position and momentum (for example) is NOT due to the act of measurement or an imperfect measuring device. A particle does not, even in principle, have both a well defined position and momentum.

Carry on.

[erislover]

rsa, there you go falling for the objective reference frame again.

But, apart from that, isn’t that what I said? “…our instruments themselves were subject to uncertainty, too, so no matter what we were screwed.”

[rsa]

erislover, you deny the objectivity of QM? By that I mean the theory, not the various “interpretations” that have been proposed to explain quantum weirdness. I would agree with you that the interpretations are not objective and probably not testable. But QM itself is testable and is in fact the most accurate theory that exists.

Of course you can just say that any theory is just an approximation of reality and is not “objective” and that all we see are shadows on a wall. I guess that I have a different understanding of “objective” than you do.

[erislover]

In a small and intensely personal treatise of philosophy that I am writing (seemingly taking forever) I have said the following comment that might add to the discussion here: “The limits of empistemology are the limits of language.” Taken heavily from influence from Wittgenstein (thanks for getting me there, Spiritus!).

Remember that you can’t have QM without the interpretations, becuase without interpretations (the basis of the “language”) the data is not any more meaningfull than quacking. It needs a frame in which to operate and make sense, but that sense is in the frame. That several frames can make sense of the experiments doesn’t mean that the sense exists outside of these frames.

Consider a stratified existence in decreasing “objectivity”:
Pure Chaos (as “explained” in my above quote)
Metaphysical framework/ untestable theory
Human sensatory reality (phenomenon)
experimental reality (phenomenon about phenomenon)
inductive theory (fits the data)

See what I’m saying there?

[rsa]

Yes, I see what you are saying (I think). I just disagree on where the line is drawn between the differrent categories that you listed. Since I’m interested as a lay person in science and QM in particular, I was trying to correct what I considered an inaccurate statement (the one about position and momentum).

Also I disagree with this:

Remember that you can’t have QM without the interpretations, becuase without interpretations (the basis of the “language”) the data is not any more meaningfull than quacking. It needs a frame in which to operate and make sense, but that sense is in the frame.

That’s just not right. The Copenhagen interpretation is basically a non-interpretation. (“It works, just shut up and compute!”) QM “works” without interpretation and that is the way that many scientists use it. I say if it works (in the frame of our universe and reality) then it’s objective. I might even suggest that the untestable metaphysical interpretations have their place because they may help advance the theory which is testable.

Gravity can be described as a force or as geodesic paths through space and time. Two different interpretations do not make “gravity” non-objective.

This is probably enough of a highjack to this thread and I’ve got to run.

[erislover]

The reason the statement is not inaccurate in tha tunderstanding is because since those complimentary qualities are considered to be inherently unknowable to perfect precision, our instruments are also subject to them.

Two different interpretations do not make “gravity” non-objective.

Well, lesse. Two completely different explanations for the same experimental data. color me confused about objectivity. consider the meaning of the word:

Definition of OBJECTIVE

“of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.”

In the same way that inherent uncertainty “makes” our instruments unable to achieve precision that isn’t there anyway, no measurement, experiment, or theory can be made without the use of a system of arbitrary symbols and sounds (words and formulas, for the rest of us). The objectivity of experimentation is based on an interpretation of experimentation; i.e.—what it means to do an experiment.

I’ve personally always viewed the Copenhagen Interpretation to say that there exists no underlying reality that explains all experimental realities. You might note how accurately this reflects the notion that complimentary qualities are inherently imprecise… that is, they aren’t there.

Maybe it is a stretch. :shrug:

[Jerevan_Somerville]

…if I may add my $0.02 to the QM discussion, at least in the area of terminilogy:

I don’t think it’s correct to say that the complementary qualities to which you referring, e.g. precision and momentum, are inherently imprecise, as this word suggests that there is something vague or approximate about them. IIRC, quantum theory does not say that the qualities which describe the state of a particle lack precise, definite, measurable values; it only says that observer can never simultaneously measure all of these values for a particle and so describe its state completely. In other words, the uncertainty principle (knowing all of the qualities) is not the same as a lack of precision (achieving an exact measure of a quality).

Likewise, to equate this uncertainty with instrumental precision (or lack thereof) is also misleading, I think.

However, I am working off my memory of coursework done long ago. If my thinking is incorrect or out-dated, I would be happy to be enlightened.

(Rather far from the OP now, aren’t we? I love the SDMB. )

[erislover]

I am not equating them. The same problem of complimentary properties applies to the instruments as it does to the particles in question (here’s a way of looking at it: instruments need to be as precise or more precise than the thing they are measuring, and of course at this level our instruments are usually other particles, something which serves to blur the line of that-which-is-measured and that-which-measures). But this is even irrelevant to the reason I brought it up, which was the context of the thought experiment, where Einstein was trying to set up the perfect experiment and Bohr was shooting it down by critiquing the apparatus (possibly apocryphal, but I don’t think so).

…as this word suggests that there is something vague or approximate about them. IIRC, quantum theory does not say that the qualities which describe the state of a particle lack precise, definite, measurable values; it only says that observer can never simultaneously measure all of these values for a particle and so describe its state completely.

Hmm, what is the truth and what is the interpretation? The theory states that the product of uncertainties in measurement must always be less than h-cross. If momentum is p and position is q, and the error in measurement is d(delta), then
dp x dq > h/4[symbol]p[/symbol] (So sayeth In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat by John Gribbin, and also here or here)
So is it impossible to measure these two complimentary properties simultaneously to arbitrary precision because we interfere with the particle states to make measurements or are they simply not arbitrarily precise? Most importantly: How could we distinguish between those two descriptions of quantum reality? The equation (symbols, language, expression) sits there. What does it mean?

A very interesting read, albeit from the philosophy department of Stanford. It doesn’t seem to be contradicting anything I’ve said and quotes Heisenburg’s publications themselves. Fascinating stuff, when you think about it.

And which is the theory and which is the data?

[erislover]

Actually, I don’t remember if it was Bohr or not.

[rsa]

Leaving aside the (probably) unanswerable question about the “reality” of unobserved quantum states, I am still confused about your refusal to acknowledge the difference between theory and interpretation.

{comment regarding gravity}

*Originally posted by erislover *
Well, lesse. Two completely different explanations for the same experimental data. color me confused about objectivity. consider the meaning of the word:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=objective
“of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.”

So your position is that gravity is not “in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers”?

Newton’s idea of gravity as a force still works for most applications. Einstein’s general relativity works better in extreme cases. I’m sure that there is a better theory to be found (e.g., quantum gravity theory). How does a less than perfect theory make the underlying physical reality any less objective?

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**It’s your assertion. Prove it or abandon it.

Consider it abandoned. Okey dokey, now?

Plus, you still have not shown what valid objective evidence there is that my favorite color is brown. **

Yes, Lib - I agree. You certainly don’t need objective evidence for an opinion such as “brown is my favorite color”. Since we weren’t discussing opinions, I’m not sure why you think it’s relevant, but I will be glad to concede that you are correct if that will make you happy.

[Liberal]

Almost. If you think brown is my favorite color, then that is an opinion. But if I think so, then it is a fact.

[Jerevan_Somerville]

eris, I shall have to read through the links you provide to “brush up”, but I think I am with you now. I did not realize that you were using the term “instruments” to refer to the microscopic particles (photons, etc) involved in measuring the states of other microscopic particles. To me, the word “instruments” evokes the image of a macroscopic object, not a microscopic one. And this is partly my interpretation; I work in analytical chemistry, so the association of “instrument” with a macroscopic machine is nearly automatic; and I have confused my fellow musicians on this score to no end! Call this my particular grid.

So yes, the basic idea of the uncertainty principle is that process of measuring the state of a particle alters the state of that particle in some way, so that its state, independent of or prior to the measurement, can never be known completely. On a different (metaphysical?) scale this implies that “reality” is always dependent in some way on the observer, because the observer can never be completely separated from the system under observation.

I am now Bohred. Pray, continue.

[Liberal]

On a different (metaphysical?) scale this implies that “reality” is always dependent in some way on the observer, because the observer can never be completely separated from the system under observation.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but…

If you think brown is my favorite color, then that is an opinion. But if I think so, then it is a fact.

[Jerevan_Somerville]

OK, OK. . . point taken. But. . . but. . . in asserting that brown is your favorite color, you-the-observer who makes the assertion and you-the-system which likes brown are not separate. Likewise, we-the-observers could never prove that brown is the favorite color of you-the-system, because the “thing” by which are measuring that assertion, which we might call you-the-conscious-mind, is not separate from you-the-system.

This doesn’t change the reality that brown is your favorite color, but it does suggest that the assertion can never be independently proven.

Or so I think. Let me chew on this a while and come back. I’m not sure that I even agree with what I just wrote, but there it is for consideration.

Ciao for now.

[rsa]

*Originally posted by erislover *
So is it impossible to measure these two complimentary properties simultaneously to arbitrary precision because we interfere with the particle states to make measurements or are they simply not arbitrarily precise?

I found this which explains the answer as I understand it: http://www.netspace.net.au/~gregegan/FOUNDATIONS/04/found04.html#s5

The uncertainty principle is the inability of a quantum system to possess sharply defined values of certain pairs of variables, such as position and momentum. Unfortunately, this simple fact is sometimes shrouded in confusion, some of which probably dates back to a famous thought experiment of Heisenberg’s in the 1920s. Heisenberg pointed out that, because light comes in quanta with a minimum amount of energy and momentum for any given wavelength, even if an electron was a point particle straight out of classical physics, we could never illuminate one in order to see where it was without disturbing it to some degree in the process. This is a perfectly true statement – but it’s a true statement about a hypothetical alternative universe, because electrons aren’t classical point particles. A correct description of an electron, whether as a wave function in ordinary space or a state vector in a Hilbert space, shows that it doesn’t need to be “disturbed” by anything in order to be subject to the uncertainty principle. It simply can’t possess an exact momentum and an exact position at the same time, any more than a musical note can be a perfect middle C, giving it a well-defined frequency, while lasting for a billionth of a second, giving it a well-defined location in time.

The complementary bases for position and momentum shown in Figure 15 illustrate the true source of the uncertainty principle. For a quantum state to have a definite position, all but one of its coordinates would need to be zero. For a quantum state to have a definite momentum, all but one of its {delta} coordinates would need to be zero. It’s obvious from Figure 15 that these two requirements can’t be satisfied by the same vector.

The uncertainty principle flows entirely from the geometry of the Hilbert space describing the quantum system. You could perform separate measurements on two thousand identically prepared quantum systems, measuring position in half of the experiments and momentum in the other half – there’d be no question, then, of position measurements in one experiment disturbing momentum measurements in another – and it would still be impossible for the measurements to show a sharply defined momentum without a correspondingly broad range of values for position, and vice versa.

I know this is irrelevant to the point being made, but it just bugs me that so many references oversimplify the explanation of uncertainty by implying that uncertainty is caused by measuring particles disturbing the particle being measured.

[Freyr]

Dragging this back on topic…

**Fox_Moxin wrote:

Now lets jump feet first into the abyss. The CREATOR is present in almost every religion on earth. Sometimes he is the same god who runs the universe, sometimes he just shows up, makes a bunch of stuff, and leaves. But he is almost everywhere. In Norse he takes the form of a Giant Cow (Which by the way is the only reason i have any real doubts about norse creationism, i just CAN’T believe the universe was birthed by a cow the size of a galaxy.)**

Alright, let’s correct a few errors here. First, the big one, you’re confusing religion with mythology here. The two are NOT the same. While mythology often has stories of gods, goddesses and their deeds, it’s not the same the actual religion that they practiced. For example, the Greeks of antiquity had the Rites of Eleyusis, which was a mystery religoin (one was initiated into the faith thru secret rituals). It’s believed that what we know as Greek mythology comes from (at best) 2nd and 3rd hand stories ABOUT those rituals. They weren’t the rituals themselves. There are also a variety of household rituals that focused on spirits of the ancestors. Try reading A History of Pagan Europe by Prudence Jone and Nigel Pennick.

Now, about Norse creation mythology. No, the great cow, Audumla, was NOT the being that brought about creation. In many (if not all) of the the creation myths of antique Europe, there is no Creator. In most stories, creation comes about as a natural progress of events from nothingness (which somehow has the seeds of everything in it) to something (creation and the universe) of which the gods are a natural part.

In Norsey mythology, the universe came about as the ice came out of Niflheim and the fire out of Mulspielheim and they met in the great, magical void, Ginnunagap. When they met, a great steam and smoke and rime when up and out of this coalesced out of the smoke and steam. Then the giant Ymir and so on an so forth.

**Now the legends of such a creator spirit are so prevelant, that its a safe bet that one exists, but which one? OR do they all exist and he just aproaches different people in different ways? **

Well, as I said above, not all religions have a creator spirit. But are there many gods or just One god? Good question! My personal experience has been that there are many gods. I’ve had the opportunity to have two touch my life. The experiences were different enough to assure me that they were different entities.

My other evidence is a bit more practical. Looking at history, if there is only One God, why does He (She/It) give everyone such different rules to live by. For example, the Jews of antiquity received the Torah as their set of rules by which to set up their society. The other societies of Europe and western Asia had their own set of rules, often quite contrary to each what the Jews and other societies had. Why was this? If there’s only one God, why does he give everyone such different rules?

[Polycarp]

I am now Bohred. Pray, continue.

Yeah, but what do you expect with a Big Bang cosmology – with one of them, you’re not playing according to Hoyle!