That’s a terrible, weak, misleading argument. Anything exists by that definition - Dragons, Santa Claus, The Man In The Moon, Banana Worms and Exploding Trouser Thursdays all really exist, just because I imagine them.
That one, I know. It’s actually within my pay grade, i.e., it involves math that’s simple enough, I can work it out. I learned it as the “flying telephone pole and barn” model, but a train and tunnel work just fine. It is a way of understanding how relativity annihilates “simultaneity.” And it isn’t too hard to do: you need nothing more advanced than square roots.
Another example is interference fringes in a microwave waveguide. You can get interference patterns traveling much faster than light. You just can’t use them to transmit information. The overall fringe envelope still only arises at the speed of light (or less.) But once it’s sitting there sizzling away, the fringes can move ftl.
Another example is to take a couple of sheets of moire patterns and overlay them. If you move one slightly, the interference patterns of light and dark bands will appear to move. In theory, you could get them to move faster than light. Again, no actual object is moving, only the apparent zones of light and dark corresponding to overlapping moire patterns.
One more example is of a wave hitting a beach at an angle. As the wave comes near the beach, it breaks and curls, and the curl will appear to move from left to right. (Or, of course, right to left.) As the angle of the wave to the beach becomes more close to parallel, the “speed” of the curl’s breaking gets faster. If the wave hits at an angle extremely close to perfectly parallel, the curl could move at any speed you want, including much faster than light. Once more, no physical object is moving, only the appearance of a thing.
Fun stuff, although ultimately of no real use. Except waveguide designers and maybe beachcombers.
I assumed your math, and science knowledge was better than my language skills.
Now that scalar fields are not just a thought experiment one of the more compelling arguments I have heard, although I will admit not completely understanding, is that general relativity (with math that scares me) may apply at the QM level.
I’ve figured for years that there are really only two possibilities:
Relativity and QM are compatible, with, perhaps, the proviso that one is perhaps overwhelmed by the other to the degree of being negligible. For instance, there is a gravitational attraction between the electron and proton in a Hydrogen atom…but you can pretty much ignore it in any calculations…
Or…
The two aren’t compatible and some completely new idea will have to be devised to make them get along, something nobody has thought of yet. Or something like String Theory, which has been thought of, but still needs work. Personally, I love String Theory and hope it turns out to be right…but that’s only an emotional preference.
Agreed - another example is the closure point of a pair of scissors - it’s not a thing and it can move at multiples of the speed of any part of the closing blade, including FTL.
Mathematically speaking? Quite possibly.
More user-friendly explanation -
When the proposition put forth is that atoms and electrons have “free will” and that this may lead to the proposition that there is a greater “consciousness” out there, then I think that the definitions of both terms have been switched on us in midstream when it comes to this conversation.
The proposition put forth is that particles make choices that fall outside the realm of “random”, which strongly suggests consciousness.
It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not there is free will. It just proves, mathematically, that *if *you have free will, then particles do, too - and/or if particles don’t have free will, then you don’t either.
The point *is, * particles choose, as we define “choice”, which suggests consciousness.
The paper deals with freewill (or current state is unrelated to prior state) vs. determinism. Neither are synonyms with consciousness.
“Free” “will” - two words - and, “free” or not, what is “will” if not consciousness?
No idea - but conflating choice as not being constrained by previous states to consciousness seems to beg the question.
Never allow language to restrict your knowledge of how the universe actually works. Even science redefines its terms with each brand new discovery.
Never allow language to shift under your feet without establishing continuity. Otherwise the weasels will weasel at will.
- Agreed upon language is how we properly communicate such knowledge to each other.
- Redefining terms isn’t what usually happens-redefining what terms should be applied is what usually happens.
How does “choice” suggest consciousness? My computer chooses when to run a virus scan, but it’s not conscious, AFAIK.
so, how exactly do you, an observer, distinguish between free choice or randomness?
So…“unconscious will” or “will-less consciousness”? Which are you suggesting and how would it work?
I should not have interjected the idea of “randomness”, which refers to the effects of this theorem on another.
Actually, it doesn’t - at least not in the way that you mean - but the proof *does *suggest that what we think is going on, when it *does (or does not) *run, isn’t what we think it is - i.e. isn’t necessarily dependent upon the way we program them to act. Absolutely.
This particular proof does, indeed, spark new ways of looking at things. The implications are tremendous, whether “will” is “free”, or not. If electrons *do *choose (even if only from within the parameters of a sub-atomic conscious experience - which is the sticky bit of calling such things “free”) it opens up an entirely new way of looking at things like electrons, or even just “inanimate” objects, and what is actually taking place when we “make them” do things.
It has always been assumed that we physically manipulate “unconscious/inanimate” objects (physically, chemically, thermodynamically, electronically or whatever) and that they have no choice in the matter, but if they have “will”, and if will is dependent upon consciousness (which I’d assumed was obvious, but apparently not) then there is also the possibility of direct “communication” that may or may not require “physical” interaction. Or even some kind of “stringy” symbiosis - which would also have to be redefined to include everything - i.e. forms and systems other than those we categorize as “biological” - things like toasters, traffic lights and transistors.
No one is disputing their math. Many don’t *like *it and some *really *don’t like it, because the implications are so profound, but they do not dispute it.
Even the most mundane, repeatable example could change the human race’s perception of everything - from dust bunnies and mosquitoes to fusion and space travel. Everything. ***Very ***exciting!
Has genuine random behavior ever been established by science? The closest I’ve seen is stochasticity, which really isn’t so much “random” as it is “impossible to predict with 100% accuracy.”