something I've noticed about our perception of time

Great Debates
41

Yes, spritus, what I meant but didn’t clearly say(as usual) was that the distribution of individual digits of pi do not conform to a statistical pattern. But each digits is completely determinable. Thanks for the clarification.

As far as your other point goes, you’re right again. What does quantum physics predict? AFAIK:

  1. The existence of certain particles.
  2. How those particles will interact statistically with other particles through
  3. what forces govern those particles
  4. which are (the forces) particles in themselves (which brings us back to one).

Quantum physics is remarkable at those feats, and no one has successfully devised an experiment to the contrary.

HOWEVER, as a model for how the universe works it carries a lot of metaphysical baggage. We may ignore that baggage by claiming that it is not an accurate representaion of reality, merely a mathematical “trick”. While some take comfort in that, it is widely accepted that it is an accurate representaion of reality and any further model needs to include quantum physics in it.

So then we have the metaphysical baggage. Why is such-and-such a result more statistically likely? Why is it probabilistic in the first place? Why does a particle interact with itself through waveform fluctuations (“ghost” particle interference) when, if we try and find out what its doing to interfere with itself, we only find a single particle and not all the ghost particles? Most importantly, if we can verify these “ghost” particles through their effect on the particle’s waveform, what happens to them when we collapse that waveform?

The last is the most important question. Being a fan of the so-called Everett or Multi-Universe Interpretation, I feel that each ghost particle follows its own path in seperate universes. Anything that happened definitely happened in the way we “saw” it happen, and that event sets the stage for subsequent events.

IMO, anyway. Most don’t like the multi-universe theory. Then again, some people call them wavicles just to really drive the point home. Then again, some people like rocky road ice cream.

It is just metaphysical baggage for now, and possibly forever.

Oh, and one more thing…

Interactions appear to be random. The things QM predicts about those particles themselves (their spin, charge, rest mass, etc) are quite defined and really accurate.

So to me it feels like the situation with pi… any particular particle is as determined as each subsequent digit of pi’s expansion; it is what is going to happen next that trips us up. And then, in the long haul we find pi converges to a value, and in the long haul we find that particle interaction converges to our macro interpretation of it.

Where’s giraffe when we need him? He knows this quantum stuff damn good, even if we disagree on the implications of it.

42

Is time intelligibility? Does time allow us to understand space and causality (and to misunderstand being)? How else would an organism understand space without time? If time is intelligibility, then are logical thought patterns merely in agreement with time? If something does not make sense, is it due to a mere (mis)function of time?

43

it really says something for this BB in that I’ve never had such a hard time trying to steer people away from quantum mechanics! My reason for trying to do this is that we will never be able to derive new systems of knowledge from the chaos of sensation impinging on us, if we contantly have to allow for things that will probably never happen in the life of the universe (this is where I get shot down for thinking I know the life of the universe).

My coffee cup will never fly up to the ceiling when I drop it. That is why the part of my whole knowledge system that stops me from knocking cups off tables, works! If I try to change my everyday knowledge because of some obscure mathematics that will never show itself… I’m just going to become less powerful at prediction; and if that’s not knowledge, what is?

SO… I looked at a subset of the universe that related to its chaotic nature. It’s interesting how it works. That’s all.

44

The first, and still the most popular interpretation of QM is the so-called standard interpretation, as given by Bohr, Dirac & Von Neumann. This interpretation leaves absolutely no room for determinism.

The reason: A big part of the QM standard interpretation is that it’s a complete description of physical reality. So, if the topic is physical reality, you look at the QM standard interpretation rulebook. You won’t find determinism in there. What you’ll find is not strict cause & effect, but strict conformance to a probability function.

The only possible room affored to determism would be to classify the mysterious rules needed for it to work as ‘hidden variables.’ Hidden variables were proposed by Einstein & others who objected to the QM standard interpretation as a complete description of physical reality. Hidden variables have no significance under QM standard interpretation.

45

Is that so? You came to that conclusion through…what, some idea of cause and effect? If nothing has a cause, then there can be no effects. QED, determinism dies today.

I respectfully disagree.

46

arl:

I didn’t personally come up with this conclusion. Nor is the exclusion of determinism based on a logical argument per se. The QM standard interpretation is a theory. How good a theory is depends on experimental evidence. And there’s a ton of experimental evidence which is consistent with the QM standard interpretation.

There are, of course, other interpretations which are also consistent with the same body of evidence, such as many-worlds & David Bohm’s ontological interpretation.