Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: paul cotter on 06/09/2023 12:01:57
-
Recently I learned, through a conversation with Halc, that quantum theory says that one of the following statements must be false: (A) there can be no retrocausality and (B) counterfactual definiteness exists. The idea that either of these is false seems incomprehensible to me, on an INTUITIVE level. So what's going on here? I don't buy into these "simulation" ideas which in my opinion are just science fiction gone crazy. This will probably be too philosophical for Alancalverd though he is welcome to reply: Buddhism states that reality is an illusion- is it that too far off the mark? PS as I stated in another post I will be incommunicado for ~9days( sectioned under the mental health acts----no! only joking).
-
All isms make absolute and untestable statements, which is why we need science.
I don't see the two statements as mutually exclusive. We know that entropy increases with time so retrocausality is not possible, and ΔS > 0 is entirely consistent with Δp.Δx > 0.
-
Recently I learned, through a conversation with Halc, that quantum theory says that one of the following statements must be false: (A) there can be no retrocausality and (B) counterfactual definiteness exists.
More specifically, the principle of locality and principle of counterfactual definiteness (CFD) cannot both be true *.
which is why we need science.
I don't see the two statements as mutually exclusive.
Funny, since it was science (not mere philosophy) that demonstrated the mutual exclusivity of the two principles.
The idea that either of these is false seems incomprehensible to me, on an INTUITIVE level.
I was raised as a Christian and educated in a parochial school which taught me that the teachings of science and mathematics do not contradict the teachings of the Church. But then (around my 20's) the Church decided this was no longer true and one was not allowed to pay attention to the man behind the curtain (Oz reference if you don't get that). I was forced to choose, and that turned out to be pretty simple. I removed one premise that I held (the divine origin of the scripture) and so many pieces fell into place with startling ease.
Clearly it was a good thing to question one's beliefs, and so I learned to identify as many as I could (those intuitions you talk about) and question each of them, learned how to not rationalize, but rather to be rational. That part is not easy.
So began my journey into philosophy, but it turned out that all the pre-20th century philosophers were working on assumptions that science has since cast extreme doubt. To find the answers I was seeking, I needed to learn the relevant science, not enough to pass a grad-level course, but enough to know the implications. I came to TNS fairly ignorant of relativity and QM, but I learned, and I changed my views as I learned more.
I don't buy into these "simulation" ideas which in my opinion are just science fiction gone crazy.
Most people don't ever think it through, as evidence by the fact that there are two very different versions of it that are nevertheless treated the same. I agree and don't buy into the various versions either.
Buddhism states that reality is an illusion- is it that too far off the mark?
That's a philosophical stance. I don't know exactly what they mean by that statement, so I'm not much qualified to comment further. For instance, how do they define 'reality' and 'illusion'?
* There's a loophole in superdeterminism under which both principles hold, but which is way off the weird end of the scale, and is not listed as a valid interpretation since it suggests that no science can be performed at all.
-
Thanks, Halc, I just wanted to throw it out to see what reactions I get. As I said i'm away for~9 days tomorrow. Cheers.
-
Hi.
I was forced to choose, and that turned out to be pretty simple. I removed one premise that I held (the divine origin of the scripture) and so many pieces fell into place with startling ease.
Sounds like quite a harsh and rigid line for a church to take.
It's possible to support both Christianity and science. It helps if you start by not considering the bible as a literal truth. Realistically it's had a few translations from the original and probably conveys the spirit of something rather than any literal accuracy. After that you just recognise that free will was quite a gift and for it to be useful and worth having we do need the world (the universe really) to follow some rules. After all, what's the point in being able to choose an action if the consequences that follow from that action are random rather than being governed by some laws?
Anyway, that's the view I have and the local Anglican (Church of England) establishments in my area don't usually drive me away.
Best Wishes.
-
Hi, ES, i'm just heading out the door for the airport at the moment and I have not had time to even digest your post. I just wanted to say it's a pleasure to see you posting again as you always have some interesting angles to expound, certainly for me at least.
-
Hi and thanks for your kind words, @paul cotter .
I haven't been posting much and probably won't be for a while. Various reasons but one significant one is that I'm trying to repair and redcorate a house. I'm not any good at it, so it takes all my concentration and twice as much time as any other human being.
Best Wishes.
-
Welcome Back! @ Eternal
Happy & Safe Journey @ Mr Cotter
On Topic :
There can be different perspectives/opinions on or of Reality.
I am just another bloke, somewhat stationary on a merry go round oblate rotating spheroid, goin round n round around a Ferris wheel ball of plasma, which goes roundabouts doin carousels around a BH, which seems to have a few bumper cars galaxies around...
& here i am, thinkin to myself, Coffee is Not my cup of Tea!
Or am i just a Neuron, tryin to connect with other Neurons, to figure out just wat da hell is goin on!
What if Everything & Everyone is Mee!
SuperPositionWarpedUpEntangled.
ps - Reality is an Illusion!
(vice versa)