[angst (OP)]

I was thinking about what quantum physics tells us about the indeterminacy of matter....and thinking about Einstein's words and I had a thought. Perhaps it is not down, purely to chance, as to the outcome of a measurement. Maybe it is when looked upon dryly, without any intention but to find the 'particle' in question's velocity or position. But what if that indeterminacy is the realm of intention?

We are lead to believe that in a spiritual setting intention behind an action is more important than the action itself. As the Buddhists would say, the path taken will lead to different fruits.

Just a thought for discussion...

[stevewillie]

I wrote a book on intention, purpose and choice in the universe. It simply recognizes WE are part of the equation and our technology is part of nature. It seems obvious, but dualism is deeply seated in our consciousness. However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics. In any proper scientific experiment, the whole point is that our human intentions DO NOT interfer with the results.   

[angst (OP)]

I wrote a book on intention, purpose and choice in the universe. It simply recognizes WE are part of the equation and our technology is part of nature. It seems obvious, but dualism is deeply seated in our consciousness. However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics. In any proper scientific experiment, the whole point is that our human intentions DO NOT interfer with the results.  

That is what I was trying to say when I wrote; Maybe it is when looked upon dryly, without any intention but to find the 'particle' in question's velocity or position.

Obviously there is no intention, other than to find a particle's velocity or position....

[Grant Silver]

In the quantum world God not only plays dice, he cheats

[LeeE]

I don't think you need to look in to spirituality to resolve this issue.

It's impossible to know whether Einstein really misunderstood indeterminacy or was deliberately choosing not to do so, but indeterminacy doesn't directly equate to chance.  There are logical problems where the only solutions are indeterminate by definition but chance plays no role at all.

[peppercorn]

As an atheist, with a machine-view of conciousness I'm disturbed by having the observer impacting on the observed; as I believe Einstein was also (although he was a theist).

I have never been particularly comfortable with the 'many worlds' theorem for quantum-level outcomes, however...

I do think that this 'model' of the strangeness of quantum-mechanics is one that, on one hand gives us a simple to understand analogy:
      i.e. every observation determines which actual universe we find
      ourselves in afterwards - one for every possible quantum outcome.

On the other hand, the human mind is unable to truly deal with the concept of that many universes existing (infinite for all intents & purposes).  And doesn't it strike you as somehow messy?

[lyner]

The idea of ever increasing numbers of alternative universes is very unsatisfactory. It's along the lines of the "Turtles all the way down" explanation  used by flat Earth believers.
It, literally, opens more doors than it closes so it doesn't help my brain one little bit.

[angst (OP)]

The idea of ever increasing numbers of alternative universes is very unsatisfactory. It's along the lines of the "Turtles all the way down" explanation  used by flat Earth believers.
It, literally, opens more doors than it closes so it doesn't help my brain one little bit.

Yes, I've never understood why theories are put together that ask more questions than they answer... except that they then keep the subject in question within the realms of 'science' - though it is untestable.

And, before anybody jumps on me for doing the same, I was not offering a theory, but rather a question.

There is clearly a level of indeterminacy and it is explained within current understanding by 'chance' in the form of probability - in response to LeeE's point.

Many phycisists don't like this model, and say things like 'I've always felt there was something not right about quantum physics'... Is it possible that this is because this indeterminacy may very well be beyond the realm of science to decode?

[...lets split up...]

I am also left wanting with the idea of many universes.

And this may be off the topic, but you ever feel that chance and probability only exist to us because we experience time as a constant moving forward? I'm very tired, so apologies if this sounds a bit stupid.

[lyner]

However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics.

This is a dodgey area. I think it has been more or less accepted that  our choice / decision between options is carried out a fraction of a second before we are aware of it. How or even whether we actually make a decision is probably governed by the same sort of random processes that we observe (in simpler form) in fundamental particle experiments.
Our decisions are obviously not all 50 50 but based on a complicated set of weightings but, in the end "shall I go for the red shirt or the green shirt?" results in an arbitrary / random choice which we rationalise and reinforce after the event. This positive feedback mechanism is there to stabilise the system - rather like a Schmidt Trigger is / was used in electronic control systems.
Now why did I write that? Creepy ain't it?

[LeeE]

And this may be off the topic, but you ever feel that chance and probability only exist to us because we experience time as a constant moving forward? I'm very tired, so apologies if this sounds a bit stupid.

It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.

If the time dimension is finite in extent, and after all, we have one end-point of it - at the BB 13.4 billion years ago, we could just be passing along a pre-existing time-line.  If however, the time dimension is not finite in extent and is expanding, we could be on the boundary of that expansion and constantly moving into 'new' time.

It's interesting to compare this possible extending of time with the extension of space due to the expansion of the universe:  with universal expansion, new space is created within an existing space environment that appears to have no boundaries whereas in an expanding time scenario there appear to be clear boundaries, one at the origin and the other at the 'now', and the expansion only occurs at the 'now' boundary.

In the context of people asking "what's outside the universe?, I think that the expanding time scenario illustrates quite nicely how you can have a boundary where nothing needs to exist outside it.

[lyner]

It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.

Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random. A random sequence of numbers on a page in front of you are still random although you can see the first and last one in the sequence. The definition of a truly random process is one for which the autocorrelation function is a delta function- i.e. the only time the sequence matches itself at all is when it is laid over itself 'in phase'. (Mathematicians - please don't jump on me for that one.)

I think it is fascinating how our brains try to make sense of it all by having conversations like the present one. It's a sort of 'bootstrap' situation. Could we ever suss it out completely? I don't think so. It wouldn't be good for us in any case.

[angst (OP)]

However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics.

This is a dodgey area. I think it has been more or less accepted that  our choice / decision between options is carried out a fraction of a second before we are aware of it. How or even whether we actually make a decision is probably governed by the same sort of random processes that we observe (in simpler form) in fundamental particle experiments.
Our decisions are obviously not all 50 50 but based on a complicated set of weightings but, in the end "shall I go for the red shirt or the green shirt?" results in an arbitrary / random choice which we rationalise and reinforce after the event. This positive feedback mechanism is there to stabilise the system - rather like a Schmidt Trigger is / was used in electronic control systems.
Now why did I write that? Creepy ain't it?

Hmmm... you say this is a "dodgy idea", and then go on to extrapolate some random, pointless and ultimately meaningless choice as if they were the only choices that we make. Do you really consider that real choices that we make are made "a fraction of a second" before we act on them?

It is a "dodgy area" because it deals with a question that cannot and will not be faced by science. And that, I would suggest, is why quantum physcis, what it evidences, will continue to be looked upon by science as 'somehow wrong'.

What is truly a "dodgy idea" is this, that our choices are simply a random collection of 'switches' which we then justify as a choice. We become, then, mere drones, subject to electrical impulses, with no real will at all. That is the ultimate corollary of science without context - of materialism unbounded and ungrounded.

[angst (OP)]

It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.

Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random. A random sequence of numbers on a page in front of you are still random although you can see the first and last one in the sequence. The definition of a truly random process is one for which the autocorrelation function is a delta function- i.e. the only time the sequence matches itself at all is when it is laid over itself 'in phase'. (Mathematicians - please don't jump on me for that one.)

I think it is fascinating how our brains try to make sense of it all by having conversations like the present one. It's a sort of 'bootstrap' situation. Could we ever suss it out completely? I don't think so. It wouldn't be good for us in any case.

The fact that quantum physics shows us indeterminacy is, as I see it, a great sign that the future is created - it does not already exist

[lyner]

Indeterminacy is not, per se, a proof or disproof of whether the future is 'really there' before we get to it.
All that indeterminacy really says is that the 'next step' can't be inferred exactly from the present conditions. The same could be said for a list of (truly) random numbers or a recording of a past event.
If you were walking down a dark tunnel you would not know that the tunnel in front of you was there all the time or that it was being dug just to keep up with your forward motion.
And one must remember that we are only aware of the past, not even the present; our consciousness takes a  finite time to be aware of anything - even our decisions.
But, as far as we were concerned, it would make no difference.
This is yet another of the "what is really happening" questions to which there can't be an answer. Good fun to discuss but I think that's all.

[LeeE]

It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.

Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random.

Well, in a pre-existing future, it doesn't stop the specific events in the sequence from being random but both each individual event and the sequence of those events will always be the same and therefore certain.  For example, if you take an existing sequence of random numbers, such as the lottery numbers for last year, although the values of the numbers are random, neither their sequence or their values will ever change - that sequence has become 100% certain.  If the future pre-exists, then that sequence of lottery numbers was always going to be what it turned out to be, even if we didn't know it at the time.

[lyner]

But would we know one way or the other?

[LeeE]

Difficult to see how right now, so possibly not, although if we can figure out some of the other stuff i.e. mass, inertia via the HB and gravitons etc. then it might strongly suggest a non-pre-existing and expanding future.  Even if it can't be proved, it would be a more consistent solution - sort of more in fitting with the rest of the universe, if you see what I mean.  Arguably, it might be more probable.  []

[lyner]

I think we are suffering from our brain-limitation here. If we assume that time is some sort of dimension through which we are moving then our experience will show us things 'as they happen' (i.e. as we move along the path). But the expression 'as they happen' only refers to the variation of events along the timeline. Just like a graph of y = x², which we can see on a page, we can trace out the parabola with our finger to the point (3,9) or we can predict where it will end up because we can see it all.

Basically I'm saying there is no distinction between the two views. If both models give the same answer then they are equivalent. It's just the way we choose to look at it - coloured by our usual subjective human approach to everything.

[LeeE]

I don't think it's a brain-limitation problem, but rather one of our viewpoint.  Our brains can quite happily consider the two alternatives discussed so far, and see how they are fundamentally different - it's obtaining proof of one or the other that's the problem.

In view of the fundamental differences between the two alternatives, and even though they may appear to be equivalent to us, from our viewpoint, I think it's unwise to declare that they actually are equivalent without adding the viewpoint qualification.

Furthermore, I don't think that this problem is actually unsolvable.  While most people tend to split time from space and treat it differently, this is questionable.  For example, one of the seemingly obvious differences between space and time is that we can return to locations in space but we can't return to locations in time.  However, if we return to a previously visited location, the place itself will not be the same as it was on the previous visit because it will have changed over time, so although we can move back and forth spatially, we always end up at a new place.  Moreover, the idea of returning to a location, or just walking back and forth across a room, while implying both positive and negative movement through a spatial dimension, can be argued to be exclusively forward motion - we never walk backwards when we want to return to a spatial location, or get back to the other side of the room.  With no universal reference point, any displacement between two positions can only be regarded as positive - we never consider something to be a negative distance away - it's always a positive distance.

The idea that we can move freely in three dimensions is also a bit misleading in that any movement we make is only ever one-dimensional - if we really moved in two or three dimensions simultaneously, it would mean that we were actually getting bigger - movement results in a line, not an area or a volume.