[sandstone (OP)]

Matthew,

I appreciate the effort you have expended to explain this to me.  You acknowledge that the paradigm has changed, but you retain the old terminology.  Would it be fair to distinguish between the old and the new paradigms by now descibing them as 'deterministic space-time' and 'probabilistic space-time' respectively?

An independent review might be more objective than science reviewing itself.  But you say that philosophical tests are flawed.  So science can assess philosophical methods, but philosophy cannot assess scientific thought? 

Interesting!

Regards, 'Sandy'.

[imatfaal]

Sandy, I never said philosophy can be judged or deemed with or without merit by science - please re-read.  I said there is a separation - that philosophy cannot be used to assess correctness of science; I would also say that science has no place in assessing philosophical or artistic merit. 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that because the idea of strict mechanistic determinism has been transcended that the tools, mathematics, and terminology that under-pinned physics have been jettisoned.  This is simply not true.   Now more than ever before the technical detail that provides the foundation of physics is crucial; we have arrived at energies so high, particles so small, distances so profound that sometimes all we have left is the formal mathematics.

An independent review, by which I am forced to think you mean a non-mathematical, non-empirical, and non-technical discursive review is unfortunately worthless.  many more appealing formulations of physical laws can be posited in a hand-waving fashion - however consistency with reality needs application of mathematics and experimental evidence must have a bearing on the argument. 

In a sentence - what doesn't work at the moment which will do once we accept that uncertainty is the fifth dimension?  Please give a substantive answer and not just another vague quotation.

Matthew

[sandstone (OP)]

Matthew,

There is no issue with the need for evidence and maths, but if the scientific paradigm has changed, why is that not reflected in a title change? 

It could provide a useful step in the shift from modernity to post-modernity. 

Regards, Sandstone.

[Geezer]

It could provide a useful step in the shift from modernity to post-modernity. 

I vote we skip post-modernity and move on to post-post-modernity. Post-modernity is soooo passé don't you think?

[imatfaal]

Sandstone
What you call physical theories does not impact on their validity - apart from perhaps leading to confusion amongst those who have scant real understanding; dark energy is a good example of a name that inspires crazy ideas.   

The fact that you are under the impression that modernity and post modernity have some form of connection with the turn away from mechanical determinism proves you know next to nothing about this subject.

Philosophy cannot sensibly review science (nor vice versa).  Whilst much of physics (and science in general) is often spoken of in vague and discursive terms; there is an underlying bedrock of seriously rigorous mathematics, nowhere more so than in quantum mechanics.  You cannot understand, comment sensibly upon, or truly interact with a new physical theory until you comprehend this fact and are willing to engage with the underlying tough equations.

In a sentence - what doesn't work at the moment which will do once we accept that uncertainty is the fifth dimension?

I have asked this a few times already - ready for an answer now

Matthew

[sandstone (OP)]

Matthew,

1.  According to eminent scientists, QM theory relies heavily on the mathematics of probability.  Do you agree with them?

2.  Probability is a recognised measure of uncertainty.  Do you agree with that statement?

3.  The bone of contention is whether that measurement, or any other measure of uncertainty, constitutes a fifth dimension?

Accepting uncertainty as the fifth dimension may not change contemporary science in itself, but it may highlight the current worldview that uncertainty is an inherent part of Nature.  What is the most accurate description of the paradigm currently in use?   From your ealier comments it might be 'probabilistic space-time'.  However, I note that you avoided responding to a question on that at the time.

Why? What are you uncertain about?

Regards, Sandstone.

[sandstone (OP)]

Greetings Viewers,

Uncertainty has a profound influence on human behaviour. 

It is a critical life dimension.  We may not always find it comfortable, but try to imagine a life without uncertainty. 

There are many references in the literature to the search for certainty.  In understanding uncertainty, it is most important to draw a distinction between environmental and psychological uncertainty.  Attempts to create environmental certainty tend to inhibit creativity and freedom of action. The more promising avenue for seeking certainty is in terms of generating psychological certainty in its many forms. 

The Boyer Model of Integrated Scholarship advocates integration of knowledge across the disciplines.  The combination of physics and psychology poses an interesting challenge and, yet, if we are really to understand uncertainty that may be a challenge worth pursuing. 

It would help a great deal to appreciate the benefits of uncertainty, rather than see it as a scientific gremlin.
The frustrations that have been apparent in the dialogue to date are understandable. However, in the context of the question posed, getting down and dirty with the statistics of QM is irrelevant.  The hard work there has already been done. 

The question now is: What do the results really mean?   

The answer is to embrace the inherent uncertainty of Nature and work with it in a constructive manner.

Thank you for the opportunity to pose this question.

Clem Molloy (aka Sandstone).

[sandstone (OP)]

I do have an answer that does it in four measures: three components of momentum, and one of energy.  Then you have a plane wave describing the particle's state exactly^*, which also includes its uncertainty relations.  What do you find wrong with this description?

*: When I say exactly, what I mean is that the state is determined to the fullest extent that quantum mechanics allows.  This automatically includes the uncertainty relations, since they're built into the rules of quantum mechanics.  That's exactly what Hawking's quote is saying--that quantum mechanics builds uncertainty into the laws of physics--not that uncertainty requires an additional measurement to be made.

JP I have only just seen this reply.  Not sure why it did not come up before.

So you are saying that there are four dimensions plus a plane wave.  And the plane wave, which includes uncertainty relations, is not a fifth measure? 

With due respect that does not sound very convincing.  It has all the hallmarks of trying to provide adequate desciptors without challenging the 4D paradigm.  Just sweep uncertainty under the scientific carpet.

Little wonder some people are averse to having philosophers take a close look at scientific thought. 

Thank for the question and the explanation.

Regards, Clem.

[imatfaal]

Clem,

Your perceived instances of lack of knowledge and insight within the science community are understandable - they come from your lack of comprehension of the subject not from others refusal to accept change. 

Could you try answering a few questions?  How are you defining Dimension?  And how are you defining Uncertainty?  I ask because I have re-read your posts and it seems clear that you are using notions that I do recognize.  Please do not respond with another set of questions about my beliefs/definitions - I am fed up with the recursive nature of that form of argument, I have clearly explained why my definition of dimension and uncertainty would rule out your hypothesis.

Matthew

[sandstone (OP)]

Matthew,

It is fairly clear that we come from rather different orientations.  You are obviously determined to hold on to your point of view, which is your prerogative. 

The bottom line is that without space, time and uncertainty we would not exist.  They are critical life dimensions and they are measurable at all levels. 

The problem at the moment is that science has not given uncertainty the recognition it deserves and, accordingly, that inhibits understanding and adaptation.  Time will tell.

Regards, Clem.






 

[JP]

JP I have only just seen this reply.  Not sure why it did not come up before.

So you are saying that there are four dimensions plus a plane wave.  And the plane wave, which includes uncertainty relations, is not a fifth measure? 

With due respect that does not sound very convincing.  It has all the hallmarks of trying to provide adequate desciptors without challenging the 4D paradigm.  Just sweep uncertainty under the scientific carpet.

Little wonder some people are averse to having philosophers take a close look at scientific thought. 

Thank for the question and the explanation.

Regards, Clem.

That's exactly what I (and science, by the way) are saying. 

It is fairly clear that we come from rather different orientations.  You are obviously determined to hold on to your point of view, which is your prerogative. 

Indeed.  We've tried to discuss the scientific points, but your entire response seems to be to say "paradigm shift" to avoid discussing science.  I don't think there's much else to say on the matter.

[sandstone (OP)]

Fine by me.

The issue is not about science per se, but about what the particular findings of science mean for society as a whole. 

The implications of the Copenhagen Interpretation extend well beyond physics. 

Incidentally, the notion of a five-dimensional universe is far from a new idea. 

Best wishes, Clem.

[sandstone (OP)]

"Only the most profound minds think in terms of dimensions."
V. S. Alder
The Fifth Dimension

Where are the polymaths?

[imatfaal]

the fact that you quote a famous mystic to bolster a scientific argument speaks volumes.  and further, that you decry the lack of polymaths on this forum is a little insulting from someone whose scientific knowledge is quite clearly of the wikipedia variety.  you have not provided a single argument that logically or scientifically backs up your claim.  in all honesty, with the lack of any support for your contention, you could replace 'uncertainty' with almost any abstract term and be in a similar position.

http://xkcd.com/675/

I think I am outta here

Regards - Matthew

[peppercorn]

http://xkcd.com/675/

This deserves to be up for all to see! Possibly hanging over the entrance of the forum! Thanks to Matthew.

"Keep an open mind, but don't let it become an open sewer", someone cleaver

[sandstone (OP)]

Matthew, Peppercorn,

The question behind the question is this: 

If uncertainty is so obviously the elusive fifth dimension, why has it not been identified as such?

Thank you.  You have answered that question in spades!

Regards, Sandstone.

[Geezer]

I really prefer my postulate a lot more. It's pretty obvious that it's correct, even to the most casual observer.

Uncertainty is simply a function of the "jigglyness" of time. When you get down to very small dimensions, it's no longer possible to measure time because the time keeping apparatus consists of the system that is being "timed". At that point, the whole model goes circular and time becomes meaningless.

[sandstone (OP)]

Thanks Geezer,

Regards, Sandstone.

[Geezer]

Thanks Geezer,

Regards, Sandstone.

Most welcome Sandstone.

I was only half joking. Our concept of time is based on the motion, through space, of very large numbers of atoms. Therefore, there is some form of integration at play.

At the level of a single atom we can only observe time from our perspective, but the atom might have a totally different perspective.

[sandstone (OP)]

Geezer,

The atom's perspective is an interesting way to think about it.  Bit like Einstein trying to imagine travelling along a light beam.

Thanks again.

Regards, Sandstone.