nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Free Will & Absolute Motion

roosh

Just thinking out loud here, but I was wondering if free will could be used to establish the existence of absolute motion?

In a separate discussion, Fourier mentioned that the Kolmogorov embedding (I'm using that term as though I know what it means) demonstrates that free will is a necessary consequence/fundamental necessity in quantum mechanics?

Could free will therefore be used to establish the existence of absolute motion, even if it remains impossible to actually determine which body is in a state of absolute motion?

I'm thinking of two spaceships at rest relative to each other. The captain of one spaceship makes a decision to turn on their rockets which results in relative motion between the two spaceships. Could the asymmetry in the situation lead us to the conclusion that there must be absolute motion?

Now, we still can't determine which of the two spaceships absolutely moves but for the spaceships to go from a state of relative rest to relative motion, one of the two spaceships would have to absolutely move, would they not?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Goosius

Fourier wrote: »

Well the notion of "disturbance" is outdated in fact, having been laid to rest in Bohr's analysis of the "Heisenberg microscope" in 1927. We now know that quantum particles do not possess pre-existant properties independent of measurement (i.e. measurement is an "act of creation" as John A. Wheeler sometimes said).

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about a breakdown of the wave function as caused by the interaction of one particle with the large mass of the measurement device. (i.e. the disturbance of the particle by the device).

This interpretation is described in wiki "/wiki/Objective-collapse_theory", and it is certainly not outdated. The wiki is explicit is noting that it is a growing area of research. QUOTE: "there is a growing number of experiments searching for spontaneous collapse effects."

Thus the assertion that quantum particles do not possess pre-existing properties prior to measurement, is most certainly not something that we "know", as indicated by the a growing number of people working on finding out whether those same properties can emerge even without human measurement.

Fourier

roosh wrote: »

A frame in which the ship is at rest relative to what?

Relative to that frame.

roosh

Fourier wrote: »

No, there'd still be a reference frame in which the ship is at rest. The change of velocity, i.e. the acceleration, would be absolutely noticed in any frame. However the principle of relativity concerns velocity not at
acceleration.

A frame in which the ship is at rest relative to what?

Fourier

Goosius wrote: »

I think in the early years of quantum physics, people were much more caught up in the idea of the human mind having an effect on experiments, but these days I seem to see much less of that, and more around how the measuring apparatus "disturbs" the measured particles, causing decoherance, with no fundamental impact from human, mouse or bacterial free will.

Well the notion of "disturbance" is outdated in fact, having been laid to rest in Bohr's analysis of the "Heisenberg microscope" in 1927. We now know that quantum particles do not possess pre-existant properties independent of measurement (i.e. measurement is an "act of creation" as John A. Wheeler sometimes said).

We also now know that in principle one cannot use quantum theory to explain how the measurement set-up came about, that seems to be outside the theory.

Quantum Theory assumes:
1. A given measurement set up. That is a particular classical system waiting to be affected by a quantum system
2. A given quantum system, e.g. electron, superfluid

It then describes the probability that the quantum system will have a particular effect on the classical system.
However it does not describe:
1. How the particular classical system got into the position of being able to be affected. It simply assumes the classical system is there. In an actual lab we choose the particular system. For example for light we might use a homodyne detector or a photo-detector. In which case quantum theory cannot tell you how the choice of homodyne vs photo-detector came about
2. It does not describe the quantum system in and of itself. So for example only how an electron affects macroscopic objects is described, but not the actual nature of the electron itself.

Decoherence is only a concept used to prove that some objects are classical like the theory requires, i.e. it's a consistency check.

Fourier

roosh wrote: »

Could free will therefore be used to establish the existence of absolute motion, even if it remains impossible to actually determine which body is in a state of absolute motion?

No, there'd still be a reference frame in which the ship is at rest. The change of velocity, i.e. the acceleration, would be absolutely noticed in any frame. However the principle of relativity concerns velocity not acceleration.

Goosius

To me the idea that "free will" is necessary for any physical interaction, displays a kind of contempt for evolutionary biology. Because if we believe the theory of evolution, then people are essentially no more than evolved bacteria. Now, assuming that nobody is claiming a bacteria or virus has "free will", then in order to prove that human "free will" is a thing influencing our experiments, we would necessarily have to identify the specific point in our evolution where we went from being without the purportedly physics-manipulating attribute of free will (like a bacteria), to being granted that powerful attribute (like the purported human experimenters). This seems to me like a fairly comical errand.

I think in the early years of quantum physics, people were much more caught up in the idea of the human mind having an effect on experiments, but these days I seem to see much less of that, and more around how the measuring apparatus "disturbs" the measured particles, causing decoherance, with no fundamental impact from human, mouse or bacterial free will.

So in short, you probably couldn't use the idea of free will to prove absolute motion today, and before considering any future attempts, it would certainly be best (and probably critical too for the proof) to first carefully define and experimentally prove what free will actually is. (because right now that foundation is not solid).