Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Dawkins vs Sartre/ existentialism vs biological determinism
Comments
-
OK, so we cannot associate the unique outcome with the cause, prior to the outcome, just as in QM.In Chaos theory there is only one possible outcome. We might not be able to predict it given limits on data gathering, but there is only one possible outcome.
Presumably, this would be subject to verification by experiment? And presumably the evidence of the unique outcome would be in the form of, for argument sake, an exposure on one of two Stern Gerlach plates?
Yep, they might be talking about it in response to Laplace, which is why there is such emphasis on the idea of pre-determinism.That the effect is unique is what "logical necessity" means. A specific effect follows necessarily from the cause. Anyway I don't want to help you read Schopenhauer, just read more of his work and you'll see when he discusses determinism like most philosophers of the time he is talking about it as defined by Laplace.
Do you disagree with the following:
A cause must have an effect, by way of logical necessity, because a cause is defined as that which has an effect.
An effect must have a cause, by way of logical necessity, because an effect is defined as that which has a cause.
Forget about who has or hasn't said them, do you agree or disagree with those statements?
OK, so you at least agree that an effect must have a cause?It's not about the statements being false and you don't have to repeat yourself. I get what you are saying.
The point is that it's not what determinism means in full. You are giving a necessary but not sufficient statement about determinism.
OK, so we at least agree that the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate has an antecedent cause?For example what you are doing is like saying the definition of an apple is "It is a fruit". That's not false, but it's not the full definition of an apple. Similarly that "all effects have causes" is part of determinism, but it isn't the full definition.
The full definition is in a form:
"That a cause has only one unique effect associated with it prior to the outcome"
That's what determinism means in scientific discourse. Nobody uses your statement to define determinism is what I mean, as not only determinism satisfies it but also Stochastic processes for example. In Stochastic processes all effects have a cause, but Stochastic processes are not deterministic.
By demonstrating that something obeys one aspect of determinism you have not shown it is actually deterministic. Similarly by showing a banana is a fruit I have not demonstrated it is an apple.0 -
You may have missed it in my post - understandable bcos it was wedged in between quotes - but I did not it.Note though that even Hume whom you have quoted does not say that "every event has a cause" is determinism. He says it is part of the definition of determinism (as I said) but that it must be combined with "that causation requires constant conjunction" to fully obtain determinism.We can explore the notion of constant conjunction, particularly by considering the alternative.0 -
Yeah but still Hume does not agree with you that that is the definition of determinism. You can "explore" his second condition if you wish, but he still has it as part of his full definition.We can explore the notion of constant conjunction, particularly by considering the alternative.
It's not like QM. You are confusing the pragmatics and ontology.OK, so we cannot associate the unique outcome with the cause, prior to the outcome, just as in QM.
In Chaos theory a unique outcome can be associated with the cause prior to the outcome at the ontological level. Practially you might not be able to do so, but it is true ontologically.
In QM it is not true ontologically.
This has experimental consequences like the violation of Bell's inequality.0 -
Just a couple of points of clarification that I think you missed. You might have thought that you had already addressed them, but I just wanted to confirm, and one point in particular.
Are we in agreement that every effect has a cause?
Are we in agreement that the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate has a cause?
Yes, it is part of his full definition, which is why its meaning would need to be explored. The first part of his definition is clearly based on the fact that every effect has a cause. So, how would you interpret the second criterion?Yeah but still Hume does not agree with you that that is the definition of determinism. You can "explore" his second condition if you wish, but he still has it as part of his full definition.
Apologies, I didn't mean that it was ontologically like QM, I simply meant that, like QM, we cannot associate the unique effect with the cause, prior to the outcome.It's not like QM. You are confusing the pragmatics and ontology.
In Chaos theory a unique outcome can be associated with the cause prior to the outcome at the ontological level. Practially you might not be able to do so, but it is true ontologically.
In QM it is not true ontologically.
This has experimental consequences like the violation of Bell's inequality.
How do we ontologically associate the unique effect to the cause, prior to the outcome, in chaos theory?
That reasoning sounds somewhat circular, if I'm interpreting it correctly. It sounds like your saying that prior to the outcome we cannot actually associate the unique effect to the cause, instead we assume that this must be the case because chaos theory is deterministic, and the definition of determinism says that every cause is associated with a unique effect, prior to the outcome.0 -
That's not like QM, that's like any case were you don't have enough knowledge. It's just not having sufficient data about the initial state.Apologies, I didn't mean that it was ontologically like QM, I simply meant that, like QM, we cannot associate the unique effect with the cause, prior to the outcome.
In Chaos theory for specific initial data there is a unique solution.How do we ontologically associate the unique effect to the cause, prior to the outcome, in chaos theory?
Just like in any area of science you rarely have full knowledge of the initial state pragmatically. Thus you cannot predict the unique effect determined in advance. However you can prove that there is such a unique effect determined in advanced by performing a Bell test. Chaos theory passes it and QM does not. There's nothing circular about it.That reasoning sounds somewhat circular, if I'm interpreting it correctly. It sounds like your saying that prior to the outcome we cannot actually associate the unique effect to the cause, instead we assume that this must be the case because chaos theory is deterministic, and the definition of determinism says that every cause is associated with a unique effect, prior to the outcome.0 -
Again, just a couple of points of clarification :
Are we in agreement that every effect has a cause?
Are we in agreement that the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate has a cause?
So, to associate the unique effect with the cause, prior to the outcome of the experiment, we have to wait for the outcome of the experiment to confirm that the effect was uniquely associated with the cause, something we weren't able to do prior to the outcome?That's not like QM, that's like any case were you don't have enough knowledge. It's just not having sufficient data about the initial state.
In Chaos theory for specific initial data there is a unique solution.
Just like in any area of science you rarely have full knowledge of the initial state pragmatically. Thus you cannot predict the unique effect determined in advance. However you can prove that there is such a unique effect determined in advanced by performing a Bell test. Chaos theory passes it and QM does not. There's nothing circular about it.
This is presumably a statement that is compatible with such a Bell test?
It appears as though the notion of determinism you are utilising, is more aptly termed pre-determinism. This is evidenced by your reference to Laplace's demon, which is why the "common" definition of determinism appears to be associated with this kind of pre-determinism. Chaos theory negates Laplacian pre-determinism.
What doesn't appear to negate pre-determinism however, is the Block Universe of Einsteinian relativity. In fact, it seems to be entirely pre-deterministic, doesn't it?
Where objects exist as worldlines/worldtubes in a 4D block universe, each point along their worldline enjoys equal ontological status i.e. each point is equally real. This seems to suggest that prior to the outcome of the experiment only one unique outcome is possible, because the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate exists on the worldline of the Stern Gerlach plate.0 -
Some aspects of it have a cause, others do not.Again, just a couple of points of clarification :
Are we in agreement that every effect has a cause?
Are we in agreement that the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate has a cause?
I never mentioned Laplace's demon, that's something related but strictly separated.It appears as though the notion of determinism you are utilising, is more aptly termed pre-determinism. This is evidenced by your reference to Laplace's demon, which is why the "common" definition of determinism appears to be associated with this kind of pre-determinism. Chaos theory negates Laplacian pre-determinism.
In Chaos theory causes have unique effects associated with them (ontologically) prior to the effect itself. This is unlike QM. Chaos theory doesn't negate pre-determinism how are you coming to that conclusion? Note it is a mathematical theorem that Chaos theory obeys pre-determinism, so this is simply a misunderstanding on your part it's not something to be argued.
This isn't true as Quantum Field Theory has Minkowski spacetime and also prior to the outcome of the experiment it is not the case that only one unique outcome is possible. I'm not going to explain QFT though as it is a very difficult subject and you're having extreme difficulty not just with Relativity and QM but sometimes with definitions of basic concepts.Where objects exist as worldlines/worldtubes in a 4D block universe, each point along their worldline enjoys equal ontological status i.e. each point is equally real. This seems to suggest that prior to the outcome of the experiment only one unique outcome is possible, because the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate exists on the worldline of the Stern Gerlach plate.0 -
Fair enough. I'm not going to suggest that we discuss it here, but could you just give a general statement about which aspects have a cause and which do not, so that I can look for resources on them?Some aspects of it have a cause, others do not.
My apologies, you mentioned Laplace and that the majority of philosophers discussed determinism in the context of Laplace's definition. Laplace's demon is an analogical representation of this definition of pre-determinism.I never mentioned Laplace's demon, that's something related but strictly separated.
OK, so it is ontologically unlike QM. Is this also the case when we factor in the free will loophole?In Chaos theory causes have unique effects associated with them (ontologically) prior to the effect itself. This is unlike QM.
Chaos theory doesn't negate pre-determinism how are you coming to that conclusion? Note it is a mathematical theorem that Chaos theory obeys pre-determinism, so this is simply a misunderstanding on your part it's not something to be argued.
Again, just to clarify. Is the following statement compatible with the Bell test of a chaotic theory?
To associate the unique effect with the cause, prior to the outcome of the experiment, we have to wait for the outcome of the experiment to confirm that the effect was uniquely associated with the cause, something we weren't able to do prior to the outcome?
No need to explain QFT, we can focus on Minkowski spacetime and the worldlines of objects - Morbert has already covered this in great detail and has made some explicit statements about Minkowski spacetime.This isn't true as Quantum Field Theory has Minkowski spacetime and also prior to the outcome of the experiment it is not the case that only one unique outcome is possible. I'm not going to explain QFT though as it is a very difficult subject and you're having extreme difficulty not just with Relativity and QM but sometimes with definitions of basic concepts.
In, Minkowski spacetime, objects exist as worldlines in 4D spacetime. All of the points on the worldline have equal ontological status i.e. they are equally real.
So, if we consider the worldline of the Stern Gerlach plate, as it exists in 4D spacetime, we can see that all the events along its worldline co-exist in the 4D block. This includes the exposure event a the end of the SG run.
So, the worldline of the SG plate stretches (for argument sake) from the beginning of the experiment (let's call this point A), through the exposure event at the end of the run (point
, and beyond "into the future".
Points A and B exist on the worldline of the SG plate and the worldline is fixed in 4D spacetime. Both points A and B are always of equal ontological status. Therefore, at the moment that point A is real, point B exists within the structure of the Universe and is eqaully as real as A.
This means the exposure of the SG plate co-exists with the beginning of the experiment, in the overall structure of the Universe and cannot change. Hence, there is only one possible outcome from the beginning.0 -
That involves actual quantum theory and its mathematics. It depends on the preparation, the type of detection devices, the system's wavefunction.Fair enough. I'm not going to suggest that we discuss it here, but could you just give a general statement about which aspects have a cause and which do not, so that I can look for resources on them?
It doesn't matter much, Chaos theory doesn't violate Laplace's demon.My apologies, you mentioned Laplace and that the majority of philosophers discussed determinism in the context of Laplace's definition. Laplace's demon is an analogical representation of this definition of pre-determinism.
The free will loophole has been closed since Bell's work since there is no evidence of the effects one would expect given its violation. This has been extensively investigated.OK, so it is ontologically unlike QM. Is this also the case when we factor in the free will loophole?
Morbert was explaining classical special relativity, not quantum field theory. What you say following this doesn't apply to QFT.No need to explain QFT, we can focus on Minkowski spacetime and the worldlines of objects - Morbert has already covered this in great detail and has made some explicit statements about Minkowski spacetime.0 -
In the physical object, the Stern Gerlach plate, what part of the exposure i.e. the physical change in the plate, has a cuase and which doesn't? Are there changes in particles/molecules/atoms which are caused, while others are uncaused?That involves actual quantum theory and its mathematics. It depends on the preparation, the type of detection devices, the system's wavefunction.
Laplace's demon is the idea that if we knew all the exact positions of all the particles in the Universe, then we could precisely identify the unique effect associated exclusively with a given cause, prior to the outcome of an experiment. Chaos theory negates this idea.It doesn't matter much, Chaos theory doesn't violate Laplace's demon.
That's not how loopholes get closed is it? Surely, loopholes are closed by constructing the experiment such that the factor giving rise to the loophole is definitively demonstrated to have been removed?The free will loophole has been closed since Bell's work since there is no evidence of the effects one would expect given its violation. This has been extensively investigated.
Any idea when this loophole was closed, or which paper definitively demonstrated its closure?
Morbert was explaining many things, including the block universe and 4D Minkowski spacetime.Morbert was explaining classical special relativity, not quantum field theory. What you say following this doesn't apply to QFT.
The idea that objects exist as worldlines extended in 4D spacetime is relevant to Minkowski spacetime, whatever about QFT. So, we can either identify an issue with Miinkowski spacetime, QFT, or both - I'm not sure which, but it appears it must be one.
The idea that objects exist as worldlines in 4D spacetime says that all events along an objects worldline - all the events that constitute an object and its history - co-exist within the 4D spacetime, block structure.
We can think of this in terms of past, present, and future and say that the past and future states of the object co-exist with the present state, in the overall structure of the universe.
To give a more personal example, it says that the events of your birth (A), the event that is you now reading this (B), and the event of your death (C) all exist along your worldline and all co-exist within the block structure of the Universe. All points, A, B, and C are equally real, even if you only seem to perceive point B.
This structure is necessary for the effect known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.
This block structure, with objects existing as worldlines extended in 4D spacetime, applies to the Stern Gerlach plate. In such a structure, all events/moments of the SG plate exist along its worldline and all events co-exist with each other in this block structure.
This means that one unique effect - the exposure of one SG plate instead of another - is associated with the cause - firing the silver atom - prior to the outcome - ontologically speaking, that is.
Of course, there is an alternative, namely that such past and future states don't exist and aren't necessary for RoS or the Block Universe. Such a position however leaves us with a presentist structure, which says that there is a single, universal present moment, shared by all in the Universe. This is analogous to the Universal present moment of Newtonian mechanics.
Note, a presentist structure is similar to, but not the same as, the Newtonian notion of a universal present moment because presentism can take a different conceptualisation of time, or indeed, it can drop the idea of time altogether.0 -
Advertisement
-
Which type of Stern Gerlach set up for what types of plates? How many plates and what type of emission oven? How far are they from the oven. It's a complicated question.In the physical object, the Stern Gerlach plate, what part of the exposure i.e. the physical change in the plate, has a cuase and which doesn't? Are there changes in particles/molecules/atoms which are caused, while others are uncaused?
It doesn't. Have you actually studied Chaos theory because that is literally not true. In Chaos theory if you knew the exact positions (and momenta) of all particles you could precisely identify the outcome. Where are you getting this idea from?Laplace's demon is the idea that if we knew all the exact positions of all the particles in the Universe, then we could precisely identify the unique effect associated exclusively with a given cause, prior to the outcome of an experiment. Chaos theory negates this idea.
Don't quote mine because I guarantee you will take somebody out of context. Refer to the equations and tell me what you mean.
This is what I find frustrating with you. You don't know what Chaos theory says. You have never actually sat down with a textbook on Chaos theory and gone through it and done the exercises. And yet you'll just randomly say what Chaos theory is or isn't like.
It is. As I said in the time since Bell's papers that you have quoted there has been work looking for the evidence of the effects theories with no free choice predict. Such evidence has not been found, refuting those theories and closing the loop hole.That's not how loopholes get closed is it?0 -
Just a clarification that seems to have been missed:
Bell test & Chaos theory
Is the following statement true about a Bell test with regard to chaos theory?
To associate the unique effect with the cause, prior to the outcome of the experiment, we have to wait for the outcome of the experiment to confirm that the effect was uniquely associated with the cause, something we weren't able to do prior to the outcome?
Worldlines and unique events
In order of descending complexity:
Just worldlines
The 4D Minkowski spacetime, block universe says that all the events that constitute an objects worldline co-exist within the block structure.
This means that all the events that make up the the worldline of the Stern Gerlach plate co-exist within the block structure. This includes the SG event at the beginning of the experiment and the exposure event later in the experiment.
This means that one unique effect - the exposure of one SG plate instead of another - is associated with the cause - firing the silver atom - prior to the outcome.
Hence, determinism.
Past and Future
We can talk about this in simpler, terms. We can designate an event on the worldline of the SG plate as point A, which is simultaneous with switching on the oven.
Then the block universe says that all events to the past of A and all events to the future of A co-exist, in the 4D Minkowskian, block structure of the Universe - this is what constitutes the worldline of the SG plate in Minkowski spacetime.
One such event to the future of A is the exposure of one particular SG plate, as opposed to the other - lets call this event B. This is fixed within the structure if 4D spacetime and cannot change.
This means, that events A and B co-exist within the structure of the universe, as events on the worldline of the SG plate. B is the only possible event that can occur, according to the worldline of the SG plate.
Therefore, one unique effect (B) - the exposure of one SG plate instead of another - is associated with the cause - firing the silver atom - prior to the outcome.
Hence, determinism.
Presentism
We can simplify further and ask: do future events co-exist with present ones, in the structure of the Universe?
If yes, then (as above):
One unique effect (B) - the exposure of one SG plate instead of another - is associated with the cause - firing the silver atom - prior to the outcome.
Hence, determinism.
If no (future states do not co-exist with present ones), then:
The Universe has a presentist structure meaning that there is a shared, universal present moment, similar to that of Newtonian mechanics.
Different from Newtonian mechanics, but a similar idea.
Hence: No relativity of simultaneity and no Block Universe
Feel free to choose any example but I'm sure you can speak generally and only in relation to the effect of on the Stern Gerlach plate i.e. what is it about the plate that changes? We have the plate prior to exposure and post exposure. What is the observed physical difference? What parts of the change are caused and which parts are uncaused?Which type of Stern Gerlach set up for what types of plates? How many plates and what type of emission oven? How far are they from the oven. It's a complicated question.
Do you know when this consensus was reached? Could you point to a paper or an article or anything that supports this?It is. As I said in the time since Bell's papers that you have quoted there has been work looking for the evidence of the effects theories with no free choice predict. Such evidence has not been found, refuting those theories and closing the loop hole.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure you can only close a loophole by definitively demonstrating that you have set an experiment up in such a way that you definitively demonstrate the removal of that factor that was giving rise to the loophole in the first place. I know there were proposals to do this by using random number generators instead of humans, or using signals from distant galaxies, but from what I can gather these are disputed.0 -
We don't have to wait.Just a clarification that seems to have been missed:
Bell test & Chaos theory
Is the following statement true about a Bell test with regard to chaos theory?
To associate the unique effect with the cause, prior to the outcome of the experiment, we have to wait for the outcome of the experiment to confirm that the effect was uniquely associated with the cause, something we weren't able to do prior to the outcome?
The picture with worldlines applies to classic relativity. Not when you add QM in.Worldlines and unique events
It depends heavily on the exact physical set up. The plate has several properties as does the oven depending on what they are constructed from or other settings.Feel free to choose any example but I'm sure you can speak generally and only in relation to the effect of on the Stern Gerlach plate i.e. what is it about the plate that changes? We have the plate prior to exposure and post exposure. What is the observed physical difference? What parts of the change are caused and which parts are uncaused?
I don't know where you gathered that from. The consensus is that these experiments close the loop hole. I'm sure there is somebody somewhere saying something that you'll find with a google search, but the mainstream scientific consensus is that the loop is closed.I know there were proposals to do this by using random number generators instead of humans, or using signals from distant galaxies, but from what I can gather these are disputed.
There are people who dispute anything, but under statistical analysis the loophole has been closed.0 -
So, the specific unique effect can be identified and predicted prior to the outcome of the experiment?We don't have to wait.
So, worldlines are not longer relevant to Minkowski spacetime?The picture with worldlines applies to classic relativity. Not when you add QM in.
Is Relativity of Simultaneity still a factor when QM is added? I believe in our other discussion you said that it was.
We're only interested in the plate. Which properties in the plate change as a result of the exposure? Which of those properties are cuased and which are uncaused?It depends heavily on the exact physical set up. The plate has several properties as does the oven depending on what they are constructed from or other settings.
Have you never heard of any experiments using (or proposing to use) random number generators or light from distant stars to address the freedom of choice loophole??I don't know where you gathered that from.
I'll take a look and see what I can find. Would you have a rough idea of the decade, or even a year when this consensus was arrived at, so that I can narrow my search?The consensus is that these experiments close the loop hole. I'm sure there is somebody somewhere saying something that you'll find with a google search, but the mainstream scientific consensus is that the loop is closed.
I guess that is the nature of science, to investigate, question, and challenge.There are people who dispute anything, but under statistical analysis the loophole has been closed.
The reason I was saying that the factor which gives rise to the freedom of choice loophole needs to be removed, is because an essential element of the Bell tests is that the polarizer settings need to be free variables, which requires the "last second choices [to be] truly free and random".
If the experimenters choices are determined by something in their past then those last second choices aren't truly free and random.
This is where phenomena such as priming play a key role because we know that human choices are, quite often, determined by environmental factors.0 -
Yes.So, the specific unique effect can be identified and predicted prior to the outcome of the experiment?
Relativity of Simultaneity still exists. As for worldlines that would be well beyond the level of this thread going into QFT.So, worldlines are not longer relevant to Minkowski spacetime?
Is Relativity of Simultaneity still a factor when QM is added? I believe in our other discussion you said that it was.
Even if you are only interested in the plate it still depends on the oven. Which properties of the plate are caused depends on the oven's constitution even if you are only interested in the plate.We're only interested in the plate. Which properties in the plate change as a result of the exposure? Which of those properties are cuased and which are uncaused?
I have and read the papers in detail.Have you never heard of any experiments using (or proposing to use) random number generators or light from distant stars to address the freedom of choice loophole??
Consensus arrived in the 2000s really, but certainly so in the late 2010s.I'll take a look and see what I can find. Would you have a rough idea of the decade, or even a year when this consensus was arrived at, so that I can narrow my search?0 -
OK, this contradicts what you said before:Yes.
Where we can prove there is such a unique effected determined in advance by performing a bell test. This would necessitate waiting for the outcome of the bell test, meaning that we cannot predict or identify the unique effect prior to the outcome of the bell test.However you can prove that there is such a unique effect determined in advanced by performing a Bell test. Chaos theory passes it and QM does not. There's nothing circular about it.
Is RoS compatible with the idea of a Universal present moment?Relativity of Simultaneity still exists.
Would you agree that RoS is incompatible with presentism?
So there are worldlines in QFT now?As for worldlines that would be well beyond the level of this thread going into QFT.
I'm not fussy, pick whichever example you like.Even if you are only interested in the plate it still depends on the oven. Which properties of the plate are caused depends on the oven's constitution even if you are only interested in the plate.
Are you familiar with the challenge to the idea that random number generators and distant starlight don't offer the truly free and random choice that is required?I have and read the papers in detail.
Are there any papers/articles/conference notes/slides or anything you could point to on this?Consensus arrived in the 2000s really, but certainly so in the late 2010s.
How is the loophole closed when studies point to the fact that phenomena such as priming can determine an individuals decisions?
If an essential element of the Bell tests is that the polarizer settings need to be free variables, requiring the "last second choices [to be] truly free and random"; and the experimenters choices are determined by a priming factor in their environment or events in their past then those last second choices aren't truly free and random.0 -
Wow. It is very hard to explain things to you.OK, this contradicts what you said before:
In Chaos theory you know in advance that there is a unique cause associated with an effect. In QM a Bell test shows this is not the case. A Bell test in Chaos theory doesn't really do anything surprising. It just shows there is a unique effect associated with a cause which was something you knew before hand anyway.
I'm being honest here roosh, I have taught thousands of students and done education outreach programs and I have never met anybody harder to explain something to than you.
I never said anything about that. I said that I won't explain QFT as it is a very hard subject and it is unbelievably hard to explain things to you.So there are worldlines in QFT now?
I'm familiar with them, but they tend to come from people who don't know how the experiments work. There is one person who disputes them whose objections have a bit more content namely Sabine Hossenfelder. However her objection is simply that nothing is ever totally ruled out due to experimental error. I don't find this a very interesting objection as the constraint is over the five sigma level which is greater than the kind of statistical certainty used to determine the existence of extrasolar planets and many other things.Are you familiar with the challenge to the idea that random number generators and distant starlight don't offer the truly free and random choice that is required?
It's also no different to fairies living in flowers. All we can currently say is that the fairies must be very very small given that they are ruled out at the high sigma level. However I would just say that fairies are ruled out rather than discussing a "small fairy loophole".
People can have objections but one has to understand their statistical weight.
I have explained this before.How is the loophole closed when studies point to the fact that phenomena such as priming can determine an individuals decisions?
If an essential element of the Bell tests is that the polarizer settings need to be free variables, requiring the "last second choices [to be] truly free and random"; and the experimenters choices are determined by a priming factor in their environment or events in their past then those last second choices aren't truly free and random.0 -
I do understand that it must seem like you are banging your head against a brick wall at times and that isn't intentional on my part, genuinely. It might not seem like it, but I am deferential to your knowledge on the subject of physics and science in general. Although, I do challenge what you say, I do attempt to do so solely through reasoned argumentation, where I believe I see a logical error. Yes, the probability favours the error being on my side but if I were to simply accept something in which I believe I can see an error, purely on the basis of authority, then I won't have truly understood the proposition.Wow. It is very hard to explain things to you.
I'm being honest here roosh, I have taught thousands of students and done education outreach programs and I have never met anybody harder to explain something to than you.
In this instance, however, I think you might be confusing for a lack of understanding, my willingness to attribute to error what could be attributed to malice. I have understood what you have said, it just appears you have contradicted yourself. Instead of assume that you have purposely contradicted yourself for the sake of the argument I have chosen (not freely so) to attribute it to a miscommunication and am affording you the opportunity to clarify your, seemingly, contradictory statements.
Yes, the error probably is on my side, but I will try to outline where I believe the contradiction lies:
Contradiction?
I appreciate the clarification, but we're not talking about QM here.In QM a Bell test shows this is not the case.
In request for clarification I asked
To which you repliedSo, the specific unique effect can be identified and predicted prior to the outcome of the experiment?Yes.
However, previously you said
This is more in line with what I initially believed about chaos theory.In Chaos theory there is only one possible outcome. We might not be able to predict it given limits on data gathering, but there is only one possible outcome.
...
Just like in any area of science you rarely have full knowledge of the initial state pragmatically. Thus you cannot predict the unique effect determined in advance.
Am I correct in saying that chaos theory is a deterministic theory but given such things as limits on data gathering and computational power, it's unique outcomes cannot be predicted prior to the experiment? Or is it the case that there are specific cases where the outcomes cannot be predicted?
The overall question of prior assocation
I was attempting to challenge your/the common definition of determinism based on the idea that we cannot associate a unique effect/solution to a cause, prior to the experiment.
I was thinking that Chaos theory said effects cannot be predicted in all cases, but even if it is only true in some cases, would be sufficient to challenge the definition - assuming the challenge holds.
The key question is, do you know this beforehand? I don't believe you can possibly know it beforehand, particularly if you are unable to predict the outcome. You can assume it beforehand but you cannot know it.In Chaos theory you know in advance that there is a unique cause associated with an effect. A Bell test in Chaos theory doesn't really do anything surprising. It just shows there is a unique effect associated with a cause which was something you knew before hand anyway.
If you cannot predict the unique effect prior to the experiment, then it cannot be associated with the cause, prior to the outcome of the experiment.
This is especially true if you must wait for the outcome of the experiment, to verify that there was even a unique effect associated with a specific cause, to begin with.
You did say this though,I never said anything about that. I said that I won't explain QFT as it is a very hard subject and it is unbelievably hard to explain things to you.The picture with worldlines applies to classic relativity. Not when you add QM in.
A simple question then, in QFT, is a worldline still composed of events, and composed of all the events in an objects history?
Also, does the relativity of simultaneity contradict the Newtonian notion of a universal present moment, shared by all observers? I know the conceptualisations of time are different, but does it also contradict that aspect of Newtonian mechanics?
It's not just people like Hossenfelder who seem to think that there is a loophole that hasn't been closed, some researchers are actively working on closing itI'm familiar with them, but they tend to come from people who don't know how the experiments work. There is one person who disputes them whose objections have a bit more content namely Sabine Hossenfelder. However her objection is simply that nothing is ever totally ruled out due to experimental error. I don't find this a very interesting objection as the constraint is over the five sigma level which is greater than the kind of statistical certainty used to determine the existence of extrasolar planets and many other things.
It's also no different to fairies living in flowers. All we can currently say is that the fairies must be very very small given that they are ruled out at the high sigma level. However I would just say that fairies are ruled out rather than discussing a "small fairy loophole".
People can have objections but one has to understand their statistical weight.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-physicists-loophole-bell-inequality-year-old.htmlDavid Kaiser (2017) wrote:Now, physicists from MIT, the University of Vienna, and elsewhere have addressed a loophole in tests of Bell's inequality, known as the freedom-of-choice loophole, and have presented a strong demonstration of quantum entanglement even when the vulnerability to this loophole is significantly restricted.
"The real estate left over for the skeptics of quantum mechanics has shrunk considerably," says David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and professor of physics at MIT. "We haven't gotten rid of it, but we've shrunk it down by 16 orders of magnitude."
There was also this article from MIT news, as late as 2014. There are others that seem to suggest that consensus hasn't been reached, by 2010 any way, or as late as 2017.
I don't think you have. I think you said something along the lines of it wouldn't matter for QM if free will is completely invalidated using drugs, among other things.I have explained this before.
I'm not sure how that works though, if interpretation of the Bell tests being advocated requires the polarizer settings to be free variables, requiring the "last second choices [to be] truly free and random"; and the experimenters choices are determined by a priming factor in their environment, being drugged, or by events in their past then those last second choices aren't truly free and random.
From what I can gather from the literature, the suggestion seems to be that if the experimenters choice is not truly free and random i.e. it is determined by some other factor, then the correlations could be explained by a common hidden, past cause.0 -
The problem roosh is that it is very difficult to explain things to you for a three reasons.I do understand that it must seem like you are banging your head against a brick...
I was reading back over your exchange with Morbert and the same problem shows itself there. You're not able to cleanly separate different concepts and don't seem to be fully able to understand what other people say. You'll notice in that thread the same frustration from not only Morbert but others who were involved. You find "contradictions" in what to other people are just trivial rephrasings or changes or emphasis.
This is compounded by quoting experts out of context. You have to realise that you can't just quote things without knowing the terminology of an area. I myself have told you this, Morbert has told you this and I noticed from a search where you posted on physicsforums and I can see the mods there told you this. This is a bad way to try to learn a subject. For you own benefit you should stop.
Thirdly many times when explanations are given something is assumed on the part of the listener, that basic concepts are understood. You seem at least partially incapable of this. You don't really retain the thread of an argument.
Do you not think with so many people from so many different sources saying similar things it would make you wonder. Especially the getting quote out of context stuff. To me this is just part of your general:
Gut > Advice, Evidence, Repeated warning, etc
Of course if you can't gather enough data you can't predict things. This isn't something interesting about Chaos theory, it's true about any area of inquiry at all.Am I correct in saying that chaos theory is a deterministic theory but given such things as limits on data gathering and computational power, it's unique outcomes cannot be predicted prior to the experiment? Or is it the case that there are specific cases where the outcomes cannot be predicted?
It has no bearing on the common definition because the common definition concerns ontology not epistemology.
This is another example of what I mean. I clearly said I'm not going into QFT because it is quite different, but you are attempting to argue based on my brief dismissal of QFT. Do you not understand I am not commenting on QFT? All I am saying is that the picture you have outlined is not like QFT. What QFT is actually like is incredibly complex and I am not talking about it.You did say this though,
Here again is the issue. Quoting another expert out of context without understanding what they're really talking about. You can't learn physics by doing targeted google searches for quote mining. The amount of people who have told you this at this point means it really shows your stubbornness that you haven't stopped.It's not just people like Hossenfelder who seem to think that there is a loophole that hasn't been closed, some researchers are actively working on closing it
That experiment involved pushing the loophole from 5 sigma to even 9.3 sigma as part of its design. The experiment has now been done. One of its consequences is that the free choice loop hole is even more incredibly closed than before.
Again take the "fairies in flowers" theory. This is like somebody got an electron microscope and scanned the flowers at the atomic level pushing the fairies to even higher sigma, where as previous experiments only scanned at the molecular level. It does close the "fairy loophole" more, but nobody believed it anyway since previous experiments.
So you see this is the problem you can't grab an experiment that was performed and ignore the context it was in.
Regardless the experiment (And another based on stars in the Milky Way) have now been performed pushing the freedom of choice loophole to a ridiculous level of exclusion. If one didn't believe it was closed before, it is certainly closed now.
That's not what I'm talking about. I noticed you performed similar nonsense on Morbert by bringing up topics he had explained before and asking him to explain them again and also claiming he had said things other than he did or only giving part of what he said. You've even expressed misunderstanding of Morbert's posts on this thread, misremembering them.I don't think you have. I think you said something along the lines of it wouldn't matter for QM if free will is completely invalidated using drugs, among other things
...
From what I can gather from the literature, the suggestion seems to be that if the experimenters choice is not truly free and random i.e. it is determined by some other factor, then the correlations could be explained by a common hidden, past cause.
To be brief, if the experimenters choice is not free then the only other alternative is superdeterminism. I have said this before. Superdeterminism has experimental consequences. I have said this before. Those consequences have been ruled out at the (as of 2018) 9.3 sigma level. I explained this before I just didn't give the 9.3 sigma figure. In scientific discourse this is more than enough to rule out the superdeterministic explanation. Thus the choice seems to be free.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was in the process of typing a much longer post and I was responding to the point about the "free will loophole". As I was typing out the response and the thoughts were flowing, it felt like a realisation dawned on me with regard to the point you are making - it might have been a false dawn however.The problem roosh is that it is very difficult to explain things to you for a three reasons.
I was reading back over your exchange with Morbert and the same problem shows itself there. You're not able to cleanly separate different concepts and don't seem to be fully able to understand what other people say. You'll notice in that thread the same frustration from not only Morbert but others who were involved. You find "contradictions" in what to other people are just trivial rephrasings or changes or emphasis.
This is compounded by quoting experts out of context. You have to realise that you can't just quote things without knowing the terminology of an area. I myself have told you this, Morbert has told you this and I noticed from a search where you posted on physicsforums and I can see the mods there told you this. This is a bad way to try to learn a subject. For you own benefit you should stop.
Thirdly many times when explanations are given something is assumed on the part of the listener, that basic concepts are understood. You seem at least partially incapable of this. You don't really retain the thread of an argument.
Do you not think with so many people from so many different sources saying similar things it would make you wonder. Especially the getting quote out of context stuff. To me this is just part of your general:
Gut > Advice, Evidence, Repeated warning, etc
Of course if you can't gather enough data you can't predict things. This isn't something interesting about Chaos theory, it's true about any area of inquiry at all.
It has no bearing on the common definition because the common definition concerns ontology not epistemology.
This is another example of what I mean. I clearly said I'm not going into QFT because it is quite different, but you are attempting to argue based on my brief dismissal of QFT. Do you not understand I am not commenting on QFT? All I am saying is that the picture you have outlined is not like QFT. What QFT is actually like is incredibly complex and I am not talking about it.
Here again is the issue. Quoting another expert out of context without understanding what they're really talking about. You can't learn physics by doing targeted google searches for quote mining. The amount of people who have told you this at this point means it really shows your stubbornness that you haven't stopped.
That experiment involved pushing the loophole from 5 sigma to even 9.3 sigma as part of its design. The experiment has now been done. One of its consequences is that the free choice loop hole is even more incredibly closed than before.
Again take the "fairies in flowers" theory. This is like somebody got an electron microscope and scanned the flowers at the atomic level pushing the fairies to even higher sigma, where as previous experiments only scanned at the molecular level. It does close the "fairy loophole" more, but nobody believed it anyway since previous experiments.
So you see this is the problem you can't grab an experiment that was performed and ignore the context it was in.
Regardless the experiment (And another based on stars in the Milky Way) have now been performed pushing the freedom of choice loophole to a ridiculous level of exclusion. If one didn't believe it was closed before, it is certainly closed now.
That's not what I'm talking about. I noticed you performed similar nonsense on Morbert by bringing up topics he had explained before and asking him to explain them again and also claiming he had said things other than he did or only giving part of what he said. You've even expressed misunderstanding of Morbert's posts on this thread, misremembering them.
To be brief, if the experimenters choice is not free then the only other alternative is superdeterminism. I have said this before. Superdeterminism has experimental consequences. I have said this before. Those consequences have been ruled out at the (as of 2018) 9.3 sigma level. I explained this before I just didn't give the 9.3 sigma figure. In scientific discourse this is more than enough to rule out the superdeterministic explanation. Thus the choice seems to be free.
Is the "free will loophole" closed because because the human element has been removed from the process of choosing the detector settings "at the last moment", being replaced by random number generators, and the process of preparing the particle by using distant starlight?
This hasn't led to a change in the outcome of the experiments so the outcome of the experiments cannot be attributed to human free will or the lack thereof, thereby closing the loophole?
Anywhere in the ballpark?0 -
Closer certainly.Anywhere in the ballpark?
In superdeterministic explanation of QM we need a set of instructions that control every aspect of the experiment.
Here we have three components:- Humans who have selected to run the experiment at this time with this equipment.
- A quasar on one end of the universe to set one device
- A quasar on the other end of the universe to set the other device.
Superdeterminism requires these all to be in sync in order to replicate QM. Remember in superdeterminism QM is not actual true, there is local realist physics occurring all the time thus in actuality Bell's inequality is not really violated at the ontological level, a serious of pre-coded coincidences makes it seem that way.
The properties of quasar light are set by the behaviour of stellar gas as it falls into the quasar's black hole.
If the experiment is run even four nanoseconds too late the behaviour of light in the quasars won't generate the light with the right properties to select QM replicating statistics. The true local realist physics will be exposed.
Thus the human mind must "triggered" at the right moment to disguise the local realist physics. However this triggering must be carefully orchastrated to keep the true local realist physics hidden.
Since the superdeterminisitic model is local, the required triggering in order to be in sync with the properties of the quasar gas must have occurred at the earliest 7.8 billion years ago which was the last time the constituents of a human brain would have been in contact with those of the quasar.
However the test samples hundreds of quasars, so the instructions encoded in our brains must contain an enormous amount of information to be perfectly in sync with hundreds of galaxies at opposite ends of the universe.
Thus if you want to constrain human free choice you are into proposing that everything was carefully set up at least 7.8 billion years ago to orchestrate human actions and quasar photo-emission events across the universe in order to make it look like QM is true, even though it isn't. Note that if humans had acted one nanosecond too late, or built the telescopes slightly differently, or located the labs one meter to the left, QM would have been exposed as wrong since slightly different quasar photons would have been chosen because only a sliver of all quasar photons are set up to give the illusion of QM.
To most of us this is daft. We don't think determinism is true because it requires such a ludicrous set up. It's like saying "maybe the fairies who live in flowers are quark sized".
As I said to my mind if you believe in determinism I think this pushes you into thinking that there is a demiurge. Why the demiurge would want you to think QM is true I don't know.0 -
This is excellent! Thank you! I hadn't yet come across a concise, yet detailed enough explanation of this point on superdeterminism.Closer certainly.
Is it possible to get closer than this. I understand the explanation below and how shows that the alternative is an incredibly improbable coincidence, but I don't understand the actual closing of the loophole.
Am I right with the part about removing the human decision making in the choice of settings? As in, the weak link in the chain has been removed, that was leaving the door (or loophole) open to the possibility that the experimenter's will is not free?
Because the results of the test do not change, does this then imply that the experimenters will was not a factor? This doesn't sound exactly right though.
If you don't mind, I'd like to play devil's advocate on this because there are a few questions that spring to mind.In superdeterministic explanation of QM we need a set of instructions that control every aspect of the experiment.
Here we have three components:- Humans who have selected to run the experiment at this time with this equipment.
- A quasar on one end of the universe to set one device
- A quasar on the other end of the universe to set the other device.
Superdeterminism requires these all to be in sync in order to replicate QM. Remember in superdeterminism QM is not actual true, there is local realist physics occurring all the time thus in actuality Bell's inequality is not really violated at the ontological level, a serious of pre-coded coincidences makes it seem that way.
The properties of quasar light are set by the behaviour of stellar gas as it falls into the quasar's black hole.
If the experiment is run even four nanoseconds too late the behaviour of light in the quasars won't generate the light with the right properties to select QM replicating statistics. The true local realist physics will be exposed.
Thus the human mind must "triggered" at the right moment to disguise the local realist physics. However this triggering must be carefully orchastrated to keep the true local realist physics hidden.
Since the superdeterminisitic model is local, the required triggering in order to be in sync with the properties of the quasar gas must have occurred at the earliest 7.8 billion years ago which was the last time the constituents of a human brain would have been in contact with those of the quasar.
However the test samples hundreds of quasars, so the instructions encoded in our brains must contain an enormous amount of information to be perfectly in sync with hundreds of galaxies at opposite ends of the universe.
Thus if you want to constrain human free choice you are into proposing that everything was carefully set up at least 7.8 billion years ago to orchestrate human actions and quasar photo-emission events across the universe in order to make it look like QM is true, even though it isn't. Note that if humans had acted one nanosecond too late, or built the telescopes slightly differently, or located the labs one meter to the left, QM would have been exposed as wrong since slightly different quasar photons would have been chosen because only a sliver of all quasar photons are set up to give the illusion of QM.
To most of us this is daft. We don't think determinism is true because it requires such a ludicrous set up. It's like saying "maybe the fairies who live in flowers are quark sized".
As I said to my mind if you believe in determinism I think this pushes you into thinking that there is a demiurge. Why the demiurge would want you to think QM is true I don't know.
Would superdeterminists not say that there is no coincidence, this seeming coincidence is just a logical necessity of determinism or superdeterminism? That the experimental set-up and testing, etc. is just the unique effect associated with the prior casue, with such a chain of cause and unique effect leading up to that point?0 -
The loophole is closed in the same way that the "fairies in flowers" loophole is closed. This isn't a joke I should say. Strictly speaking all we have shown is that fairies must be very very small and weakly interacting with the electromagnetic force. However the possibility has been pushed to such an absurd degree that it's considered ruled out.This is excellent! Thank you! I hadn't yet come across a concise, yet detailed enough explanation of this point on superdeterminism.
Is it possible to get closer than this. I understand the explanation below and how shows that the alternative is an incredibly improbable coincidence, but I don't understand the actual closing of the loophole.
Before experiments like this the experimenters were simply in separated labs. One could imagine that the details of their conversations and other such things might have set up the necessary coincidences. For the Bell tests in the 80s this might not have been too far fetched as the most recent common event to all participants in the experiment was only a few seconds ago.Am I right with the part about removing the human decision making in the choice of settings? As in, the weak link in the chain has been removed, that was leaving the door (or loophole) open to the possibility that the experimenter's will is not free?
This pushes it back that human choices must have been set carefully to coordinate with quasar photons billions of years ago.
Their choice is still involved, e.g. when to run the experiment and what equipment to use and where and how to construct it. What this experiment shows is that there choice, if it is not in fact free, must be carefully controlled to sync with distant quasar light to prevent exposing the true local realist physics. The vast nature of this coincidence makes it much more likely that the choice is free.Because the results of the test do not change, does this then imply that the experimenters will was not a factor? This doesn't sound exactly right though.
Firstly one can play such an argument for the fairy case. The lack of detection of the fairies is simply a logical consequence of the theory of weakly electromagnetically interacting micro-fairies. So one must ask why you would play devil's advocate in this case and not the fairy case. Again this is not a joke, from a scientific perspective they are the same. No working theory, excluded to a massive degree by current experiments. From a strictly rational perspective you wouldn't play advocate for either. It's only that fairies aren't vanguards of pre-existing philosophical prejudices.If you don't mind, I'd like to play devil's advocate on this because there are a few questions that spring to mind.
Would superdeterminists not say that there is no coincidence, this seeming coincidence is just a logical necessity of determinism or superdeterminism? That the experimental set-up and testing, etc. is just the unique effect associated with the prior casue, with such a chain of cause and unique effect leading up to that point?
The problem in the superdeterminisitic case is the same. The timing required, the exact spatial locations required and so on are incredibly precise in order to maintain the illusion of QM being true. If an atom was one nanometer off 7.8 billion years ago the local realistic physics would be exposed.
This is the difference between determinism and superdeterminism. The latter is the former plus incredibly precise tuning of the state of the world to maintain the illusion of another theory being true. Many theories are deterministic but not superdeterministic because they don't do this. For example in Maxwellian Electromagnetism we have determinism, but the state of the world isn't set up to hide the existence of electromagnetic fields and make it look like scalar interactions are real.
Note that in these theories 99.9999999999...% of what goes on in the universe explicitly and obviously violates QM. It's just that when we go to look a precise set of coincidences has been encoded in the initial state to prevent us seeing any of this but to only see the 0.0000000000001% that seems to obey QM. It is like saying the world is full of 20 foot trolls but we always turn in sync with their jumps and develop selective deafness to only the sound of their footsteps precisely at the moments they touch the ground. Sure it might be a consequence of your imagined initial state in a theory they've never actually developed but you wouldn't take this seriously in the troll case or the fairy case. Scientifically speaking there is no reason to take it seriously in this case either.
However it gets worse for one can do data estimates for how much data must be encoded in the human brain to permit this coincidence given how finely tuned it is. It's not enough to just say human choices were set in advance to keep the local realist physics hidden. Any such precise conditions need degrees of freedom to encode them. These experiments let you estimate that an average gram of matter stores gigantic quantities of data hidden in near infinite degrees of freedom. However matter doesn't seem to contain these degrees of freedom whenever you actually test it. Again a super-deterministic theory has to posit that they are hidden.
So we end up with a world with billions and billions of petabytes of hidden information residing inside the human skull. Those quintillions of inaccessible petabytes were set at least 7.8 billion years ago in order to precisely control your choices to prevent the discovery of the true physics. You can also show that the laws of physics controlling these quantities are uncomputable (i.e. they cannot be described with an algorithm).
As I said if hidden petabytes are being acted on uncomputably to orchestrate events to prevent QM being exposed as false I think the only logical conclusion is that there is a demiurge.
However the more rational conclusion is that such determinism is ruled out. Relying as it does on enormous fine tuning and hidden computational structures.0 -
I very much appreciate your patience in all this and for this very comprehensive explanation. It is crystal clear now.The loophole is closed in the same way that the "fairies in flowers" loophole is closed. This isn't a joke I should say. Strictly speaking all we have shown is that fairies must be very very small and weakly interacting with the electromagnetic force. However the possibility has been pushed to such an absurd degree that it's considered ruled out.
Before experiments like this the experimenters were simply in separated labs. One could imagine that the details of their conversations and other such things might have set up the necessary coincidences. For the Bell tests in the 80s this might not have been too far fetched as the most recent common event to all participants in the experiment was only a few seconds ago.
This pushes it back that human choices must have been set carefully to coordinate with quasar photons billions of years ago.
Their choice is still involved, e.g. when to run the experiment and what equipment to use and where and how to construct it. What this experiment shows is that there choice, if it is not in fact free, must be carefully controlled to sync with distant quasar light to prevent exposing the true local realist physics. The vast nature of this coincidence makes it much more likely that the choice is free.
Firstly one can play such an argument for the fairy case. The lack of detection of the fairies is simply a logical consequence of the theory of weakly electromagnetically interacting micro-fairies. So one must ask why you would play devil's advocate in this case and not the fairy case. Again this is not a joke, from a scientific perspective they are the same. No working theory, excluded to a massive degree by current experiments. From a strictly rational perspective you wouldn't play advocate for either. It's only that fairies aren't vanguards of pre-existing philosophical prejudices.
The problem in the superdeterminisitic case is the same. The timing required, the exact spatial locations required and so on are incredibly precise in order to maintain the illusion of QM being true. If an atom was one nanometer off 7.8 billion years ago the local realistic physics would be exposed.
This is the difference between determinism and superdeterminism. The latter is the former plus incredibly precise tuning of the state of the world to maintain the illusion of another theory being true. Many theories are deterministic but not superdeterministic because they don't do this. For example in Maxwellian Electromagnetism we have determinism, but the state of the world isn't set up to hide the existence of electromagnetic fields and make it look like scalar interactions are real.
Note that in these theories 99.9999999999...% of what goes on in the universe explicitly and obviously violates QM. It's just that when we go to look a precise set of coincidences has been encoded in the initial state to prevent us seeing any of this but to only see the 0.0000000000001% that seems to obey QM. It is like saying the world is full of 20 foot trolls but we always turn in sync with their jumps and develop selective deafness to only the sound of their footsteps precisely at the moments they touch the ground. Sure it might be a consequence of your imagined initial state in a theory they've never actually developed but you wouldn't take this seriously in the troll case or the fairy case. Scientifically speaking there is no reason to take it seriously in this case either.
However it gets worse for one can do data estimates for how much data must be encoded in the human brain to permit this coincidence given how finely tuned it is. It's not enough to just say human choices were set in advance to keep the local realist physics hidden. Any such precise conditions need degrees of freedom to encode them. These experiments let you estimate that an average gram of matter stores gigantic quantities of data hidden in near infinite degrees of freedom. However matter doesn't seem to contain these degrees of freedom whenever you actually test it. Again a super-deterministic theory has to posit that they are hidden.
So we end up with a world with billions and billions of petabytes of hidden information residing inside the human skull. Those quintillions of inaccessible petabytes were set at least 7.8 billion years ago in order to precisely control your choices to prevent the discovery of the true physics. You can also show that the laws of physics controlling these quantities are uncomputable (i.e. they cannot be described with an algorithm).
As I said if hidden petabytes are being acted on uncomputably to orchestrate events to prevent QM being exposed as false I think the only logical conclusion is that there is a demiurge.
However the more rational conclusion is that such determinism is ruled out. Relying as it does on enormous fine tuning and hidden computational structures.
There are still a few questions popping up, but more just a question of minute details.
With regard to using the distant starlight. I was just reading that they use telescopes to capture the photons. How are these then used in the experiment, as in, do they travel through the telescope and then through a polarizer, or how does it work?
The question that is arising is whether or not the photon interacts with any part of the telescope to affect the outcome?
How is this reconciled with those thoughts/behaviours/decisions that are determined by prior causes?0 -
The frequency of the photons is detected on arrival at the telescope without travelling through it. The frequency is used to set the experimental settings.With regard to using the distant starlight. I was just reading that they use telescopes to capture the photons. How are these then used in the experiment, as in, do they travel through the telescope and then through a polarizer, or how does it work?
QM does not posit a totally acausal world. As with the Stern Gerlach experiment some aspects of the world have prior causes and some are free.How is this reconciled with those thoughts/behaviours/decisions that are determined by prior causes?0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah, I see. Very interesting!The frequency of the photons is detected on arrival at the telescope without travelling through it. The frequency is used to set the experimental settings.
So some decisions can be determined, while some aren't? Is it the outcome of the experiments that allow us to verify that the decisions - pertinent to the experiment - were freely made?QM does not posit a totally acausal world. As with the Stern Gerlach experiment some aspects of the world have prior causes and some are free.
I would love to pick your brains on a fairly minor point with regard to the Stern Gerlach experiment and the relativity of simultaneity, if you don't mind. Obviously my understanding stems from my discussions with Morbert so, apart from being on the shaky ground it already was, it might also be relevant to classic relativity as opposed to QFT.
My understanding was that events which an observer considers to be in their past and future are observable by a theoretical, relatively moving observer.
The classic thought experiment is of the relatively moving observers, Henry one on a train and Albert on the platform, who pass each other at some point O. Where O is equidistant between two light sources and where two flashes of light are emitted simultaneously in Albert's frame. In Henry's frame, the two flashes are not simultaneous. Instead, the flash to the front of the train (A) happens first and the flash to the rear happens second (B) (I think I've got the order correct there).
As the observers pass each other at point O, in Henry's frame of reference, flash A will already have happened while, for Albert it will not yet have happened i.e. it will be in his future. Similarly, as the train moves past and the flashes happen simultaneously in Albert's frame, flash B will still be in Herny's future.
This is what gives us the picture of the block universe where past, present, and future events co-exist within the block structure. Essentially, it is a real world representation of the mathematical formalism.
Does this reasoning still apply in QFT? This was my reasoning behind saying that the exposure event of the SG plate must already form part of the structure of the Universe.
I was thinking along the lines of two events simultaneous in Albert's reference frame, with one being the exposure of the SG plate (the other could be a random event). When Henry passes Albert at point O, the exposure event would already have happened in his reference frame, while being in the future for Albert. It was in this sense I was thinking there could only be one unique effect associated with the cause, prior to the outcome.
Would that no longer apply in QFT?0 -
The statistical distribution of the outcomes as they violate a Bell inequality (a CHSH inequality technically) which is provably impossible without free choice. The only way to break this inequality without free choice is superdeterminism, which as above is ruled out scientifically.So some decisions can be determined, while some aren't? Is it the outcome of the experiments that allow us to verify that the decisions - pertinent to the experiment - were freely made?
No basically.Does this reasoning still apply in QFT?0 -
Gotcha.The statistical distribution of the outcomes as they violate a Bell inequality (a CHSH inequality technically) which is provably impossible without free choice. The only way to break this inequality without free choice is superdeterminism, which as above is ruled out scientifically.
Are events which are simultaneous in one frame still non-simultaneous in another, relatively moving frame?No basically.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
If the thought experiment were to happen in the real world - hypothetical of course - would the front flash (A) still happen first in Henry's frame of reference with the rear flash (B) happening second?The logic of it doesn't work the same way due to subtleties in QFT.
When they pass each other at point O, will flash A already have happened in Henry's frame, but not yet in Albert's?0 -
Again as I said this will basically lead into a discussion of QFT which is a subject that takes two-three years to learn assuming one knows QM and Relativity.If the thought experiment were to happen in the real world - hypothetical of course - would the front flash (A) still happen first in Henry's frame of reference with the rear flash (B) happening second?
When they pass each other at point O, will flash A already have happened in Henry's frame, but not yet in Albert's?0 -
Genuinely, I'm not going to go down that avenue bcos I know where it will end.Again as I said this will basically lead into a discussion of QFT which is a subject that takes two-three years to learn assuming one knows QM and Relativity.
I'm just trying to see where my understanding of RoS breaks down in relation to QFT.0 -
QFT is just very different, but you have to know the subject. It breaks down due to the vastly different picture of the world in QFT, but to discuss it you'd have to know QFT.Genuinely, I'm not going to go down that avenue bcos I know where it will end.
I'm just trying to see where my understanding of RoS breaks down in relation to QFT.0 -
I appreciate that. I just try to bring everything back to real world examples because it helps me to visualise it better and I guess that is ultimately what these theories do, isn't it, predict observations in the real world?QFT is just very different, but you have to know the subject. It breaks down due to the vastly different picture of the world in QFT, but to discuss it you'd have to know QFT.
Are the flashes of light still considered events even?0 -
They do, but the real world observations have many more details than you have here.I appreciate that. I just try to bring everything back to real world examples because it helps me to visualise it better and I guess that is ultimately what these theories do, isn't it, predict observations in the real world?
I'll have to leave the QFT issues there.0 -
They do, but the real world observations have many more details than you have here.
I'll have to leave the QFT issues there.
No worries. I do appreciate your time, effort, and patience!
Was there information about the amount of data per gram of matter in those papers you posted a while back, or do I have to look elsewhere?0 -
-
Nice one! Cheers0 -
Advertisement
-
Thinking more about free will and the implications quantum mechanics has for it, there are still a few questions popping up. This is probably part of the process of adjusting from a deterministic bias.
We know that the decisions involved in quantum mechanical experiments must be free, given the sheer coincidence required for the alternative. We can verify that they are free by way of Bell tests.
But what about those decisions that are determined by prior causes? I think it's easier to think in terms of extreme behaviour such as compulsive behaviour or even falling in love. How do we distinguish these deterministic decisions from the truly free ones? These aren't necessarily testable by way of a bell test, presumably?
An example would be related to something you said earlier.
I replied to this somewhat facetiously, but there was a general point I was trying to get at, that is related to the point above about distinguishing deterministic choices from truly free ones.The people could be completely primed to the point where they are drugged into picking one option specifically and it wouldn't affect the point QM is making.
I understand that the point is probably exaggerated, but I read it to mean that their decisions could be completely determined by prior causes yet not affect the point that QM is making.
I understand that the alternative is the incredible co-incidence, but this does seem to contradict the idea that the decision is completely free. Can it be the case that even if the experimenters choices aren't free, QM would still not be invalidated because it wouldn't be relying on the massive coincidence that superdeterminism does. As in, a persons decisions could be completely determined from birth but as long as there is no common cause linking it to light from a distant star, then QM would not be invalidated?
I'm not trying to suggest this as an argument in favour of superdeterminism, but rather the idea that human choices can be determined, but not share a common cause with distant starlight?
I'm not certain that I'm articulating that very clearly but I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing in favour of superdeterminism, but rather trying to understand that full import of your comment above.
Can the human element be removed further? Could the time and location of the experiment be chosen by random number generator, and the equipment constructed using machines and 3D printers?Their choice is still involved, e.g. when to run the experiment and what equipment to use and where and how to construct it. What this experiment shows is that there choice, if it is not in fact free, must be carefully controlled to sync with distant quasar light to prevent exposing the true local realist physics. The vast nature of this coincidence makes it much more likely that the choice is free.
Would those decisions have to operate within certain constraints that are not of the choosing of the experimenter? Would the term "degrees of freedom" apply here?
For example:
Would the choice of when to run the experiment be constrained by access to equipment or convenient timing for all parties involved? Could it be replaced by random number generators?
Would the choice of equipment be constrained by anything, access to funding, the type of equipment that can actually be used? Could this be replaced by a random number generator?
Would the choice of how to construct the equipment be constrained by similar limitations on what is possible, affordable, available? Could designs be chosen by random number generator?
EDIT: Some of these decisions seem as though they would involve more than one person. Is it possible to streamline this by having one person making a decision and then delegating the rest to others, providing a set of very clear instructions?
2nd EDIT: Or perhaps, hypothetically, automating the whole process with just one person involved?
Theoretically, could running experiments every second of the day invalidate superdeterminism - not that it needs any further invalidating, but I'm wondering would this address the superdeterminists claim/requirement that the timing of the experiment be a massive coincidence?0 -
Sorry, so many questions are popping up which I am having trouble reconciling.
My thinking is that decisions are mental processes and mental processes are, I believe, demonstrably deterministic. How do we square this with undetermined free will?
I know that the alternative is the massive coincidence, but that isn't helping me reconcile the deterministic nature of thought processes with free will.0 -
Sitting in meditation today and a thought occurred to me, and then another one occurred, and then another, and another because that is how thinking happens. We do not choose our thoughts, our thoughts occur to us. It is the idea that we control our thinking which is commonly referred to as the illusion of free will.
Decisions are mental events, and as such, we do not control them, they arise out of our subconscious. We become consciously aware of the latter part of this process which causes us to believe that we are authoring those decisions. The content of our thoughts is entirely deterministic because we can only think about things with which we have had experience. Our minds are continually creating models based on the information that we have been exposed to. We cannot think in a language we do not know because our thinking is determined by the language we have learned. It's very much an input-output process.
How these thoughts occur to us can, perhaps, be random. If we are asked to choose heads or tails on the flip of a coin, ultimately the thought which occurs to us, which we verbalise as our choice, can arise randomly form our subconscious, but we do not choose the thought, it occurs to us.
This seemingly random choice however, is sparked by the original question. The thought, heads or tails would not occur to us if we were not asked the question. Asking the question causally influences the thought process. Similarly, the decisions made by experimenters in Bell tests occur under deterministic constraints. Being in the position to conduct a Bell test in the first place is determined by their being hired into the position, which is determined by their having studied physics, which is determined by a long chain of prior causes.
The choice of the time of the experiment will also have deterministic influences. The circadian rhythm of the experimenter will determine what their waking hours are, their lecture schedule (if they lecture) will determine what times are ruled out, along with myriad other deterministic influences.
If this chain of causal influences does allow for two or more equal choices, and the ultimate choice is just random, then it is not a self-willed choice. It is a random thought which occurs from the subconscious which enters awareness and sets off a causally deterministic chain of events which is the "choosing" event.
Would this randomness be compatible with Bell's inequality?0 -
The world has some aspects that are caused and some aspects that are not.
Thus some aspects of being able to conduct the Bell test are determined and some are not. So some aspects of your thoughts are caused and some are not.
Caused meaning "depends on previous physical events".0 -
Thanks Fourier, I can understand that.The world has some aspects that are caused and some aspects that are not.
Thus some aspects of being able to conduct the Bell test are determined and some are not. So some aspects of your thoughts are caused and some are not.
Caused meaning "depends on previous physical events".
How do we disinguish between apsects of our thoughts are cause or uncaused? If there is a discernible chain of causality for every decision, at what point does the chain become broken by our free will, only for our free will to set off a new chain of causal determinism?
I'm thinking in terms of what this means for free will. If some aspects of our thoughts are caused, that doesn't mean that those aspects that are uncaused are the result of "free will". If decisions are mental processes and those decisions are the result of random thoughts that just occur to us, as opposed to our choosing them, then that is not "free will".0 -
We can't currently. You'd need to do a full quantum mechanical model of the brain to know which aspects are and which are not. I would say this will never be fully possible, perhaps in some simple cases we might be able to know someday with help from psychological studies.Thanks Fourier, I can understand that.
How do we disinguish between apsects of our thoughts are cause or uncaused?
Again we currently don't know.If there is a discernible chain of causality for every decision, at what point does the chain become broken by our free will, only for our free will to set off a new chain of causal determinism?
"Random" is a very imprecise word for quantum theory. Random properly just means "requires probability theory". That your thoughts are "random" just means somebody else has to use probability theory to model them. It doesn't really have any ontic meaning.random thoughts that just occur to us0 -
It just seems questionable how we can have some decisions which are determined and some which are not, and somehow those decisions which are not determined just so happen to coincide with choosing settings in Bell tests.We can't currently. You'd need to do a full quantum mechanical model of the brain to know which aspects are and which are not. I would say this will never be fully possible, perhaps in some simple cases we might be able to know someday with help from psychological studies.
Again we currently don't know.
"Random" is probably the wrong choice of word, particularly when choices are completely constrained by prior cuases."Random" is a very imprecise word for quantum theory. Random properly just means "requires probability theory". That your thoughts are "random" just means somebody else has to use probability theory to model them. It doesn't really have any ontic meaning.
It was more meant to highlight the fact that the common perception we have that "I" make choices is inaccurate. As a mental event, "we" are not the authors of choices, choices arise out of the subconscious. It is in this sense that free will is an illusion.0 -
This is making something suspicious where there is no real coincidence. Some of our decision making is determined, some is not. The Bell test requires the some which is not, but it's there anyway. It's not "just so happening" to coincide with a Bell test alone. The Bell test is using something which QM says is present anyway all the time. You're making it sound like Free Choice is absent outside of Bell test setting choices.It just seems questionable how we can have some decisions which are determined and some which are not, and somehow those decisions which are not determined just so happen to coincide with choosing settings in Bell tests.
You're just asserting this, there's no conclusion from neurology that this is true and it contradicts what we've learned from physics. Choices don't seem to be completely constrained by prior causes, that's what the Bell tests show."Random" is probably the wrong choice of word, particularly when choices are completely constrained by prior cuases.
It was more meant to highlight the fact that the common perception we have that "I" make choices is inaccurate. As a mental event, "we" are not the authors of choices, choices arise out of the subconscious. It is in this sense that free will is an illusion.
If a choice arose purely out of some pre-existing state of affairs in the subconscious the Bell tests would fail. Thus it seems this isn't quite what is happening either.
Elements of our choice arise out of the subconscious, other elements are determined by various factors. But some element seems to be genuinely free, unhooked from either of these sources.0 -
Not that its absent outside of Bell tests but if some decisions are determined and some are not, it seems coincidental that we can suddenly turn off the deterministic decision making process when it comes to Bell tests (and the other allegedly free decisions that we make).This is making something suspicious where there is no real coincidence. Some of our decision making is determined, some is not. The Bell test requires the some which is not, but it's there anyway. It's not "just so happening" to coincide with a Bell test alone. The Bell test is using something which QM says is present anyway all the time. You're making it sound like Free Choice is absent outside of Bell test setting choices.
Is the decision to switch from determined decisions to free decisions a free choice in itself?
Similarly, if we think of our subconscious as owing to some neurological process then the Bell tests would be violated if decisions arose out of this "state of affairs. But you yourself said previously:You're just asserting this, there's no conclusion from neurology that this is true and it contradicts what we've learned from physics. Choices don't seem to be completely constrained by prior causes, that's what the Bell tests show.
If a choice arose purely out of some pre-existing state of affairs in the subconscious the Bell tests would fail. Thus it seems this isn't quite what is happening either.
Elements of our choice arise out of the subconscious, other elements are determined by various factors. But some element seems to be genuinely free, unhooked from either of these sources.For if we say that our choices are dictated by our neurons, and our neurons are dictated by biochemistry, biochemistry is dictated by quantum physics and we then find quantum physics requires those choices at the start of the chain we can't close the loop. We can't terminate in a fundamental cause.
This would seem to imply that the will or mind is what is fundamental.
Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud here. Could it be the decisions arising out of this will/mind are truly free. This would have more implications for the notion of "self" than free will, per se.
Without wanting to get too esoteric, Buddhist philosophy talks about the conditioned mind, which we tend to think of as our "self". These thought processes would be completely deterministic, being shaped by our prior experiences and reacting to present stimuli.
The idea behind meditation is to quiten this part of the mind and revel the "true nature of the mind".0 -
Advertisement
-
We don't "turn if off" that's the point. It's always on, it's just not the totality of things. Some aspects of an event, even a mental event, are caused/determined and some are not.Not that its absent outside of Bell tests but if some decisions are determined and some are not, it seems coincidental that we can suddenly turn off the deterministic decision making process when it comes to Bell tests (and the other allegedly free decisions that we make).
It's not saying that mind/will is fundamental, just that you can't close the causal chain to give determinism. The point is more that it's a loop, you want Free choice to actually just be a result of particles but then their behaviour depends on Free choice, which depends on particles, which depends on....and so on.Similarly, if we think of our subconscious as owing to some neurological process then the Bell tests would be violated if decisions arose out of this "state of affairs. But you yourself said previously:
This would seem to imply that the will or mind is what is fundamental.
And along with this dependence/determinism there is "freedom" at all levels.
Decisions are free, just as many events in the world are, even non-mental ones.Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud here. Could it be the decisions arising out of this will/mind are truly free.
Pauli and some others (I believe Kochen himself did) taught and/or think something along this line. There's certainly strong similarities between QM and some Buddhist philosophy which is why many of the early writers on QM drew upon it, but I don't think we know enough yet to classify things tightly enough to know if this is true or not.Without wanting to get too esoteric, Buddhist philosophy talks about the conditioned mind, which we tend to think of as our "self". These thought processes would be completely deterministic, being shaped by our prior experiences and reacting to present stimuli.
The idea behind meditation is to quiten this part of the mind and revel the "true nature of the mind".
Interesting idea though.0
Advertisement