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
Dawkins vs Sartre/ existentialism vs biological determinism
Options
Comments
-
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
This is not true in the Stern Gerlach experiment.Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.0 -
Indeed there is. I have outlined some of that terminology previously. I will outline them hear again, in case you missed them. First though, I'll reference a quote from an "expert".Surely there has to be a precise and agreed on terminology for anything to make sense. In any field whatsoever.Arthur Schopenhauer: On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Other Writing wrote:...the inevitability of an effect from a cause, this form of
the principle of sufficient reason deals with ‘logical necessity’, the necessity
of a true proposition following from a ground
Notice how he doesn't make the statement that Fourier is making, that determinism is the idea that a cause has a unique effect associated with it, prior to the outcome. This notion appears to be baggage that has been added. I agree that Fourier's definition is one possible interpretation of determinism, but it's not the only one as evidenced by the reference to Schopenhauer above. I believe Kant and Hume made similar statements but you can ask Fourier if Schopenhauer might be considered enough of an expert.
Those statements about determinism again:
(1) This/that cause gives rise to this/that unique effect.
(2) This/that effect was caused by this/that cause.
(3) All causes have unique effects.
(4) All effects have causes.
The definition Fourier is using, or at least, one of the few he has used, is fully accounted for here i.e. in statements (1) and (2). Statements (3) and (4) are, as you will note from Schopenhauers statement above, statements of logical necessity.
Feel free to outline, by way of a reasoned argument why they are "poppycock"Arthur Schopenhauer: On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Other Writing wrote:...the inevitability of an effect from a cause, this form of
the principle of sufficient reason deals with ‘logical necessity’, the necessity
of a true proposition following from a ground
Feel free to ask him if Schopenhauer is a reliable enough source.I presume he is saying that "no experts have said this before". It might be true that that you are right and they are wrong, but you need extraordinary proof to refute expertise, and you certainly cant come up with your own definitions of things willy nilly.
Neither can I, tell if everything Fourier is saying is the "gospel truth" or if there are certain other interpretations. I do know that there are other prominent physicists out there who Fourier disagrees with like Lee Smolin who, for example says:As an outsider, albeit one scientifically trained, I can't know enough to know if Fourier is telling the truth.
[quote=Lee Smolin
...in fact, it [Quantum Mechanics] doesn't make any sense because it's wrong! And I'm proud to be standing here where Roger Penrose was, just a few weeks ago and he said the same thing. Now, some people are polite and we say it's incomplete, but we really mean, and this is what Roger chided me for, why don't we just say it's wrong? Because that's really what we mean when we say it's incomplete.[/quote]
If the video doesn't cue up automatically, you can jump to the 10min mark, he says it around the 10:30 mark.
Also, this professor Gerard t'Hooft is an advocate for Superdeterminism, the theory that is directly relevant to the question of Free Will, which Fourier says is the necessary consequence if there is no free will, but its a theory which he says is laden with problems.
He also disagrees with Sean Carroll, who is an advocate for an interpretation of quantum mechanics you might be familiar with, the Many Worlds interpretation - or "multiple universes" as it is sometimes colloquially known.
So, no, I can't be certain that his is the one correct interpretation but I certainly know that he knows this stuff inside out and I find it to be good practice to defer to the expert on matters I cannot offer any reasonable contention on.
This is the point where you support your assertion with a reasoned critique of my arguments, otherwise I'm inclined to ask, how you can tell?but I can tell you are engaging in poppycock.0 -
Carroll, 't Hooft and Smolin are all good physicists. It's just that their proposals have not worked out. When describing physics I have to refer to theories that match experiment and are working fully developed models. I can't describe the suggestions that have run into problems of a small group that have no empirical evidence and are not used by the vast majority.
That is what Schopenhauer is saying. The uniqueness is what "logical necessity" means. That it follows from the cause logically. In a Stern Gerlach experiment which plate is hit does not follow logically from the emission event. The particular plate selection is not a logical necessity of the cause.Notice how he doesn't make the statement that Fourier is making, that determinism is the idea that a cause has a unique effect associated with it, prior to the outcome
But anyway this is the sort of thing that gets tiring with roosh. Quantum Theory doesn't contradict determinism because by determinism he doesn't mean current usage of the word (as shown by the definition in the world's major philosophical encyclopedia), he means his own personal definition which perhaps Schopenhauer also meant maybe. Although as a physicist I'm familiar with the 19th century debate on determinism I know Schopenhauer still means the modern definition as like others of the time he knew of Laplace's work on the subject. roosh just doesn't understand the terminology.
But to get him to I'd have to explain what "logical" means and what "necessity" means in logic which would no doubt start this all over again as he would have odd private definitions of these terms backed up by a confused out of context quote.
roosh do you at least understand that quantum theory breaks determinism as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.0 -
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
This is not true in the Stern Gerlach experiment.
We can explore the notion of constant conjunction, particularly by considering the alternative.[/quote]Hume on Causation wrote:Hume’s rules, from the perspective of causal reasoning, is the combination of
the thesis that every event has a cause and the thesis that causation requires constant conjunction. Those two theses together provide a deterministic conception of the causal structure of the world and so entail that there are a lot more regularities than meet the untrained eye, since many types of event are not constantly conjoined in our experience with other types of event: many objects behave in ways that we can ordinarily neither predict nor retrospectively fully explain. And so we need to adopt procedures for uncovering those hidden regularities: we need to employ the scientific method.
...
Hume’s ‘beating about’ in the neighbouring fields in the Treatise – of which
his discussion of causal reasoning is the major part – has revealed, amongst
other things, first, that he does not doubt what is sometimes called the ‘causal
maxim’: the maxim that every event has a cause
...
By trying to define causal determination in terms of a set of prior sufficient conditions, we inevitably fall into the mess of an open-ended list of negative conditions required to achieve the desired sufficiency.Immanuel Kant wrote:we inferred the principle: Every event has a cause, from the only condition of the objective possibility of our conception of an event. This is that an event cannot be determined in time, and consequently cannot form a part of experience, unless it stands under this dynamical law. This is the only
possible ground of proof; for our conception of an event possesses objective validity, that is, is a true conception, only because the law of causality determines an object to which it can refer
Also from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:As the following famous expression of determinism by Laplace shows, however, the two are also easy to commingle:
We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow
Also from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but including the text surrounding the definition you posted:
Far from being the absolute definitive definition you attempted to present it as, is merely a potential starting point. Not only is it a potential starting point, it is "loose" and attempts to be "all-encompassing". As a "loose" starting point, it is open to question. And far from being "all-encompassing" is is overly specific and exclusionary.Traditionally determinism has been given various, usually imprecise definitions. This is only problematic if one is investigating determinism in a specific, well-defined theoretical context; but it is important to avoid certain major errors of definition. In order to get started we can begin with a loose and (nearly) all-encompassing definition as follows:
Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
We don't need "loose" or "nearly all encompassing" because we are dealing with a very specific case of inferring cause from effect, which is simply a logical necessity.
Also from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
[/quote]Fatalism is the thesis that all events (or in some versions, at least some events) are destined to occur no matter what we do, Fatalism is therefore clearly separable from determinism.[/quote]
The definition above is more inline with fatalism.0 -
By loose they only mean the have to define more precisely the terms "world", "governed by", "way things are at a time t", i.e. the definition is loose because it assumes you basically know what these mean. When they define it in detail later it doesn't make much difference to the basic definition.Far from being the absolute definitive definition you attempted to present it as, is merely a potential starting point. Not only is it a potential starting point, it is "loose" and attempts to be "all-encompassing"
If you have problems with what "world" and "governed by" mean you'll have to go somewhere else.
Do you accept that quantum mechanics violates that definition given in the Stanford philosophical encyclopedia?
Or even simpler do you admit that nothing seems to determine which plate is selected in a Stern Gerlach and that empirical tests confirm Bell's inequality which shows nothing determines the selection?0 -
Advertisement
-
That a cause gives rise to an effect, is a logical necessity.That is what Schopenhauer is saying. The uniqueness is what "logical necessity" means. That it follows from the cause logically. In a Stern Gerlach experiment which plate is hit does not follow logically from the emission event. The particular plate selection is not a logical necessity of the cause.
That an effect has a cause, is a logical necessity.
They are logical necessities because a cause is defined by its having an effect and vice versa.
Do you accept that the above statement is true, regardless of who has or has never said it before? Does it stand on its own merits or is it wrong because no one else has said it?
It might get tiring that I don't use the term in the form that you have become accustomed to, but a statement is not invalid based on its popularity.But anyway this is the sort of thing that gets tiring with roosh. Quantum Theory doesn't contradict determinism because by determinism he doesn't mean current usage of the word (as shown by the definition in the world's major philosophical encyclopedia), he means his own personal definition which perhaps Schopenhauer also meant maybe. Although as a physicist I'm familiar with the 19th century debate on determinism I know Schopenhauer still means the modern definition as like others of the time he knew of Laplace's work on the subject. roosh just doesn't understand the terminology.
But to get him to I'd have to explain what "logical" means and what "necessity" means in logic which would no doubt start this all over again as he would have odd private definitions of these terms backed up by a confused out of context quote.
It does indeed get tiring having to point out this basic fact of logic.
That I can't say. From what I can gather, it certainly sounds that way.roosh do you at least understand that quantum theory breaks determinism as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I have heard that there is something which is referred to as the "free will" loophole which suggests that a deterministic, hidden variables theory is possible.However, scientists have also identified several major loopholes in Bell’s theorem. These suggest that while the outcomes of such experiments may appear to support the predictions of quantum mechanics, they may actually reflect unknown “hidden variables” that give the illusion of a quantum outcome, but can still be explained in classical terms.
Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.”
I believe it is this loophole that was [indirectly] the main, or one of the main, subjects of our discussion.0 -
I never said it was invalid, just that it's not the full definition.but a statement is not invalid based on its popularity.
It does indeed get tiring having to point out this basic fact of logic.0 -
Fair enough. They do take it as a starting point, and so it is certainly open to debate - such is the nature of philosophy. I referenced other definitions also.By loose they only mean the have to define more precisely the terms "world", "governed by", "way things are at a time t", i.e. the definition is loose because it assumes you basically know what these mean. When they define it in detail later it doesn't make much difference to the basic definition.
If you have problems with what "world" and "governed by" mean you'll have to go somewhere else.Do you accept that quantum mechanics violates that definition given in the Stanford philosophical encyclopedia?
Or even simpler do you admit that nothing seems to determine which plate is selected in a Stern Gerlach and that empirical tests confirm Bell's inequality which shows nothing determines the selection?
I think these questions are addressed in the post above. If not, let me know.0 -
I think these questions are addressed in the post above. If not, let me know.
Then there are facts of the world, such as which plate is selected in a Stern Gerlach experiment that are not determined by any other prior fact.it certainly sounds that way.
Which particular word you want to use for this I won't bother with anymore. Most say it is indeterministic.0 -
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.0
-
Advertisement
-
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
Advertisement