The Universe is Deterministic

[Reality Check]

Reality Check,
The statement "can be interpreted in various ways" may be so, but there is only one right answer regardless of how one chooses to interpret it.

Agree?

yes.
The proper way to quote a post is to include a link to the post, e.g.

This is your original post


The points that sol invictus made (in expanded form) were the Afshar experiment

• can be interpreted in various ways and so does not "kind of defeats the whole Heisenberg uncertainty principle".
• did not "measure the energy state and velocity/location of the particles at the same time".

 

[Tumbleweed]

Okay so the universe is made up of collapsed wave functions that become particles. So how many wave functions are still out there waiting to be collapsed by having something interact with them?
Or can a wave function be collapsed over and over every time something interacts with it, making permanent particles appear in many different places
or is the wave function collapse temporary, the particle returning to wave function status after a time, recharged and ready to be collapsed again

 

[Reality Check]

Okay so the universe is made up of collapsed wave functions that become particles. So how many wave functions are still out there waiting to be collapsed by having something interact with them?
Or can a wave function be collapsed over and over every time something interacts with it, making permanent particles appear in many different places
or is the wave function collapse temporary, the particle returning to wave function status after a time, recharged and ready to be collapsed again

IMO it is better to think of wave functions as describing the properties of particles. They are not the particles themselves. They are not real things, e.g. waves.
The collapse of a wave function gives the particle a specific state that includes things like position, energy, spin, etc.

There are as many wave functions as there are systems to be described by wave functions. This is either infinite if there are an infinte number of particles in the universe or finite (the number of ways of arranging the particles in a finite universe into distinct systems).

The collapse of a wave function is temporary. It immediately begins to chnage according to the Schrödinger equation.

 

[sol invictus]

I apologize if this has come up before, but-

Does the fact that the future isn't fully knowable imply that the past isn't fully knowable? So that (this seems really creepy to me) we don't, in fact, have a particular past?

Yes. Think of the double slit experiment - which slit did the electron go through? Both, neither, either, English doesn't have a word that adequately expresses it. It is creepy, yeah.

In a related thought, I'd think that in MW, the number of universes wouldn't necessarily keep increasing because there'd be convergences just like there were bifurications.

Entropy doesn't always increase either, and yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a pretty damn good approximation. The number of worlds increases for almost exactly the same reason and by almost exactly the same mechanism.

 

[mike3]

Causality. Non-local hidden variables are impossible in relativistic theories. Moreover relativistic quantum field theory doesn't have them, yet such theories are the best tested in the history of science.

I'm curious about this: what would happen if you threw out causality? Would the nonlocal theory that has the causality requirement relaxed start making predictions for experiments wildly out of whack with what is observed?

 

[sol invictus]

I'm curious about this: what would happen if you threw out causality?

The basis of science and logic would fail.

Would the nonlocal theory that has the causality requirement relaxed start making predictions for experiments wildly out of whack with what is observed?

Yes, almost certainly. Of course it's hard to make completely general statements, but a failure of causality means simply that cause and effect can no longer be separated, that effects can travel back in time and affect their causes, you can kill your own grandfather before you're born, etc.

 

[Tumbleweed]

I have a light source. Since light is both a wave and a particle which of the following is occurring. Countless photons- as- particles are being spewed out in every direction.
Or spherical waves of light spread out from the source waxing and waning with frequency. As this wave encounters ??? ( other waves? Particles?) it collapses into entangled photon particles. (temporarily? one going forward in time? one going back in time?)
Or are countless entangled electron flow begetting a magnetic field begetting an electron flow ad nauseum, quanta wave function packets being emanated, becoming entangled particles when collapsed through interaction with ???

 

[Reality Check]

I have a light source. Since light is both a wave and a particle which of the following is occurring. Countless photons- as- particles are being spewed out in every direction.
Or spherical waves of light spread out from the source waxing and waning with frequency. As this wave encounters ??? ( other waves? Particles?) it collapses into entangled photon particles. (temporarily? one going forward in time? one going back in time?)

Neither. Light is not "both a wave and a particle". The measurement that is made determines whether light acts as a wave or a particle. Look up the double slit experiment.

Or are countless entangled electron flow begetting a magnetic field begetting an electron flow ad nauseum, quanta wave function packets being emanated, becoming entangled particles when collapsed through interaction with ???

What is an "entangled electron flow"?
Do you mean light as seen as a classic electromagnetic wave? If so there is no "electron flow" just electric and magnetic fields.
The rest of the sentence is not understandable.
There are no such things as 'quanta wave function packets" or "wave function packets".

 

[Belz...]

Non-determinism is illogical.

Fascinating.

 

[sol invictus]

I have a light source. Since light is both a wave and a particle which of the following is occurring.

Light is composed of particles, and all particles obey QM, which means they can all act like waves under the correct circumstances.

Countless photons- as- particles are being spewed out in every direction.

Right, only they're relatively easy to count (roughly at least).

 

[Tumbleweed]

Light is composed of particles, and all particles obey QM, which means they can all act like waves under the correct circumstances.
quote]
Okay, thanks, I thought maybe they started as a wave function that was later collapsed into particles. Apparently it works both ways

 

[Tumbleweed]

But wait, SI just told me that light is emanated as a particle, but RC is saying its nothing more than interacting electric and magnetic waves, no particle involved.
And as to the slit experiment, are you saying the ONLY time a wave function collapses is when an inquisitive human observes it by whatever means available, such as bouncing photons off it. Or is it something that is occurring all the time in places like the sun

 

[Reality Check]

But wait, SI just told me that light is emanated as a particle, but RC is saying its nothing more than interacting electric and magnetic waves, no particle involved.
And as to the slit experiment, are you saying the ONLY time a wave function collapses is when an inquisitive human observes it by whatever means available, such as bouncing photons off it. Or is it something that is occurring all the time in places like the sun

No I did not say that. I said "Do you mean light as seen as a classic electromagnetic wave? If so there is no "electron flow" just electric and magnetic fields."
What I mean by classic is before quantum mechanics, i.e. Maxwell's equations.

The only time that the wave function collapses is when a measurement is made by an observer (human or otherwise).
But there is also the objective reduction interpretation of Roger Penrose (and the other objective collape interpretations).

 

[Tumbleweed]

No I did not say that. I said "Do you mean light as seen as a classic electromagnetic wave? If so there is no "electron flow" just electric and magnetic fields."
What I mean by classic is before quantum mechanics, i.e. Maxwell's equations.

The only time that the wave function collapses is when a measurement is made by an observer (human or otherwise).
But there is also the objective reduction interpretation of Roger Penrose (and the other objective collape interpretations).

Thanks for that link. My logic seems to fall along the same lines

 

[Angus McPresley]

My question is, if the "many worlds" interpretation of QM is true, then isn't the multiverse deterministic? Not down any individual path, but just the multiverse as a whole?

 

[sol invictus]

My question is, if the "many worlds" interpretation of QM is true, then isn't the multiverse deterministic? Not down any individual path, but just the multiverse as a whole?

Yes.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Humans beings (and all conscioues entities mind you) prove that the universe is entirely not deterministic and predicated on conscious processes.

Nonsense.

How very typically elaborative

So you believe that we and all conscious entities are merely helpless spectators watching our lives unfold in front of us?

See my post here where I argue against determinism in more detail if you want my elaboration.

As far as I know you're an electric universe bot written to spam internet fora, so why should I believe anything "you" say about free will?

You dont

 

[Zeuzzz]

bumpy

 

[Ziggurat]

So you believe that we and all conscious entities are merely helpless spectators watching our lives unfold in front of us?

False dichotomy. Even in a non-deterministic universe, there's no reason to invest consciousness with any special status in regards to that non-determinism.

 

[Zeuzzz]

False dichotomy. Even in a non-deterministic universe, there's no reason to invest consciousness with any special status in regards to that non-determinism.

'Special status'?

Do you mean normal things like free will, agency and self awareness?

PS

See my post here where I argue against determinism in more detail if you want my elaboration.