Why does JG continue to believe ??

[Pragmatist]

Hello Pragmatist, and welcome to the thread.

Thanks!

First I should explain that I was responding to the assertion that reverse causality broke the known laws of physics. I responded by arguing that QM implies that reverse causality does indeed occur. You have then argued, based on schroedingers cat, that it might occur, but it depends on your interpretation of QM. For my purposes, in the context of this thread, the fact that it might occur is all I need, since I was responding to an assertion that it couldn't occur. Having said that, I believe that other area of QM, experimentally demonstrated, do indeed require reverse causality.

That isn't what I argued at all! I was under the impression I was arguing the exact reverse!

Firstly, I am not aware that QM implies that reverse causality occurs. What evidence do you have for that statement?

Secondly, I did not argue that reverse causality MIGHT occur on the basis of Schrodinger's Cat! I challenged your assertion that it was incorrect to say that Schrodinger's cat was a violation of known scientific reality - on the grounds that it is PRECISELY what the cat paradox was designed to highlight. Let me clarify the essence of the original argument about Schrodinger's cat.

The basic problem was that in practise, when observing events at the quantum level, such as the motion of an electron, Heisenberg realised that it was impossible to define ALL the quantum variables simultaneously on the basis of a single measurement. But at any given time, for any given state, you only get one shot at one measurement because essentially, the act of measuring alters the thing measured. So if you measure one property, you automatically make the other properties undefined (within certain limits). There is a story (I don't know if it's true but it serves for this explanation) that Heisenberg realised this when he watched people who walked at night down a street which was sparsely lit with occasional lights. What he noticed was that the person was only visible when they were under a light. As they passed between the lights they would disappear into the darkness and then they would reappear at some later time under the next light. Essentially their state while they were submerged in darkness was completely undefined. They could in reality be doing almost anything BETWEEN the lights and we would never know about it. We only get a single "snapshot" of the person as they pass under a light. This in turn led him to propose PHILOSOPHICALLY that we couldn't even know if the person actually EXISTED whilst we couldn't see them. It was a POSSIBILITY that the person only existed at the moment they were actually seen under the light and that they didn't exist when they were in the darkness BETWEEN the lights. So one way it could be interpreted was that the person somehow ceased to exist between lights and then somehow miraculously came into existence at the moment they were seen under the next light.

As far as I know, NOBODY ever proposed that this was a valid expression of "reality". But it did serve one purpose. If one accepted this explanation it removed the need to try to explain exactly what was happening to all the undefined quantum variables whilst an object was NOT being measured. And THAT was the whole purpose of it - simply to put an end to what had become an interminable argument amongst physicists about exactly WHAT was happening while the particle was not observed - because APPARENTLY the QM predictions didn't accord with the idea of constantly conserved independent properties.

A lot of distinguished scientists didn't agree with this at all. They found it objectionable that anyone would try to substitute a philosphical position for a scientific one. Amongst them was Schrodinger. His cat example was a parody of what he saw as an absurdity.

Now, where amongst all of that is reverse causality implied? In fact, if you understand the problem in entirely you will see that reverse causality creates exactly the same problem that Heisenberg was trying to resolve.

There were other theories that allowed time reversal. Dirac's theory was one. The other notable one was the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. Feynman later dropped that. And Dirac's theory is purely a mathematical abstraction. Neither actually implies macroscopic reverse causality as far as I am aware.

Now to your post :

I also believe that current understanding is based on an error, but I think the error is somewhere else - I believe it is in our initial assumption that reality is observer-independent in the first place. If you ditch that assumption, most of the apparently contradictory implications of QM seem to make more sense - in a very natural sort of way. If Berkeley, or Schopenhauer for that matter, had been presented with QM they would both have just nodded their heads and said "I told you so." But idealism is so much anathema to most modern scientists that they will go to hell and back rather than seriously contemplate that it might be the case. You call yourself a pragmatist, and I am also a pragmatist. In most cases positing idealism isn't very pragmatic, and I don't do it. But in this case, it seems to me that it might be the only sensible thing to do. I too could be completely wrong of course, but I am yet to find a reason why I should think so.

Can you see how that argument relates to the above? For example. Heisenberg stated (in essence) that "reality" appears to be OBSERVATION dependent. Not OBSERVER dependent. There is a subtle difference that most people misunderstand. The problem with most popular accounts of QM etc., is that they confuse the act of observation with the observer himself. Reality does not depend on the "expectations" of some abstract observer. Whereas the real state of a system DOES depend on what method was used to observe it. For example, if I were to measure some quantum state of an electron by bouncing a photon off it (and observing the photon), the bounce would change the quantum state of the electron. But that does NOT mean that the quantum state actually came into existence solely because I personally EXPECTED some particular result. Nor would the initial change at the moment of impact between electron and photon be altered by me subsequently observing that photon (although there may be a possibility of some subsequent secondary change via entanglement). There is no inherent conflict between reality and QM (that I can see) regardless of what some popular writers may say to the contrary.

I'd suggest that although nobody at the time could think of a better one, somebody did think of a better one later, and it was Bohm.

Maybe. In what sense? In what way are Bohm's actual scientific ideas significantly different to De Broglie's? I know that Bohm was given to a lot of metaphysical speculation and personally that doesn't interest me at all.

Which alternative interpretation do you personally favour?

I'm not sure exactly what alternatives you are offering me! I favour the interpretation I already gave. I'm basically a realist. I believe in objective reality and I see nothing in QM that actually contradicts that point of view (when properly researched). A wavefunction is a purely abstract mathematical description of the state(s) of a system. Whilst those states are unknown or undefined, the wavefunction gives the relative PROBABILITIES that certain things will occur. The moment the reality is KNOWN, the wavefunction "collapses", i.e. it becomes redundant because there is no need to speculate about the probabilities of something happening once the absolute certainty of what DID happen is known.

Your analogy is almost valid, but not quite. The process of getting from before the horse race to after the horse race is temporally normal. It goes forwards in time. Before the race there are probabilities, and after the race there is a result. But the situation with the wavefunction collapse is temporally reversed. That is why you have had to say the analogy only work "in a mathematical sense.". In the case of QM, the quantum horse race has to be run backwards, doesn't it? The probabilities still exist at a point in time after the quantum horse race has finished.

Huh? I don't get that at all. How is a wavefunction "collapse" temporally reversed? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Why on earth would anyone need to run the horse race "backwards"? And NO, the probabilities do NOT exist at any point in time after the race has finished. That is the whole point of wavefunction "collapse". The moment the result is announced the wavefunction is redundant and meaningless. It has no existence in any sense past the point of collapse.

Let me postulate that there is a form of "wavefunction" of the form y = 2 * x

Now let me place boundary conditions. I stipulate that x MUST be an integer between 1 and 100.

From that I can deduce certain things immediately. That there must be exactly 100 POSSIBLE results for y. That the probability of y being an odd number is exactly ZERO. And finally, that if x is undefined, that the probability of y being any given even number between 2 and 200 is exactly 1% for any given even integer.

That's like a wavefunction. It doesn't tell us what y actually is. We have to wait until it is measured. Until it IS measured I can only talk probabilities. And let's say when it is measured that we find that y is 50. Then we know at that moment that x must have been 25 at the instant when y was measured. The moment y is determined to be 50, the wavefunction probability of x being say 75 is meaningless. There is no probability that x is anything other than precisely what it is, 25.

Your argument seems to be that if we alter y, that x has to change too. Yes, in a purely abstract mathematical sense that is true. But it presupposes that it is within our power to actually CHANGE y in the first place. And I would maintain that it isn't. Y is the dependent variable, NOT the independent variable. And the real world does NOT follow all the abstract rules of mathematics, math is only a tool that helps us model certain things.

It's rather like saying I choose a set of numbers for the lottery. Then after the lottery is drawn I decide I don't like the result (because I lost), so I change the result such that I must have won. From that it follows that if I DID win, that the numbers I chose will be altered so that they would have been the winning set (otherwise by definition I couldn't have won). Fine. Is that remotely practical and feasible? Of course not. If you maintain it is, then please prove it. Win the lottery say 3 times in a row and present the proof you have won and I'll believe you! A good exercise with a lot of incentive since you'll become rich in the process.

"will BECOME" and "when the matter is resolved" indicate that the "becoming" and the "resolution" will occur at some point in the future. But at the point in time at which we are speaking (form the POV of materialist physics with normal linear time), the event we are talking about has already occured. It seems to me that your analogy doesn't really help, because it doesn't address the real problem here - which is our understanding of time.

I don't see how the "event has already occurred". If the event had already occured (and been measured) there would be no point in trying to build a wavefunction for the event. Wavefunctions are used for PREDICTION, not as some post-hoc justification for what has already happened. I don't see any problem with my understanding of time either. And philosophy aside, I'll bet you don't either. Do you turn up late for work every day and convince your boss that there is some problem with his definition of time? Do you go to an airport or railway station whenever you feel like it and just hop on the first plane/train you see in the sure and certain knowledge that the service you want isn't rigidly scheduled but will just occur as and when you need it? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm saying that it's possible to have all kinds of fancy philosophical beliefs and theories about how the world works and what "time really is", but in practise I'll bet you are constrained by exactly the same reality that I and everyone else is!

There is an old story about a Jewish philosophy student who got very excited by what he had learned and decided to debate his rabbi in philosophy. When the rabbi asked what he could do with philosophy the student announced he could "prove" anything. And he told the rabbi that he could even prove that his nose didn't exist. The rabbi patiently listened to his "proof", and then punched him hard on the nose and said, "O.K. if your nose doesn't exist then tell me - what hurts?"

Again, I think you are making too many assumptions about causality. In this case you seem to be seeing causality oscillating about backwards and forwards in time. Can I suggest that instead what is happening is two different types of causality. In other words that there is normal deterministic forward-pointing causality that we know and love but also a sort of backward causality which is implied by QM and which may form the basis of a future re-assessment of various other questions connected to this one. Because these two forms of causality are not the same, there is no oscillation. Instead, they work together, rather like free will and determinism work together for a compatibilist.

I don't accept that. And you haven't shown any reasoning at all why QM should "imply" reverse causality.

I don't make any assumptions about causality oscillating. I see no evidence whatsoever that causality DOES oscillate - as it must if what you are saying is true.

Let me remind you of my wavefunction y = 2 * x.

I set x to 50, that makes y 100. You set y to 150. That would mean that x must change to 75. I then change x to 10 and y changes to 20. You set y to 30 and x becomes 15. I change x to 20 and y becomes 40. It's an oscillation, it goes on forever if you assume that it's legitimate to change both and x and y at each stage. I maintain that x is x and y is ONLY a function of x and that it's not legitimate to change it. That I would maintain is any reasonable person's understanding of causality.

As for Schroedinger - here is something else he wrote :

The same essay ends with the words :


If you think about it like Schroedinger does, everything just seems to suddenly make sense. I believe that when you change your way of looking at a problem and suddenly everything makes sense it usually indicates that you are heading in the direction of the correct solution to the problem.

I don't see the relevance of the quotes to the point at hand. And you are assuming that something doesn't make sense to me. Things make perfect sense to me on the basis of the understanding I have. I can see that some things don't make sense to others on the basis of the understanding THEY have. I therefore believe (like you) that my understanding is probably (although not necessarily) better than theirs. BUT, that belief however is provisional.

The difference is that if anyone asks what I base my understanding ON, I can offer supporting evidence in the form of history, mathematics, and scientific and logical reasoning. I don't rely on asking anyone to accept that MY personal perception is right and theirs wrong. To the extent that anything I believe IS based solely on my personal (mis)interpretations I am open to be corrected by anyone who can show superior evidence, logic and reasoning - and in fact I WELCOME being corrected when that is the case because I usually learn something from it.

 

[Esther]

I think we have hit upon one of the fundamental problems believers in the paranormal have.

The ability to divorce their experience from reality.

Justgeoff is GREAT example of this

He is NOT an idiot.. nor is he insane, mentally disturbed or delusional.
He is not trying to blow his own trumpet with some mysterious power (see Luci).
He does not have some weird matrix type approach to life (see I-Ian)
He is not a liar or a fraud and stands to gain NO money etc..
In most things he maintains a lucid rational grasp on reality.. yet..

He has had an experience that was SO real to him he has abandoned a rational approach to explaining the experience.

He refuses to accept that the experience could purely be in his own mind.

Maybe its ego (I can’t possibly be delusional)
Maybe it’s a need (I want the paranormal to be true)
Maybe it’s a slight mental disorder ?

Whatever it is.. it goes to the heart of WHY belief in the paranormal is so prevalent. If rational humans can “believe” it would be very handy to understand why.

Unfortunately JG ONLY accepts his paranormal experience as reality so it is hard to get a handle on it.

It is disappointing that JG has put up the shutters on his experience and shows that maybe NEED to hang on it is the most prevalent factor in maintaining the delusion…

Rational discussion WOULD be helpful to him and I believe helpful to us as an insight into understanding why belief is maintained !!

I find this post quite disturbing.

Aussie Thinker admits that JG is not a troll or insane( Aussie Thinker is obviously a psychiatrist and he is able to diagnose people on line) of course as an expert he leaves the door open for a "slight mental disorder"... and yet he finds disappointing the fact that another individual doesn't perceive the world the way he does.

Now THIS is disappointing.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Why does JG continue to believe ??

I find this post quite disturbing.

Aussie Thinker admits that JG is not a troll or insane( Aussie Thinker is obviously a psychiatrist and he is able to diagnose people on line) of course as an expert he leaves the door open for a "slight mental disorder"... and yet he finds disappointing the fact that another individual doesn't perceive the world the way he does.

Now THIS is disappointing.

It's not a question of difference in perception. It's how Geoff has reached his conclusion of why his perception was real, and not a hallucination.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[Esther]

Re: Re: Re: Why does JG continue to believe ??

It's not a question of difference in perception. It's how Geoff has reached his conclusion of why his perception was real, and not a hallucination.

If JG perceives things in a specific way, he automatically creates his own truths. If those truths cannot stand any logical examination is irrelevant to him. The problem will start if JG will attempt to enforce his truth on me. In our everyday lives we do nothing but communicating with our environment based on our perceptions of this very environment. Aussie Thinker who is a shrink will confirm you that.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

When you live with a specific group of people you are entitled to have your own opinions but you have to agree with the facts that the ruling majority finds acceptable.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why does JG continue to believe ??

If JG perceives things in a specific way, he automatically creates his own truths. If those truths cannot stand any logical examination is irrelevant to him. The problem will start if JG will attempt to enforce his truth on me. In our everyday lives we do nothing but communicating with our environment based on our perceptions of this very environment. Aussie Thinker who is a shrink will confirm you that.

I don't give a hoot about people's occupations. All I am interested in is evidence.

We may create our own "truths", but that doesn't make them real.

When you live with a specific group of people you are entitled to have your own opinions but you have to agree with the facts that the ruling majority finds acceptable.

You most certainly do not. The only obligation you have is to acknowledge how reality really is. Reality is not a democratic decision, it only depends on what the evidence show.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Esther said:
When you live with a specific group of people you are entitled to have your own opinions but you have to agree with the facts that the ruling majority finds acceptable.

I don't even understand what this means.

~~ Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't even understand what this means.

~~ Paul

I just assumed "mob rule". I could be wrong, of course.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus

The contradiction lies not in whether or not I accept your personal testimony. The contradiction lies in the fact that you trust the perception of another person, yet you also say that we cannot trust other people's perceptions...

OK, now I am completely lost. The preception of which person other than me do you think I trust?

If I felt your beliefs "threatening", would I stick my neck out by being here?

Do people and animals attack perceived threats?

Would I have a site like SkepticReport?

Why do you have a site like skeptic report?

I'll have a look, by the way. Didn't know it was yours.

Would I constantly ask for evidence of any kind of paranormal phenomena? Would I emphasize the importance of finding such evidence?

Do Christians ignore Darwin?

If they were scared of Darwin, do you think they would create anti-darwinist websites?

 

["D"]

We may create our own "truths", but that doesn't make them real.

Why not?

Things can be real for one person but not for another.

 

[CFLarsen]

OK, now I am completely lost. The preception of which person other than me do you think I trust?

In the thread "New PSI forum", you claimed that the change in the physical universe that you exprienced was observed by someone other than yourself.

Do people and animals attack perceived threats?

Sure. But does that mean that, because I am countering your claim, and ask for evidence, I am attacking you? If you really think that, then you cannot allow any kind of debate.

Why do you have a site like skeptic report?

Skeptic Report - why?

I'll have a look, by the way. Didn't know it was yours.

You are not the most perceptive person in this universe.

Do Christians ignore Darwin?

I don't know. None of the Christians I know ignore Darwin. Aren't you generalizing just a wee bit here? Not all Christians are creationists, you know. AFAIK, even the Roman Catholic church acknowledges evolution - and that's about 1 billion Christians to start with...

If they were scared of Darwin, do you think they would create anti-darwinist websites?

Do you really see any form of opposition as fear? If anybody reacts to anything you say or do, does it have to be based on fear?

That is a very paranoid attitude.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Posted by Claus "freethinker" Larsen....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
OK, now I am completely lost. The perception of which person other than me do you think I trust?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the thread "New PSI forum", you claimed that the change in the physical universe that you exprienced was observed by someone other than yourself.

Oh dear.

So if I witness something, and somebody else witnesses the same thing, that means in order to accurately report that something I have to trust somebody-else's perception?

You call this critical thinking?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Do people and animals attack perceived threats?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure. But does that mean that, because I am countering your claim, and ask for evidence, I am attacking you? If you really think that, then you cannot allow any kind of debate.

You haven't been countering my claims. Dr kitten and pragmatist have been countering my claims. You just keep squealing, and producing idiotic and fallacious arguments like the one above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Do Christians ignore Darwin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know. None of the Christians I know ignore Darwin.
Aren't you generalizing just a wee bit here? Not all Christians are creationists, you know. AFAIK, even the Roman Catholic church acknowledges evolution - and that's about 1 billion Christians to start with...

The point you have once more deliberately missed, is that the people who start creationist websites do it precisely because they feel threated by darwinism. If they didn't feel threated by darwininsm they would not go to such great lengths to attack it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
If they were scared of Darwin, do you think they would create anti-darwinist websites?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you really see any form of opposition as fear? If anybody reacts to anything you say or do, does it have to be based on fear?

No, Claus. But there are different ways of reacting. I don't think pragmatist fears me or my views, because pragmatist can use proper arguments to defend his own views. I have not heard any strawmen or other fallacies from him. There have been no wildly overstated claims or premature victory celebrations, no repeated accusations that I am mad. Some of your posts smacked of desperation, Claus. So the answer is no - many forms of opposition are not driven by fear, but yours is.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh dear.

So if I witness something, and somebody else witnesses the same thing, that means in order to accurately report that something I have to trust somebody-else's perception?

You call this critical thinking?

Didn't you say that your experience - that the past had changed - was supported by others, which was the reason you knew you weren't hallucinating?

You haven't been countering my claims. Dr kitten and pragmatist have been countering my claims. You just keep squealing, and producing idiotic and fallacious arguments like the one above.

Yes, yes, I'm just stupid, so you don't have to address my points. You've said it before, I know.

The point you have once more deliberately missed, is that the people who start creationist websites do it precisely because they feel threated by darwinism. If they didn't feel threated by darwininsm they would not go to such great lengths to attack it.

Again, I am merely addressing what you say. Sure, some creationists make websites, but Christians as such do not. It is not my fault that you over-generalize and think that Christians are creationists.

No, Claus. But there are different ways of reacting. I don't think pragmatist fears me or my views, because pragmatist can use proper arguments to defend his own views. I have not heard any strawmen or other fallacies from him. There have been no wildly overstated claims or premature victory celebrations, no repeated accusations that I am mad. Some of your posts smacked of desperation, Claus. So the answer is no - many forms of opposition are not driven by fear, but yours is.

If that is how you feel, then that is your reality. What the real reality is has no bearing on your perception. You've made up your mind, and nothing - especially not reality - can sway you.

Did you look at SkepticReport?

 

[scribble]

He is NOT an idiot.. nor is he insane, mentally disturbed or delusional.
He is not trying to blow his own trumpet with some mysterious power (see Luci).
He does not have some weird matrix type approach to life (see I-Ian)
He is not a liar or a fraud and stands to gain NO money etc..
In most things he maintains a lucid rational grasp on reality.. yet..

He has had an experience that was SO real to him he has abandoned a rational approach to explaining the experience.

Actually, you're just plain wrong. Undercover Elephant believed all those things crazy things he does and argued them adamantly (and ignorantly), just like Interesting Ian does. The delusion of these mystical experiences came *AFTER* he had decided what he believed.

You've got the order of events wrong.

It's possible he does too -- I have seen him say a lot of things that would leave one with the impression you got, that the crazy ◊◊◊◊ happened to him and THEN he started believing. That's not how it happened, though.



PRAGMATIST: excellent post. We've been through all this with Geoff before. Good luck.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Pragmatist

Firstly, I am not aware that QM implies that reverse causality occurs. What evidence do you have for that statement?

I have seen the claim made several times in articles and papers on QM. Closer investigation reveals that this one of the many claims about QM which is currently still being debated. For example :

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:quant-ph/9801061

Does Quantum Mechanics imply influences acting backward in time in impact series experiments?

A real two-particle experiment is proposed in which one of the particles undergoes two successive impacts on beam-splitters. It is shown that the standard quantum mechanical superposition principle implies the possibility of influences acting backward in time ("retrocausation"), in striking contrast with the principle of causality. It is argued that nonlocality and retrocausation are not necessarily entangled.

This one is even clearer :

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid=1152491090661706217

Objectivity, retrocausation, and the experiment of Englert, Scully, and Walther

In a recent contribution to this journal [Am. J. Phys. 64, 1468–1475 (1996)] I wrongly asserted that retrocausation in the Englert, Scully, and Walther (ESW) experiment (a double-slit interference experiment with atoms) can occur only until the atom arrives at the screen. In their response, Englert, Scully, and Walther [preceding paper] point out my fallacy but give an incomplete analysis of its origin. In this paper I trace this fallacy to a deep-seated preconception about time and reality. I show that among the two possible realistic interpretations of standard quantum mechanics, the reality-of-states view and the reality-of-phenomena view, only the latter is viable. It follows that retrocausation is a necessary feature of any realistic account of the ESW experiment based on standard quantum mechanics. Finally I eludicate the sense in which the spatial properties of quantum systems are objective, and show that they are extrinsic rather than intrinsic. ©1999 American Association of Physics Teachers.

So I may be wrong on this one, but if I am wrong then in my wrongness I am in the company of people better informed than I.

Essentially their state while they were submerged in darkness was completely undefined. They could in reality be doing almost anything BETWEEN the lights and we would never know about it. We only get a single "snapshot" of the person as they pass under a light. This in turn led him to propose PHILOSOPHICALLY that we couldn't even know if the person actually EXISTED whilst we couldn't see them. It was a POSSIBILITY that the person only existed at the moment they were actually seen under the light and that they didn't exist when they were in the darkness BETWEEN the lights. So one way it could be interpreted was that the person somehow ceased to exist between lights and then somehow miraculously came into existence at the moment they were seen under the next light.

As far as I know, NOBODY ever proposed that this was a valid expression of "reality".....

PHILOSOPHICALLY, it had been proposed much earlier by Berkeley et all. Surely none of the physicists in question could have been ignorant of Berkeley or of German Idealism - they all knew what the implications were, which is partly why they spent so much time arguing about what interpretation they should approve of.

But it did serve one purpose. If one accepted this explanation it removed the need to try to explain exactly what was happening to all the undefined quantum variables whilst an object was NOT being measured. And THAT was the whole purpose of it - simply to put an end to what had become an interminable argument amongst physicists about exactly WHAT was happening while the particle was not observed - because APPARENTLY the QM predictions didn't accord with the idea of constantly conserved independent properties.

A lot of distinguished scientists didn't agree with this at all. They found it objectionable that anyone would try to substitute a philosphical position for a scientific one. Amongst them was Schrodinger. His cat example was a parody of what he saw as an absurdity.

But that argument has never been resolved. There are still scientists who find it objectionable that philosophical considerations be brought in in order to make sense of QM. And there are still other scientists who believe that without bringing in philosophical considerations, QM cannot be properly understood.

Now, where amongst all of that is reverse causality implied? In fact, if you understand the problem in entirely you will see that reverse causality creates exactly the same problem that Heisenberg was trying to resolve.

I'm not sure I follow that. For a start, the fact that Heisenberg was trying to resolve a problem does not mean that the thing causing that problem is a mistake. The mistake may lie elsewhere.

Can you see how that argument relates to the above? For example. Heisenberg stated (in essence) that "reality" appears to be OBSERVATION dependent. Not OBSERVER dependent. There is a subtle difference that most people misunderstand. The problem with most popular accounts of QM etc., is that they confuse the act of observation with the observer himself.

OK.....the act of observation and the observer are not the same thing. I could be wrong, but I am guessing that in your understanding of reality there is no observer, only observations. This might be the point where philosophical differences cause our arguments to clash, because for me there is and observer. So I have to ask you to define what you mean by "observer" and "observation". It is the status and idenity of the mysterious "observer" which is one of the main roots of the problem we have on our hands. Is the observer part of reality? Or is reality that which the observer observes?

Schroedinger once more :

The reason ehy our sentient, percipient[/i], thinking ego is met nowhere in our scientific word picture can easily be indicated in seven words : because it is itself our world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained as part of it.

Would you agree with Schroedinger? How does this match your own definition of perceiver/observer?

Reality does not depend on the "expectations" of some abstract observer.

That is a big claim. How do you know?

Whereas the real state of a system DOES depend on what method was used to observe it. For example, if I were to measure some quantum state of an electron by bouncing a photon off it (and observing the photon), the bounce would change the quantum state of the electron. But that does NOT mean that the quantum state actually came into existence solely because I personally EXPECTED some particular result.

Pragmatist, do you believe quantum outcomes are

a) genuinely random?
b) physically determined?
c) something else (please specify).

My answer is (c), but I'll let you go first.

Nor would the initial change at the moment of impact between electron and photon be altered by me subsequently observing that photon (although there may be a possibility of some subsequent secondary change via entanglement). There is no inherent conflict between reality and QM (that I can see) regardless of what some popular writers may say to the contrary.

Well, I don't think so either, but I might have a different way of looking at reality to you.

Maybe. In what sense? In what way are Bohm's actual scientific ideas significantly different to De Broglie's? I know that Bohm was given to a lot of metaphysical speculation and personally that doesn't interest me at all.

I don't know enough about De Broglie to answer this question. If you aren't interested in the interface between Bohms science and his metaphysics then this is probably a dead-end line of debate.


I'm not sure exactly what alternatives you are offering me! I favour the interpretation I already gave. I'm basically a realist. I believe in objective reality and I see nothing in QM that actually contradicts that point of view (when properly researched). A wavefunction is a purely abstract mathematical description of the state(s) of a system. Whilst those states are unknown or undefined, the wavefunction gives the relative PROBABILITIES that certain things will occur. The moment the reality is KNOWN, the wavefunction "collapses", i.e. it becomes redundant because there is no need to speculate about the probabilities of something happening once the absolute certainty of what DID happen is known.


...I have to go...some scaffolders have arrived.....will complete my reply later....

Geoff

 

[Marian]

Um, what was this 'experience' that is constantly refered to [that JG had]?

If someone can just point me to the right thread where it was discussed I'd appreciate it. Or maybe just repost it here, unless I'm the only person out of the loop.

 

[CFLarsen]

Um, what was this 'experience' that is constantly refered to [that JG had]?

If someone can just point me to the right thread where it was discussed I'd appreciate it. Or maybe just repost it here, unless I'm the only person out of the loop.

Geoff flatly refuses to tell us exactly what it is. He fears a rational explanation.

By refusing to tell us, he can - and has done so before - simply dismiss any argument, because he knows what he is talking about, and we don't.

Geoff wants us to discuss Geoff, and not the paranormal phenomenon that he claims happened to him. It's the ultimate exercise in delusion/self-absorption/self-preservation.

scribble,

You are quite right. Geoff has a long history of telling us drug-induced hallucinations and fantasies about the end of the world (it happens in 2012). This new revelation of his is merely one in a string of fairy-tales.

 

[Marian]

Geoff flatly refuses to tell us exactly what it is. He fears a rational explanation.

By refusing to tell us, he can - and has done so before - simply dismiss any argument, because he knows what he is talking about, and we don't.

Geoff wants us to discuss Geoff, and not the paranormal phenomenon that he claims happened to him. It's the ultimate exercise in delusion/self-absorption/self-preservation.

No offense, but then wtf is the discussion then?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Continuation of reply to pragmatist.....

Huh? I don't get that at all. How is a wavefunction "collapse" temporally reversed? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Why on earth would anyone need to run the horse race "backwards"? And NO, the probabilities do NOT exist at any point in time after the race has finished. That is the whole point of wavefunction "collapse". The moment the result is announced the wavefunction is redundant and meaningless. It has no existence in any sense past the point of collapse.

Let me postulate that there is a form of "wavefunction" of the form y = 2 * x

Now let me place boundary conditions. I stipulate that x MUST be an integer between 1 and 100.

From that I can deduce certain things immediately. That there must be exactly 100 POSSIBLE results for y. That the probability of y being an odd number is exactly ZERO. And finally, that if x is undefined, that the probability of y being any given even number between 2 and 200 is exactly 1% for any given even integer.

That's like a wavefunction. It doesn't tell us what y actually is. We have to wait until it is measured. Until it IS measured I can only talk probabilities. And let's say when it is measured that we find that y is 50. Then we know at that moment that x must have been 25 at the instant when y was measured. The moment y is determined to be 50, the wavefunction probability of x being say 75 is meaningless. There is no probability that x is anything other than precisely what it is, 25.

Your argument seems to be that if we alter y, that x has to change too. Yes, in a purely abstract mathematical sense that is true. But it presupposes that it is within our power to actually CHANGE y in the first place. And I would maintain that it isn't. Y is the dependent variable, NOT the independent variable. And the real world does NOT follow all the abstract rules of mathematics, math is only a tool that helps us model certain things.

I do indeed believe that before the observation takes place, y is undefined. Therefore we do not have to alter y. Your argument appears to be that y has already been decided upon, even before the act of observation, and therefore it cannot be altered. I am confused about whether you think y is fixed before it is observed, or only afterwards. In terms of the cat, you are saying that it is definately alive or dead, regardless of any observations - and that the wavefunction merely gives us a probability of which outcomes has already occured. In actual fact I agree with you, but only because it is a poorly constructed thought experiment owing to the fact that the cat is itself an observer. If the contents of the box do not contain a cat, but still contain the rest of the apparatus, then the poision really is in a completely undetermined state until the box is opened. The collapse of the wavefunction happens at the point of observation, so if there is no observation (because there is no conscious observer) then there simply isn't any need for any "collapse". There are only probabilities because the collapse has not yet occured. I believe this is precisely what Schroedinger meant us to conclude, which is why I have been posting his own comments on things like the observer not existing within our scientific picture of the world, or his comment that the only thing which exists is the present. None of this "contradicts reality". Reality is what Reality is. For Schroedinger Reality is what is observed by a single conscious observer, in an ever-present NOW. That doesn't make him an anti-realist. It does make him some sort of idealist. Part of the reason I mentioned Bohm was because I felt Bohms neutral monism was in some ways more advanced metaphysically that Schroedingers idealism, but we are getting ahead of ourselves.

It's rather like saying I choose a set of numbers for the lottery. Then after the lottery is drawn I decide I don't like the result (because I lost), so I change the result such that I must have won.

No, I'm not saying that. You don't get to make the observation twice if you didn't like it the first time. Maybe my clarification of what I think about Schroedingers box may help make it clearer that I can't win the lottery via this mechanism.

I don't see how the "event has already occurred". If the event had already occured (and been measured) there would be no point in trying to build a wavefunction for the event.

It hasn't been measured. In truth, it hasn't occured either - but according to the way we normally understand time we have past the point when we believed it must have occured. I am unclear still as to your position on this. Does the collapse of the wavefunction occur at the point in time of the observation? In schroedingers box (minus the cat), has the poision been definately released or not released, even though it has not been observed? Or is the situation still in a superposition until the box is opened? Nowhere in your reply can I find somewhere where you explain your position on this question.

Wavefunctions are used for PREDICTION, not as some post-hoc justification for what has already happened.

SUre, I know what they are used for. I am interested in what they infer about reality. I get the feeling you are just avoiding the metaphysical conundrums implied by QM, which is your right and to be expected from somebody calling themselves "Pragmatist". However, I don't think that this makes the metaphysical conundrum disappear!

I don't see any problem with my understanding of time either. And philosophy aside, I'll bet you don't either. Do you turn up late for work every day and convince your boss that there is some problem with his definition of time? Do you go to an airport or railway station whenever you feel like it and just hop on the first plane/train you see in the sure and certain knowledge that the service you want isn't rigidly scheduled but will just occur as and when you need it? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm saying that it's possible to have all kinds of fancy philosophical beliefs and theories about how the world works and what "time really is", but in practise I'll bet you are constrained by exactly the same reality that I and everyone else is!

Yes and no. I have to function in everyday reality just the same way you do, and yes I need to know what the time is. Under most circumstances my understanding of time is just the same as yours is. But then it is equally true that under normal circumstances I treat the world as being flat and the sun as rising and setting. But at other times I can be the fool on the hill, watching the world spinning round. Likewise with time. The altered conception of time which I have taken from QM (and from the writings of people like Schroedinger, Bohm and Eddington) has proven to be very useful to me in understanding some of the deeper questions about existence and the nature of reality. Just as sometimes I can see the world spinning around, I can also see existence from the point of view of Schroedingers ever-present NOW and metaphysical idealism. The usefullness comes when you apply this alternative gestalt-shifted view of reality to the other problems at the borderlands of science, including such things as mind-body problems and "just seven numbers" arguments about cosmic design. I am not sure how scientifically useful these things are - I leave that to practicing physicists and theoreticians. But in terms of understanding reality, I think these considerations need to be taken into account.

I don't accept that. And you haven't shown any reasoning at all why QM should "imply" reverse causality.

I don't make any assumptions about causality oscillating. I see no evidence whatsoever that causality DOES oscillate - as it must if what you are saying is true.

Let me remind you of my wavefunction y = 2 * x.

I set x to 50, that makes y 100. You set y to 150. That would mean that x must change to 75. I then change x to 10 and y changes to 20. You set y to 30 and x becomes 15. I change x to 20 and y becomes 40. It's an oscillation, it goes on forever if you assume that it's legitimate to change both and x and y at each stage. I maintain that x is x and y is ONLY a function of x and that it's not legitimate to change it. That I would maintain is any reasonable person's understanding of causality.

Hey man, how do you define "reasonable"?

There is no oscillation. X an Y only change once, and they change together. I also think that the whole question of causality is up for grabs right now.

I don't see the relevance of the quotes to the point at hand. And you are assuming that something doesn't make sense to me.

What is that then?

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Um, what was this 'experience' that is constantly refered to [that JG had]?

If someone can just point me to the right thread where it was discussed I'd appreciate it. Or maybe just repost it here, unless I'm the only person out of the loop.

We are referring to something which happened over two years ago, and was discussed extensively here at the time. For the purposes of our discussion here I have described it as a direct observation of reverse causality - of the past being influenced by the present. Any person who cannot accept the existence of reverse causality would not be able to accept my account of what happened, so there is no point in me explaining anything more about it.

Claus doesn't like this, because he wants me to just go ahead and describe the experience, so he can repeatedly bemoan the fact that I have no evidence (even though I never said I could give any evidence, and haven't asked anyone to believe me). So Claus has just been making the sort of comments you can see whilst the real debate is about whether or not quantum mechanics implies the existence of reverse causality. Claus, who claims to be "desperate for answers" has refused to discuss quantum mechanics. Apparantly he is not desperate enough for answers to look anywhere other than places he is already familiar with. What he is actually desperate for is to stop people taking any notice of what I say. He has been accused (not by me) of deliberately trying to stifle meaningful debate and if you read through this thread you may conclude it was a justified accusation. Instead of seeking answers about QM, Claus saw fit to continually ask me why I was sure that I understood it. Truth is I'm not sure I understand it, but at least I am willing to try to understand it, which is more than can be said for Claus.

Claus claimed that what I reported "broke the laws of physics". Now we are looking critically at just that question, he has shown zero interest in finding out whether or not it is actually true. He has another agenda.

 

[CFLarsen]

We are referring to something which happened over two years ago, and was discussed extensively here at the time. For the purposes of our discussion here I have described it as a direct observation of reverse causality - of the past being influenced by the present. Any person who cannot accept the existence of reverse causality would not be able to accept my account of what happened, so there is no point in me explaining anything more about it.

If it was discussed here two years ago, I see no reason why you refuse to discuss it now. Now, I probably have the old threads....

Claus doesn't like this, because he wants me to just go ahead and describe the experience, so he can repeatedly bemoan the fact that I have no evidence (even though I never said I could give any evidence, and haven't asked anyone to believe me).

No, I would like you to go ahead and describe the experience, so I - and others - can understand just WTH we are actually talking about. You insist that we discuss something fuzzy, something we don't really know what is - except you. That is not debate, or investigation of a proclaimed paranormal phenomenon. That is merely self-centered egotism from you.

So Claus has just been making the sort of comments you can see whilst the real debate is about whether or not quantum mechanics implies the existence of reverse causality. Claus, who claims to be "desperate for answers" has refused to discuss quantum mechanics. Apparantly he is not desperate enough for answers to look anywhere other than places he is already familiar with.

Apparently, you have a way of leaving out crucial parts of my argumentation. It is not the first time this happens. I have explained several times that I don't have the necessary background in physics to understand QM or the implications of it. Unlike you, I don't find it sufficient to read a popularized explanation of something, and then claim that I understand it. Oh, wait, you don't understand it anymore.

What he is actually desperate for is to stop people taking any notice of what I say. He has been accused (not by me) of deliberately trying to stifle meaningful debate and if you read through this thread you may conclude it was a justified accusation. Instead of seeking answers about QM, Claus saw fit to continually ask me why I was sure that I understood it. Truth is I'm not sure I understand it, but at least I am willing to try to understand it, which is more than can be said for Claus.

I find it very interesting that you now back down on your claim that you understand QM. It might have something to do with the fact that you are being clobbered by Pragmatist - but then again, it might not. However, since we are not allowed to learn the details of your experience, I find it somewhat premature to try and explain it from a theory on sub-atomar physics. But there is nothing I would like more than for you to explain your experience to us all.

I am, at times, accused of stifling meaningful debate, but curiously it always seems to happen after the person in question is in dire straits, argument-wise. Maybe I'm just a pattern-seeking animal...who knows?

Claus claimed that what I reported "broke the laws of physics". Now we are looking critically at just that question, he has shown zero interest in finding out whether or not it is actually true. He has another agenda.

Do I? Shutting you up by constantly inviting you to explain and discuss your experience? That's one weird way of shutting you up!!!