Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/18/04
- Next message: Donald G. Shead: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: Wating for a 1 on 1 with Uncle Al"
- In reply to: mitch perkins: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?"
- Reply: mitch perkins: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:53:22 GMT
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0407161756.31cbb748@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<0rFJc.2946$K53.220@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:64dddc3d.0407151436.5f79b762@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > HUP - Uncertainty is inherent in change. Change = (action potential
> > > into action) = reality. So uncertainty is inherent in reality.
> >
> > When making such musings yourself exactly what observational
consequences it
> > has at variance with current theories. Get the point?
> >
> Sorry, Bill - I've been perusing your much-appreciated answers here
> and am having difficulty with this one. I'd like to get the point if
> you have the time. It would be good (for me) to lay this stuff to
> rest.
Ok Mitch you wrote: 'HUP - Uncertainty is inherent in change. Change =
(action potential into action) = reality. So uncertainty is inherent in
reality.' The point I was making is you may find a statement like that
meaningful but I do not. When confronted with something like that all I can
do is suggest to the poster to make some kind of prediction with what he/she
is trying to say. That way it will force a closer examination of what they
mean as well as help decide if it has any actually objective worth - as
Wittgenstein would say 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be
silent.'.
Now let us actually examine each point you make. HUP is shorthand for the
Heisenberg uncertainly principle. QM is a difficult and complex area that
you must really delve into the technicalities of to understand. For that
purpose I strongly recommend - Von Neumann - Mathematical Foundations of QM.
It is dated but examines exactly what is going on like no other. That way
you can be sure you understand what the real issues in QM are - a surprising
number of people think they do but really do not. As an aside at a wine
tasting I attended I was sitting next to a doctor of biology and the subject
of QM came up. He thought its basis was simply that what is being observed
is affected by the observer. I had to explain it is deeper and more
profound than that - its true mystery lies is exactly what causes a state to
non deterministically change to another state by the act of observation.
The next thing you say is the HUP implies uncertainly is inherent in change.
Not true. The Scrodenger equation fully predicts what the state will be at
a later time - the change is fully deterministic exactly as was the case for
classical mechanics - what is not deterministic is this random changing of
states caused by observation - but observation is not inherent in change.
You wrote: Change = (action potential into action) = reality. To me that is
gibberish of zero value - in physics action has a particular meaning
associated with the lagrangian see
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cuius/idle/evolution/ref/leastact.html
and http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath523/kmath523.htm. What is important
is that all physical theories can be expressible in the form of a lagrangian
ie an action principle. The reason it is important has to do with Noethers
theorem - see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html. Now there is no
doubt in writing something like Change = (action potential into action) =
reality you are committing many of the sins Wittgenstein tried to purge in
his tractatus - see http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/tlph.html. It is a
difficult terse document but since you want to express yourself in such
terms you should acquaint yourself with it. Not my cup of tea but then
again I believe statements like equating change with reality is
philosophical mumbo jumbo anyway.
Your last statement is 'So uncertainty is inherent in reality'. Is it
possible to know everything with certitude - no. Is nature at rock bottom
non deterministic - almost certainly. But it must be admitted at this stage
we simple do not know for sure - it is even possible we may never no -
although I am optimistic. It is logically feasible that the non
deterministic change in quantum states is in fact governed by some
deterministic process. However having sad that I know of no theory along
those lines that has not been experimental refuted - Bohms pilot waves for
example have been experimentally refuted see:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196.
So the bottom line is I think statements like you made above are basically
gibberish with no inherent meaning and when examined to try and divine a
meaning things emerge along lines totally different from its intention.
Thanks
Bill
- Next message: Donald G. Shead: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: Wating for a 1 on 1 with Uncle Al"
- In reply to: mitch perkins: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?"
- Reply: mitch perkins: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
