Loyalty/Duty - reality or rationalization?

[drachefly]

Someone thought my water example was so great they copied it verbatim onto wikipedia? COOL!

</snark> Look, of course the water example is well-known, because it's obvious. Do you want to, you know, address it in some way? Or perhaps you could allow that the existence of conjugate variables doesn't require nondeterminism?

Well, the mythical persons in question are the aforementioned LS, and I've mentioned Feynman.

Ah, and here I thought you actually asked someone you knew. Because how you approach things when you're thinking philosophically and when you're teaching an intro course on nuts-and-bolts QM are two rather different things. Feynman was no dummy, and I don't know his position on this specific question, but dimes to donuts if he actively thought about MW and came to disagree with it, then he's aware it [edited to clarify: his position] involves something other than pure QFT being the law.

As for Streater, it's interesting to note what's at the top of the page: "This page contains some remarks about research topics in physics which seem to me not to be suitable for students."

one of which is MW. Well, yeah. It's metaphysics at this point. All MW does is give you license to not have to worry about the mythical wave function collapse mechanism. That... isn't a fruitful line of research.

If I understand him right, it's not that MW is wrong, it's that it's useless for practical work, which is true except for the theory of measurement itself. For example,
"There are no theorems, conjectures, experimental predictions or results of any sort, other than those of Hilbert space." (emphasis added). In other words, MW is just QM, no frills. QM is so firmly established that MW doesn't need any further support.

For example, if you interpret this as a statement of what is true rather than practical, it comes out sounding rather funny - "The idea that the full details of the observer should be included in the Hilbert space is in violation of the scientific ethos."

ORLY? Y U no want ToE to explain your B-ing?

But of course if (as I suspect he does) he's just talking about what you ought to be doing on a day to day basis, it's not silly at all. Trying to model the observer every time you make a measurement would be massive overkill.

On the other hand, it seems he thinks that QM doesn't apply to the universe as a whole. If so, you have just provided an example of the sort of person who can reasonably hold that the universe is not in fact deterministic while accepting that QM is.

[Sylvan]

I dispute the notion that there has to be some outside agency setting things up. What is that agency's rules, etc.? Infinite regress. If this is just the way things are, then whether it's boring or not has no impact.

I think you missed my point, which is that you can't have determinism without something that is capable of doing the determining. (But I do find it amusing that you quoted by far the least serious bit of my post)

Also, I'm pretty sure that infinite regress is a part of determinism any which way you slice it. If it would be possible to figure out the present state of things if given enough information about the initial conditions of our universe, why would it not be possible to figure out exactly what began the universe, if given enough information? Follow the cause to its source, but since you are following from a source that has already been determined, what initially made it so? What made the initial determination? If the universe just is determined, but there is no force capable of observing it, then it is pointless because everything that will happen has already happened simply from the initial conditions.

So, I could be wrong, but if so there is no real reason for any of us to care about our continued existence. Maybe there isn't, maybe we just do. But, since none of us will ever have that much information, and since there seems to be a distinct lack of evidence of 100% guarantees in life, I tend to believe we've got some choice and wiggle room here. Again, the more time you spend analyzing one particular system in all of its particular detail the more you will be able to say about that system. But that is about as far as we, or anything else for that matter, gets to go without both being a part of the system and apart from it.

I just don't see how you can say that things appear to be deterministic on the universal scale, but there is no particular reason for it at all and the pointlessness of it doesn't impact you.

I mean, I suppose if I was an automaton it wouldn't really bug me, but I prefer to not see myself that way because then I would see everyone else that way, and down that path lies madness.

Edit to add in this part, after reading the latest post:

Trying to model the observer every time you make a measurement would be massive overkill.

But it is necessary for absolute determinism, as long as the observer is part of the system. Really, think about this part, even if you ignore the rest of the post. If the observer is not a part of the system they can't understand the whole of the system from the inside .Think of Heisenburg here. We have to interact with the particle in some way in order to know its position or speed, and the act of observing it means we can't know both with certainty. I'm arguing that a determining observer of our reality would be much the same, unable to know what it is like inside the system without disturbing it in some way, thus making their measurement inaccurate. And if they were to be a part of the system, then they couldn't measure it objectively from the outside. Can you see why I think it would almost require some form of agency, and why I find that unlikely myself?

Further edit, for clarification - "It just is" happens to be a fine answer, as long as you aren't too concerned with duplicating your result 100% of the time. Now, science does work, and it does make accurate predictions when done correctly, but we have margins of error for a reason. I think no matter how advanced we, or any observer for that matter, become there will always be a margin of error. I mean, no matter what the future is going to happen, in some way, shape, or form. The key is that in studying what will happen we gain an idea of how to change it. I just don't see how things can already be determined if part of the process of living is figuring out how to change things in the ways that we want, but also discovering that not everything can be controlled and changed. This may be a personal lack of imagination, and if that is the grounds on which you disagree I find that to be fine, but does anyone have an explanation that works better?

[drachefly]

(But I do find it amusing that you quoted by far the least serious bit of my post)

If you mean the tree in the forest, I just quoted it because I found it funny and wanted to respond. If you mean the other, well, I must have misunderstood the structure of the argument. I was a bit hurried, so that could well be my fault.

I dispute the notion that there has to be some outside agency setting things up. What is that agency's rules, etc.? Infinite regress. If this is just the way things are, then whether it's boring or not has no impact.

I think you missed my point, which is that you can't have determinism without something that is capable of doing the determining.

Determinism, to me, means that future is a function of past, whether or not anyone could ever gather up all the information to make use of this on a grand scale (Laplace's demon need not exist for this). I'm a philosophical realist, so I don't see the necessity of an observer for stuff to happen. What if the universe just includes stuff we can't ever observe? We can't prove it's there, but if requiring it not to exist contorts our theories into pretzel shapes, it's harmless to suppose that it does. What is so objectionable about this concept?

Also, I'm pretty sure that infinite regress is a part of determinism any which way you slice it. If it would be possible to figure out the present state of things if given enough information about the initial conditions of our universe, why would it not be possible to figure out exactly what began the universe, if given enough information?

Different definition of determinism. If it means what you say, then yeah, an infinite regress is required. If all that's required is the existence of a universal dynamic principle that has no random element, then, no.

So, I could be wrong, but if so there is no real reason for any of us to care about our continued existence.

Does not compute. The universe is in some specific state. We are parts of that universe, and we are people. We make our own meaning.



I have read the rest, and with the understanding that by 'determinism' we again mean different things, we disagree on quite little. One of those things is the nature of the Uncertainty Principle.

You keep on talking about it as if there were specific values out there somewhere, and we just can't measure them at the same time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with measurement. When you're talking about waves and you ask for position and momentum, they don't act like classical point particles. This is just something about them, whether you're looking or not. What you speak of is the Observer Effect, which is also real. It's another part of why the kind of determinism you're talking about is impossible, but there are like a dozen individually sufficient reasons for that.

Incidentally, when you quoted me about modelling the observer, I didn't even mean a complete model. I meant any sort of model at all.

~~~~
To BLAND:
About Nondeterministic Turing Machines, well, the original explication of them was as a nondeterministic system. You can go in and make a contingency table for all outcomes and then work with that, but then the idea of it being nondeterministic is pure legacy.

As for the centrality of superposition to QM, one of Feynman's favorite phrases about QM was 'it all comes back to the 2-slit experiment'. The 2-slit experiment is all about superposition. Literally. So, yeah. Central.

[GaryThunder]

Wow, has this advanced beyond the point where I'm capable of meaningfully contributing.

[BLANDCorporatio]

To drachefly:

As far as I understand it, one of the basic postulates of QM concerns the result of measurement, and it's probabilistic relation to the state of a system. You can try to explain that randomness away by bringing other aspects in the theory and indeed several such approaches exist right now. The matter is not settled in favour of any of those, a solution doesn't look forthcoming, and indeed one of the approaches is to ask whether QM as understood right now is in need of being replaced. For my part, I'm agnostic on all those attempted reconciliations between state evolution and measurement.

What if the universe just includes stuff we can't ever observe? We can't prove it's there, but if requiring it not to exist contorts our theories into pretzel shapes, it's harmless to suppose that it does. What is so objectionable about this concept?

But ... I like pretzels. They crumb easily into peckable scraps. Also nutritious, with crunchy salt granules.

About Nondeterministic Turing Machines, well, the original explication of them was as a nondeterministic system. You can go in and make a contingency table for all outcomes and then work with that, but then the idea of it being nondeterministic is pure legacy.

The smilie at the end was an indicator that that was tongue in-cheek. Nondeterministic TM is a bit of an abuse of the terminology actually, as all the paths the machine would take are pretty solidly determined by the problem input and the program being run. All of them get taken, and no such thing as probability ever comes into play.

Which is oddly familiar, hmm?

[Atomic]

Wow, has this advanced beyond the point where I'm capable of meaningfully contributing.

(I know, right? I feel like I'm just gonna sound like a complete and total moron if I attempt to weigh in on the conversation. Of course, I haven't understood about 95% of whats been said the last few pages, so I'm not even sure *where* the conversation is right now...but still. haha)

[MarbitChow]

Wow, has this advanced beyond the point where I'm capable of meaningfully contributing.

(I know, right? I feel like I'm just gonna sound like a complete and total moron if I attempt to weigh in on the conversation. Of course, I haven't understood about 95% of whats been said the last few pages, so I'm not even sure *where* the conversation is right now...but still. haha)

Time to try to get back to Erfworld!

Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead.

You know what else is both alive and dead? THE DECRYPTED.

Erfworld is a giant Schrödinger box.

OMG I JUST BLEW YOUR MINDS.

[drachefly]

SUMMARY:

BLAND: Physicists say Quantum Mechanics is nondeterministic.

ME: I'm a physicist, and I say QM in itself is deterministic. We just don't perceive it that way due to one of three factors.

BLAND: I don't believe you. I saw a very good web-lecture by a very good physicist who disagrees with you.

ME: I'm going to ignore what you told me altogether and lecture you on physics myself, despite the fact you don't think I'm a physicist so you have no reason to believe me.

BLAND: I'm going to skip the inconvenient parts of your argument, because I believe these people I know are physicists more than I believe you.

(repeat above two lines a few times)

ME and BLAND: I'm tired.

Now you're up to speed.

(To BLAND: I believe that was fair? Or, at least, equally unfair to both of us?)

[BLANDCorporatio]

SUMMARY: {snip}(To BLAND: I believe that was fair? Or, at least, equally unfair to both of us?)

Quite accurate actually

Everyone else carry on, nothing to see here folks.

[Beeskee]

lol, I was going to post "Mommy, Daddy, stop fighting!"

I think the saying about quantum mechanics is that if you think you understand it, you don't understand it.


Quantum mechanics collapses my waveform into a solid state. *ahem*



Maybe on topic: I'm not sure how 'real' any of the stats in Erfworld are, even the more 'real' ones like Attack or Defense. Those could easily be collections of other statistics, less well-known and heavily rounded. Or they could be actual stats. Move is the only one I am reasonably certain of, since it's the only one with a directly measurable effect: Move = 0? Faceplant against the border. (Unless you are 'cheating'.)

[BLANDCorporatio]

I am sorry, but this is just too dada to let disappear when the banhammer eventually strikes-

With all the info that people require in your hands already, all you clothed to do is hit the sack them as your profits.

- This call has made me friendship life again - said the brood geezer with an angelic grin seminarian.

Booze, which can one's oar in with the perturbed combination, ideal cirrohosis of the liver, and always disable an unborn fetus, is age the pre-eminent source of unanticipated termination come up to b become teenagers who drive.

Do not consider that a only baffle resolve receive no effect on your battle to break off, if not you potency start from the very source again.

Someone would arrange to reimburse immature taxes if a bill passes, and the pump is who.

After crossing the viaduct during Ernesto Che Guevara came to residential and Mao Tse Tung and his construction up George Bush. and nothing would at any point be the that having been said again

Others lying on the squeal and there was kissed. These following measures devise boost to restrict nausea and vomiting: -Do not take whacking big meals that make amends move aside your stomach too bright at time.

Seriously people, I am rollin' laughing, this is golden! I couldn't possible write pomo stuff like that even if I tried hard!

[drachefly]

True, which is one of the reasons Postmodernism isn't all that impressive to me.