"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 21:53 On 5 Mar., 21:38, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : Which is precisely why I claim that QM is bad science. It has just > : decided that the rabbit hole doesn't go any deeper, and stopped trying > : to go further. It's more philosophy and mysticism than science. > > Which seems to pretty definitively show you don't understand, > or haven't heard of, the actual reasons that supposition is made. > It has little or nothing to do with "just decided", nor has anybody > "stopped trying to go further"; people come up with new hidden variable > theories regularly, naict, and aren't really taken all that frivolously. > > Basically, 1) the mathematics works, no matter what you may say about > QM philosopically, and 2) the mathematics rules out any hidden variables > (unless you want to give up something even worse). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem Whew, this stuff is hard to take in! I would have to look at that very, very closely before offering an opinion about it. But I'll say this: the rigidity of math often seems to comprise philosophical assumptions that people accept purely on the strength of the math, and not because it is philosophically prudent or reasonable. This is quite a perilous pitfall. > Of course, Objectivists and other miscelaneous folks get all huffy > about it, and claim it must be bad science because it's not > deterministic, and get all up on a philosophical high horse about > how unique causes have to have unique effects, dagnabbit, and you > kids get off my lawn, but pffft, that's Objectivism for you. Don't get this. Don't you believe in an objective universe? - Tue
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 22:10 ::: Didn't Wayne just say that there is? : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : I was referring to the first thing you said in this thread: : : "That turns out not to be the case. Relativity in and of itself : deals in an objective universe. But don't worry, it's a common : misconception. Given a time machine, it would probably be a mitzvah : to go back and rename it "invariant theory" instead of "relativity : theory"." : : But I may be a bit confused. Pretty much, yes you are confused. As that post goes on to say, differing observations of distance and duration in relativity are akin to differing observations of who is to the right of whom. For an analogy, I can observe that object X is to the right of object Y. Fred, across the room there, observes that Y is to the right of X. Does that mean that the "real"ness of X and Y are called into question? No. No it doesn't (you will hopably agree). Now hopably, you don't think that just because people say things like "my right or your right?", that means there's an absolute, prefered direction in space. Just so, relativity does not imply that there is an absolute state of rest (indeed, it explicitly says the opposite). So I see no implication of an absolute frame. I see implication that the universe is objective (in the relativistic model), and that's not even close to being the same thing, as should be clear, unless you think left and right require there to be absolute directions. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: BURT on 5 Mar 2010 22:22 On Mar 5, 7:10 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > ::: Didn't Wayne just say that there is? > > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : I was referring to the first thing you said in this thread: > : > : "That turns out not to be the case. Relativity in and of itself > : deals in an objective universe. But don't worry, it's a common > : misconception. Given a time machine, it would probably be a mitzvah > : to go back and rename it "invariant theory" instead of "relativity > : theory"." > : > : But I may be a bit confused. > > Pretty much, yes you are confused. As that post goes on to say, > differing observations of distance and duration in relativity are akin > to differing observations of who is to the right of whom. > > For an analogy, I can observe that object X is to the right of > object Y. Fred, across the room there, observes that Y is to the > right of X. Does that mean that the "real"ness of X and Y are > called into question? No. No it doesn't (you will hopably agree). > > Now hopably, you don't think that just because people say things like > "my right or your right?", that means there's an absolute, prefered > direction in space. Just so, relativity does not imply that there > is an absolute state of rest (indeed, it explicitly says the opposite). > > So I see no implication of an absolute frame. > I see implication that the universe is objective (in the relativistic model), > and that's not even close to being the same thing, as should be clear, > unless you think left and right require there to be absolute directions. > > Wayne Throop thro...(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw Absolute order has an absolute beginning. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Knutsen on 5 Mar 2010 22:26 On 05/03/2010 21:20, Luke Campbell wrote: > On Mar 4, 5:37 pm, Tue Sorensen<sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2. >> Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, >> amphibians? > > No. Not obvious at all. > > This is an example of species chauvinism with no biological support. > In fact, the biochemistry of amphibians tends to be more complex than > that of mammals, if for no other reason than they need proteins which > work over a wide temperature range, whereas we mammals can hyper- > specialize to a very narrow temperature range at which to carry on our > bio-chemical processes necessary to life. I wondered too, about that one. I believe I know that mammalian lungs are more sophisticated, and also mammalian brains, but beyond that, I don't know of any great difference, although of course I should have thought of the protein thing. Are there any examples, other than lung structure and brains, where mammals are more complex than amphibians? Do you have some examples, Tue? -- Peter Knutsen sagatafl.org
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 22:27
On 5 Mar., 21:20, Luke Campbell <lwc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 5:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2. > > Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, > > amphibians? > > No. Not obvious at all. > > This is an example of species chauvinism with no biological support. It is not! > In fact, the biochemistry of amphibians tends to be more complex than > that of mammals, if for no other reason than they need proteins which > work over a wide temperature range, whereas we mammals can hyper- > specialize to a very narrow temperature range at which to carry on our > bio-chemical processes necessary to life. Hyperspecialization can lead both ways; it can be either an inhibition to further development or a fecund foundation for it. What reptiles can do that mammals can't is of miniscule importance in the larger evolutionary scheme of things. Mammalian bio-chemical processes enable us to move and work much faster, which means adapting far more efficiently to a complex environment. The more complex the environment, the more complex the adaptation. As plant and animal life become more complex, a process of upwardly spiralling complexity is taking place. While many species are adapted to very narrow conditions, humans have transcended this stagnation and can adapt dynamically to almost all environments. This has enabled us, on the bones of Home erectus and the neanderthals, to develop this bloody big brain of ours. Are you saying that's not superlatively complex? > > 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle; when a particle and an > > anti-particle annihilate and become energy, does this represent a real > > transition from matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just mean a > > jumble of teensy-weensy elementary particles? If the particles really > > become energy, do we know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from > > its material shackles and lets it become energy? > > In physics, energy has a precisely defined meaning. It is the ability > to do work, where work is defined as the product of an applied force > over the distance it is applied. Keep thin in mind when talking about > energy. > > All mass has an intrinsic ability to do work - an associated energy - > although it can be difficult to release that energy. > > Matter is not quite so well defined. In everyday life, it means the > stuff of which objects are made. This is as distinct from, for > example, fields, such as electromagnetism or gravity. However, at the > microscopic level, the distinction breaks down and the stuff of which > objects are made includes the fields that permeate them. Sometimes, > people talk as if only certain kinds of particles (the so called > fermions) are matter, as they tend to be rather persistent, unlike > other, more ephemeral particles that appear or vanish without > constraint. > > In this description, matter does not become energy. Matter has mass > which has an energy associated with it - a frozen energy bound to its > mass, which can be released under certain circumstances. When matter > gains more energy yet remains at rest, it gains more mass. If it > loses energy in its resting state, it loses mass. The two are > intrinsically tied. > > Matter-as-fermion-particles can be destroyed in certain > circumstances. When this happens, its energy-bound-as-mass may > manifest in various forms. It may become energy-of-motion of the > remaining particles. It may become particles-of-fields. It may > become mass of other kinds of particles. I appreciate the explanation. But why can't the particles become pure energy? Is it because properties of the spacetime geometry prevents energy from existing in other forms than bound-as-mass and energy-of- motion? I am trying to develop a terminology that defines pure energy more closely, because that's what I think we need in order for our theories to progress significantly. We need an increased understanding of the matter/energy interrelationship and how actively this interrelationship is shaping the universe. If matter ultimately consists of, or once came from, energy, then *what is energy* per se? My suggestion is to see electromagnetic radiation in general as the purest form of sheer energy (except the purer form it came from in the pre-Big Bang state) - why is this a problem? We can just use the existing descriptions of it; we know the wavelengths and momentum and everything. > > And for that matter, > > are we really sure that photons, etc. have a dual nature, and that > > they don't just become particles when they need to interact with > > something as particles, i.e. that they are actually not waves and > > particles at the same time, but can change between those states > > depending on the environmental circumstances? > > The whole wave-particle duality thing is a red herring, based on > outmoded ideas of an understanding of nature that was in the process > of being replaced. It is not dual in the sense of two natures. All > particles are waves. All waves are composed of particles. It is not > one or the other, it is both, always, all the time. When observed in > certain ways, they behave as classical waves. When observed in other > ways, they behave more like classical particles. Which is to say, under certain circumstances they are waves, and under other circumstances they are particles. Is it then still correct to say that they are both at the same time? The wave function can't be intact and collapsed at the same time, can it? - Tue |