Quantum uncertaintly: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Quantum uncertaintly » Quantum uncertaintly

Quantum uncertaintly

Page: 1 2 3

Quantum uncertaintly

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 83

Posted 09/19/06 - 11:14 AM: Subject: Quantum uncertaintly	#1
If it was'nt for QM, that is to say, the universe really was entirely classical (i.e just particles following newtons laws, in a deterministic fashion and so forth), then hard determinism would be fact. So if you knew the postions and velocties of every single particle (or its coordinate in phase space as it's known), at a given time t (relevent to some reference frame, although i'd rather forget relativity, as it makes no ends anyway). The state of the universe would be completley known at any point in the future (or past for that matter). Now if you were God and you created this universe,assuming you were omniscient, so did indeed know the position/velocity of every single particle, at some given time, then you'd see the future completley, so God would see the end of the universe at the same time as seeing the beginning of the universe, and indeed every other time in the universe. It would be like watching every scene from a movie at once. Now although one can't speculate on the motives on a being of infinite intelligence, This would be pretty boring for a human. But in a quantum universe this is not quite the case. Assume God limits himself to be bound by QM laws, in particular heisenburg.(altho there is no a priori reason to think this should be the case, assuming god doesnt exist within spacetime anyway, but nevertheless, it could be true) Now he can't measure, simultaneously the position and the velocity of particle, this destroys the ability to predict the future , even for an infinite computing power, such as God. So now God can't see into the futue. And combing chaos theory built naturally into the universe (3 body problems, exagerated a billion fold), this escalates small quantum uncertainies, to vast differences in the universes future. (again even for an infinite computing power, because quantum mechanics limits precision on intitial measurements) So if God did limit himself to the informational limits of QM, he could'nt see more than a tiny tiny fraction of time into the future. Could this be because God wanted the universe to be dynamic, surprsing, and new. So he didnt know the ending, before he even got comfy with his popcorn. He could see if unfold (of course again I am assuming God is bound to some sense of time, which i admit might not make much sense) But if one were to be a christian, this model, would seem to coincide with the impression of time God seems to have. AS if he's going along in time with us. For example how he's shocked when he makes a covenant, only for someone to break it in ten years, and then to be angered etc. It seems to destroy the notion of any preodainment however.

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 83

Posted 09/19/06 - 11:25 AM:	#2
Perhaps the true randomness, in quantum mechanics, the fundamental collapse or the wavefunction to whichever state, is the will of God? Physicists know it is truly random, and not just pseudo random, maybe that how God influences the world, and just does it in a probablistic manner So if a particular electron is measured spin up or spin down, is completley random (and via Gods will), but he always does it so after a large number we'll get 50/50. Physicists have proved that it's not a case of hidden variables, and as yet it is truly random, and un knowable. perhaps this is just a case of "god of the gaps" again I know these speculattions are wild, and unprovable, possibly even the ranting of an insane being :P but just wanted to raise opinions and thoughts

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3000

Posted 09/19/06 - 03:01 PM:	#3
Even with quantum randomness, there might not be enough randomness to bne interesting. It might be that quantum randomness never leads to a significant enough change that ever influences anyone's life.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 83

Posted 09/20/06 - 05:05 AM:	#4
no this is not the case. Chaos theory shows us that even the smallest imprecision in a measurement of a particles position say, will be amplified immensley in just a small amount of time (sensitive dependence on initial conditions I believe is the phrase) If you don't believe me here, it is easy to see how large scale differences could arise anyway, without even resorting to further physics. For example, if I conducted an experiment to measure if an electron was spin up or spin down, with some kind of polarisation device, then wether I get spin up or spin down is a truly random process, It cannot be fundamentally known, which state the wavefunction will collapse into (only on average over a number of electrons what will happen), so for a particular electron, it is truly random wether I measure spin up, spin down. Now what if I were to say something like: "if the electron is spin up, then I'll take the scenic route home in the car tonight, if it is down I will walk" then quantum uncertainty, has threw a dice, to decide something very significant on a macroscopic scale. Although this may seem insigficant which way I drive home, it is certaintly not. The butterfly effect will manifest it's self, even if nothing spectualr happens either way Although something spectacular could happen, for example, if the spin is up, I could knock down a child, that I wouldn't have done if I had walked home, etc etc etc These actions would have sweeping influences on the future.

Exponent
Blithe Absurdist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2004
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 150

Posted 09/20/06 - 05:36 AM:	#5
h0dgey84bc wrote: no this is not the case. Chaos theory shows us that even the smallest imprecision in a measurement of a particles position say, will be amplified immensley in just a small amount of time (sensitive dependence on initial conditions I believe is the phrase) If you don't believe me here, it is easy to see how large scale differences could arise anyway, without even resorting to further physics. For example, if I conducted an experiment to measure if an electron was spin up or spin down, with some kind of polarisation device, then wether I get spin up or spin down is a truly random process, It cannot be fundamentally known, which state the wavefunction will collapse into (only on average over a number of electrons what will happen), so for a particular electron, it is truly random wether I measure spin up, spin down. Now what if I were to say something like: "if the electron is spin up, then I'll take the scenic route home in the car tonight, if it is down I will walk" then quantum uncertainty, has threw a dice, to decide something very significant on a macroscopic scale. Although this may seem insigficant which way I drive home, it is certaintly not. The butterfly effect will manifest it's self, even if nothing spectualr happens either way Although something spectacular could happen, for example, if the spin is up, I could knock down a child, that I wouldn't have done if I had walked home, etc etc etc These actions would have sweeping influences on the future. Not every system is chaotic, and not every chaotic system is chaotic in regards to every single variable. Chaos theory does not prove, or even remotely suggest, that a small change in anything will produce a significantly larger effect far enough into the future. In fact, in most systems, it seems that small changes get suppressed and hidden. Gas molecules in a balloon act rather chaotically (in the non-mathematical sense of the word); but if you changed the direction of just a single molecule's velocity, nothing will happen to the balloon. It will stay inflated, won't move (to any vaguely significant degree), and the gas molecules will just keep on bouncing around like they were previously. This is the way a lot of stuff works, and we better be really darn glad for it. Otherwise (aside from probably not being able to exist anywhere close to as we do), we would have no ability to formulate approximate theories such as Newtonian physics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and so forth. From my limited knowledge, to put this in terms of chaos theory, I would suggest that most attractors in nature are fixed points, limit cycles, and so forth, while the ones that chaos theoreticians are most interested in are strange attractors. Not everything is part of a strange attractor system.
Quote by Gassendi1: "You think that because something depresses you it cannot be true?"

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 83

Posted 09/20/06 - 06:41 AM:	#6
I fail to see the relevance of this. Yes not everything is chaotic. But even if one part of the system is chaotic, and another part or the rest of it is stable, then the system as a whole is chaotic(In the majoirty of cases at least, and especially for the whole universe) Chaos theory does not prove, or even remotely suggest, that a small change in anything will produce a significantly larger effect far enough into the future how can you say this, this is basically the foundation of chaos theory, distinguishing it from regular dynamics. For even a simple 3 body problem, chaos becomes manifest immensely quickly In fact, in most systems, it seems that small changes get suppressed and hidden Yes, systems that are hugley simple, like 2 body problems, like a mass on a spring. But certaintly not a system of particles, where the dynamics demand precision measurment (the greater the imprecision in the initial measurement the faster you will lose track of the mechanics, in accord with the Lyupunov exponent) Gas molecules in a balloon act rather chaotically (in the non-mathematical sense of the word); but if you changed the direction of just a single molecule's velocity, nothing will happen to the balloon. It will stay inflated, won't move (to any vaguely significant degree), and the gas molecules will just keep on bouncing around like they were previously The macroscopic properties of the balloon, such as its pressure and volume, are just statistical averages, so yes they obviousley will not change. But the whole reason for forumalting stastical mechanics in the first place, was precisely because it was impossible for us to measure >10^23 particles velocities and positions simultaneously. But as for the microscopic picture, if we had microscopic knowledge of the system in the first place (i.e all particles positons/vels) changing just one particles velocity, would radically alter the microscopic evolution of the system. Just because we are only interested in macroscopic stastical variables in this case, does not mean nothing changes, it just means nothing we are interested in changes in the balloon example. The reason knowledge of the future can't be destroyed in this case of the balloon, is because we never had it to begin with. There are plenty of examples, such as 3 body problems, and the weather, where are lack of precision, results in major macroscopic differences after just a short time(hence the inability of a computer models to predicte the weather for more than a few days ahead) Anyway, even if we can't agree on the chaos theory front, you have not refuted my second example, of a human basing ones actions on what is essentially a quantum dice...you can't tell me something like that is'nt macroscopically significant. What if I was a dictator, and decided I would press the nuclear detonator, if spin up, and wipe out korea. but if it was spin down, i would just go and have a nice cup of tea. Otherwise (aside from probably not being able to exist anywhere close to as we do), we would have no ability to formulate approximate theories such as Newtonian physics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and so forth. The fact that newtons laws/electromag, and so on are only approximations, has nothing at all to do with chaos theory. They are approximations becuase they were supersceded by general relativity and QED. The presence of sensitive dependence on initial conditons, would not violate them at all anyway.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 09/20/06 - 06:44 AM:	#7
Allan Watts once described God as "Dancing spontaneously" and this correllates well with quantum mechanics. Rather than a God who is a slave to law and order, it is a vision of a God who enjoys just being and doing.

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 83

Posted 09/20/06 - 06:58 AM:	#8
One does not even need QM, to lead to classical chaos. But a God who could measure positon and velocity, to an infinite degree, would never lose predictablity of the future, even despite, the fact that two points infinitesimally close in phase space, have vastly different trajectories in time. But a God restrained by QM, could not make such a infinite precison measurement, and would be restrained to chaotic unpredictablity. What I was trying to say earlier was that the presence of a strange attractor in the system, leads to overall choas, even if all the other elements are normal attractors. And destroys predictablity that way. Becuase the systems are all interlinked in the real world. An attractor would be perfectly predictable, if you just left it in the middle of nowhere in space. But if you let a strange attractor interact with it, the attractor now depends on the strange attractor, they are one big system, and all predictability is lost.

Mike the Kitty
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: US
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 38

Posted 09/20/06 - 08:58 AM:	#9
Do not confuse QM with reality. Currently, it is simply the best mathematical model we have that makes accurate (albeit probabilistic) predictions (on certain time and space scales). This does NOT mean that we will not discover a better theory that removes the probabilistic aspect to our understanding of nature. Furthermore, if it turns out that somebody figures out how to measure some new variable of nature, and it turns out to describe the probabilistic phenomena we see, it does not mean that that new theory is reality either. Mathematics is simply a tool physicists use to describe reality. It is not reality.

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 83

Posted 09/20/06 - 09:06 AM:	#10
Do not confuse QM with reality. Currently, it is simply the best mathematical model we have that makes accurate (albeit probabilistic) predictions (on certain time and space scales). This does NOT mean that we will not discover a better theory that removes the probabilistic aspect to our understanding of nature. Furthermore, if it turns out that somebody figures out how to measure some new variable of nature, and it turns out to describe the probabilistic phenomena we see, it does not mean that that new theory is reality either. Mathematics is simply a tool physicists use to describe reality. It is not reality. True. I admit everything I wrote rests on Quantum randomness being true randomness, and not in anyway based on some "hidden variables". But I believe all such "hidden variable" theories have been ruled out by physicists, was it the copenhagen experiment? I can't quite remember. If this true randomness does eventually get supersceded by some new theory that shows it is really at some level deterministic, that new theory would no doubt be a completley new mode of thought, and be mind blowing, with huge impications to physics and philosophy. Who knows

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.