Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Treklis  I don't see how this proves causality to be false. If anything it confirms causality because the photon emission is the cause of you taking one particular action over another meaning the entire scenario is completely deterministic and at the same time unpredictable from the point of the observer. |
But the causal chain only goes back to the emission of the photon. Not "the result of infinite causes stretching back endlessly into time"...
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og The world that we see ALL is the product of quantum mechanical interactions on a massive scale where probabilities average out to produce what seem to be coherent phenomena. The notion of a deterministic chain of events just doesn't match observation. | Observation is entirely subjective, but I'm not speaking about the nature of things from the point of observation. I'm using logic to reach absolute certainty about the nature of reality.
|
You're saying that photon counters, silicon transistors, and other experimental apparatus for measurement of quantum phenomena represent subjective measurements? Again, check Bell's theorem before going down the path of hidden variable theory.
Quote:
|
Well like I said, I'm not using theories or observations based on empirical data like science does. Logic is the only tool we have when it comes to realizing absolute truth. Of course this doesn't mean scientific theories aren't beneficial or worth while, it just means science is inadequate when it comes to absolute certainty.
|
You should review the uncertainty principle (another one of those pesky observation based products of science) before banging your head against a wall while seeking absolute certainty.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Correct. Nor do scientists make attempts to prove their theories. In fact they try to do the opposite.... The whole process of science is an attempt to disprove theories. What remains after the exercise of science, must contain the truth. I'd tack on "but its the best we have" after "inherently unreliable" in your above statement. | If science is done with a pure heart I agree, but I think it's naive to say that all scientists only attempt disprove theories. Science is just as likely to be corrupted by money and status as any other aspect of humanity is. Millions are spent each year trying to prove theories true because of special interests, and many more scientists spend their lives trying to prove their theories right for no reason except to gain prominence in the scientific community.
|
There's nothing naive about my statements. The nature of science prevents corruption by money/status/etc. If you falsify your data, you can/will be thrown out of the scientific community. If you do not show well documented controls and a well thought out process of experiment development, your paper will not be published.
It's a negative feedback control system. All of the practitioners of science regulate science independently and compete. All of them attempt to destroy their colleagues' work and in the process, prevent corruption of individuals and leave only well supported work standing.
Most scientists I know let the observation do the direction. They develop strong theories because of a volume of work on a topic that gives them an understanding of the mechanics of a system. It's got nothing to do with working to prove a theory right.
Quote:
|
Quantum mechanics is the study of all matter yes, but it studies it at the quantum, i.e. subatomic level. That's why it is called quantum mechanics and not matter mechanics. Quantum mechanics is useful in it's particular area of study, but it doesn't help me test how hot something is, how far away it is, or what its mass is, and it certainly can't toss out determinism with absolute certainty. This would imply that quantum theory is in fact not a theory at all, but absolutely true. And I think we both agree that is absolutely false.
|
Ever heard of Spectroscopy? Semiconductors? These (and many others) are quantum properties of bulk materials. Want to know what something is made of? Look at it's emission spectrum. Quantum mechanics scales up to properly describe the bulk properties of matter (one of the requisites for a theory).
Mass? Number of atoms * atomic weight of each. There are certainly shortcuts for mass measurement, but if you want to be extremely accurate, you use strict quantum theory. Just because you use a shortcut (like comparing it to another mass on a scale or displacing water with it), doesn't mean that you're in some other "realm" of physics.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Bottom line is that its the best that we have. Whatever the truth is, determinism doesn't mesh with it. Schroedinger's cat is the classic thought experiment that illustrates the reality of this. I recommend following up on this. The state of the cat is literally NOT determined. |
All Schroedinger's cat does is show the inherent limitations of quantum theory when it is applied beyond the subatomic level. Which if it is applied beyond that level means that something can be two different things simultaneously violating the law of identity, or A=A. It certainly doesn't discredit the fact that all finite phenomena have been infinitely determined.
|
No. It says that the state of the system is undefined and is described by a probability distribution (i.e. it has a probability associated with each of a spectrum of states). In fact, the system is all of these states weighted with a given probability. This is the meaning of the spherical and other odd-shaped "orbitals" of electrons. They are probability functions. It's not that the particle "exists somewhere in there and we just don't know it." What's the case is that the particle is described by that probability distribution function and it's behavior is indeterminant.
A=A does not apply ultimately. There is no exact and absolute identity of a particle. Uncertainty principle makes this clear. If it did, you couldn't get quantum tunneling or state transitions (which produce spectroscopy and semiconductors).
Don't let what you call "logic" drive you down some path that doesn't match observation. Proofs are based on axioms. The axioms are assumed to be true by definition. But they can never be proved absolutely to be true. That requires science and science doesn't even go that far.