A serious logical problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter R_Daneel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ingram said:
I name drop not to form a proof, but to inform. There are many who simply do not understand the limits of what “time” has been subjected to within QM. You appear to be one of these people. That time is a parameter in QM equations proves nothing, of course. You are in essence stating that because we put a factor within an equation it must be real. Putting it that way I hope makes you see the silliness of your logic. Julian Barbour has famously stated that time MUST NOT exist in a quantum theory of the universe. Carlo Rovelli also has found mathematical solutions that describe multiple events as one single event without a time parameter. Others find that the QM equations that are unsolvable since they expand to infinity are quite solvable IF time is left off the table.

Einstein: “For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one.”

There are theories within neurobiology that now support the idea that time has no essential quality of its own. There is the Damasios theory of consciousness - that time exists in consciousness and thus is in essence a feeling. Ernst Poppel in Munich, Germany and David Eagleton in Houston, Texas are neuroscientists whose work is exploring just such a theory.

You state that since Time is a parameter within QM equations it has to be real? Is that really what you want to say? I hope not. QM evolves. Everyone knows there are problems with it and its correlation with macro-scale. Do I arrogate knowledge? Of course. We all do. That is the essence of learning, no? Though you point it out in as rude a way as possible.
Click to expand...
Cowabunga!

Ingram, I consider myself newly informed and courteously chastised. Thank you! I apologize for my rudeness. I’m more accustomed to posters who knew as much about QM as a squirrel until they read Gary Zukav.

You are correct that I do not know what QM people have done with time. I’ve not made more than a cursory study of it in 40-odd years, since the solutions that went into never-never land convinced me that there was something fundamentally wrong with QM theory.

As with evolution, I don’t question the data— just the theory.

I do not accept the conventional interpretation of time either, but am not mathematically proficient enough to devise any improvements. Why then did I complain about your comments? I’d no idea that you actually knew what you were talking about.

My rejection of the conventional time interpretation comes from my own inquiries into the nature and properties of God. Problem is, I’ve not found a way to replace time within our formulations of physics. As you acknowledge, it appears everywhere— or seems to. Einstein’s comment notwithstanding, every equation he set to paper (that I know of), from special and general relativity to his elegant, E=hf explanation for the photoelectric effect, involves time.

Your statement that some physicists have actually succeeded in solving QM equations by eliminating time is exciting. I have some reading to do. Would you kindly work up a reading list for me? Use PM if you think it more appropriate, although other CAF members might be interested as well. I feel strongly that the unresolved questions of physics are related to the properties and purpose of the Creator.

In the context of your knowledge, and the QM theories you’ve studied, what are your thoughts on the notion that the universe is a state machine? Do you know of any publications on that subject?

Clearly, I do not insist that time is real because it appears in equations. But I have to wonder, if time is not real, why does it appear in every equation?

And, would you make the same statement about mass, energy, parity and charge? These parameters also appear in the fundamental equations of physics.

So as not to tarnish my reputation for being generally ornery and argumentative, I submit that your statement, “Everyone knows there are problems with it Quantum Mechanics} and its correlation with macro-scale,” is a wishful exaggeration. (The emphasis on “everyone” is mine.) I doubt that the “everyone” would apply even if you were posting on the Physics Forum.

Thanks for the upfront comeback.
 
To know and to cause are distinct, it does not follow that the one who knows necessarily efficiently-causes the act of the other. God’s causation with the existence of intellectual being includes the act of free will. Therefore causation and free-will is not in contradiction.

The knowledge of God in the future act of man is the same with His knowledge on the past. Nonetheless.If God alters an event in the past it involves contradiction for a thing will become A and not A which is can not.God can alter the event in the future in accordance with His will, thus miracles were happening. Hence God knows what a man do in the future and it depends on Him If He alter it or no depending on His will.

God Has knowledge and Will, part of His knowledge is mans future act, and He wills to make it happen as it is or to alter it for His own sake.

The problem is not logical but metaphysical.
 
greylorn said:
My rejection of the conventional time interpretation comes from my own inquiries into the nature and properties of God. Problem is, I’ve not found a way to replace time within our formulations of physics. As you acknowledge, it appears everywhere— or seems to. Einstein’s comment notwithstanding, every equation he set to paper (that I know of), from special and general relativity to his elegant, E=hf explanation for the photoelectric effect, involves time.
In the context of your knowledge, and the QM theories you’ve studied, what are your thoughts on the notion that the universe is a state machine? Do you know of any publications on that subject?
Clearly, I do not insist that time is real because it appears in equations. But I have to wonder, if time is not real, why does it appear in every equation?
And, would you make the same statement about mass, energy, parity and charge? These parameters also appear in the fundamental equations of physics.
Click to expand...
I am not going to continue the logic of R Daneel as it seems without hope for a solution. I’ve pointed out that the problem goes away if Time is illusory, so that is that. As for mankind’s actions changing God’s essence, I have nothing more to add than what has already been stated.

As to why time–and other factors such as mass, energy, parity, charge–appear in equations, the answer is likely to be deflatory: It is the same reason why we see time: we are made to see them. Our biology is made to appear in this movie, because we couldn’t exist otherwise. To see the face of God is to hide in the cleft of rocks. Understanding the physics of our universe is like Hamlet trying to understand what to do with his father-in-law. He can try and try, come up with innumerable psychologies, but in the end it is the character trying to understand another illusion. It can all make perfect sense within the context but not necessarily the truth outside in the “fourth wall.” Not that it is entirely illusory, but that the full impact or law of the universe can never be breached by the actors within the play. This is quite deflating for scientific theory, I know. It is akin to saying science isn’t truth, or the entire truth. I don’t want to say that, so I will say science isn’t capable of knowing the entire truth anymore than religion is. Religion too has the fourth wall.
Is the universe a state machine? I waited hoping someone else would jump into the brisk waters first to tell me if it is way too cold. Not seeing anyone, here goes:
IF the universe is a state machine (by which I mean an imitation of God as God’s creation) then we are state machines (our brains). Thus any (name removed by moderator)utted functions given us (and this totally agrees with my prior statements) allow us to know the universe only as the functions permit. Time then is a function. Charge, mass, gravity, are functions. This does not mean we exist as automatons. Theoretically (but let me state I know nothing of this topic…just speculating) free will and symbolic parallels and religion itself are all possible outcomes. Chaos theory, I think, permits all of this.
I probably shouldn’t have even touched that one.
 
Ingram said:
IF the universe is a state machine (by which I mean an imitation of God as God’s creation) then we are state machines (our brains). Thus any (name removed by moderator)utted functions given us (and this totally agrees with my prior statements) allow us to know the universe only as the functions permit. Time then is a function. Charge, mass, gravity, are functions. This does not mean we exist as automatons. Theoretically (but let me state I know nothing of this topic…just speculating) free will and symbolic parallels and religion itself are all possible outcomes. Chaos theory, I think, permits all of this.
I probably shouldn’t have even touched that one.
Click to expand...
This is potentially interesting. Just a question.

If the universe and our brains are state machines, how do you avoid collapsing libertarian free will? (name removed by moderator)uts functionally determine, and hence are sufficient, for their outputs.

Chaos theory, too, is deterministic and, in fact, depends on determinism. The only difference is that chaos theory works with a potentially infinite amount of variables, so that given natural laws and a set of intitial conditions, one slight variation in a variable produces drastically different outcomes. But the system itself is still deterministic:shrug:
 
Syntax said:
This is potentially interesting. Just a question.

If the universe and our brains are state machines, how do you avoid collapsing libertarian free will? (name removed by moderator)uts functionally determine, and hence are sufficient, for their outputs.

Chaos theory, too, is deterministic and, in fact, depends on determinism. The only difference is that chaos theory works with a potentially infinite amount of variables, so that given natural laws and a set of intitial conditions, one slight variation in a variable produces drastically different outcomes. But the system itself is still deterministic:shrug:
Click to expand...
It is deterministic. Yet…not so much. It’s been years since I read my chaos theory, but doesn’t it state that with increasing variables the solvable functions rise to infinity? That is, are insolvable? Not sure. Maybe somebody can come in here and let us know.

One thing I left out of my previous post. Wondering about the Why of this, why this universe would be made as a kind of state machine, I came across this from Roger Shattuck’s “Proust’s Way”:
“It is beyond our powers as human beings to be all things at once.Our finite capacity for existence makes our character successive, dependent on time to reveal itself in any depth.” That is why the universe appears as it does, and, incidentally, why Proust’s book is measured more in terms of poundage than in pages.
 
Ingram said:
It is deterministic. Yet…not so much. It’s been years since I read my chaos theory, but doesn’t it state that with increasing variables the solvable functions rise to infinity? That is, are insolvable? Not sure. Maybe somebody can come in here and let us know.
Click to expand...
I haven’t actually read much on chaos theory, but I do understand the main dispute concerning it. The central contention concerns whether or not the mathematics of the number of unsolvable functions rising to infinity are actually representative of real systems in the world. Infinities in math are potential infinities, and state systems of the world would presumably have to be actual infinities if they existed. But the question is whether or not these actual infinities exist. If they don’t, then chaos theory is not applicable to the world. If they do exist, then chaos theory is applicable to the world. So that’s the dispute as far as I understand it.🙂
Ingram said:
One thing I left out of my previous post. Wondering about the Why of this, why this universe would be made as a kind of state machine, I came across this from Roger Shattuck’s “Proust’s Way”:
“It is beyond our powers as human beings to be all things at once.Our finite capacity for existence makes our character successive, dependent on time to reveal itself in any depth.” That is why the universe appears as it does, and, incidentally, why Proust’s book is measured more in terms of poundage than in pages.
Click to expand...
From what I can gather you are saying, this doesn’t really sound any different that what Kant said in late 17th early 18th centuries. Kant proposed that the mind structures reality. But this doesn’t mean that the knowledge which arises from the mind’s innate structural capacities is totally indpendent of the way things actually are. There exists a kind of cooperative relationship between mind and reality. We just can’t know things as they are in themselves apart from these representational capacities. So space and time are* non*-empirical innate structures making sense perception of the external world possible, and because of this we are limited in talking about how things are independent of these innate structural capacities. But it doesn’t mean we are “creating” or “inventing” space and time. Space and time may very well be the fabric of the universe, we just can’t know the answer to this question independent of our faculties because it is impossible to have sense-experience of “non-spatial-temporal objects.”
 
Syntax said:
From what I can gather you are saying, this doesn’t really sound any different that what Kant said in late 17th early 18th centuries. Kant proposed that the mind structures reality. But this doesn’t mean that the knowledge which arises from the mind’s innate structural capacities is totally indpendent of the way things actually are. There exists a kind of cooperative relationship between mind and reality. We just can’t know things as they are in themselves apart from these representational capacities. So space and time are* non*-empirical innate structures making sense perception of the external world possible, and because of this we are limited in talking about how things are independent of these innate structural capacities. But it doesn’t mean we are “creating” or “inventing” space and time. Space and time may very well be the fabric of the universe, we just can’t know the answer to this question independent of our faculties because it is impossible to have sense-experience of “non-spatial-temporal objects.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly. Great minds think alike;).
Thanks for the clarification on the chaos theory thing too.
 
Syntax said:
I haven’t actually read much on chaos theory, but I do understand the main dispute concerning it. The central contention concerns whether or not the mathematics of the number of unsolvable functions rising to infinity are actually representative of real systems in the world. Infinities in math are potential infinities, and state systems of the world would presumably have to be actual infinities if they existed. But the question is whether or not these actual infinities exist. If they don’t, then chaos theory is not applicable to the world. If they do exist, then chaos theory is applicable to the world. So that’s the dispute as far as I understand it.🙂
Click to expand...
Catholic Encyclopedia: Infinity
“The actual infinity of God in every respect is Catholic dogma.”

If an actual infinite of a tangible object existed it would necessarily occupy all space in an unbounded universe. If the universe is bounded then an actual infinite would be impossible.
 
Ingram said:
I am not going to continue the logic of R Daneel as it seems without hope for a solution. I’ve pointed out that the problem goes away if Time is illusory, so that is that. As for mankind’s actions changing God’s essence, I have nothing more to add than what has already been stated.
Click to expand...
About time. 😉
Ingram said:
As to why time–and other factors such as mass, energy, parity, charge–appear in equations, the answer is likely to be deflatory: It is the same reason why we see time: we are made to see them. Our biology is made to appear in this movie, because we couldn’t exist otherwise. To see the face of God is to hide in the cleft of rocks. Understanding the physics of our universe is like Hamlet trying to understand what to do with his father-in-law. He can try and try, come up with innumerable psychologies, but in the end it is the character trying to understand another illusion. It can all make perfect sense within the context but not necessarily the truth outside in the “fourth wall.” Not that it is entirely illusory, but that the full impact or law of the universe can never be breached by the actors within the play. This is quite deflating for scientific theory, I know. It is akin to saying science isn’t truth, or the entire truth. I don’t want to say that, so I will say science isn’t capable of knowing the entire truth anymore than religion is. Religion too has the fourth wall.
Click to expand...
Re: deflation: Some scientific theories are more worthy of it than others. Many currently popular scientific beliefs are absurd, some are extremely well grounded, and a few are fundamentally significant.

Whatever you meant by your lost-on-me analogy (although I read Hamlet and watched two films, I never got past my view of Hamlet as a self-absorbed nitwit, and so probably missed the deeper meanings for lack of a perfesser to guide my understanding.) you do a disservice to science to categorize it with religion. (With the exception of Darwinism and modern psychological theory, which are powerful belief systems in their own right.)

Anyone can invent a religion (I’ve devised several) and declare it to be true (I’ve not), or write some stuff about it and get a bunch of folks to agree that, yep, it’s the word of God all righty! How can a belief system be responsible to the truth when it can answer every potential contradiction to its tenets with the refrain, “The Omnipotent, Omniscient God we’ve defined can do anything, cause things to appear however He chooses, etc.”?

Science, for all its faults and limitations, is eventually required to test its theories against reality. .
Ingram said:
Is the universe a state machine? I waited hoping someone else would jump into the brisk waters first to tell me if it is way too cold. Not seeing anyone, here goes:

IF the universe is a state machine (by which I mean an imitation of God as God’s creation) then we are state machines (our brains). Thus any (name removed by moderator)utted functions given us (and this totally agrees with my prior statements) allow us to know the universe only as the functions permit. Time then is a function. Charge, mass, gravity, are functions. This does not mean we exist as automatons. Theoretically (but let me state I know nothing of this topic…just speculating) free will and symbolic parallels and religion itself are all possible outcomes. Chaos theory, I think, permits all of this.
I probably shouldn’t have even touched that one.
Click to expand...
I’m delighted that you did, and am impressed by the result. Most CAF posters reply with the jerk of a knee and never even bother to check a dictionary when the little red squiggle line apprises them of yet another spelling challenge. You, on the other hand, did some serious and honest research. Now there are two people on this thread who know something about a concept they had not previously encountered.

Your “imitation of God as God’s creation” does not make any sense to me, even in the context of a Catholic God concept. Please elaborate.

At this level of discussion there is one statement of yours which is well worth further quibbling, “*then we are state machines (our brains). *.” One minor error: A state machine can simulate an analog device. It can simulate the brain’s neuronal mechanisms or a slide trombone. So the brain and trombone are not necessarily state machines.

The major error lies in your failure to account for the soul, which would seem to be one component of the “we.” I encourage you to clarify your concept of the soul in the context of a physical universe. If you choose to do some research on the nature of the soul before replying, excellent! The subject is worth your serious consideration and I am genuinely interested in what you come up with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top