Law of non-contradiction and quantum mechanics

[awatkins69]

It appears that quantum mechanics disproves the law of non-contradiction. If there is no observer a subject can be both moving and not moving, in the same respect and at the same time. Of course it does depend somewhat on your interpretation, but this is the most common one (Copenhagen interpretation). What do you think?

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supersize-quantum-mechanics

 

[futurtheologian]

I will state that I am not a physicist in any respect, but love math so this is of some interest. From a philosophical perspective, I find this to be quite related to the theory of forms and sun simile of Plato in The Republic. In effect, from my limited knowledge of Plato, one can truly understand something by observing something in its natural state without movement; just stop something without any external influence on your perceptions or on the object itself. This was used as an argument relating to the existence of transcendent or fundamental knowledge/forms/existences/beings in one sense. So the senses distort things from there natural state.

Anyway, maybe that is a digression, but it seems that if they can perceive both the movement and nonmovement state, then they are defying this theory and in effect then the existence of absolutes. But then again, I don’t trust modern science at all (don’t even believe in gravity as an absolute principle, and there are many scientists who are starting to question the existence as an absolute for the universe). How do they REALLY know that they are truly perceiving it through there experiment correctly? Can something truly be observed in two separate states of existence? It actually makes little sense, and it seems irrational to believe that a human in a pure state of finitude can observe such a phenomena. It would be liking living in life and death. It could just be the human interpretation of something greater than we are, and just a falsification of truth not due to false intent but to the lack of understanding which humans posses.

Hope this makes some sense! So much of modernity makes no sense. Long live the classics I suppose.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t understand the claim about quantum mechanics and noncontradiction. From the article above:

Through a phenomenon known as “superposition” a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time–at least until an outside force acts on it. Then it instantly chooses one of the two contradictory positions.

First, there is no contradiction unless we clarify that “moving” is equivalent to “not stationary.” But I suppose that seems rather obvious.

But then, consider:

1. Particle x is moving.
2. Particle x is not moving.
3. Therefore, the law of contradiction is false.
4. Some things are not what they are. (Consequence of 2).
5. Therefore, particle x is not particle x.

But 5 is transparently false. No one can ever communicate the sentence “The law of noncontradiction is false” without also communicating that “the law of noncontradiction is true.” Or at least that’s how I see it.

 

[Soulewolf]

It appears that quantum mechanics disproves the law of non-contradiction. If there is no observer a subject can be both moving and not moving, in the same respect and at the same time. Of course it does depend somewhat on your interpretation, but this is the most common one (Copenhagen interpretation). What do you think?

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supersize-quantum-mechanics

i’m unsure as to the exact theory behind the “quantum drum”, however i do know that according to the wave function nature of a particle, until it is observed it is in all probable locations simultaneously. That is, it is literally a wave of potential spread out through our 4th dimensional brane. So it makes sense that this “drum” would be both vibrating and not vibrating at the same time.

How they measured this i don’t know because observing the vibration should collapse the wave function of the drum to a single probability.

 

[awatkins69]

I don’t understand the claim about quantum mechanics and noncontradiction. From the article above:

First, there is no contradiction unless we clarify that “moving” is equivalent to “not stationary.” But I suppose that seems rather obvious.

But then, consider:

1. Particle x is moving.
2. Particle x is not moving.
3. Therefore, the law of contradiction is false.
4. Some things are not what they are. (Consequence of 2).
5. Therefore, particle x is not particle x.

But 5 is transparently false. No one can ever communicate the sentence “The law of noncontradiction is false” without also communicating that “the law of noncontradiction is true.” Or at least that’s how I see it.

Maybe our language just fails?

 

[Apollos]

It appears that quantum mechanics disproves the law of non-contradiction.

You have to assume the law of noncontradiction in order to disprove it.

Beware of popularized accounts of scientific research.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Note that quantum logic (see here) satisfies the law of non-contradiction.

 

[JohnDamian]

Where is Avicenna when we need him?

“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned” Metaphysics I.



On a more serious note I don’t think anyone should make a practical judgement until we find out exactly what is meant by:

“Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.”

My first responce would be that it appears that the paddle is producing the effects symptomatic to both motion and a lack thereof; which itself does not elicit a contradiction or a violation of the law of noncontradiction. I see no reason to believe that it is both in motion and not.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Where is Avicenna when we need him?

“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned” Metaphysics I.

That quote is unspeakably awesome.

 

[Anselm33]

]It appears that quantum mechanics disproves the law of non-contradiction. If there is no observer a subject can be both moving and not moving, in the same respect and at the same time. Of course it does depend somewhat on your interpretation, but this is the most common one (Copenhagen interpretation). What do you think?

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supersize-quantum-mechanics
I’m not sure I agree with the scientific american article and the conclusion that QM disproves the law of non-contradiction. There are various interpretations of QM and although many (most?) physicists favor the Copenhagen interpretation, no interpretation is confirmed or denied by experiments, i.e. by empirical evidence, so which interpretation one chooses depends on non-empirical factors. (The exception is the Bohm Pilot Wave–Hidden Variables–interpretation, in that the presumption of locality in that is refuted by experiments disproving Bell’s Theorem). A system is only real when it is measured, so when it is measured it is one thing or another. The particle going through two slits lands at one place, although the probability of where it lands on the screen is given by the Young’s diffraction law. I think this is a “non-question”, to quote a philosopher of Science, Hans Reichenbach. It isn’t really an issue.

 

[Anselm33]

It appears that quantum mechanics disproves the law of non-contradiction. If there is no observer a subject can be both moving and not moving, in the same respect and at the same time. Of course it does depend somewhat on your interpretation, but this is the most common one (Copenhagen interpretation). What do you think?

 

[Just_Lurking]

For micro-states, a superposition of states is just another state, not some kind of weird combination. For example, the superposition of a +1/2 x-axis spin state and a -1/2 x-axis spin state is just a spin state along another axis orthogonal to the x-axis.

For macro-states, the physical characteristics of a superposition of states is still mostly conjecture at this point (in my opinion), e.g., like Schrodinger’s cat. But I don’t see why a macro-superposition would be any different than a micro-superposition as far as the law of non-contradiction is concerned.

 

[Anselm33]

7002611For macro-states, the physical characteristics of a superposition of states is still mostly conjecture at this point (in my opinion), e.g., like Schrodinger’s cat. But I don’t see why a macro-superposition would be any different than a micro-superposition as far as the law of non-contradiction is concerned

.

As I understand the decoherence argument for macro-states, interaction with the environment gives essentially a random phase arrangement amongst the many many states, and such that the states of the environment and the putative system are entangled. I should add that the presence of many environmental states to mix with that of the system depends on thermally populated environmental states. So to minimize environmental interactions the experiment is carried out at at very low temperatures.

The description of the system under decoherence is like that of a macroscopic object moving with known position and known velocity: The Fourier decomposition of the wave-packet representing the macroscopic object shows that the state is a superposition of many different states with different momenta, with a distribution centered around some specific velocity (the “group velocity” of the wave-packet). The width of the momentum distribution for a macroscopic object is narrow enough that it does not represent, experimentally, different values. As far as measurement goes, only a single value is measured. And it is in the measurement that “reality” is perceived. The law of non-contradiction is followed in both micro and macro measurements, since reality is what is measured, not the mathematical construct we use to predict those measurement. Heisenberg used the term “potentia” (propensities?) to describe what the superposed states represent–which I interpret to mean what could happen, not what is happening.