M-Theory and Essence

[Anselm33]

i think personally that the verification is in the accuracy of predictions. Sure a wrong model can make accurate predictions, but that isnt what the thread is about.

 

[Soulewolf]

/QUOTE]

The problem is that there are no measurements to be made to show it’s correct or incorrect; it can’t be falsified; it’s not empirically verifiable, so it isn’t science. You’re perfectly ok to assume that it’s true, but you’re assuming a metaphysical, not a scientific premise.

If I can paraphrase the tag line in the Monty Python sketch (“that parrot is dead”), that interpretation of quantum mechanics is not science (nor is M-theory).

The idea of the subatomic particle was thought to be unfalsifiable. Now we have pictures of them. Its not that its not falsifiable, its that we just dont have the means to observe it in modern science. This is besides the point.

If you dont wish to assume for the sake of discussion that m theory is plausable, an thus deduce the philosophical ramifications from such an idea, then maybe the thread isnt for you shrugs. The point of the thread is to assume the model is accurate, and discover what it would mean on a philosophical and spiritual level.

 

[Soulewolf]

"assuming m-theory is an accurate model "

No; because they would not be me…

Further more; even granting a multiverse theorem; there is no causal necessity implicit in the existence of even an infinity of universes (which is impossible); so I shall say instead a vast number of universes.

Ie; even if a trillion universes exist; I could exist in none of them; or exist identially in all of them; there is no reason that an accident would be replicated by multiplicity except in light of an increased probability; which does not constitute a transition to necessity.

However; even if I did exist innumerably in an identical form; I would be a really distinct entity; because my present existence asserts no causal existence over any other potential agents; be they similar to me or not. Moreover; an essential part of myself; my soul and consciousness are not shared with; nor would be; other similar agents to myself.

Imagine thus; if we were to replicate your or my computer ad infinitum; whilst each replication (might) be identical in quid or in terms of what it is; they would all be distinct insofar in haec or in terms of “this” or “that” one; and the process of one or the other would not causally influence the next.

Interesting thought. Though i dont know if i agree.
Have you heard of the quantum suicide thought experiment? its much like Schrodinger’s cat

This human version involves some sort of lethal weapon and a machine which measures the spin value of a photon. Every 10 seconds, the spin value of a randomly passing photon is measured. Depending on the orientation of the spin, either the weapon is deployed and the man is killed, or it is not and he lives.

With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the weapon will be triggered and the experimenter will die. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the weapon will (in all likelihood) eventually be triggered and the experimenter will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment, the experimenter will be split into several worlds in which he dies and a few worlds in which he survives. In the worlds where the experimenter dies, he will cease to be a conscious entity.

However, from the point of view of the non-dead copies of the experimenter, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the surviving copies of the experimenter will notice that he never seems to die, therefore “proving” himself to be invulnerable to the killing mechanism in question, from his own point of view.

From this idea i think that these other yous are indeed copies with the same essences existing in different realms of probability.

 

[Tuno]

Have you heard of the quantum suicide thought experiment? its much like Schrodinger’s cat.

Is that the one described by Leonard Susskind as the thought experiment quandary of how information is conserved relative to 3-D existence on the 2-D “skin” of the universe?

 

[Soulewolf]

Is that the one described by Leonard Susskind as the thought experiment quandary of how information is conserved relative to 3-D existence on the 2-D “skin” of the universe?

no i dont believe so. i posted a blip on the above post describing the experiment.

“It was originally published independently by Hans Moravec in 1987 and Bruno Marchal in 1988 and was further developed by Max Tegmark in 1998”

 

[JohnDamian]

From this idea i think that these other yous are indeed copies with the same essences existing in different realms of probability.

They would not have the same essence.

They may have the same Quiddity; but all individuals are distinct in Haecceity and Hypokeimenon.

 

[Soulewolf]

They would not have the same essence.

They may have the same Quiddity; but all individuals are distinct in Haecceity and Hypokeimenon.

why? what is the nature of the split that you are describing? are you saying a new soul is created every time the experiment is triggered? As much as i’ve read about quiddity an haecceity since you first exposed me to the terms, i’ve seen some descriptions of the words stating the two are synonymous.

Furthermore i would classify this split as a change. The definition of hypokeimenon is the underlying thing that persists through a change. Thus by definition the hypokeimenon must be the same.

 

[JohnDamian]

why? what is the nature of the split that you are describing? are you saying a new soul is created every time the experiment is triggered? As much as i’ve read about quiddity an haecceity since you first exposed me to the terms, i’ve seen some descriptions of the words stating the two are synonymous.

Well a Quiddity is a “whatness”
A Haecceity is a “thisness”

If there were a million agents identical to me in every way; we would share the same Quiddity. However; we would have a different Haecceity as each different one would be a distinct individual; possessing a distinct consciousness; being really distinct from the others.

The definition of hypokeimenon is the underlying thing that persists through a change. Thus by definition the hypokeimenon must be the same.

Yes; it is what persists through Change; the existence of multiple individuals does not imply a change if those individuals are really distinct.

If there were a million agents identical to me; I would not exist because of them; and they not because of me. We would have no accidental or essential causatative relationship; ergo there would be no substantial change; and each individual would have a similar; but unique in predication hypokeimenon of that distinct subject.

 

[Soulewolf]

Well a Quiddity is a “whatness”
A Haecceity is a “thisness”

If there were a million agents identical to me in every way; we would share the same Quiddity. However; we would have a different Haecceity as each different one would be a distinct individual; possessing a distinct consciousness; being really distinct from the others.

Yes; it is what persists through Change; the existence of multiple individuals does not imply a change if those individuals are really distinct.

If there were a million agents identical to me; I would not exist because of them; and they not because of me. We would have no accidental or essential causatative relationship; ergo there would be no substantial change; and each individual would have a similar; but unique in predication hypokeimenon of that distinct subject.

I wouldent say that these parallel individuals are distinct. In fact i would say that the origional experimenter who is subjected to the quantum suicide experiment is the cause of the splitting. That is there is a causitive relationship.

Why would you say that they are distinct?

 

[JohnDamian]

I wouldent say that these parallel individuals are distinct. In fact i would say that the origional experimenter who is subjected to the quantum suicide experiment is the cause of the splitting. That is there is a causitive relationship.

Why would you say that they are distinct?

There are five distinctions;

Real - Really distinct individuals exist independantly of one another
Conceptual - Object is distinguished in Concept alone; not in real terms
Formal - Object is distinct in formal unity
Modal - Object is distinct in degree
Intentional - Object is distinguished from others by the agent.

The individuals in this case are really distinct because one is not causally dependant upon the other for existence. If there were a million and one versions of me; a million may be destroyed; and I persist to exist.

Their existence is causally independant to mine.; ie; they are distinct really.

This real indpendance is essential; as the casual order that unites us is an accidental order; insofar as a Father who causes a Child can perish and the Child does not cease; yet an essential order is required for the persistance of their cause; such as a reflection depends upon both the object and the mirror.

 

[Soulewolf]

There are five distinctions;

Real - Really distinct individuals exist independantly of one another
Conceptual - Object is distinguished in Concept alone; not in real terms
Formal - Object is distinct in formal unity
Modal - Object is distinct in degree
Intentional - Object is distinguished from others by the agent.

The individuals in this case are really distinct because one is not causally dependant upon the other for existence. If there were a million and one versions of me; a million may be destroyed; and I persist to exist.

Their existence is causally independant to mine.; ie; they are distinct really.

This real indpendance is essential; as the casual order that unites us is an accidental order; insofar as a Father who causes a Child can perish and the Child does not cease; yet an essential order is required for the persistance of their cause; such as a reflection depends upon both the object and the mirror.

I would argue that they are not causally independent. In fact it gets even more skewed than this. If an outsider were to observe the original experimenter, his alive / dead existence would collapse into a single probability and those other universes would cease to exist. So there is a causal link between the experimenter and the copies.

 

[JohnDamian]

I would argue that they are not causally independent. In fact it gets even more skewed than this. If an outsider were to observe the original experimenter, his alive / dead existence would collapse into a single probability and those other universes would cease to exist. So there is a causal link between the experimenter and the copies.

Observation per se is not efficient causality; nor is an object determinate upon observance. Probabalism is an extrapolation from objects; ie it is has no efficient nature; or determinative capacity; but only exists reflectively in the instantiations of individuals; but only as a measure of their efficient causes; and not as the productive agent of those causes.

If you are to have me believe that observing an entity determines it; then you are going to have to proffer some reasons.

 

[Soulewolf]

Observation per se is not efficient causality; nor is an object determinate upon observance. Probabalism is an extrapolation from objects; ie it is has no efficient nature; or determinative capacity; but only exists reflectively in the instantiations of individuals; but only as a measure of their efficient causes; and not as the productive agent of those causes.

If you are to have me believe that observing an entity determines it; then you are going to have to proffer some reasons.

in the quantum world, simple observation changes quite a bit.

Unobserved particles exist as waves of probability. They have no distinct material existence until they are either observed, or are part of a large enough object and adhere to the rules of heisenburgs uncertainty principle.

A particle could be here or there or everywhere (literally and simultaniously) until that particle is observed and its wave function collapses into a single probability.

observation can be and is causally determinate.

 

[JohnDamian]

Unobserved particles exist as waves of probability. They have no distinct material existence until they are either observed, or are part of a large enough object and adhere to the rules of heisenburgs uncertainty principle.

Probability is extrapolative predication; not a real property.

I ask then; what efficient causality is present in the act of observance; that determines the object to its state?

I find it patently absurd that a Particle can have numerous existences explained by nebulous and not causally determinate “potentiality” which is then manifest upon the acausal entrance of an observer.

If this is the product of logic; I would be intrigued as to see the proof for it. If however this quantum mechanical stuff is the product of Mathematics; it can be dismissed immediatly on the basis of a lack of a numerical unity in individuals; which has been known for hundreds of years.

 

[Soulewolf]

Probability is extrapolative predication; not a real property.

I ask then; what efficient causality is present in the act of observance; that determines the object to its state?

I find it patently absurd that a Particle can have numerous existences explained by nebulous and not causally determinate “potentiality” which is then manifest upon the acausal entrance of an observer.

If this is the product of logic; I would be intrigued as to see the proof for it. If however this quantum mechanical stuff is the product of Mathematics; it can be dismissed immediatly on the basis of a lack of a numerical unity in individuals; which has been known for hundreds of years.

youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

I think this video was the first exposure i had to quantum mechanics. Its very well explained.

 

[Soulewolf]

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png

here are a few pictures of a the orbiting electrons of a hydrogen atoms wave function. These are literally clouds of probability in which the spots of higher intensity are where the highest probability is that the particle will be located there. The dimmer areas are less likely to be the location of the particle.

The sun itself is not hot enough to produce nuclear fusion. It is because of the nature of a particle that is potentiality and thus quantum tunneling, that the sun produces nuclear fusion.

 

[JohnDamian]

I think this video was the first exposure i had to quantum mechanics. Its very well explained.

But this simply demonstrates the symptomatic alteration of behaviour; and not the causal efficiency which elicits it; ie-ergo we cannot presume that the observation is essentially determinate; merely accidentally determinate (if that); we could also argue against the principle of locality.

here are a few pictures of a the orbiting electrons of a hydrogen atoms wave function. These are literally clouds of probability in which the spots of higher intensity are where the highest probability is that the particle will be located there. The dimmer areas are less likely to be the location of the particle.

The particle must inhere within one location; even if that location is probabalistically symptomatically observed; we cannot without knowing the efficient cause declare that it is probabalistically determinate.

The sun itself is not hot enough to produce nuclear fusion. It is because of the nature of a particle that is potentiality and thus quantum tunneling, that the sun produces nuclear fusion.

I have no qualifications in science; so I don’t know what to make of that. I would presume some interaction with gravity; pressure and so forth; but I don’t know.

To me quantum mechanics seems to be mistaking the accident for the cause; per se - without a causal determinant. It further uses mathematics to some degree; which is repugnant to philosophy. However technical science can be challenging to an uneducated person like me…

 

[Touchstone]

Probability is extrapolative predication; not a real property.

This is contradicted by physics. The Schrödinger Equation models the quantum state of a physical system, and is performative because it tracks the real properties of that system. Probability wave functions are as real as any other property in physics.

I ask then; what efficient causality is present in the act of observance; that determines the object to its state?

Observation is a physical process.

I find it patently absurd that a Particle can have numerous existences explained by nebulous and not causally determinate “potentiality” which is then manifest upon the acausal entrance of an observer.

Why? What do you know of ‘absurd’ for nature? What is the measure you use – intuition? I do not understand the criterion used for this judgment in situations like this. “Absurd” is a term we use to judge reasonability or soundness, isn’t it? It’s odd that nature should be held to that kind of anthropic review…

The system manifestly resolves when it needs, and this is not the mark of absurdities or paradoxes. Probability wave functions have closure; decoherence occurs when thermodynamically irreversibility occurs, and this is the resolution with classical physics. Quantum states are untangled, and (potentially) conflicting superpositions give way to a unified macroscopic reality.

It’s plenty weird, mind you. You can’t get far into it without realizing the futility of folk notions of ‘absurd’. Such may be self-satisfying, but they are a barrier to knowledge of the real world at advanced levels. What is absurd, I think, is the idea that we know what ‘absurd’ should or must mean for nature. It is what it is.

If this is the product of logic; I would be intrigued as to see the proof for it. If however this quantum mechanical stuff is the product of Mathematics; it can be dismissed immediatly on the basis of a lack of a numerical unity in individuals; which has been known for hundreds of years.

It’s neither, of course. Science deploys logic and math in the service of constructing models, but without empirical performance, they are just theology, they are inert.I recommend Paul Dirac’s The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. It provides a rich review of the maths, the logic, and crucially, the empirical evidence as an integrated model. QM is the product of logic, math, empirical evidence, and bundled into a form that is objectively performative.

-TS

 

[Soulewolf]

But this simply demonstrates the symptomatic alteration of behaviour; and not the causal efficiency which elicits it; ie-ergo we cannot presume that the observation is essentially determinate; merely accidentally determinate (if that); we could also argue against the principle of locality.

So if observation is causally determinate then me’s in other universes are essentially the same. If it is accidentally detterminate, then they are not?

The particle must inhere within one location; even if that location is probabalistically symptomatically observed; we cannot without knowing the efficient cause declare that it is probabalistically determinate.

That is the problem with Newtonian physics. It doesnt work on the quantum level. As the video showed, particles can and are in more than one location at once. They have pictures of a particle being in superposition (two or more places at once [or so i’ve read]).

I have no qualifications in science; so I don’t know what to make of that. I would presume some interaction with gravity; pressure and so forth; but I don’t know.

Theres info on the web if you are interested enough.

 

[Touchstone]

That is the problem with Newtonian physics. It doesnt work on the quantum level. As the video showed, particles can and are in more than one location at once. They have pictures of a particle being in superposition (two or more places at once [or so i’ve read]).

I believe you are mistaken regarding those images. Not having a link to what you are referring to, I will say that it’s a fundamental principle of superposition that it cannot be photographed – it’s only viable in a non-collapsing context, and a photo would force the particle to “locate”. This is the lesson of the famous “double slit experiments”. As soon as a sensor is put in place to detect which slit each photons go through, the interference bands disappear!

I imagine there are some cool visualizations of what the “spatial probabilities” may look like, but if you can photograph it, you know you do not have superposition in action. Superposition means that the particle occupies all of its possible quantum states (and this set varies depending on what particle you are talking about in what context) at once. Since the probability function of a particle will not be “all chances are equal”, it should be visualizable to some extent. But it would only ever be visualization from math models as opposed to photography, or any other kind of measurement.

-TS