Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

Consciousness is still required to observe this even for animals. Humans just have a name for it. And you would have needed to witness it happening to animals first before coming to that conclusion.

 

You're not making one iota of sense, Mr. Writer. There is no way to study the deterministic nature of the quantum world. It can't be measured. If it's physically impossible to determine whether or not my body acts in accordance with deterministic laws, obviously there is no way my consciousness could understand the deterministic laws governing it, because there can be no proof that deterministic laws govern it. And if it is being governed by chaos rather than determinism, who are you to say that this chaos won't have any effect on how well my body is able to understand determinism? I would think it would make it impossible to fully comprehend determinism. And, it just so happens, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FULLY COMPREHEND DETERMINISM.

All I was really pointing out, however, is that there is something that exists which can't be determined. Thus determinism fails as an explanation for the material world. One simply has faith that determinism is true or not, just like a faith in God.

But anyway, everyone should read this link. It makes it pretty clear that Mr. Writer doesn't know what he's talking about.

http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/279

 

So maybe it requires looking outside of the box. If we are in the same boat as Physicists with Quantum shit, then we might as well talk about it as seriously as them or don't talk about it at all.

Of course it does make a sound? Can you prove that? And can you do it without Consciousness and Observation present?

 

You are still completely sidestepping my point

Predictability has nothing to do with Determinism. One is about our ability to understand the cosmos using our brains and our tools; the other is about the nature of the cosmos. The cosmos could be completely unpredictable thanks to Quantum effects rendering our clumsy measurements useless past the atomic level; and yet everything in the universe could be determined, and if only we COULD have a better way to measure quantum effects, we would know the future. See there are 4 possibilities:

1) The universe IS deterministic, and we CAN measure all physical events

2) The universe IS deterministic, and we CAN NOT measure all physical events

3) The universe IS NOT deterministic, and we CAN measure all physical events

4) The universe IS NOT deterministic, and we CAN NOT measure all physical events

These are two different points, and they can intersect in strange ways. You are arguing for case #4, that's fine. It could be that the universe is not deterministic (we have free will as causal agents), and we can never measure quantum events properly. But in this universe #4, it is not the case that the universe is deterministic because we cannot measure quantum events properly; the latter problem is an issue with our ability to READ the determinism of the universe.

It would be like you saying "Either this book is written in Greek or in Latin [determinism or free will]. The ink on the pages has been smeared beyond all recognition, rendering it impossible to read either way [inability for humans to measure quantum events], therefore I conclude it was written in Latin [therefore since we can't measure quantum events, free will exists]."

Please don't get exasperated, if I'm truly stupid about this, just explain it to me, because I'd love to learn that I'm wrong.

Perhaps that is the case; now what does that have to do with whether or not the quantum world is in fact deterministic? You are making a claim about the limits of human knowledge, not about the nature of quantum phenomena, right?

I think here is where you are not making any sense. What does your consciousness understanding the laws of nature have to do with whether or not your consciousness operates within the laws of nature? You don't get to "vote" on whether or not to follow a law of nature once you become aware of it; you were always following it, now you've learned how to describe it with mathematics. Even if you can never know what laws govern consciousness, those laws would still apply nonetheless.

I'm familiar with Chaos Theory. A Chaotic system is defined as one in which there are so many variables at play, with such sensitivity, that our ability to measure it is undermined. A chaotic system is not random and free for all! It is still completely deterministic and follows all the same laws as a very simple system; it's just that it boggles the human mind.

The best example is weather. Weather is nothing but air dynamics, water dynamics, thermodynamics, etc. If you could know all data about every atom involved in weather, all initial conditions, and know all applicable laws, then weather is a completely determined system. Tornadoes behave according to principles. The fact that those conditions boggle our best supercomputers, is an argument against the strength of our supercomputers, not an argument saying that weather behaves erratically and without sense.

From Wiki:

"Chaos theory is a field of study in applied mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions; an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.1 This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

 

than the fact that any measurement that pins any property down to a specific, records this information in the universe, leaving a permanent trace, forcing it into a particular state at that instance.

Exactly. The Conscious Observation and the non-conscious instrument, which was created by a Conscious Observer and needs a Conscious Observer to witness its results, lock that moment into its existence. So you just CAN'T say anything about the trees falling without the Observation.

 

The best example is weather. Weather is nothing but air dynamics, water dynamics, thermodynamics, etc. If you could know all data about every atom involved in weather, all initial conditions, and know all applicable laws, then weather is a completely determined system. Tornadoes behave according to principles. The fact that those conditions boggle our best supercomputers, is an argument against the strength of our supercomputers, not an argument saying that weather behaves erratically and without sense.

This is totally an assumption on your part. It very well could be that it is impossible to 100 percent determine something like weather. Humans' computers can't out-match infinite chaos.

Tornadoes operate according to principles, but we humans are still the ones creating names for those principles. You could call the principle the work of Kali if you wanted to. The principles themselves are man-made concepts.

I think here is where you are not making any sense. What does your consciousness understanding the laws of nature have to do with whether or not your consciousness operates within the laws of nature? You don't get to "vote" on whether or not to follow a law of nature once you become aware of it; you were always following it, now you've learned how to describe it with mathematics. Even if you can never know what laws govern consciousness, those laws would still apply nonetheless.

Yes you do get to vote, and the largest collective agreement usually wins. This is why the world has seen a vast array of different perspectives, labels, etc. over time. Science obviously doesn't escape this whatsoever. You can't say that something was already following a certain law that you yourself created the concept of via your observation, evaluation, and conclusion.

Observation is still primary.

 

Where did I say the observer had to be conscious? You are confusing the permanent recording of information (which cannot be destroyed), with consciousness, or observation by a conscious observer. There was no conscious observer around at the big bang epoch, yet we can still look at our telescopes and see what occurred. Are you suggesting that the universe didn't exist until we started looking, and then at that moment sprang into existence with it's 13.8 billion years of history?

 

I'm saying that you can't conclude something happened without being aware of it. You look into telescopes and see and evaluate what occurred. Still, once again, your Awareness and Consciousness is the underlying principle operating.

Essentially, nothing can exist without Consciousness. There is no such thing as knowing anything about the recording of information without being Conscious of it.

Yes, I am suggesting that nothing in the Universe exists without first being conscious of it. Even looking at data through telescopes. And for all we know, our looking is just one Quantum possibility out of an infinite amount of parallel Quantum possibilites.

Seems that Scientists themselves can agree on very little. Might have something to do with that they're all looking at slightly different Quantum possibilities, which are all dancing around next to each other to form our world, which has many many different perspectives and interpretations.

 

You seem to be arguing for the existence of a God, if you are saying nothing in the universe that happens is purely random. Virtual particles pop into and out of existence at random. They aren't determined by anything, unless you want to say there's a higher order, a God, causing them to pop into and out of existence where they do.

I wasn't arguing against you on that point. Maybe you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that you are right about that. What we can't measure may follow a strict set of laws anyway. I am just saying not being able to determine this may create an effect that is not deterministic. Despite the order of things, there can be essentially no reason or cause for that order. Everything is just random, including the laws of physics.

I was really just questioning what is guiding the body. Is it our consciousness, or is our consciousness what is being guided? So if consciousness can only operate in a world that hasn't been determined, why would we assume that, if consciousness guides the body to some degree, that our bodies are acting totally in accord with physical laws, and aren't in some way doing things at complete random?

My problem with this is that the initial conditions themselves are completely random.

 

You don't have to know anything about the information recorded for it to exist. You could have a floppy disk, and without putting in the drive and reading it, it still has information on it, whether or not you've read it or not, or know anything about the information there. Let's go even further and say that this is a disk that's never been written by anyone conscious. Given enough time (a century, 100 centuries ...), cosmic rays and such effects will cause the magnetic domains on the disk to flip, recording the information of it's history. You dont have to read it for the information to exist, and once you do read it, it may appear as garbage corrupt data, but it's still information. It is not required that it be meaningful to you. And it existed as the magnetic state of the disk before you decided to read it.

 

I disagree. The sense of it being meaningful or not meaningful still requires Consciousness. The concept of the passing of Time needs Consciousness to be aware of its existence. Information needs Awareness for there to be any information.

 

I can see why my point may be considered obtuse, but I find it to be a very important fact. No phenomena essentially exists without Consciousness of it. It's easily overlooked and taken for granted, but it makes a huge difference between the paradigm that the Universe exists independent of you and the paradigm that the Universe exists within you.

 

So you think that before the origin of the first sentient beings, that the universe simply did not exist?

 

"Besides, generation gaps provide the understanding that expertise doesn't really boil down to age. A lot of people my age and younger know 20 times more about computers than most 50 year-olds, for example."


This is just lame, CCS...and another agesist stabbing comment, i feel.....I am surprised people of this intelligence would even go there.

Different people have different aptitudes and affinities and interests, i may add.....If I spent all of my waking hours learning computers and understanding them, i would get it, but I really have no interest in it, for example.

 

I don't think it's obtuse China. I think it's very important. Phenomena and consciousness are inseparable as a matter of fact, and you can't really just say "They're two different things. One has nothing to do with the other." It's a problem we can just set aside, I suppose, and ignore, but we can't say it's been answered.

 

I know you're asking China, but I think the universe is meaningless chaos in the absence of consciousness. I don't think it really existed, as such, certainly not in a meaningful way. Time could just be the way the mind happens to order chaos, but all things are actually happening simultaneously. Sorry I will mind my own business now.

 

Honestly, I feel that the Universe is eternal, as is non-local Consciousness. But I feel that Consciousness is at the root of the seed or birthing or whatever you want to call it of the Universe.

Have you heard of the Alain Aspect experiment of 1982, or the Gisin experiment of 1997? I am admittedly new on to the scene of Quantum Mechanics, but my new interest in it comes from my interest in Esoteric studies.

Putting aside the notion that all of reality is Consciousness just for a moment, from what I am reading, it looks as if it has already been shown time and again that physical reality is non-local. The first experiment showed Quantum non-locality over the distance of 13 meters, the second experiment covered 7 miles, which is quite vast on quantum scales. It very well may be that Non-Locality is the underlying principle of the entire Cosmos.

These implications prior to the experiments happening even made Einstein uneasy, and John Bell in 1964. Einstein called it "spooky actions at a distance". And yes, the implications are enormous.

 

I am not arguing for the existence of a god. I have no need of such a hypothesis, nor do I find it a tenable one.

You are assuming that the only possible higher order would have to be a supernatural deity? Not even remotely! A higher order in this context means simply physical events happening above our level of understanding. Events happening in higher dimensions for example.

You should look up "Flatland", to understand why the strange occurences of QM may be "nothing more" than simple events occuring in higher dimensions. Higher dimensions are regularly invoked in QM so it is parismonious.

For example, here is a GIF animation of what a 3d sphere would look like to inhabitants of a 2d world if that sphere passed through their dimension.

The left part of the image is the 3d portion of the event happening, and the right part is what the 2d people see. Mysteriously, a circle appears out of nowhere, grows, shrinks, and then disappears. Seems pretty random! I bet those 2d people are thinking that the laws of physics are completely bunk and the universe makes no sense

http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/math/4d/sphere-slice/Sphere-Slice/Sphere-Slice.gif

Be careful not to confuse the term "random" for the term "arbitrary". There is a subtle but deep difference there; I believe what you mean is that initial conditions are seemingly arbitrary; you actually don't have enough data to determine whether they are random. Keep in mind "random" is quite a technical term in a context like QM.

Also keep in mind that if everything is random, that still does not grant free will. That means that you too, as an entity in this universe, are random, being pulled and pushed this way and that way by probabilistic quantum effects. All you've done is replace the clockwork universe for the dice roll universe; there is still no causal agent we have found.

All neurological data points strongly to consciousness being guided. You are familiar with the famous experiments which show that our brain decides on a decision milliseconds before we consciously believe we ourselves have "made" that decision? Science is replete with such findings.

"consciousness can only operate in a world that hasn't been determined", how do you conclude this? I don't follow. I think consciousness could exist in a world which follows laws, even probabilistic ones. It's just that the consciousness would not actually have "free will" in the sense traditionally conceived. That is an illusion.

Here's 2 short videos totalling less than 10 minutes to get the same point across in a different format.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ebjk319Wg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmO5uwzFg0M

[while doing research for this post I have come across some new information regarding entropy, information theory, and QM which may undermine determinism. i'm going to look into that and present my findings if they are interesting]

 

I don't think that God has to mean supernatural deity. God just means Higher order or power.

Also keep in mind that if everything is random, that still does not grant free will. That means that you too, as an entity in this universe, are random, being pulled and pushed this way and that way by probabilistic quantum effects. All you've done is replace the clockwork universe for the dice roll universe; there is still no causal agent we have found.

They can't find it because they can't find what Consciousness is, or account for how it just appears out of nowhere. Consciousness is the causal agent and is what is autonomous within every being.

 

And still, there's Consciousness, witnessing through Scientific tools the milliseconds between the sub-conscious part of our brain and our conscious decision-making . Consciousness is yet again primary.