Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

You are hearing the thunder "now" as it sounds "now" in your present location. However, since you saw the flash 10 seconds ago, and light travels much faster than sound, you know that what you heard was sound waves that originated 10 seconds ago. So you are hearing it as it sounds to you "now" in your present time and location, but what made the sound happened in the past (and 10 *sound-seconds* distance away from you) even though you just now heard it after the sound waves finally reached you.

 

Aren't we just debating how weird the world is when we talk about time? Either we're literally peering into the past sometimes, or only the now ever exists. Neither of these scenarios seems a perfectly ordinary way of viewing the world to me. Both have strange implications, don't they?

 

Boy---I really screwed up the end of that post---I had taken some nigthtime flu medicine and I guess it was hitting me at that time.

I'm not sure if you are saying the same thing as I am or not... ;-)

Let me get right to the point:

I believe that in the physical sense, only the present exists, nothing else. That present moment of now is no greater than one Planck Time. Once it happens it is gone and no longer exists n a physical sense. All three physical dimensions exist within that moment, and all physical existents within that moment manifest because of simulataneous probability wave collapses.

There is also a timeless 4th dimension. Our experience of the fourth dimension is that planck time---which is the time it takes light to cross 1 planck length---represents time (planck length and planck time work out to space-time). In truth though, the fourth dimension is a dimension of superpositioned waves. There is no physical in the fourth dimension because there is no specific point in space-time--that only happens in the present when a probability wave collapse collapses a wave to a single particle.

When we look at a star that is 4 million light years away, only the present still exists. But we do see that phenomena that from our present perspective has traveled 4 million light years, and is representive of a physical moment 4 million years ago that produced the phenomena. But time (the present) is localized, so the moment that produced that light no longer exists. In fact all phenomena tracels to us from the past. If your computer screen is 1 foot away from your face, it takes light 1 nanosecond to travel from the screen to your eyes, therefore you are looking 1 light nanosecond into the past, a past that no longer exists.

 

What if consciousness is non-local pertaining to both distance and time? That is, my consciousness in the present can effect other conscious entities in the past. Would this imply that the past exists, or would you still be able to fit this in the paradigm of only the present existing somehow?

 

Good question----To answer that let me start with this---my philosophy begins with basic Cartesian skepticism by going back to Descarte's First Principle:

'I think therefore I am.'


However he then takes this principle and projects it out into objectivist conclusions, whereas I keep the focus on the subjective (I am therefore not Cartesian).

My second principle is a second conclusion or truth he could have made, but did not:

I exist in time therefore it is here and now. (In other words, I can only know that the here and now exists.)


The third principle gets its validity from the second two:

I can remember, perceive, and intend, therefore I transcend the physical present. (The past and future do exist---but in the mind. If only the present has physical existence then we must transcend that physical existence as conscious beings.)


These cover the three a priori that Kant talks about---space, time, and self. All three principles are a priori, but the third one is a synthetic a priori, solving the problem of Metaphysics which Kant points out in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics---basically, 'how can Metaphysics be a science if it cannot demonstrate how a synthetic a priori is possible?'

But to your question, mind therefore is nonlocal pertaining to both time and space, but the problem is that if the only thing that exists physically is the present, then we cannot actually change the past. If the universe is a hologram of eternal present existence, Then the physical past now is gone forever. The paradox, as demonstrated by the Wheeler Delayed Observation version of the double slit experiment, is that we seem to be able to change the past.

According to Archephenomenalism that past is phenomena emanating from a past event. Theoretically scientists use the example of placing the double slits many light years away, (let’s say 100 light years away), and using the light from a star that is about that distance from us. However the rest of the experiment is here on earth---the screen for collecting the interference pattern or the slit pattern, and a device to try to measure how many particles go through each slit. When no measurement takes place—it registers an interference pattern. The light has travelled 100 years as a wave. But then when we measure it, the light suddenly becomes a double slit pattern, leaving scientists to conclude that the light has traveled 100 years as particles. They are then perplexed and say that the evidence is that we changed the way light moved through the slits 100 years ago.

But remember, I said that only the present exists in the physical sense, and that while it is the same present clear across the universe, it is also localized. From our holographic physical perspective, that light is approaching us from our future not our past. This is because it has not yet been perceived in the physical present. It may have left an atom on a star a little over a hundred years ago. But from that point on it has existed only as a probability wave in the timeless 4th dimension. It is in our future until that moment that we measure it, and then suddenly it acts as a particle, as if its whole path was a particle, because for that brief moment of now-----it is a particle and we have shaped the phenomena as if it is a particle. (But then the moment is gone, and it is super-positioned again, but we have a record of it as a particle.)

Transcending space and time means that we can shape the present, and that we exist beyond the physical present. Could we actually go back and influence Hitler? Maybe it is possible but we do not know how, and it is not what we do naturally. Besides, when you get down to it, what we can do consciously is what we know/believe we can do.

However being able to do this would be contrary to my philosophy---the present already happened with Hitler in it---him and his actions have already manifested in a physical sense, which no longer exists. The paradox here is that since the 4th dimension is timeless, then it is possible that all the energy patterns are still there, so is it possible to change it from the nonphysical 4th dimension? The implication here is also that time travel is impossible----unless our presence within a past non-physical point allows for the physical to remanifest, i.e. that we as a conscious existent allows the probability wave collapses to once again happen in that present moment. But this is all conjecture because the only thing we can truly know is that only the present exists in a physical sense. (An example of an archephenomalist science fiction story is that we actually do discover time travel, and someone travels back in time and kills Hitler as a baby. But then he returns and discovers that nothing changed. So he goes back to observe what happened. Sure enough he kills Hitler, but then when he left that timeline everything reverted back to the way it was--because he only changed the specific now where he was present. This is just as feasible as any other scenario because again, time travel is conjectural based on my philosophy.)

Likewise it implies that AI will never achieve true sentience, because AI is subject to the physical present. For example, computers will always be trapped by their parameters of memory, they do not have Husserlian retention. A good example of this is listening to a musical masterpiece. People can be moved to tears----because we retain a sense of the melody from moment to moment---we don’t have to remember it over and over again to understand the whole song---the experience of the song is complete in itself. On the other hand, if you saved a digital recording of a song into your computer, do you think the computer could ever understand how the data when sequentially listened to is a masterpiece that could bring one to tears? Each bit of data it plays is simply a new point of data producing sound in its speaker. There is no retained awareness from one moment to the next. At best it has a programmed set of data that it is currently using, no more...

 

I'm not thinking of time travel in the most literal sense. But I mean, to watch a video is *sort of* time travel. It's firsthand witnessing another place and time. So if I watched a video of Hitler, wouldn't both of our consciousnesses, Hitler's and mine, occupying this other dimension not limited to the present, be able to communicate in "real time", thus causing me to influence the past physically by watching the video? Keeping in mind that knowing, myself, what the future holds in store for Hitler, I naturally know that I couldn't change Hitler into a peaceful humanitarian by watching the video. But could I cause him to have something as small as a facial twitch, perhaps?

My consciousness can't change the past, but can it be a part of the past and change the future (however small that change may be)?

 

As a Post-Modernist I would say that the video is nothing but simulacra, imitation—as you said, it is “sort of” looking at back then. But as Archephenomenalism would state that you are aware of a past history---this is why from a mental aspect, it would be very hard for you to change past history, because not only has it already happened, but you already know what happened, along with everyone else who has seen the video, watched anything on that period, lived through it, listened to their parents and grandparents talk about it, etc. etc. Your beliefs as well as the collective beliefs of all of humanity would make it extremely difficult to change history from mental intention, not to again mention the fact that it already happened.

Would you be able to give him a facial twitch? The problem here is as follows. It would be harder to do it for a longer period of time because of all those who were aware that he did not have a facial twitch. Therefore it would be easier to do it over a short period of time, like a minute or two, especially if no one was looking. The next problem is that you are here---in the here and now. You are trapped by your ego which filters out all nonessential stimuli and reality, in order to maintain a physical, personality-consistent, you. Therefore you would need to tap into your subconscious in order to do this. There are many ways to do this from the archaic to the modern, from the spiritual, hallucinatory, or to the supernatural methods. Some work, some are a gimmick or a scam, and others may not allow the results you want. The next problem would be that you cannot think you can do it, nor can you believe that you can do it---you literally and truly have to know you can do it. Then with intention it would be possible—but that is breaking the principles---but then Archephenomenalism holds that the mind can do anything.

So, I guess I should answer the OP about determinism. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that there are two kinds of probability wave collapses---those produced through decoherence (the interaction of particles or quanta), and those produced through conscious awareness or knowledge. As I demonstrated in my first post in this thread, if decoherence was used to solve the probability wave collapse in the double slit experiment (as those who do not accept the conscious impact of the observer try to argue) then we should have never gotten an interference pattern to begin with. And here everyone is arguing over the double slit experiment without realizing that researchers have demonstrated that the Zeno Effect is real----which is even harder to chalk up to decoherence, because decoherence is already built into the problem.

Decoherence is like the Tao---it is the existing path of nature, the trends played out, natural entropy manifested. Archephenomenalism would argue that because there is a consistency of form and reality, that despite the uncertainty principle, because determinism is even an argument, and other things, all point to the possibility that Idealism or some form of consciousness is behind decoherence. But archephenomenalism, in the spirit of allowing multiplistic beliefs would allow also for a materialist explanation of decoherence, though such an answer leaves many questions about the points I made at the beginning of this paragraph.

The evidence that conscious awareness does cause probability wave collapses, or at least how they play out, demonstrates our own free will, our existential freedom. Our fate is not predetermined because we can change how the present plays out, and how the future will be. But just as we observe so does every other sentient being---this is what makes change difficult. We need to ‘know’ in order to change, stronger than everyone else believes. If everyone believes, for example, that you are a loser, you can still succeed, but you have to make that reality happen with knowledge or awareness strong enough to offset their beliefs.

Here is a possible example of how the double slit experiment plays out, or more correctly, how we shape reality, every night---It is known as Olber’s Paradox. When the sun goes down, it is natural that it is dark----after all, the sun is our major light source on earth, and we watch the sky get darker as it goes down. Even on a full moon, there is not enough light to light the night sky---or so we assume. Olber’s Paradox demonstrates that the night sky should not be black, that there is enough light that we should not have a dark sky. Just as a galaxy itself is not dark. This paradox is actually fairly old, and there have been many attempts to resolve it, but none have totally solved it once and for all. At one point it was relegated to a mere philosophical problem until the early 60’s when it was again realized to be a scientific issue----especially with EBL (Extragalactic Background Light).

But of course, the night sky is dark, right?

 

If a part of me is timeless and can influence the past, does this really change past history? Or is it just exactly like past history, because the past history always was influenced by my timeless consciousness which exists independently of the physical barriers of this world?

I like that you say this, because I was imagining this to be the case, but had a difficult time phrasing why it would be easier to impact more recent events than more distant ones. Very interesting!

 

To the OP...yes The Uncertainty Principle is incompatible with Determinism, by definition. Determinism states that everything can be predicted if all the variables are accounted for. Indeterminism shows that you have to choose whether to attempt to measure either the velocity or the position of the electron, and whichever attempt you choose automatically blurs the knowledge of the other. The initial conditions for the calculation of a particle's trajectory can never be determined with accuracy, and the concept of a sharply defined trajectory is untenable.

Since not all of the variables can be accounted for, this by definition doesn't fit in with Determinism.

 

You're actually mistaken, as were several people in this thread. This is not what determinism states. It says nothing about our ability to measure or predict; that is an epistemic discussion.

The Uncertainty Principle is as you describe it; the two have little if anything in common. Someone else said it well:

Continuing with the example of determinism, one of the most oft-used counter-arguments is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This is the principle that claims "precise inequalities that constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the present position while determining future momentum of a particle. Both cannot be simultaneously done to arbitrarily high precision. In other words, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known." Everyone knows that the principle cannot give free will, but some suggest that it invalidates determinism.

How?

In the same regard, the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics is said to be indeterminate, that is, the measurements of an observable at the quantum level is said to have an indeterminate value. Stated more simply, the value is not determinable via our current methods of observation. This is another "lack of knowledge" position, just as the first one is.

Do these kind of "lack of knowledge" positions invalidate or otherwise lessen the strength of determinism as a theory? I'm having difficultly conceiving why there is any conflict. A lack of knowledge or understanding simply means we need to find out more before we know for sure. Some of the greatest minds of quantum theory asserted this (Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky). In fact, they wrote a paper where they went on to say that there must be "hidden variables" which haven't been accounted for which allow for strict determinacy. That was in 1935. 76 years later (as of this post), some physicists have seemed to have ruled out "local hidden variables", but global hidden variables and other explanations are still very much on the table. Again, we just don't know enough yet. It doesn't seem to follow that uncertainty about certainty can disprove certainty.

I have one further example that might help clarify: As you know, given the nature of science we may very well never be 100% absolutely, objectively "certain" about anything; but that doesn't mean all our theories are invalid. For example: I am uncertain that my aunt's apple pies are made with handpicked apples. I don't see how my uncertainty about the nature of the apple pies has any effect whatsoever on the actual possibility of the composition of the pies. Either the apple pies are made from handpicked apples, or they aren't. My uncertainty about it does not make either possibility more or less probable.


To recap, the universe could be deterministic, and your inability to measure all deterministic events says nothing about determinism and everything about your ability to measure things.

We can't measure or predict weather too well at all, yet weather is 100% deterministic and physical. This is an argument against current core processing speeds on supercomputers, not an argument for weather being the result of working outside the laws of physics!

 

Consciousness is a real thing too. If a human being's consciousness cannot determine something, then can a human being's consciousness be said to be deterministic? The electron itself may not be a big question mark; it may have a determined position and velocity we can't measure. But the effect on a human is a big question mark, and is that question mark a real, physical thing? And how can a question mark be said to be either deterministic or non-deterministic.

Again, I think it comes back to the arbitrary nature of the universe. For it to be deterministic or non-deterministic always insinuates a cause that has some higher meaning or purpose than its factual, true nature as a thing. And this true nature is simply inexplicable. It is what it is. The best we could do is to give it a name, but then there is going to be disagreement as to whether or not it's a fitting name.

 

"In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states:[1]

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

76 years later, there still has been no hidden variables found, and according to Bell, even if they were found, it wouldn't matter.

The only thing that I have come across is some Scientists re-introducing the pilot-wave theory. What are your thoughts on that?

It seems that if there is any hidden variable present, it would be the observer itself.

I can agree that one must be open-minded towards these hidden variables, but one must also be open-minded that perhaps the nature of reality is indeterministic by nature. If there are hidden variables, then find them. One can't simply assume they are there because one would rather think that there is one. That's not Science.

 

But if the nature of reality is indeterministic afterall, then no wonder we can't predict the weather completely accurately. Do you know for certain what will happen tomorrow? Can you ever know with 100 percent accuracy exactly and precisely how your life will unfold? You can argue that all it takes is smart enough computers, but until you can literally know exactly how everything will unfold, existence proves itself to be indeterministic.

 

Indeterminism doesn't imply that events don't have prior causes. What it is saying, however, is that the prior causes' only trajectory isn't necessarily the event that follows. In other words, you can still have causality without determinism. A quantum event may have been the cause, but the nature of that quantum event was itself a probability, not a certainty.

 

One would probably need to adopt a level of Causal Skepticism like that of Hume to not be able to make some predictions about what will happen in their lives tomorrow or how life unfolds. Barring confounding variables, most people have a general idea of some causal events that will take place tomorrow or within their life. ( I.E. If they live long enough they may predict they grow Old)

Asking to guess to a 100 percent accuracy is obfuscating the point you are responding to, as it's understood that we (including our technologies) have limits within the "system" we are apart of.

 

Sure, you can make predictions on the probabilities of what will happen tomorrow. Probabilities, not certainties.

It is being suggested that it's not about ability to predict. OK, that's fine. But we have to address the experiments of Alain Aspect in 1982 in regards to Bell's Theorem. These tests have shown without a doubt that Bell's Inequality is violated experimentally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UxYKN1q5sI

I'm just with Niels Bohr on this one. The ground of reality is potential, not certainty. If it was certainty, then show me some certainty.

 

^ As is often the case with these inquiries you ask, I am a bit lost as to what the discrepancy between prediction and future certainty you are making.

But Quantum level is different than the macroscopic level of reality, as is acknowledged below.

 

What I wonder is, how can mistakes occur in a deterministic world? What are our intentions, such that we try to do things one way, it comes out another, and we call it a mistake.

If this is a deterministic world, we can never know it, because the consequence of truly believing there are no mistakes is automatically deadly. We wouldn't survive the first hour.

 

Various tests have been done that show nonlocality on the macrocosmic level, such as entangled diamonds.

It could be lack of knowledge, or it could be lack of acceptance.

 

Aside from a mistake being subjective, the fact we find ourselves in a dynamic, changing environment amongst a dynamic, changing cosmos allows for mistakes to take place. And a I mentioned in post #595 we have limits.

I think I agree with you that we could probably never know if the universe is ultimately deterministic, but for me it's more similar to the issue with attaining light speed travel. I think the increase in power to be able to accurately determine systems, or parts of the cosmos, inherently causes other parts of the cosmos to change and Perhaps at a certain point to not resemble determined systems.