Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

Yes this has been discussed, but when I later provided my argument against the dogmatic scientific status quo conclusions---no one has really responded with a challenge of what I posited.

There is no need for a conscious observer to determine existence because of decoherence. A whole universe could exist without any life as we know it, because probability waves would still bounce against each other, and their mutual positions would be determined causing a probability wave collapse.

Scientists first attempted to measure the particles going through the slits decades after the original experiment (I think it was decades---I’m not going to take the time to double check the time). While the experiment demonstrated that light acted as a wave, the photoelectric effect told them that it had to also act as a particle. So they attempted to see how many particles were actually going through each slit. They definitely expected to find particles, because it would make no sense to try to measure a wave in that fashion. I don’t think they expected to have the interference pattern change. But they had an expectation that was confirmed when the particles were measured. In fact, I guess one could say it was even greater than an expectation—their math and theories predicted it, and they were pretty sure they would find it. When they did find it, and their theories and beliefs were confirmed, there was no question of the reality that was occurring----the reflection of the double slits was the icing on the cake----except that it brought new and fairly troubling questions…

Flying and levitating pizza to your mouth is not something you could ever honestly believe, so it will never happen. Even if you tried to believe it, your experience in life would always leave serious doubts---so it will never happen.

What if we were to go for something less elaborate-----let’s say I suggested that you could use your mind to change how blood coagulates, or how quickly an insect larva develops, or that you could use your mind to change the .ph of water. Then let’s say that you spent all night trying to do just that----and the next morning we check, and it is probably pretty much guaranteed that you would fail miserably. Because this is, after all, just mind over matter mumbo jumbo. Right?

Well, researchers at MIT have done experiments where they have done just that, as well as other amazing things. I wrote about it in a previous post that I think was also ignored. The experiments were so effective that they realized they had to separate the control experiment because the experiments (i.e. the intentions) were bleeding over into the control experiments. These experiments are well documented including details on how to repeat the experiment. In the previous post I listed the researchers, that you can use to pull up their publication on this----I think there is even a .pdf available online.

 

Watch it from 23 minutes to 27 minutes. What it is saying is that the state isn't determined until the moment of observation. It is saying that no hidden variable is at play. The state isn't determined until the moment of measurement.

Observing instruments are useless without Observers! The observing instruments were put there to be used by Observers. A telescope is nothing without being looked through, in other words.

at 30 minutes, Bohm goes on to say that QM implies that we are dealing with a Whole, and that everything is "Unified in a deep way that is foreign to classical mechanistic concepts". You can't leave the observer out of the equation if everything is Unified.

In regards to the Objective part that you are speaking of. All that it is saying there is that Entanglement is just the stuff of Nature, as opposed to having the knowledge that the other glove is the right-hand glove because you have knowledge that the first glove is a left-hand glove.

In the Aspect experiment, they even refined it to make sure that the measuring device wasn't creating any disturbance. And yet, the very presence of the observing device changed the outcome. This is also shown here, where the very presence of the measuring device, despite not actually physically effecting the electron, forces it to behave as a particle rather than as a wave.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

 

Go to 35 minutes to 36 minutes. He goes on to say that we are participators in the creation of the Universe "through our choice". He then says that "we have no right to say that the Past exists independent of our observation of it"...

 

38:20-39:00 he goes on to say how right before Bohr died that he said that it isn't appreciated that we can learn something from Nature, and that the complimentary description of Nature, "where we have a part, in the very asking of our questions, in bringing about what happens", is the only possible description of Nature.

 

Update on the penny test. I have repeated it. Once again, 20 flips, and the side that I picked won the Probability battle.

 

"Bohr said you have to consider everything as a whole; the system that is measured and the system that YOU measure".

 

The 10-11 minute mark it goes to say how Einstein felt it preposterous that either the observer and/or the observing equipment would in anyway effect the outcome. He finished this thought with the remark, "if a person such as a mouse looks at the Universe, does that change the state of the Universe?" He said this to defend his view that it is preposterous that any act of Observation could have anything to do with any of it. So I think that he really isn't separating the Observer and the Observing equipment, as the equipment is useless without the observer.

at 12:20 it says how "Einstein wanted to demonstrate that it was possible to perceive a part of reality without it being disturbed by the measuring apparatus"...what this is saying is that Einstein wanted to show that Reality is "out-there", separate from the one Observing it.

 

Hey! I graduated from high school.

Well, first of all, it shouldn’t take you a decade to do this because it is undergraduate work. Second of all, I don’t know if QM really involves the most difficult mathematics on earth (though it is quite profound). It looks complicated, but it’s like learning a language. Second of all, if I really wanted to do a Fourier Transform of the Schrodinger Equation, there are plenty of resources on the internet to demonstrate it step by step---not to mention the finished results of various forms---time dependent, time independent, particle in a box, whatever…

When I was a naïve Securities analyst back in the ‘80s I attempted to experiment with a Fourier Transform of market cycles-----it impressed a lot of people, raised my professional credibility. But I quickly realized that in the financial markets it was as useful as a pile of bull shit-----and I tried to tell people that. But people wouldn’t listen and wanted me to continue forecasting with it----it was over people’s heads and brought a lot of money in…

But I can talk up and down about the Schrodinger equation, or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and that’s all I need right now. I can use Einstein’s equations to demonstrate that the speed of light is the speed of time. I can demonstrate mathematically how light moves through time and not space. I wouldn’t consider myself an expert on Dirac Notation, but I can muddle my way through it, especially enough to get a good handle on decoherence. In other words, the things I write about I Have a good handle on including the math. Yes, I do think I could help you do that----I might spend 10 or 15 minutes, or maybe an hour going over the process on the web first, but I bet I could…

You are right about one thing, I am not a Quantum Physicist. I am too humble to say I am a philosopher. But I will say that I present a philosophy that does some significant things. For one thing, it successfully answers a question that Kant raised, a question that, unanswered effectively put an end to metaphysics as a philosophy. My philosophy is also a response to Stephen Hawking, when he claimed in 2012 that philosophy is dead and that it hasn’t even kept up with the advancements of science (clearly referring to Einstein and QM).

I have not been published for quite a few years---in the past it was because of conflict of interest issues. But I left my career at the beginning of 2012 to pursue writing what I have worked on for some time now. I am still not marketing it because it is not finished to a point where I want to risk putting it out there. I do not want to put out a piece of pseudo-science, or pseudo-philosophy that will end up in New Age bookstores. Therefore I have reached out to several Quantum Physicists----one of them was too wrapped up in the materialist dogma that is the status quo, however there are two others who I have review my positions and tutor me, or whatever the case is. If I really needed to do a Fourier Transform of the Schrodinger Equation, either one of them would help me. They are both very fascinated with what I bring to them, and they are very supportive. It has been expressed that I push things where they would like to push them, but in today’s professional scientific circles, it would be career suicide for them. But they are there to make sure I am not writing bullshit.

But I am not the only one. There are numerous philosophers today whose opinions in cosmology and QM are highly respected, despite the fact that they too are not scientists. Scientific American, for example, has published articles from such philosophers, and they are quoted in many of their articles. (Though Hawking is right----in the English speaking world, where Analytic philosophy is the norm, philosophy----at a time it is needed the most----has devolved into word games.)

I can pretty much assure you, that the things I write and share here are not, “…dumbed down, analyzed, and simplified by someone else.” I am always watching out for someone else who has the same or very similar opinions, and ideas. In fact, it is something I worry about—especially since the books are not getting finished as quickly as I had planned. I also worry that I share too much, but it is amazing how much of the discourse, even in this forum, helps my writing process. Part of my problem is how to dumb it down----I want at least some of my final product to be readable by a wide audience not just academic circles. Also people’s challenges and comments help add insight or sometimes give me a new perspective.

You are actually quite naïve on professional credibility and what not. You must really buy into this persona of the high priests of Quantum Mechanics. Either that or you’re just putting me down. If what you are saying is true, the few scientists that actually meet your criteria must be living on a continuous meth high, and have somehow each learned how to put out multiple new research papers a second. New research results are coming out at an exponential rate much greater than even 5 or 10 years ago.

Yes, it could take a few years to gain enough respect to easily enable your research to pass peer review. But you also make it sound like every credible Quantum Physicist is a genius capable of understanding thought processes well above that of most mortal men. And that they are infallible. But that just isn’t true. Granted it is not easy to get a .phd, and you learn quite a bit in the process. But far too many scientists have an ego problem, they face a system that is designed to rigidly preserve the status quo, and not all of them are that smart---they speak the language and have done the work, but something is lacking. It is usually the creativity and the ability to think outside of the box. I am not saying they are all like this---but they don’t quite fit the high priest persona either. This is akin to a doctor who misdiagnoses a condition or who does not do a good job treating you. (Seriously---since a bad experience with a doctor in Japan in my 20’s, I have always kept a professional Merck Manual to double check a doctor’s prognosis. And I have questioned doctors, and in many cases I was glad I did. That is not an unusual story.) I can tell you, for example, that over 90% of the people in the financial markets do not deserve the persona that institutions, other professionals, and the public give to them. (I will add that I was authentic---but I am a true hippie----I didn’t fall into the status quo, and I continuously questioned and challenged. I got quite a few people out of the markets in December 2007, and back in at the bottom in March 2009----against the status quo advice.)

A case in point----about 7 or so years ago, a group of researchers decided to test the peer review process. They submitted a bogus paper, which looked very impressive. It passed with high accolades. Further research showed that some very good bona fide papers did not pass at the time this one did. (Newscientist is one place where you can read about this.) Most any scientist who is at all authentic and not seduced or fooled by the system will tell you that you could submit a very good paper with valid and significant data to back it up, but if it does not fit the current dogma, you stand a good chance of not passing peer review.

Yes you are right. Einstein never used any mundane insight from a simpler time in his life to come up with his theories. Or any kind of notion he gained from everyday life. He was so amazing that he never even needed the input of his mathematics professor to come up with something pivotal, like the 4th dimension, or to apply geodesic geometry to his theories. And he certainly never did anything as silly as a gendankenexperiment (thought experiment) ----it was all math, and it was all his doing.

…Oh wait----none of that’s true. He did do thought experiments, he was working on a hunch from his more mundane life, and so forth…

Wait a minute-----you wrote earlier that you could not do a Fourier Transform of the Schrodinger Equation----something that is undergraduate work in Quantum Mechanics, and which, I assure you there are quite a few .pdf’s from college classes all over the Nation on the internet that will walk you through this step by step (at least as long as you understand the Schrodinger equation, and have a bit of understanding of the Fourier Transform) and then you will accuse me of being an armchair physicist with a “NEAR ZERO” understanding of QM, and then top it off by concluding that QM itself, is deeply flawed---oh excuse me, “…is likely deeply flawed.”

And yet it is so damned predictive----even to the point where the distribution of mass throughout the cosmos is predicted by quantum fluctuation darn near perfectly.

It is strange though---the idea that we are missing something HUGE. Sometimes it is applied to something we don’t understand. But usually this is applied to something that suggests a result or implication contrary to the existing dogma of science. It is like trying to explain something to a religious nut flake.

Tell you what, if you're really interested in playing the Quantum Physics game, why waste our time on something as simple as trying to Fourier Transform the Schrodinger Equation. Why don’t you tell me what is wrong with my conclusions on decoherence within the Double Slit Experiment----or in the recent Cornell experiments on the Zeno Effect?

To say that something is missing or that we don’t understand it is a cop out-----the evidence is right there. It is happening right in front of us. Scientists, for example, are still unable to define what inertia really is-----but we use it all the time, and understand what its presence means.

Anyway point out what is wrong so I can show the two Quantum Physicists that help me, what they missed.

 

What are your thoughts on the effects of the measuring apparatus vs. the conscious observer effecting the interference?

I get what guerillabedlam is saying. He's arguing that it isn't the conscious observer that's effecting the outcome, it's the measuring apparatus itself that is causing the disturbance. But, if he were to watch that segment again, this is what the EPR argument was.

What I'm saying is that it's still one and the same. If we could put our eyeballs right up there to measure it, we would. But we can't see sub-atomic particles with the naked eye, so we put a measuring apparatus there instead. That measuring apparatus is still dependent on our observation to have any meaning whatsoever, and even if we left the measuring apparatus there in the "off" position to see if it's literally the apparatus influencing the outcome, this would be just as inconclusive as if we didn't have a measuring apparatus there at all, as we wouldn't be able to decipher what the state of the electron is without the functioning of the measuring apparatus. In other words, our attempts to measure at all are what's influencing the outcome.

This seems to me to be exactly what Bohr was saying, as the next part of the segment shows at around the 17:00 mark where Bohr says "that you cannot consider separately the various pieces of a measurement"..."everything is a Whole; the system that is measured and the system that you measure".

What this means to me is that Bohr felt that QM implied a Oneness, or Wholeness, and that everything is not separate. He's also saying that the installing of the measuring apparatus shouldn't be seen as separate from the experiment, which to me translates to that the act of Observation shouldn't be seen as separate from what's being observed.

So this whole issue of Conscious Observer vs. measuring apparatus seems to be dealing with the same difference. If we don't attempt to measure each electron individually, then it will appear as a wave. If we decide to zoom in and measure each electron individually, then it will appear as a particle. It is a reflection of our Choice, in other words.

"Physics or Science in general isn't about Nature, it's about Nature exposed to our Observation". -Bohr

in 1965, Bell realized that this wasn't just a matter of taste, but something that if you followed Einstein, you would get different predictions and results in regards to Bell's Inequality than if you followed Bohr's line of thinking, which would violate Bell's Inequality.

So that's why in 1982, these experiments were carried out. What was concluded from the experiment is that the states of the photons ARE NOT predetermined (23 minute mark of the video). They are ONLY determined at the moment of Observation. Determinism fails here, at least in the Quantum world, and the Nonlocal entanglement of both states isn't decided until the act of measurement. This shows that these properties weren't there, already pre-determined, prior to the act of observation.

 

I already unpacked that quote for you in the color coded section, it's a quoting out of context fallacy to not honor the quote amidst it's preceding descriptions.

I'm glad you get what I'm saying, I think that's about the best I can ask

I watched a brief segment again with that description and No.

 

All along I thought these QM threads were preparation for all of us to end up at CERN? I had planned to copy pasta most of these threads onto my resume as verification as my competency and knowledge amongst the biggest and brightest uncredentialed minds on the topic .

Have I been duped?

 

What do you disagree with?

The EPR argument is that you have the raw data, as it is, and then you have the measuring apparatus, somehow separate from the experiment, observing the raw data as it is, supposedly independent of our observation. Therefore, the Entanglement is due to some hidden variable, also independent, that isn't being accounted for.

The Bohr argument is that the measuring apparatus and the act of measurement itself is not separate from the experiment itself. In order to see sub-atomic particles, we have to use measuring apparatus, and the use of our measurement effects the outcome.

To imply that it is literally the measuring apparatus and not our observation that is causing the disturbance is to imply that the measuring apparatus is separate from the experiment, and is giving non-accurate results. This is why Einstein was determined to figure out a way to measure something without the measuring apparatus making a disturbance, as he felt that the pure state of the atom as it is is already there whether we look at it or not.

Bohr is saying that the observing is one and the same as the final result, and that you have no right to say anything about what the atomic world is outside of your observation of it, and that the state of the atom IS NOT there prior to observing it (something later proved by Aspect's experiment). Therefore, the disturbance of Observation cannot be escaped; it is interlinked.

We have to accept that we can't see sub-atomic particles with the naked eye, and the measuring apparatus is an extension of our Observation.

For all we know, even after the use of the measuring apparatus, the results are in a state of superposition until we look at the results. But there's no way to prove that, as every experiment ever is dependent upon our observation of it. There is simply no way to escape this profound but easily overlooked fact.

 

Yes I agree with you---and that is exactly the whole point of decoherence in the double slit experiment. (I wish I could watch the video but this computer has got some serious issues. My laptop does not pick up the wifi. the video chip on my other laptop is out, and my tablet just started acting up... It's time to get some new computers...)

My point is that they are determined at the time of observation or decoherence, or what might be the more likely possibility, that they are determined at the time of decoherence, but observation can shape how they are determined. (In the latter case it is always decoherence that causes the probability wave collapse, however the experiments on the Zeno Effect seems to point to a possibility of the observation even causing the collapse.) But the perception of it (observation) is where we realize its actuality.

The Wheeler Delayed Observation version of the experiment demonstrates that it does not matter when the observation is made, just that the phenomena is perceived in the present. The observation itself is obviously made after the measurement happens----again because we are dealing with subatomic particles. Yet it still influences how the phenomena is perceived.

People argue that it is the measurement itself that influences the outcome----I have even seen it described as "violent." I think it was Bohr that responded something to the effect that, "We are all the same atoms and electrons as the experiment and the measuring device."

Unfortunately the concept of decoherence first appeared in the 1970's about 2 decades after his death. It wasn't until the 1980's that research really began in it.


If the measurement itself influences the outcome, then, as I have pointed out, we should never get an interference pattern to begin with. Because the decoherence that occurs at the end of the experiment is the same decoherence that occurs when a particle is measured. The dogma within scientific circles is so thick that everyone refuses to see the obvious and continues to try to find some other explanation. Those who see it are mostly afraid to take a stand and fight the status quo.

The other problem that does not make sense to scientists, and this one is more justified, is the problem of time----that the measurement is made and the particle, moving is fast as it does, has already passed through the experiment even before the observer can start to realize what happened. And this is why the Wheeler Delayed Observation version is so important.

This is one of the reasons why I am now a Phenomenalist (as the father of phenomenalism, George Berekely said, "esse est percipi" (Existence is perception)). This is one of the reasons why I subscribe to a holographic universe, and why I assert that waves of energy are non-physical and of the 4th dimension, and define the physical as only those brief moments where a particle actually exists at a specific point in space-time----or actually, enough of a particle to produce the phenomena of that particle. It is our choice to do the observation. It is our awareness of the reality of it, because of our choice, that changes the probability encoding in the wave. It is the point that we percieve it that the change is realized.

There are scientists who openly support the significance of the observer. This is a very controversial subject. And I don't pretend to have the final answer to it. But I do have a strong philosophical argument in favor of the observer, and when I see research come out that truly challenges it, I will revise or change my views. The last thing I want to be is dogmatic and reductionist. I continuously challenge my own views (my hippie heritage at work). My philosophy even incorporates a deconstructionist aspect to it in hopes of resolving dualities and fending off reductionism.

And what if in the end, it is not the observer that alters the probability wave collapse in the double slit experiment? There is still peer-reviewed research, like that at MIT, which demonstrates with overwhelming statistical significance that we can in fact shape reality, based on our choices, at a Newtonian level. And I will still try to reconcile what I see and experience at an indigenous ceremonial level (being with people who have a whole different knowledge of reality----not leaps of faith, not beliefs that secretly harbor clouds of doubt-----a knowledge of reality, very different from that of Modern Western man).

 

Also, I might add, I do present a rational model of a universe that accounts for such paradoxes as entanglement, and mind.

I ask anyone----who else can say that?

 

If the Observer somehow had nothing to do with it, then where does that leave Consciousness, other than just unaccounted for? I find it very hard to argue that observation on the level of Consciousness has zero power in effecting quantum objects. Even on the macrocosmic level, it is glaringly obvious that observing plays a role. How can people know they are being watched from behind if Consciousness has no power? Why do people have stage-fright giving public talks, if Consciousness has no power? Why does staring at someone make them uncomfortable, if that Consciousness has no power? These are just a few obvious examples.

I'm done for now. Time to let my subconscious take over for a while.

 

Well between Chinacat's third alias now added to my ignore list (and he lectures me on being attached lol!) and a guy who wants us to believe he's seen cancer cured and rattles levitate because of native american spirit magic (which we must believe because he says it happened and if we don't then we're racist or materialist or i don't even know anymore), I don't see this discussion being much more useful. Adios, good luck cracking QM from your armchair, great philosopher.

 

Following that line of reasoning, just boomerang whatever negative energy there be back to its original source. Should take care of it....

 

That is the second time that he claims that I insinuate that if he doesn't believe me that he is a racist. I don't know where he gets that from. I may say that he is a materialist, but that's the argument he defends. I am always willing to hear how his beliefs or world view are different.

But in regards to Native ceremony, I have always insisted that it is something you have to experience yourself. I am sure that I have given him suggestions on how to connect with a Native community near him and then to attend ceremony. Especially among the Lakota, Dakota, or Nakota tribes (Sioux Tribes) where he would be more accepted, and especially to attend a house ceremony or yuwipi-----and to do it in a very respectable manner...


But what can I do----I'm only an armchair philosopher

 

I'm essentially wrong in thinking that anything is a mistake, though. Technically there are no mistakes. Everything simply runs in the only order it can. Yet I can't exist without thinking it's possible a mistake could occur, when it isn't possible that a mistake could occur. Why do we insist on believing it's possible a mistake could occur?

 

It's a phenomenon akin to an optical illusion; our minds were not designed "top down" with a grand plan in mind; they were built incrementally "bottom up", and there are significant imperfections in our minds just as in our bodies. Evolutionarily speaking, those of our ancestors who didn't have the ability to perceive and believe in mistakes did not survive as well as those of them that did, and were more cautious and careful as a result.