tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post6414017177681408609..comments2024-03-14T18:56:31.716-05:00Comments on Two Catholic Men and a Blog: Professor Ratzinger on Modern PhysicsJoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-90736715982063686782012-07-11T11:03:44.413-05:002012-07-11T11:03:44.413-05:00Anslem - Stephen Barr, a Cathotic blogger, makes a...Anslem - Stephen Barr, a Cathotic blogger, makes an almost identical comment to my line of reasoning on this interpretation of QM leading to solipsism. (see the comments section)<br />( http://bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god )Rationalist1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14461900851608484538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-73339862801561135512012-07-03T01:33:44.892-05:002012-07-03T01:33:44.892-05:00March Hare, as I understand the Belgian's pape...March Hare, as I understand the Belgian's paper (cited above), there is no time element involved for quantum entanglement. So there is no "before" or "after" for the delayed choice experiment. Which would mean for your thought experiment, that if you saw a single slit, on the record (for two measuring devices at each slit), the computer data would show it had gone through one slit and if you saw a diffraction pattern, the devices would show it had gone through both slits. Now the Belgian's derivation assumes no energy differences, so there is no time evolution in the solution of the state vector Schrodinger equation--I assume that's ok, but wonder about a more general case...anyhow, after reading the paper I think I understand it better.anselmhttp://rationalcatholicscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-47261436311560119532012-07-01T18:58:19.895-05:002012-07-01T18:58:19.895-05:00anselm, thanks - lots of good stuff there. hard o...anselm, thanks - lots of good stuff there. hard on my brain, as it should be!<br /><br />Duhem, I like much of what LW does, but I was there beforehand and, on this one, i'm not convinced.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-87304013532684208562012-06-29T20:31:30.661-05:002012-06-29T20:31:30.661-05:00March hare, with respect to color you may be inter...March hare, with respect to color you may be interested in a discussion of the problem of qualia ("what's it like to see red") as posed by the problem of "Mary's Room"; http://lesswrong.com/lw/5n9/seeing_red_dissolving_marys_room_and_qualia/<br />It also has to do with what is consciousness, and the physicalist/anti-physicalist views of consciousness.duhemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-18060869425049375762012-06-29T20:05:44.452-05:002012-06-29T20:05:44.452-05:00March Hare, the latest thoughts on the delayed cho...March Hare, the latest thoughts on the delayed choice experiment that I've encountered are in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3977v1.pdf<br />There's also good preliminary stuff in the Wikipedia article.anselmhttp://rationalcatholicscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-89812345450368117972012-06-29T17:58:40.419-05:002012-06-29T17:58:40.419-05:00As you said, most physicists don't worry about...As you said, most physicists don't worry about the interpretation--but that's very much like accepting that a car starts up when you turn the key, but not knowing why that won't work occasionally. Interpretations of QM (or any physical theory) are constructed to fit the theory and empirical data so in general they can't be falsified (but see below), so the choice between models is to some extent a matter of philosophical taste, as your comments suggest. So interpretations lie in a ambiguous borderland between science and philosophy. To my knowledge there 7 or 8 extant interpretations of QM, and only the Bohm hidden variable interpretation has been disproved (by the Aspect experiments disproving Bell's Theorem). There is a report that one interpretation--the Transactional Model--was confirmed by the Afsha experiment, but that has been disputed (see http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2199/ ). I'm not sure whether the Many Worlds interpretation could be tested empirically even though it seems to solve the measurement problem. <br /><br />I still don't find your comments about solipsism and Berkeleyean idealism convincing. Solipsism as commonly understood does not have to do with a universal mind/consciousness but rather the brain-in-a-vat model (the only thing real is what is in my mind and all my sensations and thoughts could be impressed from outside a la Matrix). And I don't see that you've provided the deductive or inductive trail from "esse est percipe" to Christian Science / Buddhism.<br /><br />I do concur, as a very right-wing (in all senses) person, that science is conservative. But there is a difference between theories (confirmed or falsified empirically) and interpretations of those theories. Lord Kelvin would interpret electromagnetic waves and the ether mechanically (until the Michelson-Morley experiments eliminated ether drift). I think the point of B16's comments on science and religion is that there is nothing in science that contradicts the dogma/doctrines of the Church,notwithstanding claims of evangelical atheists: what we know from science and from faith are not inconsistent ( the double negative is not equivalent to "consistent").anselmhttp://rationalcatholicscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-33421952741827923152012-06-29T12:07:23.801-05:002012-06-29T12:07:23.801-05:00March Hare - I stand convicted. What's inter...March Hare - I stand convicted. What's interesting is to see pictures of flowers in UV to see what insects see.<br /><br />As to colour it manisfests itself at a larger scale than the electron, it's the electron in an atom, (possibly bonded in a substance - Compare the colour of carbon in coal and a diamond) that determines the colour.Rationalist1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14461900851608484538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-79356067414034793422012-06-29T10:59:20.018-05:002012-06-29T10:59:20.018-05:00Every starting assumption is, in a sense, non-rati...Every starting assumption is, in a sense, non-rational, that is to say it is reinforced by external data or by inner data (as Lonergan would have it), i.e. by feelings. Your question about the double slit experiment would be encompassed by the "delayed choice experiment". Google "delayed choice experiment" and you'll see lots of articles. I think this will also answer your question about storing the data, and that also has to do with the gedanken "Wigner's Friend" experiment. (Again, do a Google search)anselmhttp://rationalcatholicscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-70893062266159651262012-06-29T10:51:37.208-05:002012-06-29T10:51:37.208-05:00Pah, my ultraviolet-viewing bee would disagree wit...Pah, my ultraviolet-viewing bee would disagree with your homo sapien-centric range of wavelengths.<br /><br />On a more technical note, electrons could also be considered (virtually) all, and no, colours since they both absorb and emit the whole colour spectrum. But I digress, my pet bee still disagrees with your range and says you are a species-ist.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-52092948396372169382012-06-29T10:22:35.142-05:002012-06-29T10:22:35.142-05:00March Hare - Colour is ascribed to substances that...March Hare - Colour is ascribed to substances that reflect photons in the 4000 to 7000 angstrom range (roughly the range of visible light). Electrons have a wavelength (not in that range) but are not photons. Electron play a role in colour in that it's the electron shells in a substance that determine what colours are absorbed or reflected, but electrons, like protons, neutrons do not have colour as such.Rationalist1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14461900851608484538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-4939472232687820902012-06-29T08:46:04.915-05:002012-06-29T08:46:04.915-05:00Certainly not all scientists accept the Copenhagen...Certainly not all scientists accept the Copenhagen interpretation but the vast majority do. It's partially for pragmatic reasons, it works so why worry, but also the other interpretations, for <br /><br />The quote "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." is generally attributed to Feymann, but may have been Neils Bohr.<br /><br />My comment on the solipsism of many of the more "adventuresome" treatments of QM is that they border on requiring the universe to be an all pervading consciousness, without which nothing can happen or exist. To bring up Bishop Berkely's idealism interpretation of reality can lead to philosophical pantheism of which Christian and some schools of Buddhism embrace ("All is God").<br /><br />Science is conservative, it embraces new theories only when sufficient evidence is proferred to substantiate the change. One should be cautious when embracing somewhat exotic theories of QM and ask if one is accepting them because of the evidence to support that interpretation or embracing them because they support one philosophical or religious viewpoint.Rationalist1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14461900851608484538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-74383472633297920762012-06-29T06:49:20.306-05:002012-06-29T06:49:20.306-05:00It's not often I'm the 3rd most knowledgea...It's not often I'm the 3rd most knowledgeable on a topic that I deign to comment on so correct me if I wander into unsubstantiated nonsense...<br /><br />There are stupid reasons for believing and stupid reasons for not believing (in a higher power) but the only sensible reasons for believing require some a priori assumptions that are not, in a rational view, justified. Doesn't mean they are not correct, simply that there is a leap of faith where you accept certain things, emotionally, and then the rest follows.<br /><br />My view is that the mind is not special in any sense and therefore is not particularly important in collapsing quantum wave functions. I would like to know on what basis minds are considered to be in any way special configurations of matter such that they can impact quantum uncertainty in a way that other measuring devices cannot. And if that is considered the case, is there a certain 'amount' of mind, is the cat's too limited to collapse the Schroedinger's Cat wave function? Is a child's too small to have a gender hence the child is both male and female until it's either born or tested? Is there a level of IQ that is required? (Almost reductio ad absurdum, but I'd be interested in anyone following up).<br /><br />Rationalist1 - electrons do have a colour, technically, since they have a wavelength they are the colour of that wavelength, which happens to be electron coloured.<br /><br />A general QM question - what happens in the twin slit if we have a measuring device over one of the slits storing information on which one a given photon/electron/bucky ball went through (but don't look just yet) and then we observe the pattern on the wall/plate? Is it an interference pattern (because we don't know which slit it went through)? Is it a straight up double line where each one went through either/or (because we measured which one it actually went through)? Does it matter if we then delete the file and no mind ever actually knows which one it went through?<br /><br />Sorry if that's really simple, it's been a while since I did any QM, but I find it really interesting because it's so counter-intuitive to my mid-sized ape brain.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-9923532102337438082012-06-28T21:23:50.280-05:002012-06-28T21:23:50.280-05:00By the way, speaking of infinity, Adam Drozdek has...By the way, speaking of infinity, Adam Drozdek has a fine article on this (which also touches on the existence of God):<br />"Beyond Infinity: Augustine and Cantor"<br />See: http://www.erudit.org/revue/ltp/1995/v51/n1/400897ar.pdf<br />I'll quote from the abstract<br />"SUMMARY : It is argued in this paper that for Augustine 1. infinity is an inborn concept which is<br />a prerequisite of any knowledge ; 2. mathematics - because it relies on the concept of infinity<br />- is the best tool of acquiring knowledge about God, and 3. God is neither finite nor infinite<br />and his greatness is beyond infinity. Augustine is original in combining these three aspects in<br />his philosophy, and all three aspects can again be found in Cantor."anselmhttp://rationalcatholicscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-24950474955203560672012-06-28T14:49:53.369-05:002012-06-28T14:49:53.369-05:00Thanks. Speaking of fine blogs, I’ll need to join ...Thanks. Speaking of fine blogs, I’ll need to join yours or at least put it on the favorites bar! Take care.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953563578914140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-24116504978261064352012-06-28T13:13:50.094-05:002012-06-28T13:13:50.094-05:00Thank you Ben for your comments. You have a fine ...Thank you Ben for your comments. You have a fine blog, and I'm glad I came across it (via National Catholic Register). I've read Fr. Spitzer's book (I am involved with the Magis group and was one of the Magis Facebook moderators until I got disgusted with trolls, snarky comments and people who knew neither science nor philosophy and didn't want to learn). Fr. Spitzer is a remarkable man, a polymath who knows more about more topics than anyone I've ever met. Nevertheless I'm not entirely happy with the book for the following reasons. I myself don't believe you can "prove" the existence of God unless you agree with the assumptions for those proofs (which is why there are so many intelligent--as well as stupid--atheists). Some of the cosmological proofs he cites--e.g. the Guth-Vilenkin theorem--are not science, since there is no way they can be empirically tested, i.e. falsified by observation; the proof from the Second Law can be evaded (with difficulty) as Roger Penrose has tried to do by a very fancy cosmology and space/time transformation theory, using the entropy of black holes. There is indeed empirical evidence for a creation moment, a Big Bang--the red shift, the COBE background radiation--but unfortunately due to the opacity of the early universe (before photons came out of hiding, so to speak)--we can't go observationally past the 300,000 year limit, so we have to infer what happened before that time. What I'm trying to say is that there is much about cosmology--multiverses, inflationary theory, etc.--that is beautiful mathematics, but is not science. I'd call it mathematical metaphysics, and to rely on that as evidence for the existence of God is, I believe, a mistake. Fr. Spitzer's other proofs, the variation on Lonergan's proof and the variation on Anselm's ontological proof are very impressive, but you have to agree with the assumptions for them to make you a believer. I'll try go on at greater lengths about all this in my blog as the Spirit moves me :>) .anselmhttp://rationalcatholicscientist.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-50979798824595677912012-06-28T12:46:40.669-05:002012-06-28T12:46:40.669-05:00R1: my quantum mechanics training was from Schwin...R1: my quantum mechanics training was from Schwinger's QM and advanced QM courses (ca 1951/52), Dirac, Edmonds, Wigner, Weyl, Griffith, Abragam; I have also read those parts in Messiah's text dealing with angular momentum. I'll agree that your training in the mathematical apparatus of QM is well founded. Nevertheless, I find your comments on the interpretation of QM to be perhaps facile. <br /> Not all physicists adhere to the standard Copenhagen interpretation (or lack of interpretation) of QM. Indeed (and I forget whether it was Feynmann, Pauli or Heisenberg who said it) "anybody who says he understands quantum mechanics doesn't." There are many physicists more eminent than I who reject the Copenhagen interpretation. I should add that I myself am not entirely comfortable with the mind/consciousness/measurement trilogy, although it seems better to me than any of the other current QM interpretations. But, maybe, as, Bernard d'Espagnat says there is a "hidden veil" that will forever hide a complete interpretation.<br /><br />Granted in brief comments there is a limit on explanation, nevertheless I find your comments on "solipsim"(sic) and idealism leading to Christian Science/Buddhism to be clever, but philosophically incoherent. <br /><br />I would still recommend, if you'd like to broaden your horizons on QM and philosophy, the previously recommended references. There are also various articles and books by Michael Redhead and collaborators on the philosophical implications of QM non-locality that should interest you.anselmhttp://rationalcatholicscientist.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-92915660730808642012-06-28T08:02:39.245-05:002012-06-28T08:02:39.245-05:00Anslem - My Quantum mechanics training came from m...Anslem - My Quantum mechanics training came from more conventional sources, Albert Messiah's Quantum Mechanics and Landau and Lifschift Course in Theoretical Physics when I studied at U of T. I am slightly familiar with the minority view that "consciousness cause collapse" interpretation but I thought Wigner retracted his view later in life. Beside bordering on solipsim, it places an inordinate amount of emphasis on minds and raises the issue to a universal mind close to pantheism to facilitate the collapse of quantum wave functions on the moons of Pluto (for instance).<br /><br />If you want to go down the Bishop Berkeley idealism route where to exist is to be perceived you might as well take one more step to either Christian Science or some schools of Buddhism.Rationalist1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14461900851608484538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-59542032767313098452012-06-28T06:52:31.081-05:002012-06-28T06:52:31.081-05:00anselm,
Thanks for participating! I’ll be sure to ...anselm,<br />Thanks for participating! I’ll be sure to check out your website. Have you read Fr. Spitzer’s Book, New Proofs for the Existence of God? If yes, what are your thoughts?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953563578914140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-83907313647903472642012-06-27T20:20:54.508-05:002012-06-27T20:20:54.508-05:00This is in reply to Rationalist1 (R1) (and I hope ...This is in reply to Rationalist1 (R1) (and I hope it won't seem too snarky :>) ). Judging from his comments, I'm not clear how deep his/her understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) and its interpretation(s) might be. Speaking as a physicist with 57 years in the field (including published papers on QM), I find it remarkable that R1 does not take into account the ideas of two of the great minds--Von Neumann and Wigner--who developed the theoretical foundations of QM, and postulated as the last step in the measurement process a conscious mind. And even later (199x?), the great American physicist John Wheeler proposed the Participatory Anthropic Universe, created by observation, and as a physical test of that notion a "delayed choice" double slit experiment. <br />If R1 would like to broaden his horizons he might read "Quantum Mechanics", Volume 5 in the series "Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action", papers on conferences called by Pope John Paul II. In particular, he might want to read the paper by Raymond Chiao on the results of his delayed choice experiment, which lend themselves nicely to a Berkeleyan interpretation, "esse est percipe" (to be is to be perceived). Or also,"Mathematical Undecidability, Quantum Nonlocality and the Question of the Existence of God" (Driessen and Suarez) or "On Physics and Philosophy" (d'Espagnat). If these works are too hairy, then maybe "Quantum Enigma" (Rosen and Kuttner) would be a good book to explore alternative interpretations of QM (written for a class of non-scientists).anselmhttp://rationalcatholicscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-58024370886775735142012-06-27T14:16:19.502-05:002012-06-27T14:16:19.502-05:00Mistake? The Church got 300 + years out of Aristo...Mistake? The Church got 300 + years out of Aristotle! That rising tide, sir, lifted a great number of boats. Let's see you pick from our cultural patrimony a useful strain of thought that will be mined for a similar or better length of time. I said "pick" as in choose one that initiates a significant program, not "elect" to participate in one already underway. <br /><br />Is the contingency of science itself contingent? What? Mere word games? So much so with infinity. It is a learned figment of the imagination; a logical entailment of basic assumptions of the somatic experience of manipulating mathematical objects; axiomatic not physical.ColdStandinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08309476438059947636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-35475553439297022122012-06-27T12:55:08.170-05:002012-06-27T12:55:08.170-05:00Joe - My point was only that the "categories&...Joe - My point was only that the "categories" we encounter at the atomic level often have no macroscopic equivalent. We say and electron has "spin" but it doesn't mean it spins like a top or that a quark has up, down, charm, strange, truth or beauty (or top and bottom is you're American).<br /><br />Ben - One may learn to differing degrees about the artist from the painting but that's a far cry from saying all the properties of the painting must be found in the artist, or vice-versa.Rationalist1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14461900851608484538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-46624810159513447982012-06-27T11:32:58.073-05:002012-06-27T11:32:58.073-05:00Of course they are not the same. The artist is not...Of course they are not the same. The artist is not the painting and the painting is not the artist, BUT we may learn or understand some things about the artist just by studying the artwork.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953563578914140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-50693234702155721012012-06-27T11:32:16.357-05:002012-06-27T11:32:16.357-05:00R1,
I disagree strongly.
Science seeks to unde...R1,<br /><br />I disagree strongly. <br /><br />Science seeks to understand, in part, through similarity. Categories help us group by properties or behaviors so that we can understand something new by its similarity to something old.<br /><br />It is a completely reasonable approach when a new phenomenon occurs, old categories are first tried and fail conclusively, then and only then, a new category is created. That is how you model something. It would be a poor model indeed to create a new category for each phenomenon.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-44962301732303858982012-06-27T11:19:50.271-05:002012-06-27T11:19:50.271-05:00Joe - Science does not seek to fit it into one or ...Joe - Science does not seek to fit it into one or the other catgory. It will seek to model it, with mathematics, and make predictions that test the model. If it works, great, if no refine or redo. That's a process that has no analogy in theology.<br /><br />Ben - Just because science is mysterious and religion say God is mysterious does not mean they are one in the same. (What happened to Jimmy Hoffa is a mystery but it has nothing to do with religion) Science sees a mystery as something to be solved, religion sees it as something to be revelled in. Completely different.Rationalist1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14461900851608484538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-77948459263662743552012-06-27T11:10:56.446-05:002012-06-27T11:10:56.446-05:00I agree with your restatement. My question "...I agree with your restatement. My question "How can something...?" was meant to be rhetorical in that nothing else we know of acts in both modes. Since it's a first, science will work hard to place it in one or the other category. Now we know that it fits some kind of super-category where both wave and particle properties/behavior are applicable.<br /><br />Yes the ground of being will have be compatible with ALL modes of being. It makes possible quarks to have spin, parity, etc.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.com