Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Off Topic
41

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
Gerg wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity.

According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism

(Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty).

Is the universe then a pre-set “creation”? If timespace is past, present and future set in motion, then what set this in motion? Which eventually brings us to Plato’s “prime mover”.

Or is the universe random happenings that fall into a measurable sequence that we perceive as “order”.

Time to break out the old books. Amazing how much stuff you forget from philosophy 101.

Who the prime mover is depends on your religous or scientific dogma. If you are a deist, you believe that there is a Creator who designed the world and kicks the universe into gear.

However, this Creator doesn’t interact with the world directly. He doens’t create miracles and he doesn’t answer your prayers. He simply created the law of the universe, brings it into existence, and sits back and lets the rest of the world evolve on its own.

This belief might be comfortable for somebody who believes in both the Creator and evolution, but the more you learn about evolution, the more you realize that intelligent design and natural selection are imcompatible.

IF you are an atheist, then the question of who or what set the universe in motion does not have a definate answer. As we all know, space and time is created by the Big Bang, and Big Bang “banged” from a singularity, where all mathmetical equations and physical laws break down.

In fact, you can’t even begin to talk about or even conceive a singularity with your mind, because any thoughts, anything that you can ever think of must occupies a point in time and a region of space. So when Stephen Hawkins asked “What was God doing before he made the universe?”, he wasn’t expecting anybody to give an answer.

However, some theoretical physicists recently came up with a new idea regarding what bang the big bang. I’m not terribly familiar with it, so I apologize in advance if I say anything wrong. This theory came from M-Theory and String theory.

According to M- Theory, our universe is made up of many different dimensions, or membranes that are stretched out from tiny vibrating strings. In fact, there are infinite amount of membranes/universes out there, and those membranes are like waves in the ocean that glide and collide with each other.

Once in a while, two universes/membranes smash head on against each other and the result of such collision is a big bang. According to this theory, big bangs happens everywhere, and all the time.

The fact that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, and that there are approximately 400 billion gallexies just in the observable universe make the thought of an infinite number of big bangs and universes mind boggling. It makes the best of us feel helpless and meaningless. [/quote]

I was goig to try and read through your posts, except for two reasons:

I am exhausted, so I will attempt big thoughts tomorrow, and;

Your avatar is really distracting. Is that a statue, your wife, something you picked up just for shock value…? Sorry if I missed it on other threads, I’m just curious on the thought pattern there.

42

[quote]Gerg wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Gerg wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity.

According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism

(Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty).

Is the universe then a pre-set “creation”? If timespace is past, present and future set in motion, then what set this in motion? Which eventually brings us to Plato’s “prime mover”.

Or is the universe random happenings that fall into a measurable sequence that we perceive as “order”.

Time to break out the old books. Amazing how much stuff you forget from philosophy 101.

Who the prime mover is depends on your religous or scientific dogma. If you are a deist, you believe that there is a Creator who designed the world and kicks the universe into gear.

However, this Creator doesn’t interact with the world directly. He doens’t create miracles and he doesn’t answer your prayers. He simply created the law of the universe, brings it into existence, and sits back and lets the rest of the world evolve on its own.

This belief might be comfortable for somebody who believes in both the Creator and evolution, but the more you learn about evolution, the more you realize that intelligent design and natural selection are imcompatible.

IF you are an atheist, then the question of who or what set the universe in motion does not have a definate answer. As we all know, space and time is created by the Big Bang, and Big Bang “banged” from a singularity, where all mathmetical equations and physical laws break down.

In fact, you can’t even begin to talk about or even conceive a singularity with your mind, because any thoughts, anything that you can ever think of must occupies a point in time and a region of space. So when Stephen Hawkins asked “What was God doing before he made the universe?”, he wasn’t expecting anybody to give an answer.

However, some theoretical physicists recently came up with a new idea regarding what bang the big bang. I’m not terribly familiar with it, so I apologize in advance if I say anything wrong. This theory came from M-Theory and String theory.

According to M- Theory, our universe is made up of many different dimensions, or membranes that are stretched out from tiny vibrating strings. In fact, there are infinite amount of membranes/universes out there, and those membranes are like waves in the ocean that glide and collide with each other.

Once in a while, two universes/membranes smash head on against each other and the result of such collision is a big bang. According to this theory, big bangs happens everywhere, and all the time.

The fact that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, and that there are approximately 400 billion gallexies just in the observable universe make the thought of an infinite number of big bangs and universes mind boggling. It makes the best of us feel helpless and meaningless.

I was goig to try and read through your posts, except for two reasons:

I am exhausted, so I will attempt big thoughts tomorrow, and;

Your avatar is really distracting. Is that a statue, your wife, something you picked up just for shock value…? Sorry if I missed it on other threads, I’m just curious on the thought pattern there.
[/quote]

It’s a hyperrealism sculpture

43

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
Einstein was an atheist
[/quote]

You seem pretty smart, so I’m gonna let wikipedia do the talking:

[quote] Wikipedia states:
In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that “My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Einstein also stated: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.” [/quote]

I admit this is a small point. I thought Einstein was Christian, and later realized I had mistaken him for someone else. But I figured I’d post this anyway.

44

[quote]Otep wrote:
You seem pretty smart, so I’m gonna let wikipedia do the talking:
Wikipedia states:
In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
[/quote]

Spinoza… the famous atheist.

Einstein: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

Well. Atheism is a strong word. So is deism. It is probably not worthwhile to attempt to put a label on Einstein’s religious beliefs; we know he did not believe in a personal God who intervenes in human affairs, and that he felt organized religion to be childish. No matter how intelligent Einstein was, however, we cannot rely on that intelligence to wholly solve that highest question: “what might God be?”

45

[quote]Kruiser wrote:

Sooo… If a tree masturbates alone in the forest God kills a kitten.

[/quote]

Fixed.

46

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
meangenes wrote:
I think Einstein was trying to one-up him.

Saying that Heisenberg’s understanding was inferior. Einstein believed in god as the creator. He most likely believed that the conscious was an integral yet infinite part of the universe.

Where did the conversation go from there? Where is this thread going?

Einstein was an atheist
[/quote]

“I am not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is.”

“That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws.” - Albert Einstein

47

I think all experiments support the principle. What the hell that means to all of us and how we should lead our lives because of it - who knows?

48

[quote]actionjeff wrote:
Reading a physics discussion on this forum is like reading a lifting or nutrition discussion on a science/math/politics forum lol [/quote]

at least someone else agrees with me

49

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity. According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism (Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty). [/quote]

I really don’t think this is a correct interpretation of the qualitative aspects of time in Einstein’s relativity theory. This is certainly not the view of someone like Reichenbach, a contemporary of Einstein who devoted much of his career to questions of the qualitative properties of space and time.

Physics is a mathematical model, nothing more, nothing less. questions regarding the consequences of that model for qualitative experience are difficult to answer. if you’re really interested in them, you’d do much better to read the people doing philosophy of physics like Maudlin from Rutgers.

There is also an entire field of analytic metaphysics that deals with this topic as well, which hinges mainly on interpretations of formal predicate logic and language. in my view, its much better then the crap pumped out by any existentialist.

50

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity. According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism (Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty).

I really don’t think this is a correct interpretation of the qualitative aspects of time in Einstein’s relativity theory. This is certainly not the view of someone like Reichenbach, a contemporary of Einstein who devoted much of his career to questions of the qualitative properties of space and time.

Physics is a mathematical model, nothing more, nothing less. questions regarding the consequences of that model for qualitative experience are difficult to answer. if you’re really interested in them, you’d do much better to read the people doing philosophy of physics like Maudlin from Rutgers.

There is also an entire field of analytic metaphysics that deals with this topic as well, which hinges mainly on interpretations of formal predicate logic and language. in my view, its much better then the crap pumped out by any existentialist. [/quote]

How does general relativity describe time in your view?

51

[quote]dragonmamma wrote:
Is this that thing about the dead cat in the box?

I say the cat is either dead or it isn’t, whether anyone is paying attention or not.

And I think that at least 50% of you guys are masturbating right now, whether anyone is paying attention or not.[/quote]

Schrodinger’s cat must be dead by now. I don’t think it has been fed for 60 years.

52

[quote]Gerg wrote:

Is the universe then a pre-set “creation”? If timespace is past, present and future set in motion, then what set this in motion? Which eventually brings us to Plato’s “prime mover”.

Or is the universe random happenings that fall into a measurable sequence that we perceive as “order”.

Time to break out the old books. Amazing how much stuff you forget from philosophy 101.[/quote]

Don’t know much about History, don’t know much Philosophy. But I know that if you can rig your microwave to operate with the door open, you can rip a portal into the timespace continuum. But you need to be careful, because the intrinsic curvature of space-time itself could be a form of stored energy via the compactified dimensions and the Weyl curvature tensor. And this will promote Pole-shifting and hasten global warming.

53

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
But I know that if you can rig your microwave to operate with the door open, you can rip a portal into the timespace continuum. But you need to be careful, because the intrinsic curvature of space-time itself could be a form of stored energy via the compactified dimensions and the Weyl curvature tensor. And this will promote Pole-shifting and hasten global warming. [/quote]

Only according to the implications of Mach’s principle; for example, how can we have a 0 value Weyl curvature tensor?

That would be a violation of Heisenberg uncertainty.

54

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
But I know that if you can rig your microwave to operate with the door open, you can rip a portal into the timespace continuum. But you need to be careful, because the intrinsic curvature of space-time itself could be a form of stored energy via the compactified dimensions and the Weyl curvature tensor. And this will promote Pole-shifting and hasten global warming.

Only according to the implications of Mach’s principle; for example, how can we have a 0 value Weyl curvature tensor?

That would be a violation of Heisenberg uncertainty. [/quote]

The laws of physics cease to exist in my kitchen.

55

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
The laws of physics cease to exist in my kitchen.
[/quote]

There must be some very interesting things coming out of there…

56

[quote]digitalairair wrote:

How does general relativity describe time in your view?[/quote]

I am no physicist, but, my general understanding is that relativity greatly effects the metrical properties of time, but not the topological.

The general theory of relativity basically states that all coordinate systems are equivalent for formulating general laws of nature.

Thus time, being one of the coordinates, is relative. Somewhere along the way in developing the formal theory, the problem of simultaneity pops up. The theory directly affects the unit of time,and makes the measurement of time relative. (the metrical properties)

This relativity of measurement though does not mean that time order itself is relative or arbitrary, or that there is no time order beyond our ability to measure time.

Rather, there are topological, as opposed to metrical, properties of time which remain unaffected by the relative measurement of time. These properties include time order and time direction. Time order is generally defined by mechanical processes and a theory of causality. Time direction is generally defined by those physical processes which are irreversible (such as the increase in entropy in thermal dynamics).

57

… Stick it in her pooper?

But seriously,

We don’t need the Uncertainty Principle to cast doubt over a physicalistic/deterministic understanding of reality. One can do this with thought experiments alone.

Plato’s cave was mentioned earlier. This analogy implies that only interactions with reality exist (are perceivable) while reality has no verifiable existence itself. That is to say, one does not “see” the bacterial culture under the microscope, nor does one “see” the light waves relayed from the culture, nor does one feel the neuro-electrical excitation of the optical nerve.

Somewhere in the brain, collisions of electro chemical reactions, exchanges and interactions of electrons, the forces of which mediated by the interplay of miniscule fields of force interacting. These property-less instantaneous momentary exchanges or interactions are all that we “actually percieve”. We can go so far to say that the interactions alone and no physical substance are what conciousness is made of.

Thus the universe is made of nothing that we can percieve, for any form of perception (not just human perception) is isolated from reality by the fact that it cannot “be” or apprehend the thing that is perceived. Some might conclude that if the universe is nothing and that conciousness is made of the same (nothing), then the universe is conciousness, but that’s for the existentialists to chew on.

As for a prime mover I would argue that no description of the universe can rule it out.

Discarding the fact that no natural law conceived can be confirmed as it must rely on three unprovable assumptions called the principles of science, there are two inevitable and equal outcomes to any description of the universe.

Either the description is finite, or it is infinite. If it is finite we only need to look at the smallest constituent of the universe and ask “what makes this part go?”. If it is infinite (discarding the fact that it cannot be achieved/written) then it is not a description of the universe as it contains infinite variables and can be used to determine nothing.

Therefore any description must in fact be finite, and any finite description must contain a prime mover.

AHHHHHHHHHHH

I’ve been holding that load back for a long time now… I’m sleepy…

58

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Plato’s cave was mentioned earlier. This analogy implies that only interactions with reality exist (are perceivable) while reality has no verifiable existence itself.

That is to say, one does not “see” the bacterial culture under the microscope, nor does one “see” the light waves relayed from the culture, nor does one feel the neuro-electrical excitation of the optical nerve.

Somewhere in the brain, collisions of electro chemical reactions, exchanges and interactions of electrons, the forces of which mediated by the interplay of miniscule fields of force interacting.

These property-less instantaneous momentary exchanges or interactions are all that we “actually percieve”. We can go so far to say that the interactions alone and no physical substance are what conciousness is made of.

Thus the universe is made of nothing that we can percieve, for any form of perception (not just human perception) is isolated from reality by the fact that it cannot “be” or apprehend the thing that is perceived.

Some might conclude that if the universe is nothing and that conciousness is made of the same (nothing), then the universe is conciousness, but that’s for the existentialists to chew on.
[/quote]

a.k.a. Qualia.

I tried explaining to my brother last weekend that “red” doesn’t actually exist in the physical universe. It’s a construct in our conscious. He couldn’t wrap his head around the idea.

59

[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
I tried explaining to my brother last weekend that “red” doesn’t actually exist in the physical universe. It’s a construct in our conscious. He couldn’t wrap his head around the idea.
[/quote]

“Red” exists as a wavelength of light. The experience of red (“redness”) does not seem to exist outside of our perceptions. It is the experience of red, and the corresponding experiential knowledge that is non-transferable, which is qualia.

60

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Tithonus81 wrote:
I tried explaining to my brother last weekend that “red” doesn’t actually exist in the physical universe. It’s a construct in our conscious. He couldn’t wrap his head around the idea.

“Red” exists as a wavelength of light. The experience of red (“redness”) does not seem to exist outside of our perceptions. It is the experience of red, and the corresponding experiential knowledge that is non-transferable, which is qualia.[/quote]

This is what I meant. If I say the word red, the first thing that comes immediately into their head is probably not “Oh yeah, the band of light with 625-740nm wavelength.” You’ll see and experience “red” in your mind. In a Universe of blind subjects there is no such thing as red. It simply doesn’t exist.