merlin wood

Well, I cannot insist strongly enough that what is most crucially and, indeed, most tragically lacking in human knowledge is an understnding of the universe that includes life on Earth that requires a detailed, thorough and methodical account that sufficienty justifies and describes enough properties of a nonlocally acting cause, and from its many and various effects in addition to those of the known forces or interactions. Wonder where my posts keep going to? Something to do with having little fascist piglets as moderators here, perhaps?

Well, having given the problem rather a lot of thought over the years, I've concluded that the development of such a general theory of natural organisation is possible given the universal action of a nonlocal and extradimesional cause, and as deduced initially from a causal hidden variables quantum hypothesis. But then who'd take any notice of an old crank like me with no academic physics qualification at all, and who would proposes a complete revolution in theoretical physics and comology? But then, for a start, one could ask does cosmological inflation sound like a very sensible theory really? Prof. Roger Penrose certainlt doesn't think so, anyway.

A requiremt for a theory of everything could be that it should explain, in terms of cause and effect, how the universe is of a certain form as radiant energy, atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds of matter, species of living organisms, galaxies of stars and planetary systems, and groups, clusters and walls of galaxies around cosmic voids. Also, given that the universe has expanded over some 13.7 billion years from a very small and dense ‘Big Bang’ origin, the theory should account for how this expansion and its measured acceleration occurred, and how the universe evolved into its form as astronomically observed. Does any recognized theory in physics look like it could achieve this?

Forget about it. I've other irons in the fire

I'm saying I'm not concerned about what happens after measurement How do you know? Quantum entanglement describes the correlation at a distance between quantum objects and can describe this correlation in terms of the relationship between particular forms of behaviour of quantum objects. So that eg the measurement of the property spin-up in one quantum component requires the other component to be in the spin-down direction. While experimental test results upon photons with regard to their polarised properties of behaviour can be considered to indicate that the entanglement effect can occur without varying at distances up to 144km at least. So you can ask how is it that this correlation can be measured? Is quantum entanglement an effect without a cause? Why shouldn't one insist that for this quantum behaviour correlation to be measured there needs to be something that acts so as to maintain this quantum object behaviour reationship? Could any measurement or mathematical calculation describe enough details of such a cause from effects that have no measured strength? If not, how could could the action of such a "spooky" or nonlocally acting cause be described or represented? It may not look like it at all, but perhaps there is larger scale observable evidence that clearly supports an appropriate non-local causal quantum hypthesis. And the justification for and development of this appropriate quantum hypothesis could be essential to any general theoretical argument.

I suggest that the quantum entangled connection pre-exists in the real world prior to any measurement, and there's no definite argument that can prove me wrong. Although, of course, there's no such argument to prove me right either - or at least, not from any evidence of quantum behaviour alone.

I'm basically asking why should quantum entanglement be measured in the first instance? So why shouldn't eg. electrons possess spin-up/spin-down entanglement in atoms before any measurement?

But then what of the entangled composite states of the subatomic components of atoms and molecules, that is, as they remain as the components of atomic and molecular systems?

So physicists may insist that quantum entanglement is an effect without a cause. But you could ask is it really though? So you've got, fo example, the spin up/spin down correlation at a distance between atomic components that include electrons. And, for one thing, you could ask: for this correlation to be measured so that the spin up to spin down relationship to be retained between two components, sureky shouldn't the be something that acts at a distance so as to maintain this relationship? And so that this would be an invisible cause that acts in a quite different way to any of the forces so as to produce the entangled effect?

And then in David Bohm's two 1952 "hidden variable" papers there was intoduced an invisible cause that he called the quantum potential, and which led to experiment to test the properties that could described of an effect at a distance called quantum entanglement. This being an effect that could be measured and mathmatically described from objects that included electrons as components of atoms, but could not be measured and mathematically desctibed in terms of its strength.

For a change. --------- [edit] One can say that, on the one hand, there are physiological, biochemical and electrochemical states of the brain which can be observed or directly detected, and on the other hand there are states of mind as thoughts, emotions, sensations and perceptions which, just as subjectively experienced, can't be observed or directly detect by examining anything in the body at all. Although, from the physiological evidence of the brain, it could be assumed that for every mental state there is a corresponding brain or bodily state that produces it. But then you can ask how do brain states get to being mental states? So how can any brain process that may produce the smell of coffee be transformed or translated into the smell of coffee itself? And also while you may able to detect and identify the brain process that produces the coffee smell you can ask where in the body is this smell that one has of coffee, just as a mental state? Or where is the experience of the colour red, the pain in the foot, the feeling of optimism or despair and so on? So for such reasons that neither mental states nor, indeed, anything the may be called the mind, self or experiencing subject that may possess these states, can be observed or directly detected anywhere in the body, it can be the thought that there at least needs to be something invisible and immaterial that makes the states of mind possible, and so is not itself a bodily state. There is, however, a quite simple argument against any idea that there is anything invisible and immaterial in addition to the body that accounts for any states of mind or conscious experience in general. So the above idea is that there would need to be something that can’t be observed because it’s not made of matter, and would need to have a certain distinct general property or some such properties so that brain states are changed into mental states. But then it can be pointed out that there are already such things that are unobservable, just as such, and so that they can only be described from their effects, which may be called forces that act at a distance or fundamental interactions. And as generally described from their effects these forces each only has one identity. So it doesn’t make sense to say there are many forces of gravity or of electromagnetism. Yet it would need to make sense to say there are many immaterial minds in each of many individual human beings or other creatures. Then even if it is supposed that each immaterial mind could have a property that is unique to each individual it can be pointed out that essential to there being many minds is that each individual has at least a unique perception as a particular point of view upon the external world, so how could this be explained by individually differing immaterial mental properties? One could, however, consider the evidence detected of matter and the energy it radiates on the very small scale. as described by quantum mechanics especially, and where the behaviour of objects have been measured and described that differ from any effects that could be explained by or just by the known properties of the action of forces such as gravity and electromagnetism. Then, however, it also needs to be assumed, firstly, that the quantum mechanical description of the behaviour that can be uniquely described of quantum objects, which include photons of radiant energy and subatomic components reflect, in some way, the hidden behaviour of these objects beyond any observations from experimental results And then secondly, that at least some of this hidden quantum behaviour can be coherently described and visualised in representations of the defined trajectories of objects in motion. And these representations need to be entirely consistent with the observed and measured results of experiments. However, until 1952, or some 26 years or so after the first successful quantum mechanical descriptions were devised it was assumed by almost all physicists that the second of the above requirements could not be achieved by any means. For the quantum mechanics described fundamental characteristics of behaviour that could not be coherently represented as the behaviour of objects in motion…

I've now changed the format on the Blog page with the abstract at the top (as it was originally in fact). But then, having re-read the cosmological argument for the first time after a year or so, I think it could do with a bit of an overhaul...

Well I do have such a hypothesis on my blog, Sayonara, which I've linked to several times on this thread. But no one seems prepared to consider what it says except for the fact that it contains no mathematical calculations. But this is an 18,000 word paper that considers the findings of quantum physics as well as an existng, mathematically justified causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then the paper justifies and then postulates visual diagrams representing a nonlocally acting cause from its effects that would produce quantum entanglement and the quantum wave property. A universal verbally desribed nonlocal causal property is then also justified and described. And such a cause of quantum entanglement would not, in any case, have any properties that could be described by calculation to definitely show that the cause acts in the world at all. For, unlike those of all the forces, the effects of quantum entanglement can't be measured and calculated to have any strength. The causal diagrams are thus an essential key to the whole theoretical argument. The causal diagrams in the quantum interpretation or hypothesis are then related to evidence of living organisms with respect to certain basic properties that could be descibed of the mind and consciousness and which have been much discussed in modern academic philosophy. And the verbally described causal property is related to certain general characteristics of the behaviour of living organisms, and both these aspects could apply to the nature and behaviour of human beings. I then consider the quantum wave property in relation to a possible Big Bang cosmological theory and postulate and then diagramatically represent a more detailed nonlocal cause of the quantum wave. This causal representation is then considered in relation to the formation and form of galaxies, galaxy clusters and cosmic voids and how the nonlocal cause could act together with gravity. And it is considered how the spiral structure of galaxies and their rotation curves could be a nonlocal effect, rather than the yet to be directly detected WIMP dark matter. I've also thought how the cause could assist in the formation of stars and planetary systems and contribute to stellar energy output (so, in particular, there can still be considered a problem in explaining the extreme heat of the sun's corona in present theory). I also propose a possible experiment that might more sensitively detect neutrinos to see whether there could be a shortfall in solar output at lower energies than have so far been detected. This could indicate that not all the sun's energy is caused by nuclear fusion. This paper is the briefest possible summary I could manage of what a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause could be like. And I have since considered other arguments that could support a nonlocal theory of living organisms. I have also read about other astronomical evidence that could support the cosmological theory. The whole theory could easily be of book length but I could not possibly write it alone especially since, for one thing, I don't have the mathematical skills to develop the cosmology (and I'm really too old to start learning the appropriate maths, having not been particularly good at it at school, anyway). But I can conceive the general theory could generate whole new branches of science. My blog account really needs to be seriously considered as a whole to assess the empirical validity of its argument, that's why I'm reluctant to have just parts of it pulled to bits on a forum thread. But the whole argument could be summarised by the folowing thought: The universe has been found to be of a particular organised form on the small scale as the various atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds and then the species of living organisms; then on the astronomical scale there are the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, and galaxy walls and filamentary clusters around vast cosmic voids. So why assume that all this natural organisation is just the result of the push or pull causes that are the known forces? Then, however, there's the problem that all the evidence indicates that the cosmos, as perceived in three dimensions of space, only contains the known forces as these act universally...

Well OK but then what comes after death? And I was just thinking of the unpredictability of human beings and what could be said on any forum thread. But then there are aspects of mind one could imagine might be simply described in a causal theory. So what if an invisible cause of quantum entanglement was essentially the same thing as an invisible something that mskes consciousness possible and in addition to what can be found in the brain or anything else in the body?

But who knows what the future might bring?

But this would not describe the smell of coffee just as such or demonstrate as fact that anyone is smelling such a thing, so maybe it's just something happening in the brain that makes someone say that they smell coffee.

Well maybe, given half the chance, I'll get to that. It's just the blind contention that my argument is not worth considering from the outset that gets me. But think, for one thing, how could any mathematical calculations describe the smell of coffee or the feeling of being tickled or fed up or the fact that there are or could be such things?

It's Klaynos' claim on this thread against the scientific validity of my hypothesis that needs to be proved by careful consideration of the empirical account on my blog itself, and not just by repeating the same old mantra here about mathematics. If the rules say Klaynos can't provide such proof here then s/he can do so on my blog, otherwise then K's argument gets nowhere. Many physicists and others have suggested that quantum physics could provide insights into the nature of mind and consciousness. While the question arises whether a general quantum theory might be developed that could provide really clear insights. And it so happens that, while mathematical calculation cannot describe enough details of the cause of quantum entanglement to clearly show that there is such a cause, it's also true that no such mathematics can describe the contents of consciousness or, indeed, clearly demonstrate that thoughts, feelings or sensory perceptions exist at all, or whether or not there is something immaterial such as the mind or self that is distinct from the body...

No, I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on you who keep on insisting on this thread that my argument from the empirical evidence at http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/ is invalid as a scientific hypothesis without demonstrating that this is the case, thankyou very much.

I repeat, Klaynos, please accept this challenge: But then I stand by my contention that a particular interpretqation of quantum mechanics can be supported by biological evidence as indicated in my blog hypothesis, and as descibed just by words and appropriate diagrams that are justified when considering an invisible natural nonlocally acting cause that, uniquely, would act universally just so as that it can maintain or conserve the form and subatomic organisation of atoms, molecules and living organisms despite the action of the forces, as well as maintain the wave properties of radiant energy. So please clearly demonstrate or prove - if not on this thread then on my blog - that this contention is invalid as a scientific hypothesis. And, following from this hypothesis, a general theory of a nonlocal cause and its effects would, like the evolutionary theory of the origin of species, not be entirely nonmathematical, as I've said, but the essential theoretical argument concerning an invisible cause actiing upon matter and energy in addition to all the forces, could be undestood without the need for any mathematical calculation. ...or desist from commenting on this thread, thankyou.

But then I stand by my contention that a particular interpretqation of quantum mechanics can be supported by biological evidence as indicated in my blog hypothesis, and as descibed just by words and appropriate diagrams that are justified when considering an invisible natural nonlocally acting cause that, uniquely, would act universally just so as that it can maintain or conserve the form and subatomic organisation of atoms, molecules and living organisms despite the action of the forces, as well as maintain the wave properties of radiant energy. So please clearly demonstrate or prove - if not on this thread then on my blog - that this contention is invalid as a scientific hypothesis. And, following from this hypothesis, a general theory of a nonlocal cause and its effects would, like the evolutionary theory of the origin of species, not be entirely nonmathematical, as I've said, but the essential theoretical argument concerning an invisible cause actiing upon matter and energy in addition to all the forces, could be undestood without the need for any mathematical calculation.

And as many have said before, quantum physics just is not like other, so-called "classical" physics. And it is still possible to ask how is it, in terms of cause and effect, that quantum objects possess their behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement? and still not receive a clear reply that is generally agreed among physicists. Hence all the different ways of interpreting quantum mechanics that are still strongly argued for by various individuals. So one could reasonably think that, if at all, the question of quantum interpration could only be resolved by means of one particular interpretation that is both clearly shown to be consistent with the experimental results and can also be clearly supported by large scale observable evidence And as I said above, mathematical calculation was not essential for a sufficient understanding of the theory of the evlolution of species and this is still the case.

Why was Darwin's The Origin of Species so widely accepted as a scientific document even though it contained no mathematics? Because Darwin's theory made a clear and unambiguously simple rational sense that was supported by careful consideration of confirmable observations from a wide range of natural evidence, and just as expressed in words and images. And mathematics has never been central to or essential for the basic theoretical argument for the evolution of the species of organisms because the mathematical description of the anatomy and behaviour of living things, as well as the causal origin of the various species, would be too complex and superfluous in any case. For it clearly makes sense just to say that the present wild species of plants and animals physically are the way that they and can survive because each is physically best suited to its particular environment and just to visually illustrate how this is so Then one can reason that new species could evolve if the natural environment conditions altered radically in certain ways in the long term. And geographical displacement, increased threats from predators (which themselve may be newly evolved species) and major geological and climate changes are all key causal factors that can now be cited. So as the result of such prolonged changes, some or many species can fail to survive and new ones can evolve that do survive because they are physically better adapted for the new envonmental conditions. And Darwin provided and illustrated this theoretical argument with many examples indicating such a process of natural selection by physical adaption, and which included case studies gathered from his own detailed research. There could also be described a selective process that involves the survival of the fittest individuals within a species. But Darwin was not particularly concerned with this aspect because he most wanted to explain the origin, by way of evolution, of the existing different types or species of organisms, and hence the title of his book. But then why should I think that another such largely nonmathematical but unambiguously simple general theory can be developed that starts with the findings of quantum physics, and which itself involves so much mathematical description? Well, from the example of species evolution theory, one can conclude that scentific explanations are not essentially about mathematics but about finding natural causes that can be clearly described to explain their effects. So where mathematical calculation is an inappropriate or ineffective means of describing a natural cause and/or its effects then other means of description need to be used. Thus the quantum theory of the standard model provides explanations by describing the behaviour of objects, with mathematical calculation being an appropriate and effective means of describing this behaviour and making predictions about the results of further experiments. But then one can ask need such descriptive means be effective in explaining what causes the behaviour that has been detected and uniquely described of quantum objects? Then also, mathematical calculation has been appropriate and effective for the description of the strength of the forces as causes, but what of anything that would cause, in particular, the quantum entanglement effect, and given that its strength cannot be measured?

I say there's only one kind of interperpretation that can be developed into an appropriate diagrammatic quantum hypothesis, and which can then be supported, not by any further evidence in particle or quantum physics or in chemistry, but by certain features of living organisms and their behaviour and also by observable astronomical evidence. And only by this means can a sufficiently detailed hypothesis be justified and developed for a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause. While the kind of quantum interpretation that one needs to start with for the development of this hypothesis would obviously be a nonlocal causal hidden variables interpretation like Bohmian mechanics. There being no superposition of states in such a causal account of quantum wave behaviour because it is found that a deterninate description can be given of quantum objects in motion as both laterally extended waves amd and accompanying particles with defined trajectories in motion. Probabilities and the uncertainty principle being accounted for just as systematic limitations in observation and measurement from any experimental set-up. Although I've found that the description and visual representation of the nonlocal cause required for a general nonlocal causal hypothesis has to be quite different from the description in Bohm's account.

. Do you really fully underatand what quantum entanglement is? Richard Feynman, for one, always insisted that nobody understands quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanics of the standard model, which does not describe quantum objects in terms of the hidden variable behaviour of objects in motion doesn't require cause and effect, whereas Bohmian mechanics, which does so describe quantum behaviour does require cause and effect. Superposition states cannot be directly observed by any means and, as so described, lead to a measurement problem. In Bohmian mechanics there are no superposition states and with this account, the behaviour of moving quantum objects in a double slit experiment has been pictured in computer generated diagrams. Although there is no way in quantum or particle physics of confirming any interpretation of what the behaviour that can be uniquely described of quantum obects is actually lke in terms objects in motion beyond the measurable and mathematically described results of experiments. If there was then one might perhaps imagine that quantum mechanics really would be understood or, on the other hand, perhaps not even then.