Towards a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause?

[merlin wood]

The interpretation is just that it's unimportant for the maths. You know you don't have a theory here.

The interpretation isn't important the maths is important, again we're back to this.

 

But I do have a workable hypothesis here!!. And even if at this account doesn't presently involve measurement and calculation. And I'd say it's up to you to clearly demonstrate that and how this is not the case.

 

So, as I said, no physicist is likely to take this blog account seriously, especially also given their prejudices against Bohmian mechanics, as well as other reasons I can think of. This being so even though this hypothesis:

 

(1) is clearly supported by a methodical account that causally relates together a wide range of ordinary, observable and consistently confirmed natural and experimental evidence on the scale of photons, subatomic components, atom, molecules, living organisms and astronomical observations;

 

(2) provides diagrammatic representations of a nonloally acting cause that are justified by the experimental findings described by standard as well as Bohmian quantum mechanics;

 

(3) is consistent with Big Bang cosmological theory (without inflation, because in a nonlocal hypothesis a period of very rapid expansion in the early universe is not required to explain any astronomical observation) and

 

(4) could well be supported by further astronomical observations and measurement and mathematical calculation.

 

You also seem to be confused about what is and isn't possibly, you can describe sub atomic actions using "the atomic forces" which I assume you mean the strong and weak, that's what the whole of nuclear and particle physics does!

 

I'm saying that none of the forces in atoms and molecules - including the nuclear ones - can be described to explain the natural form and organisation of matter into atoms and molecules. So the action of these forces can't be described to explain the behaviour called quantum wave, spin and entanglement.

[Klaynos]

But I do have a workable hypothesis here!!. And even if at this account doesn't presently involve measurement and calculation. And I'd say it's up to you to clearly demonstrate that and how this is not the case.

 

The burden of proof is on you I'm afraid.

 

So, as I said, no physicist is likely to take this blog account seriously, especially also given their prejudices against Bohmian mechanics, as well as other reasons I can think of. This being so even though this hypothesis:

 

Mostly no one will take it up due to lack of funding/time.

 

(1) is clearly supported by a methodical account that causally relates together a wide range of ordinary, observable and consistently confirmed natural and experimental evidence on the scale of photons, subatomic components, atom, molecules, living organisms and astronomical observations;

 

(2) provides diagrammatic representations of a nonloally acting cause that are justified by the experimental findings described by standard as well as Bohmian quantum mechanics;

 

(3) is consistent with Big Bang cosmological theory (without inflation, because in a nonlocal hypothesis a period of very rapid expansion in the early universe is not required to explain any astronomical observation) and

 

(4) could well be supported by further astronomical observations and measurement and mathematical calculation.

 

Unless it is supported/consistent mathematically it's not supported/consistent at all.

 

I'm saying that none of the forces in atoms and molecules - including the nuclear ones - can be described to explain the natural form and organisation of matter into atoms and molecules.

 

That's what particle physics, nuclear physics and chemistry do.

 

So the action of these forces can't be described to explain the behaviour called quantum wave, spin and entanglement.

 

Don't see how this follows.

[merlin wood]

The burden of proof is on you I'm afraid.

Mostly no one will take it up due to lack of funding/time..

 

Right so let it be noted that my arguments are being pulled to bits without any consideration as to their validity given the the empirical evidence.

 

Unless it is supported/consistent mathematically it's not supported/consistent at all.

 

Clearly demonstrate that and how this is case.

 

That's what particle physics, nuclear physics and chemistry do.

 

Give me the exact details of particle physics, nuclear physics and chemistry that can be desribed to explain how matter can be and remain naturally orgsnised as atoms and molecules and given the action of the forces. So one could expect a sufficiently detailed and justified causal account that explains how the Schrodinger equation, quantum entanglement and the property of quantum spin can be described

 

Don't see how this follows.

 

Don't you really? gosh!!

Edited June 24, 2008 by merlin wood
typos

[Klaynos]

Right so let it be noted that my arguments are being pulled to bits without any consideration as to their validity given the the empirical evidence.

 

Well unless you show that the empirical evidence validates your hypothosis we don't really need to pull it apart, we can point out obvious flaws without that though. This is why maths helps it allows easy and clear testing.

 

Clearly demonstrate that and how this is case.

 

You've got no maths, therefore you can't compare it, therefore you can't say it's consistent therefore it's meaningless.

 

Give me the exact details of particle physics, nuclear physics and schemistry can be desribed to explain how matter can be and remain naturally orgsnised as atoms

 

The SEMF, shell model, liquid drop model, the standard model of particle physics.

 

and molecules

 

Chemistry as a whole, working from fundamentally quantum mechanics, and things like the vander walls force.

 

and given the action of the forces. So one could expect a sufficiently detailed and justified causal account that explains how the Schrodinger equation, quantum entanglent and the property of quantum spin can be described

 

Sorry what? You want a reason behind quantum mechanics? You're probably straying into pure philosophy then.

 

Don't you really? gosh!!

[merlin wood]

Well unless you show that the empirical evidence validates your hypothosis we don't really need to pull it apart, we can point out obvious flaws without that though.

 

But then you haven't done so at all. And I insist that, like many accounts of scientific discoveries the whole my blog hypothesis needs to be taken into consideration in order to assess its validity.

 

This is why maths helps it allows easy and clear testing.

 

But I claim that in a large part of the nonlocal causal hypothesis on my blog, as this causally relates the findings of atoms, molecules and the their of subatomic to living organisms and their behaviour can be easily and clearly tested by using words and diagrams alone. And you are not prepared to demonstrate from the blog account that and how this is not the case.

 

QUOTE=Klaynos;418511]You've got no maths, therefore you can't compare it, therefore you can't say it's consistent therefore it's meaningless.

 

You still haven't demonstrated how this is so in relation to my blog account. So how does anyone know that this a prori statement is true?

 

I don't think I need say any more. It's clear that you want to try and show that you can demolish my arguments without due consideration of their foundations in my blog argument from the empirical evidence. So why should anyone take any of your opinions here seriously?

 

So I propose that the only way of attempting to develop a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause is to begin by asking the question:

 

How could quantum entanglement be explained?

 

That is, explained in the the usual scientific sense of justifying and describing enough details of a natural cause and its effects, and not by any interpretation that cannot be adequately supported by observable evidence that has been consistently confirmed.

 

So one key problem with this question is that quantum entanglement is an effect that can only be measured and described in terms of a correlation at a distance between quantum components. So, unlike the effects of all forces, this quantum effect has no strength that can be measured and described by mathematical calculation....

Edited June 25, 2008 by merlin wood
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

But then you haven't done so at all. And I insist that, like many accounts of scientific discoveries the whole my blog hypothesis needs to be taken into consideration in order to assess its validity.

 

Without maths it's very hard to assess validity.

 

But I claim that in a large part of the nonlocal causal hypothesis on my blog, as this causally relates the findings of atoms, molecules and the their of subatomic to living organisms and their behaviour can be easily and clearly tested by using words and diagrams alone. And you are not prepared to demonstrate from the blog account that and how this is not the case.

 

You can claim it's done by unmeasurable pixies if you like... unless you propose some mathematical testing method it's useless.

 

 

You still haven't demonstrated how this is so in relation to my blog account. So how does anyone know that this a prori statement is true?

 

I did rewrite my original to say that, instead of saying that it's not supported/consistent, that without the maths you cannot show that it is supported or consistent, there is no proof of the consistence, that's how physics works.

 

I don't think I need say any more. It's clear that you want to try and show that you can demolish my arguments without due consideration of their foundations in my blog argument from the empirical evidence. So why should anyone take any of your opinions here seriously?

 

I'd rather show you that physics doesn't work in the way you seem to think. Even if yuo had something you'd hve to find a funding body to support you to get someone to look at it seriously, modern science sucks I know.

 

So I propose that the only way of attempting to develop a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause is to begin by asking the question:

 

How could quantum entanglement be explained?

 

Read my blog on the subject. I still don't think you really fully understand what entanglement is.

 

That is, explained in the the usual scientific sense of justifying and describing enough details of a natural cause and its effects, and not by any interpretation that cannot be adequately supported by observable evidence that has been consistently confirmed.

 

So one key problem with this question is that quantum entanglement is an effect that can only be measured and described in terms of a correlation at a distance between quantum components. So, unlike the effects of all forces, this quantum effect has no strength that can be measured and described by mathematical calculation....

 

IIRC QM doesn't require cause and effect.

 

Certainly all the wavefunctions and superposition states and then resolve those states into a single one for each formally entangled particle can be written down mathematically.

[merlin wood]

.

Read my blog on the subject. I still don't think you really fully understand what entanglement is.

 

Do you really fully underatand what quantum entanglement is? Richard Feynman, for one, always insisted that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

 

IIRC QM doesn't require cause and effect.

 

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.

 

Certainly all the wavefunctions and superposition states and then resolve those states into a single one for each formally entangled particle can be written down mathematically.

 

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.

Edited June 26, 2008 by merlin wood
added link

[Klaynos]

.

 

Do you really fully underatand what quantum entanglement is? Richard Feynman, for one, always insisted that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

 

Here's what he said:

So now you know what I'm going to talk about/ the next question is, will you understand what I'm going to tell you? Everybody who comes to a scientific lecture knows they are not going to understand it, but maybe the lecturer has a nice coloured tie to look at. Not in this case! (He wasn't actually wearing a tie)

 

What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school---and you think I'm going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you're not going to be able to understand it. Why, then, am I going to sit here all this time, when you wont be able to understand what I am going to say? It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That's because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

 

So do I understand it, as well as the next physics graduate.

 

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.

 

True they are mathematically real though. What does de boglie-bohm theory say about them?

 

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.

 

Are we arguing about the relavence of different interpretations or your hypothosis?

 

Cos it seems you've done a nice strawman job...

[merlin wood]

Here's what he said:

 

 

So do I understand it, as well as the next physics graduate.

 

 

 

True they are mathematically real though. What does de boglie-bohm theory say about them?

 

 

 

Are we arguing about the relavence of different interpretations or your hypothosis?

 

Cos it seems you've done a nice strawman job...

 

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.

Edited June 26, 2008 by merlin wood
clarification

[merlin wood]

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?

[Klaynos]

As I've said before modern physics is not 1800's biology...

 

But even biology is significantly more mathematical these days and getting more so quite quickly...

[merlin wood]

As I've said before modern physics is not 1800's biology...

 

But even biology is significantly more mathematical these days and getting more so quite quickly...

 

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.

Edited June 30, 2008 by merlin wood
added link + clarification

[Klaynos]

We use maths because it's right and makes solid predictions. The maths is fundemental the interpertation in normal words is not... Have you read QED by Feynman? If not you should. If you have, have another read.

 

I stand by modern physics is not 1800's biology...

[merlin wood]

We use maths because it's right and makes solid predictions. The maths is fundemental the interpertation in normal words is not... Have you read QED by Feynman? If not you should. If you have, have another read.

 

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.

Edited June 30, 2008 by merlin wood
clarification

[Klaynos]

Can't 'prove' anything without maths

 

Theoretical physics is fundamentally mathematical in nature. Esspecially if you want to replace an existing theory, your new one has to be better, therefore make better predictions, therefore needs maths.

[merlin wood]

Can't 'prove' anything without maths

 

Theoretical physics is fundamentally mathematical in nature. Esspecially if you want to replace an existing theory, your new one has to be better, therefore make better predictions, therefore needs maths.

 

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.

[Klaynos]

The burdon of proof is on you, that link doesn't point to your "blog hypothosis"

 

Your original post in this thread doesn't mention biology.

 

So what aspect of biology supports or rejects specific interpretations and how, because in physics support is mathematical (where experimental numbers are compared with theoretical numbers).

[merlin wood]

The burdon of proof is on you, that link doesn't point to your "blog hypothosis"

 

Your original post in this thread doesn't mention biology.

 

So what aspect of biology supports or rejects specific interpretations and how, because in physics support is mathematical (where experimental numbers are compared with theoretical numbers).

 

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.

[Klaynos]

*shrug* learn how science works, and what modern physics is, I really can't be bothered to read through all of that without maths, it'd be a waste of my time. Diagrams drawn out of thin air are always fun.

 

Could you just answer me:

 

So what aspect of biology supports or rejects specific interpretations and how, because in physics support is mathematical (where experimental numbers are compared with theoretical numbers).

?

[Sayonara]

No, I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on you

 

Wrong. Your hypothesis, your argument.

[john5746]

Nevermind

Edited June 30, 2008 by john5746
premature postilation

[merlin wood]

Wrong. Your hypothesis, your argument.

 

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...

Edited June 30, 2008 by merlin wood

[Sayonara]

No, he does not need to "prove" anything. He only has to highlight the shortcomings of your approach - it is up to you to either show how they are not in fact shortcomings, or fix them. If you can do neither then the hypothesis has pretty much failed.

 

Learning to drop the dead donkey is a part of scientific enquiry.

[Klaynos]

I'm pretty sure that the brain is now thought to be pretty much a classical system but I'll get bascule to comment, he's very well read in the area.

[Royston]

It's Klaynos' claim on this thread against the scientific validity of my hypothesis that needs to be proved by careful consideration 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.

 

And neither does your argument, physics without math is like physics without observation or experiment, they are 'all' necessary. If you don't understand that, then unfortunately you don't understand physics. I've scanned through your hypothesis a couple of times, and stop dead, because you havn't provided any real quantities and how they relate. How are you supposed to express the dynamics of your idea without math, there simply is nothing to chew on.

 

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.

 

Yes, and all of them have been fruitless. Even Penrose who despite his odd ideas, had a crack at consciousness and it failed. Yet you think, for some strange reason, that you have more to add, by consolidating on other's ideas, and summarizing with a few diagrams. There's more to physics than that, and it's actually a lot harder than you'd like to think. So my suggestion to you, is go and do some math courses, please.

 

Another point, you've been cherry picking quotes and methods (by methods i.e the qualitative argument of Darwin), to fit your idea, which is logically fallacious, so please don't do that.

 

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...

 

Pfft, please show how the two are related, as already stated, you're the one making the claim, so prove it already. Not with some, adhoc diagrams.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Snail