This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
What existed before the universe?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
The
line prediction comes directly from assuming the former and the curve comes from assuming the latter
, and the curve is what you get in the lab. So the implication of the experiment is that before measurement the particles really are in an undefined state, and the result of the wave function collapse is not just hard to predict but fundamentally random. And that's where "quantum randomness" comes from. Does that make any more sense?
It would, if it was any clearer how the bits bolded above are assumed. That's what I'm failing to comprehend - why the assumption of hidden variables directly results in a line prediction. I don't see the association, and Wiki doesn't explain it (at least, not that I could disentangle). I appreciate that if A is true (bolded) and B occurs (experimental result) then the C result (must be random) is the consequential implication, but I just don't get 'A' at the moment.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
We know that each electron has a fixed set of properties (represented above as its "card") from the moment it leaves the source. This set of properties can be viewed as a set of instructions for the detector, such as: "Make the detector flash green if it is in orientation 1 or 2 but red if it is in orientation 3." Moreover, we know that both electrons in a given pair have the same set of properties. These sets of properties, or instructions sets, can be broken down into two categories.
Some electrons either like, or dislike, all three orientations. For example, an electron might be "programmed" to cause a detector to flash red no matter how the detector is set. Since the other electron in the pair would of course have the same programming, such a pair guarantees that the two detectors will always give the same result, no matter how you point them.
Question - are those properties for the electrons being described actually programmed by the experimenter, or are we saying that we can determine that the probabilities will hold irrespective of the random 'programming' of the electron? Edit: Never mind, read a bit further and saw the answer.
Can I foreshadow a bit and predict - the direction of the detectors, is that what determines the cosine curve described in the wiki?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Yep, I gathered as much. So why is it that it's believed that the hidden variables model will result in a linear relationship?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
and in the latter, I don't actually have a choice anyway
You do have a choice. The only thing is that said choice will also be replicated in all the other universes. But you're right, the existence of other universes is meaningless in that respect.Well, now we have to make a decision: Do we imagine time as a line or as a single point? If we imagine it as a line, our actioms in the present cannoy possibly have amy effect on the past. No matter what choices we make in thos universe, we cannot change what we did in the previous universes, and assuming determinism, thoses choices have to line up with the choices we made in the previous universes, hence, free will doesn't exist.
However, if you assume that time is a single point, where past and future are united with the present, yes, you can write up your history in past universes at the same time as this one, but then that makes the idea of "before the universe" a moot concept, doesn't it?
Post by
Squishalot
Yep, I gathered as much. So why is it that it's believed that the hidden variables model will result in a linear relationship?
I told you, that's just how the math works out for measuring the spin of the particles Bell theorized about (namely electrons). It's not a general prediction for all hidden variable models; it's not even the prediction for the particles they actually did these experiments with (photons).
When we're talking about correlation, we're talking about the correlation between the detector results, right? i.e. how correlated is detector 1's result with detector 2's?
I'll have a play around with the math to reassure myself afterwards when I get some free time (i.e. not while I'm at work!). My gut feel isn't letting me take it on face value that the correlations would be linear.
and assuming determinism, thoses choices have to line up with the choices we made in the previous universes, hence, free will doesn't exist
Determinism doesn't mean that your choices are dictated by the choices made in previous universes. Determinism is that actions (consequences) are pre-determined due to causal chains. You could cut the timeline off at the start/end of our universe and it wouldn't make a difference to what you do.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
I know what determinism is. However, if you started every universe off with the exact same conditions, naturally they are all going to exhibit the same set of scenarios.
Post by
Squishalot
I know, my point is that we still have free will, in the sense that we can consciously decide something. The fact that our consciousness is pre-determined isn't related to whether we can make a conscious choice.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I know what determinism is. However, if you started every universe off with the exact same conditions, naturally they are all going to exhibit the same set of scenarios.
That claim
is
the scientific version of determinism, and what I've been talking to squish about is that current physics holds that it's likely not true. Any set of initial conditions has intrinsic uncertainty.I agree. I don't think determinism is completely true myself, thanks to things like quantum uncertainty, but I'm operating on the parameters MyTie gave me and Squish explanded on, i.e. a universe which regularly resets itself to the same starting conditions and operates under determinism.
My own points boil down to this:
If the universe resets itself, then:
I.
Does the process stretch on infinitely back?
A) If no, then it's no different than if our universe was the first. The very beginning would have had to be similar to our current understanding of the Big Bang.
B) If yes, then:
II.
Ignoring QM for philosophy's sake, does the universe reset to the exact same conditions each time?
A) If yes, then all universes will play out exactly the same each time, negating free will and rendering the universes before and after our own meaningless.
B) If no, then all possible outcomes will be expressed, allowing for free will, but invalidating MyTie's post: Even if the cycling is not an equilibrium, our matter is destined to repeat this life we live an infinite number of times. I haven't heard a better argument for living a full and loving life. What you are doing now, reading my post, you will do it an infinite number of times, which if measured in linear time can only be represented by "eternity". Might as well enjoy what you are doing, and do what you enjoy.
That was what originally got me arguing.
Post by
gamerunknown
I know, my point is that we still have free will, in the sense that we can consciously decide something.
To call that "free will" is equivocation though, since our internal conscious state will be the same in every possible universe.
Post by
MyTie
Skreeran - My argument is not for free will, nor against it. It was just a neat little thought I had on the "if" of the matter. I hadn't set out to break scientific ground on the origins of the universe. Besides, if I had, I'd have told you to read the Bible.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
the scientific bit is meaningless
I don't actually remember saying this. What is that... when someone takes someone else's argument and changes it to something that it is not, and then argues against their invented argument? What is that called? I know it is something with the word "straw" in it. Hmmm... Must have slipped my mind.
My point, and I'll repeat it is:
If we repeat the same actions for eternity, let's make them good ones.
Notice the "if" there. Notice this isn't an argument for nor against fate. This is just a simple statement that spawned pages of an irritating physics debate about free will and how I know nothing about science and how you have a degree in this sort of thing, and how I can't say how we should live our lives based on the universe, etc.
I guess, I'm going to summarize my argument against you this way:
You don't know what I'm talking about. Stop talking about it if you can't get it right. It's a cool thought I had. If you don't like it, then you can go soak your head. Fin.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
So we obviously disagree. Grats. Have a good night.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.