Packerbacker Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Right. La Place's view is 18th century Determinism.At the time they thought the universe was like a big clockworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogz Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 What do they think it is today? A big game of dice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogz Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Jim Imamura @ U of Oregon said this: We do not know if this indeterminism is actually the way the Universe works, because the theory of Quantum Mechanics is probably incomplete. That is, we do not know if the Universe actually behaves in a probabilistic manner (there are many possible paths a particle can follow and the observed path is chosen probabilistically) or if the Universe is deterministic in the sense that I could predict the path a particle will follow with 100 % certainty. http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 How can you equate the observer into the equation since in quantum mechanics the observer effects the result and have no idea how it will effect the result until it happens. Nope.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Uncertainty_principle_versus_observer_effect "In any case, it is now understood that the uncertainties in the system exist prior to and independent of the measurement, and the uncertainty principle is therefore independent of the observer effect." RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I guess TV tells lies on all those Pop science shows. Or that's physics has changed its opinions on certain things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogz Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Hey RMT! Do you have time to share your thoughts on Bohmian Mechanics? I was reading http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty And that lead me back to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ which talks about.... hidden variables. I'm not sure I interpreted this correctly, does Bohmian Mechanics bring order to chaos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 bogz, Do you have time to share your thoughts on Bohmian Mechanics? To be sure, I am not anywhere near an expert on Bohmian Mechanics. However, I am very aware of his work and I tightly resonante with his ideas of "Active Information", an "Implicate Order" which is a higher-level system from our perceived Explicate Order, and his concepts of the Bohm Pilot Wave which are the closest thing I know of (scientifically) for explaining the relationship between Mind and Matter. In point of fact, I draw an association to the "Implicate Order" that Bohm spoke of and the way I view Massive SpaceTime (i.e. the errors and uncertainties in our Explicate Order arise from our wish to separate Mass from SpaceTime). IMO Bohm is the ultimate friend of those who insist reductionism is a dead end. I'm not sure I interpreted this correctly, does Bohmian Mechanics bring order to chaos? I don't know. However, it does seem that the Bohm Pilot Wave is a "solution" to the utterly probabalistic situation of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. By adding the Bohm Pilot Wave to the classical wave function, it is my understanding that things are not left solely to probability, but instead the Pilot Wave (hence its name) is what directs certain results to occur over others. In my view this Pilot Wave speaks to a conscious field, and that this conscious field utilizes "active information" in order to achieve its INTENTION.As I say, I am no expert on Bohmian Mechanics, and I would invite Darby to correct me and shine the light of knowledge on anything I may have messed-up. But I do think Bohm's work is the closest to my own theories and research based on Systems Theory and my investigation of the TOL. Although I certainly am nowhere near the level of physics rigor as Bohm! RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerbacker Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 The thing is this (of several). If a real time traveler goes into the past and affects it, has causality been preserved? The cause comes from the future of the event. Or will one argue that the future from which the cause originated was caused by the past? However, I think a better refutation is that a cause can originate from a level independent of the physical universe, say the spiritual plane. This is not part of the causal history of the physical universe.Or suppose, a visitor from a completely independent realm of existence decides to drop by and see what we are doing. That intrusion is outside of the history of physical causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts