Physicists investigate the structure of time, with implications for quantum mechanics and philosophy

clock
Credit: Vera Kratochvil/public domain

(Phys.org)—Although in theory it may seem possible to divide time up into infinitely tiny intervals, the smallest physically meaningful interval of time is widely considered to be the Planck time, which is approximately 10-43 seconds. This ultimate limit means that it is not possible for two events to be separated by a time smaller than this.

But now in a new paper, physicists have proposed that the shortest physically meaningful length of time may actually be several orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time. In addition, the physicists have demonstrated that the existence of such a minimum time alters the basic equations of quantum mechanics, and as quantum mechanics describes all physical systems at a very small scale, this would change the description of all quantum mechanical systems.

The researchers, Mir Faizal at the University of Waterloo and University of Lethbridge in Canada, Mohammed M. Khalil at Alexandria University in Egypt, and Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge, have recently published a paper called "Time crystals from minimum time uncertainty" in The European Physical Journal C.

"It might be possible that, in the universe, the minimum time scale is actually much larger than the Planck time, and this can be directly tested experimentally," Faizal told Phys.org.

The Planck time is so short that no experiment has ever come close to examining it directly—the most precise tests can access a time interval down to about 10−17 seconds.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal of theoretical support for the existence of the Planck time from various approaches to , such as string theory, , and perturbative quantum gravity. Almost all of these approaches suggest that it is not possible to measure a length shorter than the Planck length, and by extension not possible to measure a time shorter than the Planck time, since the Planck time is defined as the time it takes light to travel a single unit of the Planck length in a vacuum.

Motivated by several recent theoretical studies, the scientists further delved into the question of the structure of time—in particular, the long-debated question of whether time is continuous or discrete.

"In our paper, we have proposed that time is discrete in nature, and we have also suggested ways to experimentally test this proposal," Faizal said.

One possible test involves measuring the rate of of a hydrogen atom. The modified quantum mechanical equation predicts a slightly different rate of spontaneous emission than that predicted by the unmodified equation, within a range of uncertainty. The proposed effects may also be observable in the decay rates of particles and of unstable nuclei.

Based on their theoretical analysis of the spontaneous emission of hydrogen, the researchers estimate that the minimum time may be orders of magnitude larger than the Planck time, but no greater than a certain amount, which is fixed by previous experiments. Future experiments could lower this bound on the minimum time or determine its exact value.

The scientists also suggest that the proposed changes to the basic equations of would modify the very definition of time. They explain that the structure of time can be thought of as a crystal structure, consisting of discrete, regularly repeating segments.

On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion.

"The physical universe is really like a movie/motion picture, in which a series of still images shown on a screen creates the illusion of moving images," Faizal said. "Thus, if this view is taken seriously, then our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."

"This proposal makes physical reality platonic in nature," he said, referring to Plato's argument that true reality exists independent of our senses. "However, unlike other theories of platonic idealism, our proposal can be experimentally tested and not just be argued for philosophically."


Explore further

Detection of mini black holes at the LHC could indicate parallel universes in extra dimensions

More information: Mir Faizal, et al. "Time crystals from minimum time uncertainty." The European Physical Journal C. DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3884-4. Also at arXiv:1501.03111 [physics.gen-ph]

© 2016 Phys.org

Citation: Physicists investigate the structure of time, with implications for quantum mechanics and philosophy (2016, February 1) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-02-physicists-implications-quantum-mechanics-philosophy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
12316 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 01, 2016
the smallest physically meaningful interval of time is widely considered to be the Planck time

Uh, no? I was under the impression that everybody considered the Planck time to be an "interesting unit", but it wasn't believed to have any actual physical significance.

They explain that the structure of time can be thought of as a crystal structure, consisting of discrete, regularly repeating segments.

Given that attempts of discretizing space have generally shown that "crystal structure" approaches fail, why do they expect the same to work for time? Especially since they're so entangled...

On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of time as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion.

Yeah, whatever. As time goes on I'm more and more realizing that philosophy is just the ELI5 of science, with no separate accomplishments of its own.

Sorry, but I woke up earlier than normal today...

Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 01, 2016
I agree with earlier comments.

Added to that are the supernova photon evidence that argues for relativity working continuously on scales below Planck scales in some sense. (A weak sense of how fluctuations would transform, as I remember it.)

Further if the work is supposed to play nice with string theory, that physics lack a physical embodiment of the Planck scale as well.

When testing was found to be the difference between science and philosophy (formerly "natural philosophy"), philosophy became opinionated belief mixed with a huge dollop of arrogance. They presume to describe how science works, which is eminently a science topic (which is why we have measurement theory, say), and moreover they fail so they occlude the topic. I'll take the ELI5 of science and raise you MSI of sophistry. (Yah, need coffee too.)

Feb 01, 2016
The most fundamental problem of "New Physics" since Albert Einstein is that is that it readopted the space and time concept of the early Greek idealism particularly of Zeno; as if these have "real" existence and physical attributes and one can assign quality, quantity, measure etc. determinant one does with tangible physical objects.

The fantastic and paradoxical nature of modern theoretical physics (like those of Zeno) lies in this abstract pre-supposition of the nature of space and time and now taken to even further abstraction by Einstein in his "spacetime" compounding. The theoretical physicists attempts to use brain-wrecking mathematics to assign physical meaning to such abstract entities can only end in tears: (Please see comments by "futurehuman") https://www.thegu...te-style

Feb 01, 2016
Later philosophers most notably, Leibniz, Kant and Hegel insisted that space and time has no physical or independent meaning without their relation to "matter in motion":

"Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind's nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally." I. Kant

Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 01, 2016
I have a problem with this because of special relativity. The measured elapsed time between two (spacetime) events depends on the observer's velocity relative to those events' comoving frame. Since velocity can be continuously varied, how can an invariant quantum of time exist?

Perhaps the answer lies in the quantisation of velocity, which in turn relies on the quantisation of both space and time.

Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 01, 2016
I'm not quite clear on the definition of Planck Time, as to whether it is not possible for two events to be separated by a time smaller than this, or that it represents the smallest possible interval between actual events in the physical world which are measurable. A unit value for the former can only ever be speculation.

I think in reality that time itself is a tool necessitated for by calculations of rates of change and the measurements of intervals. It is simply the continuous context for the perpetuation of existence. It's actually a variable, since each inertial frame of reference has its own time.

Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 01, 2016
The measured elapsed time between two (spacetime) events depends on the observer's velocity... how can an invariant quantum of time exist?
Plank time it is defined in terms of universal constants (G, h, c), which are identical in any reference frame. Different observers may see that Plank time is bigger for the other observer, but none of them can measure smaller time on their local frame. This is because Plank time is related to the speed of causality. If one observer measure two events separated by plank time, the other observer can either measure a longer time between the two events or either two simultaneous events (with a certain degree of uncertainty), but never two events separated by smaller time than Plank time.

Feb 01, 2016
... our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."


It is not the first discovery at the quantum scale that our mind dependent a-priori intuitions have been exposed as an artificial synthesis of experience. What bothers me is the continued metaphysical conflation of such "forms of thought" like time and their physical definition. IOW, what is being discovered is not the true nature of Time, as if it exists as some unobservable metaphysical Reality,... but rather the failure and limits of that intuitions physical representation.

The way one would jusitify claiming an independent reality for Time, would be to observe it as a physical field or particle,..... not as a relative state of other physical systems.


Feb 01, 2016
.... too many physicists don't even know the difference between an intuition of the subject and a property of the object,... and yet philosophy, that seeks validity of knowledge, is disparaged ? It appears that many would rather find it more satisfying to mix metaphysics or mathematical idealism with science, ...than basic epistemology with physics,... despite that it is valid knowledge that is ultimately sought.


Feb 01, 2016
Interesting for the deformation parameter alpha that when measured using spontaneous emission of hydrogen, an upper bound for the value of alpha_0 is on the order of Avogadro's number – a number tied to the amount of a substance (atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, photons) expressed as a specific number of discrete elementary entities. Maybe alpha_0 is somehow related to something like, "one mole of discrete space-time"?

From the paper, "If such a deformation parameter exists, it would be universal for all processes."

Feb 01, 2016
Planck length cannot be the smallest measure of time simply because if it has a length then it also has fractions of a length. It doesn't matter how short it actually is.

Feb 01, 2016
Time is abstract. It does not exist. Only change exists and time is derived from that. Why? Because a time dimension would make motion impossible. Why? Because a change in time implies a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is non-sensical. This is the reason that nothing moves in spacetime and why the great Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides (who taught Zeno and claimed that nothing changes) and called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens."

Live with it.

Feb 01, 2016
The truth fucking hurts, don't it?

Feb 01, 2016
Planck length cannot be the smallest measure of time simply because if it has a length then it also has fractions of a length. It doesn't matter how short it actually is.

While this might be, presumably, philosophically and/or mathematically true, I think that, in the comment from the article that the "physicists have proposed that the shortest physically meaningful length of time ...", probably the most significant (meaningful, if you will) word is "meaningful".

Feb 01, 2016
A's number is just the number of nucleons in a gram, so its value is conventional.
A's number is certainly related to standard atomic weight and the atomic mass unit. But note that it also works with charge because charge also seems to interact in discrete form: the total charge of 1 mole of electrons divided by the charge of a single electron equals A's number.
How many grams would be a "mole of spacetime". How many ncleons does it contain ?
According to this paper, the discrete interval of time (similarly to that of space, as worked out by others) depends on the amount of energy in it. From general relativity we know the geometry of spacetime certainly depends on the energy in it. Regardless, a mole of spacetime would have ~ 6.02 x 10^23 individual discrete intervals, right?

Feb 01, 2016
"Physicists investigate the structure of time, with implications for quantum mechanics and philosophy"

-Yeah you'll note that physicists are the ones successfully investigating this. The implications for philos is that it's even more obvious that theyre irrelevant.

And for all of you trying to use words to discuss this subject, you're just confusing yourselves. And you don't even know it.

Philos have given you the erroneous impression that physics can be conducted using words. They should be held accountable for this deception.

Feb 01, 2016
It is not the first discovery at the quantum scale that our mind dependent a-priori intuitions have been exposed as an artificial synthesis of experience. What bothers me is the continued metaphysical conflation of
... blah blah BLAH blah blah.

You'll note how the philo strings undefinable words together to create some sort of bling in an effort to display a social status he and his cronies have never earned and don't deserve.

Get a real job philo.

Feb 01, 2016
@Andrew Palfreyman and others. I think we have to careful to decide what we are talking about. If SR then it is clocks that measure the change or progression forward which we call time. The clocks themselves are not time. Or are we talking about Time as an entity in itself (there are some models around) where the arrow of Time (that which we measure in seconds) is a resultant of the fundamental 'ingredients'. Such models are consistent with mainstream science because what we measure is included so there is no conflict.

Feb 02, 2016
"On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of time as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion."

This is already know from saccadic masking


Feb 02, 2016
I see it axiomatically false. First, we can discretize to any level, simply based upon a 4D space within a continuous set of mathematical spaces, allowing superposition of any point as a real set. To keep the time of events straight we use only a single dimension. As you may see it is a continuous space from +/- infinity in size and/or scale. Why would I attempt to make a measurement based upon a tool with these silly limitations? Rather use what the field represents. Then define objects at all levels. Note: pick a point ..

Imagine tweaking molecular structure.

Feb 02, 2016
Those who hate philosophy now must acknowledge that time flowing continually is an illusion, what philosophers were saying for long time already from Plato to Kant. But it means that event time defines time flow and not time flow defines event time. I wonder where are in the mathematical models laws requiring that event starts in given integer time instance and not between two instances.

However you slice it, time and space are all illusions together with others categories are just tools to perceive objective reality as continuous or discrete and not an element of actual reality. Similarly to dualism which is about duality of perception, about irreconcilable dual conceptualization of phenomenon and not a characteristic of the reality.

The concept of time and objective reality is discussed here:
https://questforn...reality/

Feb 02, 2016
Those who hate philosophy ...

I stopped reading right there.


Hey there Stumpo, a little cranky are you not? Maybe ax'em will take the time to stop by & give you a high 5 to lift your spirits a bit.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
So does this mean that spooky action at a distance is not instantaneous?

The current understanding of time I have (which is probably very limited) is that you can only measure time by means of comparison to a regular periodic occurrence. The higher the frequency of this periodic occurrence, the smaller the time intervals you can register. This automatically links our ability to measure small time intervals to the highest frequency we can acquire, but how can you prove that just because we don't have anything with a higher frequency that there is nothing in between 2 intervals?

Feb 02, 2016
Here we go round again! I did all this 50 years ago (see The Situation of Gravity). There is no escaping the argument that what we perceive as reality is the interpretation by our brains of external stimuli. Everything, including Time, is quantum, whether you consider it from a philosophical perspective or a physics perspective. As Ryan1981 says, we can only measure Time using events, which themselves are embedded in Time, therefore a meaningless exercise. All we are doing is using a chosen ruler to measure its own length! And the bad news is, there is no way of stepping outside Time to measure Time.

Feb 02, 2016
How can you prove that ... ? - Ryan1981

Well it's like this ...

You boot your PlayStation and run some fantasy Math to derive a model that validates your pre-existing bias. Then you get together with likeminded gamers and present it as scientific evidence by posting a narrative that conforms to the accepted dogma.

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day,
Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way ..

Feb 02, 2016
How the Planck time can change, if it's " defined in terms of universal constants"?
It does not change, it has the same value in all reference frames. This is perfectly compatible with the time dilation effect for non local frames.
Not to say, the Planck time was never observed
That's true, but it does not come out of the blue. First, it was found there must be a limit for the speed of causality, or light speed would be infinite and our universe could not exist. This was made clear by Maxwell equations, then evolved in Relativity and QM. Think on the recursive propagation of EM waves: An electrical field creating a magnetic field which then creates a electrical field which then... All this happens at a certain rate, which depends on the value of the "c" constant. "c" does not come from light speed, but the speed of causality itself, light speed is just the consequence. Plank time is the time between these EM interactions, so nothing could be measured in the middle

Feb 02, 2016
... And there is Time to kill today ...


Feb 02, 2016
I like it when Lisa Zyga presents articles at Phys.org and possibly the most interesting choices of topic. Although I do wonder if she is laughing behind our backs.

Does anyone really believe that time can be quantised? Funny farm physics.

Thanks anyway Lisa. Good to see you are still with Phys.org, it's been a while.


Feb 02, 2016
@Bluehigh, your comment makes no sense to me, why contribute this nonsense?

@javjav: Am I correct in understanding that what you are saying is that in order to measure smaller time intervals you would need a measurement that in some way would exceed the speed of light?

Feb 02, 2016
Lisa Z gets up in the morning needing something to do & comes up with nonsensical drivel like this:

Physicists investigate the structure of time, with implications for quantum mechanics and philosophy



Feb 02, 2016
Ryan, Your comments are worthy of the frivolity they deserve. Sadly your limited intellect is unable to make sense of the bleeding obvious.

But hey, you wanna get nasty ... Bring it on.


Feb 02, 2016
If SR then it is clocks that measure the change or progression forward which we call time. The clocks themselves are not time.

That's correct. Einstein took an instrumentalist approach.

Or are we talking about Time as an entity in itself [..] where the arrow of Time (that which we measure in seconds) is a resultant of the fundamental 'ingredients'


This is a myth. There are no new fundamental ingredients or independent physical elements involved wrt the "arrow of time", that are not already known. This is merely a statistical result of already known physics. There is no additional physical entity discovered in that area of thermodynamics; no field or particle. It is merely another elaborate physical system like a clock.

And that is all that "measure of time" means; the relative congruence of one physical system to that of another. There is no time-field nor time-particle that is observable independently of that intuitions application.

Feb 02, 2016
but how can you prove that just because we don't have anything with a higher frequency that there is nothing in between 2 intervals?


As I said obliquely, you can't.

It's common knowledge though, that you'll find bacon.

Feb 02, 2016
Those who hate philosophy ...

I stopped reading right there.

And so that's where your understanding will stop as well.

There are branches of philosophy that are fundamental to science,... logic and validity and inherent limits of knowledge (epistemology). These are areas that are possible to investigate,... unlike metaphysical statements often made by physicists who should know better.

The mind is not omnipotent. It is just an emergent phenomenon from a biological blob, that itself operates not passively on account of physical laws like inanimate objects, but instead actively with its own emergent laws and means of synthesizing experience for the "understanding".

This fact places limits on what can be known of independent-reality (i.e. as Reality "actually" exists independently of the act of observation). The non-intuitive nature of QM is the physical discovery of what philosophers have known since Hume, Leibnitz, and Kant.


Feb 02, 2016
Am I correct in understanding that what you are saying is that in order to measure smaller time intervals you would need a measurement that in some way would exceed the speed of light?

No. What I am saying is that the speed of causality is not infinite, and it's value is implicit in c constant. Then, light speed being c is just a consequence of this deeper idea which is the speed of causality. To measure smaller time intervals you would need to use events that happens faster that the speed of causality, which is not possible "by definition". Saying that time is not quantised is like saying that the speed of causality is infinite, which is not what we observe (as per the EM radiation example)

Feb 02, 2016
That there may be a shortest meaningful time, should not be confused with time itself being quantized.

Time can be continuous, and at the same time there can be a (Planck time or some other value) limit to our exploration of time and time related phenomena, just like the Planck length doesn't force length to be quantized.

Could it be that these people have spent too much time around their computers, which see both length and time as quantized?

Feb 02, 2016
An electrical field creating a magnetic field which then creates a electrical field which then... All this happens at a certain rate, which depends on the value of the "c" constant. "c" does not come from light speed, but the speed of causality itself, light speed is just the consequence.


In point of fact you have it backwards,... In Maxwells equations, the constant c is instead derived from the permittivity and permeability of space (vacuum). These are constants not related to causality, but rather the ability for the vacuum to allow an electric field and magnetic field, respectively.

There is no known "speed of causality",... in fact when one measures the time it takes for a system to evolve, they are in fact merely making a comparison of the relative congruence of that system with another system defined to be time.

In QM the concept (and that's all it is) of causality fails to order quantum experience consistently.

Feb 02, 2016
Your defined 'speed' of causality is limited by event 'observation' (C, EM rate propagation etc.)

However that in no way implies that change,or information propagation, is limited to subjective data acquisition. It's only not possible because you choose to 'see' it that way.

There's no logic that imposes a physical limit on a rate of change. Nor can you logically derive that a lack of quantisation of time leads to instantaneous change (infinite speed as has been so ignorantly mentioned).

In any case it's moot. You cen never know. It's not science. It's navel gazing.

Although I assure you, you'll find bacon in those gaps between your imaginary time crystals.


Feb 02, 2016

... what is being investigated in the above article is not the "nature of time" as an independent physical entity nor the "structure of time",... but instead merely the theoretical limits of representing time as a physical system, given the presupposed mathematical structure of the theory.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
In quantum delayed choice eraser experiments, where a quantum particle appears to "know the future", it reduces to a matter of interpretation whether to even maintain time as a coherent physical representation and to accept that the quantum entity is neither a particle nor a wave,... OR,... to maintain that the quantum enity is a particle and accept that it's behaviour defies our concept of time. In either logical case, our conceptual framework is exposed as an artificial one, a synthetic means of ordering experience.

Feb 02, 2016
The "spacetime" of GR is a mathematical/geometrical construct and not a tangible physical or ontological entity and has nothing to do with "matter in motion" – the very basis of physics - of the concept and of the measurement of time and space!

"Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high". Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.

Feb 02, 2016
In point of fact you have it backwards,... In Maxwells equations, the constant c is instead derived from the permittivity and permeability of space (vacuum).
If we take c as the speed of causality, then Permittivity and permeability can be also derived from it. One thing is the order in which these constants were historically defined, but it does not mean that second one defined in history comes from the first one. It can be the opposite, as their values come from two different ways of measuring a same phenomena and both ways produce the same values.


Feb 02, 2016
Those who hate philosophy now must acknowledge that time flowing continually is an illusion, what philosophers were saying for long time already from Plato to Kant
Then provide quotes where they said exactly this rather than some semblance of it, or something somewhat like it. And with only a little work I'll provide quotes saying the opposite, perhaps from these same philos.

They had no access to the EVIDENCE produced by the long succession of experiments and analysis that the above scientists above used to design their experimemts and reach their conclusions.

Philos were GUESSING. Any semblance to real science is merely luck and happenstance.

Philosophy isn't a discipline; it's fashion, entertainment, propaganda.

Feb 02, 2016
There are branches of philosophy that are fundamental to science,... logic and validity
Philos sometimes do discover something useful. But when they do so they are doing so as scientists, not philos. They aren't confirming that science is a philosophy; they are abandoning philosophy in order to get something done.
and inherent limits of knowledge (epistemology)
Only scientists are capable of finding out what they can and cannot know. They do this by experimenting and analysing; not by sitting and thinking about it.

The above work is a good example of scientists redefining limits. No philo could have done it or even thought of doing it.

Were there any philos on the team in the above study? Any philo refs at the end of their paper? No.
unlike metaphysical statements often made by physicists who should know better
But philos continue to use this term. You yourself used it above.

Shouldn't you know better?

Feb 02, 2016
@TGoO
Philosophy isn't a discipline; it's fashion, entertainment, propaganda.

And Physics is?
Not as currently practised, with its constant invention of new imaginary things in order to maintain the consistency of establishment dogma, despite growing irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Can you step back from your prejudices and take an unbiased logical view of, say, Gravity Waves, and still tell me you think they exist? How about Dark Matter, Dark Energy? Wimps? That Higgs Boson "confers mass" on other particles? Gravitic Lensing?

Feb 02, 2016
....In Maxwells equations, the constant c is instead derived from the permittivity and permeability of space (vacuum).
If we take c as the speed of causality, then Permittivity and permeability can be also derived from it. One thing is the order in which these constants were historically defined, but it does not mean that second one defined in history comes from the first one....


That is a reasonable point generally, however, in this case had Maxwell derived permittivity and permeability from c he would have required to state c as a postulate first, rather than derive it from permittivity and permeability of the vacuum from experimentally measurable effects. Since permittivity and permeability can be measured, there is no sense in deriving them from a postulates.

Now, Einstein DID postulate an upper limiting speed limit, but that only happens to coincide with c, not necessarily so (had photons mass),... in which to form SR.

Feb 02, 2016
Can you step back from your prejudices and take an unbiased logical view of, say, Gravity Waves, and still tell me you think they exist? How about Dark Matter, Dark Energy? Wimps? That Higgs Boson "confers mass" on other particles? Gravitic Lensing?
How should I know? I'm not a physicist and don't know near enough to form an opinion.

And neither do you.

But I certainly respect their opinions.

Similarly I tend to believe them when they say that philosophy is dead.

Feb 02, 2016
@ghostofotto1923, ...yes, I know the distinction between philosophy and science. I did not ever say that science advances by philosophers. That is your strawman you never tire of having sex with.

A theoretician of physics just "sits there and thinks about it"... reflecting on experiments done by others, synthesizing a mathematical structure that will allow for predictions.

If such a physicist didn't care about "what it all means", which is to say, interpretations,.... then he wouldn't be a physicist, but instead merely a mathematician.

In point of fact, he does care though, and invariably assumes a philosophical context in which he works, that guide his theory development ,... be it a Realist one or Positivistic one. See the entire history of QM for example. It is also true that he is also liable of making metaphysical statements some philosophers would never utter.

Do you have a specific objection, other than the validity of philosophy of physics?

Feb 02, 2016
@JavJav: Thanks for your elaboration. You have given me some more food for thought.

Feb 02, 2016
There's no logic that imposes a physical limit on a rate of change.
Yes there is a logic. It can be wrong, but there are real experiments pointing in that direction: EM interaction was one example, but this article contains a better one. Different values for time quantisation predict different results for Hydrogen spontaneous emission rate. And this experiment is getting coherent values with an upper limit to time granularity (well above Plank time). They will need to replicate this result for other cases, but it is pretty interesting.
Nor can you logically derive that a lack of quantisation of time leads to ... (infinite speed as has been so ignorantly mentioned)
What I said is this: if EM interaction could occur at an infinite rate then the speed of light would also be infinite.
It's not science. It's navel gazing.
The article is about all this, based on real observations on Hydrogen atoms. That's science, could it be that you are the ignorant?


Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
There are branches of philosophy that are fundamental to science,... logic and validity and inherent limits of knowledge (epistemology). These are areas that are possible to investigate,... unlike metaphysical statements often made by physicists who should know better.

Only scientists are capable of finding out what they can and cannot know. They do this by experimenting and analysing


In his monumental and resounding text, "The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", the great John von Neumann, a scientist, analyzed quantum mechanics experimental findings in order to formulate a consistent mathematical basis for QM, making use of Hilbert space and Fourier analysis.

In this text, his analysis lead him to conclude that the mathematical object, the superposed wave-function, collapses in consciousness,... [where physical reality subject to laws of physics, meet emergent laws of thought, concepts.]


Feb 02, 2016
Just a quick filter criterion for everyone commenting: until the physicists can calculate the mass of the proton, which they fail at by almost an order of magnitude, any speculation regarding what occurs at energy scales 8 or more orders of magnitude greater than that are simply hot air.

Feb 02, 2016
... in this debate with DaSchnieb, I summarize von Neumann's argument referenced above. The point here, is that this is the point ["von Neumann's cut"] where physics ends and epistemology begins. In principle this (the mind) is investigable,... just requiring different fields of expertise.

I will also add that many physicists have concluded similar points made by me above, so I not sure what your objection really is (otto).

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
Heres a nice quote;

"The goal of philosophy should not be to continue to give vague and mysterious answers to difficult questions. The goal of philosophy should be to figure out how to hand over its factual questions to scientists, and its conceptual questions to computer programmers, so that these questions can be answered.
"The goal of philosophy should be to kill itself."
- See more at: http://commonsens...wKW.dpuf

-When scientific theories are superceded, scientists have in effect killed them. Science is continuously regenerating itself in light of new evidence.

Nothing in philosophy ever dies however. There is always a new gen ready to resurrect old schools and call them 'neo'.

Feb 02, 2016
what a nonsense is this article.........time is only a mathematical parameter of motion in
http://link.sprin...i+amrit+

Feb 02, 2016
Heres an interesting quote from the same article on the futility of the philosophic approach by von neumann himself...

"After giving a talk on computers at Princeton in 1948, John von Neumann was met with an audience member who insisted that a "mere machine" could never really think. Von Neumann's immortal reply was:

""You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!"

"The problem with most philosophy is that it is imprecise, and this leads to centuries of confusion. Do numbers exist? Depends what you mean by "exist." Is the God hypothesis simple? Depends what you mean by "simple." Can we choose our own actions? Depends what you mean by "can" and "choose.""

-Philos thrive on the vague and undefinable.

I will assume that von neumann believed he could design a machine to collapse the waveform all by itself.

Feb 02, 2016
I will assume that von neumann believed he could design a machine to collapse the waveform all by itself
-That is, as long as someone could give him a precise definition of what 'collapse' and 'waveform' meant.
Do you have a specific objection, other than the validity of philosophy of physics?
Can you provide precise defs for 'specific' and 'validity' and 'philosophy of physics' that von neumann would have found acceptable?

No you cant.

Feb 02, 2016
Even fellow philos will inform you of the futility of cooking word pasta.

"[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors." -Dan dennett

-Fun to eat I suppose but largely devoid of essential vitamins and minerals.

Feb 02, 2016
I'm thinking they have the wrong metaphor. The universe is not a movie for us to watch, with minds too slow to perceive the units of time flashing by. Instead, it is a large crowd of subatomic particles, each in its own reference frame, playing a turn-based game like D&D.

On each turn, every particle rolls the dice for something to happen or not happen. Emit? Revolve? Orbit? Decay? Move? Stop? The length of a turn is the same for all, but because of relativity they do not happen simultaneously, and every particle would "perceive" its neighbors' turns to be longer or shorter, depending on their relative motion.

So I don't buy the crystal metaphor, either. That would mean time is a thing independent of the motions and events of the particles. By that same coin, I guess I don't believe in space, either; it would just be an emergent property of the particles and their relationships.

Feb 02, 2016
we think of time as moving from a single point outwards only, where to look at time properly you will need to use multiple time points/ (points in space (time)), using the fastest thing we know of (light), and we have devised its speed in an account of how we perceive things. but if we forget about how fast we think and about light speed being the fastest posible thing and that any thing that is faster goes backwords through time, we get a more naked look at how time works traveling from one place to another over a very long distance. now if i was a particle of light traveling away from earth, everthing behind me would seem to stop, and everthing in front of me would seem to double in speed, if i still percieved time as a human being. moving towards another solar system at double the speed of light, in front of me my precieved time would seem to quadruple in speed, and behind me would seem to play in exactly the same speed as i normaly precieve thing standing still but backwards.

Feb 02, 2016
This crystalline structure are just the knots which esconse light, creating inertial and mass. There is no time the light simply returns to it's origins in the singularity every time cycle. Black holes are simply a macroscopic manifestation of this basic natural process

Feb 02, 2016
if we use p0 as the point from where we left to go to p1. and t0 as the time it took to get from one place to the other, and ls0 set as the speed of travel, and we forget that light even exists, we begin to see what, time space really looks like in what would appear to be a frozen time state, then we apply this to the universe and include electronic draw aka Gravity, the draw of electrons to larger proton bodies. and we +1 to everything above and it like we just pressed play on the universe, without the fog of light blinding us of clarity just like a foggy crystal.

Feb 02, 2016
but all in all i would only end up where i ended up exactly at the same time i would if i went the opposite direction..... blinded by the light torn up like a duche a runner in the night

\

Feb 02, 2016
That is, as long as someone could give him a precise definition of what 'collapse' and '[wavefunction]' meant.

They have precise meanings in quantum mechanics. Had you studied physics, you would have recognized those terms. Ironic is your complaint of the vagueness of philo terms, whilst not even recognizing science terms.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
That is, as long as someone could give him a precise definition of what 'collapse' and 'waveform' meant.

They have precise meanings in quantum mechanics.

The process of wave function collapse is not described by QM and is interpretation.


The context and reference was wrt von Neumann's book, "Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", in which he introduces state-reduction in Hilbert space. So yes it is described and is a part of that Hilbert space formulation.

I think you meant, it's not described in the deterministic evolution of the wavefunction via the Schrodinger equation. Yes, that's correct. It's an extra step and yes a matter of interpretation,... but the prevalent one and the one most in-line with actual experiment.


Feb 02, 2016
.... further there ARE objective-collapse theories which add terms to the Schrodinger equation which serve to model a physical collapse. These theories treat the wavefunction as a physical wave, and since the superposed wavefunction is not observable as such, and their predictions must conform to present experiment, they are also "interpretations",... as is the Bohm-deBroglie pilot wave theory, as is many-worlds theory, .... all proposing metaphysical entities in one form or other to escape the collapse postulate.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
@Noumenon
Interpretation is interpretation. You can only go wrong if you believe too much in your interpretations.


That goes for any interpretation. In point of fact experiments reveal only one of a possible superposition of possibilities which the wavefunction represents. This is an experimental fact. The Copenhagen interpretation and Born rule adds no extra metaphysical baggage in an naive attempt at providing an "explanation", but instead follows the facts. Belief is not required as experimental evidence shows only one result,... while belief is required for things unobservable by definition.


Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
@Noumenon
That may all be so but wave function collapse is neither an experimental fact nor a theoretical prediction.


It is a mathematical prediction in objective-collapse theories, .... however sticking to mainstream, I never stated it was as prediction of mathematical theory. I stated that state-reduction is an element of the Hilbert space formulation. I agree that the Born rule is an extra layer of interpretation. Never stated otherwise. In practice the [square of] wavefunction is interpreted as a probability of obtaining a particular result.

I did not say collapse is an experimental fact (as I don't even regard the wavefunction as a physical wave),... What was said above was this: it is a experimental fact that only one of a superposition of possibilities is actually observed.


Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
@Noumenon
You stated that wave function collapse has precise meaning in QM.

Again, the context was wrt von Neumann's text in which he introduces state-reduction (the state-vector (wavefunction) is projected to a basis of Hilbert space upon a measurement.). So, yes it has a precise meaning there. The Born rule is a precise meaning.

My pov is that it is outside QM, it is an interpretation of QM.

It is not outside QM generally. It is outside the deterministic evolution of the wavefunction via the Schrodinger equation. For some interpretations, it is a key element in QM, for other interpretations it is rejected.

What is the time evolution from uncollapsed to collapsed? This is not the subject of any equation of QM.

Again, I never stated it was,... in fact I confirmed it does not occur in the Schrodinger equation , unless that equation is modified for objective collapse. The Born rule is a very ubiquitous interpretation in actual practice.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
.... when does collapse occur? Well, that is the measurement problem. You tell me, upon a measurement why is there an abrupt discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the [superposition] state-vector and actual singular result from measurement?

The interpretation that I favour (Copenhagen extension, consistent histories with decoherence) is positivistic in the sense of not adding additional layers of unobservable metaphysical entities.


Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
@Noumenon
Unless the Schrödinger equation is wrong or incomplete, don't modify it.


I'm not proposing that it should be modified, only pointing out that some theories predict collapse by adding terms to the Schrodinger equation,.. so that the Schrodinger equation does predict collapse in those theories.

There is no experimental reason for thinking the wavefunction is a physical thing, and every that it is not.

You tell me, upon a measurement why is there an abrupt discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the [superposition] state-vector and actual singular result from measurement?

Feb 02, 2016
@TGoO

... Gravity Waves, and still tell me you think they exist?

Very likely.
How about Dark Matter,

Likely
Dark Energy? Wimps? That Higgs Boson "confers mass" on other particles?

I have doubts.
Gravitic Lensing?

Experimental fact.

So, Gravitic Lensing is experimental fact, is it? You accept no other explanation? How about if I point out some fundamental problems with it. Do you understand basic optics? When light passes thru a lens towards an observer to form an image, photons passing thru the center of the lens do not deviate, photons passing near the center deviate slightly, and photons passing further out from the centre deviate MORE. For photons passing a massive object, assuming they are affected by gravity, those nearer deviate MORE and further out deviate LESS. Hence, light is scattered, and DOES NOT FORM AN IMAGE!

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
Requiring Intuitive understanding as a structural component of a theory of microscopic reality is an unreasonable and extra burden for science. In fact it would have been remarkable if our concepts and intuitions remained valid all 'the way down'. Already in GR we see failure of simultaneity, and that the physical representation of time 'runs away' from out intuition of time.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
You stated that wave function collapse has precise meaning in QM.
My pov is that it is outside QM, it is an interpretation of QM.
Exactly. That's the root of the problem. QM is a great model to describe reality, it can even represent phenomena that we don't understand and make predictions about it. But Entanglement, Delayed choice back in time, wave particle duality.. are not really understood. QM does not tell us how to interpret the results. This already happened in early 20th century. Breakthroughs from Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz..which produced accurate predictions but nobody knew how to interpret it, it also seemed to be impossible... until Einstein got it!. The necessary math was already in place, but his main achievement was to find an "understandable" interpretation. That is what we QM needs now. Finding the right QM interpretation is not a secondary aspect, it has to be the primary objective.

Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1
Making new stuff is good but it is secondary objective. When fire was discovered they made nice stuff with it, but they didn't had any f.idea about what it was. Physics started when trying to understand it. Same happens to QM, we can use it for many things, but nobody really understand it. Remember what Schroedinger said about QM probability interpretation? "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it". And you can find similar quotes from Plank, Bohr, Feynman... but many of you are acting as if reality could be derived from QM, so you don't need any interpretation: reality follows QM rules, period. But is the opposite. The value of QM is in the capability to describe reality (which does only partially) and to provide a way to understand it (which barely does). Negating the need for a breakthrough on QM interpretation is absurd. Finally, talking about metaphysics is not out of topic, just see the article header "..implications for QM and philosphy"...

Feb 03, 2016

So, Gravitic Lensing is experimental fact, is it?

Correct.
You accept no other explanation?

I never said that.
... Do you understand basic optics?

I am an expert.
When light passes thru a lens towards an observer to form an image, photons passing thru the center of the lens do not deviate, photons passing near the center deviate slightly, and photons passing further out from the centre deviate MORE. For photons passing a massive object, assuming they are affected by gravity, those nearer deviate MORE and further out deviate LESS. Hence, light is scattered, and DOES NOT FORM AN IMAGE!

I see no "other explanation" in your post.
Your description of gravitational lensing is mistaken.

You are an expert? Then point out the logic flaw in my description of "lensing". Where is the mistake?
And I could give you several other "explanations" of the effect called GL.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
E = h * f, gives the minimal qunta of energy that the quntum oscilator can radiate or absorb in the form of electromagnetic wave with frequency f.

This minimum qunta is only theoretical and can not be measured, and because of this the Plank constant is also only theoretical.

Fundamental physics today is more philosophy than science, because the world is only partially knowable to us but, people have become unnecessarily proud to admit it. We use in our daily lives, engineering and research activity the effects of the physical laws, but do not understand their essence and what determines them to be such and not others. The philosophy is useless occupation. It is a tribune for the human vanity.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
If there was anyone recently that I might be interested in engaging in a serious discussion involving QM it certainly would not be the incarnation Phys1.

I'm still pondering some elements of proposed research posed by Mike Massen regarding QCD and photon interaction in opposite parallel paths.

Let's be clear, I don't much like Mad Muttering Mike. His linguistic techniques, arrogance and lack of humour annoy me.

However, as I say, it's likely that Mad Muttering Mike might be worth engaging in serious discussion regarding QM effects, unlike the pretenders and certainly not the mindless jabbering sock puppet Phys1.

In the meanwhile I'll just enjoy the banter. My ego doesn't need you, Phys1.

Feb 03, 2016

I see no "other explanation" in your post.
Your description of gravitational lensing is mistaken.

You are an expert? Then point out the logic flaw in my description of "lensing". Where is the mistake?
And I could give you several other "explanations" of the effect called GL.

There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance. The resulting gradient of the phase shift implies a rotation of the wave front. The wave propagates as if attracted by gravity. The effect is twice as large as expected from Newton gravity if a mass hnu/c^2 is ascribed to the light.
Also read:
https://en.wikipe...nal_lens

So, "There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance." is there? What a load of crap. Do you realise what you are actually saying here? The further you go from the centre of mass, the greater the effect! You have an amazing mind......

Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1
Reality (the tiny physical part of it) does _precisely_ follow QM rules
Not when you put enough mass/energy in a tiny place. Then it breaks. it does not work for something so fundamental as gravity. And it can only describe what happened "after" the big bang, only from a time when "all the fish was sold", which means that it is missing the most interesting part in the universe history. I agree it is still the best model that we have, but that can't be enough. And reality does not obey QM rules. First comes reality, QM theory is just a mathematical model to describe some aspects of the reality, and only in terms of probabilities. Sorry if this send me straight to your black list, but I believe that being humble about our knowledge is the only way to progress.


Feb 03, 2016
And that also goes for you @RegMundy. Obviously you don't understand Gravity lensing at all. So you should be less arrogant, just be a bit more humble and you will learn something today.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
please show me a viable experiment that is not accurately described by QM.
Here you have a few ones:

- Make a particle measurement and try to use QM to determine where all the information that was existing before the waveform collapse has gone. Or has it been destroyed? Was not this forbidden?

- Measure any fundamental constant and try to use QM to explain why it has that particular value and no other. (Is not this enough to prove that first comes reality, and then you derive QM rules from there and not the opposite? )

- Measure the space accelerated expansion and try to describe it with QM

- Measure the amount of matter and antimatter in the observable universe and try to explain the difference with QM

- Try to use QM to explain why all the observable universe follows a same arrow of time.

- Make a baby, measure the emergence of consciousness, and try to describe this phenomenon with QM.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
You tell me, upon a measurement why is there an abrupt discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the [superposition] state-vector and actual singular result from measurement?


Collapse appears to occur if the result of measurement is analysed in terms of the wave function of the system without inclusion of the measuring tool. The inclusion of the measurement tool leads to a more complex wave function in which the system and tool wave functions are entangled…


You are describing decoherence. You used the correct word "appears", however, in point of fact, decoherence does not cause wavefunction collapse (because the Schrodinger equation does not), nor does it solve the measurement problem. It does not explain why a particular experimental result occurs as opposed to another as expressed in the wavefunction. In actual practice the Born probability interpretation of the wavefunction cannot be avoided, without adding metaphysical interpretations.
-->

Feb 03, 2016
@javjav
QM does not explain why the dinosaurs disappeared.

Yes it does. In fact it is an easy case to explain with QM, providing knowledge of the initial conditions.
Nor where they are now ?

Dinosaurs are split in particles all around us (except @promile , who is still alive). No information is lost.

My first examples were purely related to QM domain, and you don't answer.

Some examples were just to remark that QM can only explain certain experiments but no others (you didn't specify). Although I recognise they were unnecessary at this point.

Finally, the example of consciousness should also be fully related to QM field, much more than you think, as per our experimental measurements you should only need a network of interactions between EM waves to create it.

Feb 03, 2016
<----

I provided a link above where I summarize von "Neumann's cut" [search the name of the text], and the fact that decoherence is included in that analysis.

Decoherence explains mathematically the appearence of the emergence of macroscopic reality [which we already knew must occur], …it explains through loss of coherence of phase terms, which are responsible for quantum interference effects. It does not have anything to say about specific results being obtain [..]. There is no 'collapse of the wavefunction' in decoherence, since the mathematical structure in which Zeh formulated contains no such mechanism.

You appear to know this, so It's the 'rest of the story' that I'm asking about.

Feb 03, 2016

So, "There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance." is there? What a load of crap. Do you realise what you are actually saying here? The further you go from the centre of mass, the greater the effect! You have an amazing mind......

I did not say that.
It is too bad that you are unable to understand my explanation.
Either it is "crap" or you simply lack the skills and the will.
Physics is not for everyone. It takes a big, consistent, long effort to master it.
Give it up.

Yes, you did say that! Are you now claiming a schitzophrenic episode when another part of you said it, but not you? Somebody stole your password and pretended to be you? What?
Your explanation consists of saying "phase delay due to gravity". What is not to understand about that? Please explain!
For somebody who claims to be an expert on Optics, your suggestion that I "give it up" is frivolous to say the least.

Feb 03, 2016
That is what we QM needs now. Finding the right QM interpretation is not a secondary aspect, it has to be the primary objective.

Correct, and is why it annoys me when people disparage interpretations as "just being interpretations". It is the primary objective in physics to understand. My point here is that an analysis of how we think, our concepts and hard-wired intuitions, is investigable in principal, while metaphysical interpretations, those that propose unobservable physical entities, are not in principal investigable. We have research the point where physical reality subject to laws of physics, meet emergent laws of thought.

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - Stephen Hawking

Feb 03, 2016
..consciousness should also be fully related to QM field, [..] you should only need a network of interactions between EM waves to create it.


The brain, ,,,the physical basis of the emergent mind and consciousness, ,,,would in principal be just like any other experimental apparatus, subject to the laws of nature.

The difference is that the mind is not passive. It is active with it's own ways of ordering experience. There are "forms of thought" that, given the nature of mind and the fact that it evolved to order experience at in macoscopic realm, ... are in effect necessary conditions for experience to be possible.

We MUST subject experience to concepts of time, space, causality, determinism, separability, simultaneity, counterfactuality, etc.... if understanding is to be "intuitive". This is why QM is not intuitive,... our concepts break down at that scale. We didn't evolve to synthesize quantum reality.

--->

Feb 03, 2016
please show me a viable experiment that is not accurately described by QM
It's easy, for example the double slit experiment. Most physical skippies don't perceive absolutely any problem with it,

Zeph, you get a 5 just for using the word "skippies"...:-)

Feb 03, 2016
- Make a baby, measure the emergence of consciousness, and try to describe this phenomenon with QM.

I LOVE this one...
Simple answer - the consciousness was always there to a lesser or greater degree...
Just not developed to OUR definition.

Feb 03, 2016

@Noumenon
The problem with interpretations is that they are unfalsifiable.
I thought that was pretty obvious.


That is strictly true, if one confines oneself within the realm of QM and does not venture further to the equally obvious element involved, the mind. What is missing is an algebra of thought to interface with theory, that acts to conform an otherwise formless reality to our conceptual framework, if not regressive.

Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Jorden, Pauli, and von Neumann took the approach they did,.... interpreting the wavefunction as probability, rejecting it as physical wave, accepting wavefunction collapse, rejecting unobservable scaffolding to save intuition,.. because this was the most direct and cleanest [metaphysics being "dirty"], interpretation of the experimental facts and mathematical conditions.

Now, nearly one hundred years later, the experimental evidence continues to refute a Realist perspective, with measurement-problem unresolved.


Feb 03, 2016
..consciousness should also be fully related to QM field, [..] you should only need a network of interactions between EM waves to create it.


Interesting. Roger Penrose makes interesting arguments that consciousness [mind] is not "computable",... that quatum interference effects are somehow maintained despite noisy decoherence in the brain, and that QM is operationally necessary for the emergence of consciousness.

If we can understand how the mind works we can understand understanding quantitatively, and only then perhaps the measurement-problem,.... but I suspect there is some recursiveness here....

EDIT: "We have [reached] the point where physical reality subject to laws of physics, meet emergent laws of thought."

Feb 03, 2016
You should take a look at Ballentine's book


Thank you for the recommendation. I've read that he rejects some aspects of von Neumann's standard approach, (projection postulate), without substituting with an equivalently useful element. Why do you recommend this one?

Feb 03, 2016
They have precise meanings in quantum mechanics. Had you studied physics, you would have recognized those terms. Ironic is your complaint of the vagueness of philo terms, whilst not even recognizing science terms
Of course they do and of course I know what they are referring to, which is why I used them.

Physicists have very precise defs for them. Philos do not, which is what von neumanm, the author of the article I cited (who is a philo) and dennett, were referring to.

Words are not tools for discussing physics except when used in discussion with other physicists who know the math that they represent.

What's with the 'whilst' business? You're not Anglo are you? More posturing for the audience eh?

Feb 03, 2016
John von Neumann was a physicist who wrote a standard text, who was the first to formulate a complete mathematical foundation for quantum mechanics. You have been told this.

I'm not interested in debating the validity or otherwise of philosophy wrt science, especially given your repeated, even though corrected, false accusationary style of presumptions wrt my knowledge, without feeling any obligation to display your own, nor even substantive interest in the subject.


Feb 03, 2016
Because it is the best approach to QM that I know.
No unnecessary interpretations so no paradoxes.
I agree that we should undo the mysteries of QM but we have to restrict ourselves to what we know.


Yes, and as important, to what we CAN know in principle . This is the positivistic approach (as opposed to realist).

All approaches to QM involve unavoidable interpretation in one form or other.....

"....None of the confusion [in particular story] would have occurred were it not for the habit of associating a wave function with an individual electron instead of an ensemble. It goes to show that questions of interpretation in QM are not devoid of practical utility." - Ballentine

Ballentine makes use of the ensemble interpretation, and finds use in interpretation generally , as indeed he must because it is unavoidable.


Feb 03, 2016
@Noumenon
I am not a positivist but I think without a lead you can not advance beyond the ensemble interpretation because the odds are against you.


Singles systems are not deterministic though.

What do you mean by you're "not a positivist"?

Feb 03, 2016
""After giving a talk on computers at Princeton in 1948, John von Neumann was met with an audience member who insisted that a "mere machine" could never really think. Von Neumann's immortal reply was:

"You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!""

-quoted by the ghostofotto1923


-So, von Neumann (with the benefit of already being a conscious thinking subject), proposes to fix the machine every time one points out something it can't do? An actually thinking machine would in principal be able to fix itself.

Or,….

Feb 03, 2016
-Or given your ironically vague generalization about the supposed vagueness of "philos" [without ever addressing a specific point made], …is the point that von Neumann indicated this….. "the only real limitations on making 'machines that think' are our own limitations in not knowing exactly what "thinking" consists of" [your link left this off from their original source].

Sounds familiar to points made by me wrt QM and epistemology.

Aren't you a strong-A.I. proponent? What about the vagueness of strong-A.I. believing they can make an thinking machine without having a precise understanding of the thing they purport to produce?

How the mind works will not be discovered by A.I.-dorks, I can assure you of that at least.

Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1,

What do you mean by you're "not a positivist"? Do you mean that you believe that QM describes reality as it exists independent of mind dependent observation? This would be a realist stance, and is in fact an interpretation. Further, it is refuted by experiment.....

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [mind] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - Bernard d'Espagnat

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
What do you know about the QM description of a H atom that you do't understand ?
In my particular case, what the article is saying about the quantisation of time. This is from the article:
"The modified quantum mechanical equation predicts a slightly different rate of spontaneous emission than that predicted by the unmodified equation".
This article from the university guys is about this, they propose experiments which results would be different depending on space and time quantisation. I think it is a pretty interesting idea. So please guys, could we go back into the article that we are discussing for a moment?

Or about an electron in a box?
Electrons shouldn't kill cats. That's wrong.

Feb 03, 2016
All predictions of QM are accurately reproduced experimentally
and I don't care much for d'Espagnat.

I tried to read one of his books one time. Because somebody here (it might have been Nouneman-Skippy or JohnPringle-Skippy) said I should so I would not be so stupid. Well I don't mind admitting that I did not finish him. Or admitting that I was even more stupid after reading a hundred pages or so than I was before I started him.

Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1,

What do you mean by you're "not a positivist"? Do you mean that you believe that QM describes reality as it exists independent of mind dependent observation? This would be a realist stance, and is in fact an interpretation. Further, it is refuted by experiment.....

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [mind] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - Bernard d'Espagnat

All predictions of QM are accurately reproduced experimentally ...

I've stated as much many times here.

Feb 03, 2016
-So, von Neumann (with the benefit of already being a conscious thinking subject), proposes to fix the machine every time one points out something it can't do?
I think he was talking about different machines for different things.
An actually thinking machine would in principal be able to fix itself
Can you fix yourself? I guess you're claiming to be unconscious (nonconscious? Soulless?)

I concur.

Feb 03, 2016
what do you mean you're not a positivist??!¿
I think he means that, like most scientists, he doesn't much care about whatever -ism philos want to classify him as.

You're -isms are only relevant to other philos. Nobody else really gives a shit.

Feb 03, 2016
How the mind works will not be discovered by A.I.-dorks, I can assure you of that at least
There you go again. The word 'mind' is undefinable. It means nothing. Please stop using it. Please get your colleagues to stop using it.

Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2016
Or about an electron in a box?
Electrons shouldn't kill cats. That's wrong.

Why not? They kill people...
And... If it's a cat in a box with radioactive material, it's neutron decay that does the deed...

Feb 03, 2016
All predictions of QM are accurately reproduced experimentally
and I don't care much for d'Espagnat.

I tried to read one of his books one time. Because somebody here (it might have been Nouneman-Skippy or JohnPringle-Skippy) said I should so I would not be so stupid. Well I don't mind admitting that I did not finish him. Or admitting that I was even more stupid after reading a hundred pages or so than I was before I started him.


I would not have recommended you read it.

Feb 04, 2016
The word 'mind' is undefinable. It means nothing.

That sounds rather definitive. Yet philosophical. But you'll never get me to believe there's an empty shoe box behind your forehead that you pulled that out of.

Feb 04, 2016
M.Faizal and co-authors make a statement, that the consequences of their approach, namely additional term in the nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation, can be tested experimentally and they suggest an estimation from known data for their hypothetitical term. First of all, any comparison with ex.data of suggested small terms in nonrelativistic equation is absolutely useless without account of relativistic effects, which would be much larger. Thus before making statements about possible experimental check the authors should perform a study for Hydrogen atom within QED.
Second, their additional term would certainly change the spectrum of Hydrogen atom, and the most precision test would be comparison of 1s-2s transition frequency theory vs experiment. Again, accuarte account of QED corrections is need to speak about any serious proof of the consept.
Finally, the paper is written on obviously low level. It is a shame for EPJ C for publishing such low quality papers.

Feb 04, 2016
___
Presently ignoring:
Benni bschott plasmarevenge cantdrive45 gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy
This list is updated continuously.

Wow, I'm totally gutted! He's added me to the list of anybody who points out the stupidity of some of his statements. If you consider our recent (and only) exchange, he makes a ridiculous statement which I point out, and this is his response? Good riddance....

Feb 04, 2016
The word 'mind' is undefinable.
I don't agree. The "what is the mind" problem should be studied in physics (the "what is the brain" is for biologists). And the QM implications are theoretically testable in a experiment, this is not metaphysics. It would consist in separating information processing and cognitive processes from the biological support, and see what happens:
- Find a patient in terminal state who wants to be volunteer
N= number of neurons.
- Substitute one neuron by an artificial neuron and artificial synaptic connections, assigning the same weight to each input/output (computer bits) as it was before. Do you still appreciate same cognitive results?
- Repeat N-1 times (use reasonable increments as to be practical)
- Do it for the N (last) neuron. Does it still work?
- If it fails at some point, repeat the experiment by using Qbits rather than bits and analog connections to avoid QM decoherence effects. Does it make a difference?

Feb 04, 2016
@RM
Here is the rationale. You are a borderline crackpot that wouldn't know the difference between a log of wood and a physics textbook. When I explain some physics to you this is your reaction:
"Yes, you did say that! Are you now claiming a schitzophrenic episode when another part of you said it, but not you? Somebody stole your password and pretended to be you? What? "
Please point out which rule of behaviour you do _not_violate.

Hey, I thought you were ignoring me.....promises,promises!
I have just put you on my ignore list because you are a spoilt child, an irredeemable idiot, and not worth communicating with. When you make a stupid statement, and somebody points it out, you throw your toys out of your pram....
For example, I quote your post "There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance.". If it increases with distance, the further away from a mass you go, the more it affects you. This is patently nonsense.

Feb 04, 2016
I quote your post "There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance.". If it increases with distance, the further away from a mass you go, the more it affects you. This is patently nonsense.
@RegMundy do you understand the difference between "inversely with distance"(what he said) and "with distance"(what you get)?

I suggest you change your username (ask that guy of the aether stuff how to do it, he does everyday...), and try a more humble approach from there. Writing insults you don't learn, for doing it you have to "read". In that way you may learn something rather than wasting others time. I can tell you that it works, I have learned several things from those guys you are criticising. And if you don't understand something you can simply ask about it, many of the people here don't mind to help others.

But by now, just read.

Feb 04, 2016
Reg Mundy confused
.... problems with it. Do you understand basic optics?
Facile & inappropriate, NOT an issue of comparative optics, a space/time effect as described in Einstein's field equations & can be approximated by Pythagoras with Newton's gravitational (G) formula...

Reg Mundy says
... photons passing near the center deviate slightly, and photons passing further out from the centre deviate MORE
This is WHY you can't approach G lensing in same way as optics under your odd methodology !

One is refraction at (sharp) density transitions, other is (gradual) deflection across a G field ('of influence' if you like) & only appear similar hence metaphor but, that's primarily the simplistic description for those not in Physics !

Reg Mundy says
..light is scattered, and DOES NOT FORM AN IMAGE!
No, any scattering is due to combinations of collisions, absorption/re-emission with light in a G field re 'point' sources plainly none of that occurs, ie metaphor

Feb 04, 2016
I think that the paper of M. Faizal clearly demonstrates few tendencies. One is a general problem of decreasing of journal referees quality. It is surprising that such an obviously fake paper passed through serious referee.
Another tendency is a growing community of "science-fiction" physicists, who are badly educated in basics of physics. It seems that M.Faizal has never heard of Lorentz invariance, QED and their place in explaining things.
When it turns out that al these science-fiction ideas are simply school-level mistakes, the serious reseaches and their attempts to find new physics are also seriously compromised.
I believe that publication of M.Faizal paper in a serious journal and publicity it has got via popular cites is a shame and is a sign of serious problems with estimation of quality of scientific research even on basic level.

Feb 04, 2016
The word 'mind' is undefinable. It means nothing.

It is quite literally the most manifest phenomena observable.

All observable phenomena are investigable in principal. It can be defined as the cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory. These a-priori cognitive faculties determine the form of experience [as explained above].

The word 'mind' is undefinable. It means nothing.


That sounds rather definitive. Yet philosophical.


He also denies that consciousness exists. He agrees with a philosopher about this (D. Dennett), despite proclaiming that philosophy is invalid generally. [btw, Dennett does not refute that consciousness is a phenomenon, in fact he attempts to explain that phenomenon via processes of the brain].

He performs experiments on himself, but only while he is sleeping.

Feb 04, 2016
It is quite literally the most manifest phenomena (sic) observable
Nou goes on to quote from wiki.
https://en.wikipe...iki/Mind

-So let's pull a few more quotes from nou's source...

"A lengthy tradition of inquiries in philosophy, religion, psychology and cognitive science has sought to develop an understanding of what a mind is and what its distinguishing properties are."

-Huh. This doesn't seem very manifest to me (whatever not means by manifest)

What else...

"the mind–body problem, which considers whether mind is somehow separate from physical existence Well that's easy - It's not.
(dualism and idealism), or the mind is identical with the brain or some activity of the brain
-Note the subtle interjection of -ism words as if they are actually meant to clarify the question.

They dont.

So nou says that the mind is a well-defined something-or-other and then quotes an article which definitively says it is not.
Cont>

Feb 04, 2016
It's a sure bet that we can ask any philo, religionist, psychologist, or cognitive scientist what this 'mind' thing is, and they will all give you wildly conflicting answers. Of them all only the scientist has a chance of producing falsifiable answers because "All observable phenomena are investigable in principal", and only he has the proper tools and training to do so.

And while the scientist may use the word mind from time to time he is invariably thinking 'brain'.

Nou and his mystic heros prefer concepts like mind and consciousness because they invariably include an element of 'that which can never be defined', or meta-physicality, a realm through which he and his buds can forever roam without risk of capture and containment.

This is no accident - metaphysics was invented to replace the soul concept. They both exploit our animalistic terror of the cage and of death.

But obviously this is exactly why these words are undefinable and thus unscientific.

Feb 04, 2016
There you go again, making false accusatory presumptions wrt what I think or know.

I'm an atheist, and don't believe in anything mystical. My posts serve to reject metaphysics in science, not promote it. I stated plainly enough above, that the mind is an emergent phenomenon from a physical brain,… so have never stated that the "mind is somehow separate from physical existence". The opposite in fact.

You invent strawman arguments as you go along, and deliberately misrepresent others opinion, despite that they have stated the exact opposite in this very thread. Dishonesty.

Feb 04, 2016
He agrees with a philo about this
"Daniel Clement Dennett III (born March 28, 1942)[1][2] is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields related to evolutionary biology and cognitive science."

-Dennett is a scientist. He has written many books and papers on the subjects of mind and consciousness, trying to bridge the chasm between philosophy.

In one of his latest presentations, a TED talk entitled "consciousness is an illusion"
https://www.ted.c...guage=en

-he seems to have abandoned the philo side entirely. He gives many examples of how flawed our brains are and how easily they are fooled, and then suggests that these flaws are what give rise to the illusion of consciousness.

He concludes like the scientist he is by saying that more and better theories are needed.

Feb 04, 2016
I'm an atheist, and don't believe in anything mystical. My posts serve to reject metaphysics in science
You are a slave to your hobby. You say you reject the unphysical but you do so using words which clearly reference it. And you quote philos and scientists who are clearly mystics when discussing your favorite subjects.

'Metaphysician, know thyself.' Simply declaring that you are not something doesnt make it so.

I detect a significant cognitive disconnect. Better see a meta-doctor.

Feb 04, 2016
only the scientist has a chance of producing falsifiable answers because "All observable phenomena are investigable in principal", and only he has the proper tools and training to do so.


You're the only one here trying to falsify a meaning for mind and consciousness.

As I said, "How the mind works will not be discovered by A.I.-dorks"….i.e.,… It will require many disciplines, from neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, physics, epistemology (philosophy), …..

It is quite literally the most manifest phenomena [plural form of phenomenon, so correct] observable.

Just because little is known about the phenomenon of consciousness, does not invalidate the attempt at understanding. If it did, science would not exist.

Feb 04, 2016
You say you reject the unphysical but you do so using words which clearly reference it.

Patently false. I use words that you personally don't understand or deliberately misrepresent, without bothering to ask for clarification.

And you quote philos and scientists who are clearly mystics when discussing your favorite subjects.

You have called Roger Penrose, Eugene Wigner, d'Espagnat, etc,… "mystics", and therefore you have no credibility, as I reference mostly physicists, and physicists who are philosophers of physics [who reflect on what theory means]. I reference Kant and Hume,… but never any metaphysical aspects of their ideas. In fact Kant rejects metaphysics as a possible source for knowledge. You have been told this, but your dishonesty prevents you from learning anything new.

You should be taking notes as I post, but instead behave as a troll.

Feb 04, 2016
I mean, look at this.
The "what is the mind" problem should be studied in physics (the "what is the brain" is for biologists).
You've heard of biophysics? Biology IS physics. Brain function is governed exclusively by physical laws.

By saying that the mind and physics are something which exists beyond biology is a way of saying that it contains non-physical or extra-physical elements.

Do you not see it? Physics = biology = brain. Using the word 'mind' implies there is something extra there.

This leaves you free to postulate that only a mystical phenomenon such as consciousness can collapse the waveform. And as ayn rand said, you can decide 'a priori' that humans are too imperfect and flawed and unworthy of experiencing the entirety of something.

You need to be a god to grok the noumenon.

Feb 04, 2016
The "what is the mind" problem should be studied in physics (the "what is the brain" is for biologists).


You need to be a god to grok the noumenon.


I did not make that post,.... not that facts are important to you.

Feb 04, 2016
Patently false. I use words that you personally don't understand or deliberately misrepresent
I looked them up for. I quoted from your own reference. I've shown you that experts say they are impossible to define.
bothering to ask for clarification
Like I say I can ask 10 philos or 10 priests and get 20 entirely different answers.

And thear credentials would all be better than yours.
you called Penrose et al mystics
AGAIN, I didn't decide that. I've referenced many experts which use that term to describe facets of their work. The facets you yourself use to justify your own extrasensory proclivities.
kant and hume
Kant preferred faith to evidence. He was a defender of the church.

And hume was a racist. Perhaps his penchant for prejudice was what gave him the notion that he could discern the nature of the universe just by sitting and thinking about it?

Feb 04, 2016
I disagree. For example, there are no proteins in physics. They have physical properties but they also have chemical, biochemical and biological properties
What a strange thing to say.

Proteins are chemistry. Chemistry is governed by physical laws. Physical laws are physics.

Correct?
This sounds like the dead end that strict positivism leads to
I see you are also an -ism lover. Explains a lot.

Feb 04, 2016
I did not make that post,.... not that facts are important to you
You mean today don't you? I'm referring to the discussion we had some time ago re ayn rands hatred of kant. She described how kants ideas demeaned human potential in exactly the same way the church did.

You began to mutter about how you agreed with rands politics even though you loved kant too etc.

Remember?

Feb 04, 2016
So, what is your point? I did not make the post that you quoted, today, nor at any time.

Do you have a coherent point of objection to something that was stated by me here?

You insist that philosophers are vague and yet at the same time, you can't help but to disparage thinkers with accusations like Kant, Hume, Penrose, Wigner, d'Espagnat, Pauli,... on account of some off-topic irrelevancy,...

"Hume is a racist", so this means what?,.. his analysis of causality is invalid?,... Penrose believes in Platonic mathematical idealism, so this means that he is not a preeminent physicists? B. d'Espagnat won the Templemen prize and may be a theist, so this means that his distinguished work in physics is now invalid?

Do you see how your arguments are all over the place, like a troll? It's hard to have a coherent discussion with you because you argue by proxy, accusations, and with ad hominems.

Feb 04, 2016
I agree with Rand's political ideology, but not with her objectivism, nor with her misinformed opinion of Kant. I agree with Kant's transcendental deduction and implications for knowledge, his rejection of metaphysics as a source for knowledge, his noumenon / phenomenal distinction, and his a-priori synthetic / analytic distinction, but not his theism.....

The fact is you're are just tossing things you found via internet proxy against the wall to see what sticks. I expect you to explain what it is I stated that you object to, and why. I am capable of learning new things, but not by being attacked in a vague way.

Listing other people who don't agree with Kant, Hume, etc, is not itself a counter argument, as I can also list people who do. WHY.


Feb 04, 2016
In one of his latest presentations, a TED talk entitled "consciousness is an illusion".


This sounds like the dead end that strict positivism leads to.
How is consciousness an illusion ?


Obviously we lose consciousness when we sleep and is equated with self-awareness, so it IS an investigable phenomenon, and it would be patently absurd to deny that much.

They probably only mean that the notion that consciousness is like akin to the soul as a separate 'thing' apart from the working of the physical brain, is an illusion. To this I would agree. However, this does not mean that it is not an actual phenomenon emergent from a physical basis.


Feb 04, 2016
@Noumenon
I am not a positivist but I think without a lead you can not advance beyond the ensemble interpretation because the odds are against you.


Singles systems are not deterministic though....

I meant to add....

Einstein originally proposed the ensemble interpretation of the probabilistic element in QM, not out of practical utility, but because he denied indeterminism, and appears to have desired to obscure the intrinsic probabilistic nature of quantum phenomenon in the statistics of ensembles.

Given your reference though, Ballentine shows that it is a useful interpretation, so you're certainly not wrong.


Feb 04, 2016
ou insist that philosophers are vague and yet at the same time, you can't help but to disparage thinkers with accusations like Kant, Hume, Penrose, Wigner, d'Espagnat, Pauli,... on account of some off-topic irrelevancy,...
They are not off-topic. Trying to discuss science using indefinable and esoteric philo terms is off-topic. It's little different from the god lovers who come here and try to do the same thing.

Philo arguments are unassailable, like trying to climb a whipped cream mountain. A sugarless whipped cream mountain.

And so one is left with attacking the structure of the arguments themselves, the source of their hopeless ambiguity, and by extension the entire discipline.

Hume was a racist. He must have had in his mind a philo rationalization for that sort of prejudgment. In retrospect we can see that there is no logical explanation for that sort of thinking, and so we can suspect that the rest of his philosophy was similarly tainted.

Feb 04, 2016
Biology IS physics
I disagree. For example, there are no proteins in physics. They have physical properties but they also have chemical, biochemical and biological properties.
I disdisagree. Please see "Introduction to protein folding for physicists."

Everything is physics. Even nothing is physics.

Feb 04, 2016
Evidence tells us that there is no basis for racism except our penchant for tribalism. Others in humes time rejected it but he did not.

Obviously he reached that conclusion in the framework of his particular theories of logic which were not based on evidence, but on cultural tradition.

The idea that one could discern the nature of the universe via deep thought or prayer or whatever, rather than a painstaking analysis of evidence, is also a bankrupt cultural predisposition.

And the discipline of philosophy is established, and thrives, on exactly that predisposition.

Plato formalized that notion, thereby legitimizing religion and philosophy. Aristotle emphasized evidence and causality and gave us science.

They both knew that humans would never surrender the former and so gave it an intellectual basis on par with the latter, so that it could be tailored to serve.

They fooled most of the people most of the time. But I doubt they intended this farce to endure.

Feb 04, 2016
Obviously we lose consciousness when we sleep and is equated with self-awareness, so it IS an investigable phenomenon
Jesus. You don't even know what consciousness is supposed to be.

"Sleep is just one of many types of consciousness we experience, and sleep itself comprises several states of consciousness. ..."

Feb 04, 2016
even nothing is physics
-Which is what krauss tried to tell albert the philo who apparently had no idea what he was talking about.

"Krauss responded in an interview published in The Atlantic calling Albert "moronic" and dismissing the philosophy of science as worthless."

-Hear hear.

Feb 04, 2016
I agree with Rand's political ideology, but not with her objectivism, nor with her misinformed opinion of Kant
Misinformed. Ayn rand. Right.

And just who would have informed her correctly? You and your crack team of kantians who obviously have the only true and right -ism that ever was?

Or perhaps you're a neo, in which case you could meet with a bunch of neo-randites and set them straight mano-a-mano?

I understand this sort if dialectic can get rather... messy.

What a joke.

Feb 04, 2016
"...what is the brain" is for biologists).
You've heard of biophysics?
Ghotto, I agree with most of your opinions. But the way you manipulate my post is wrong. I said "Biologists" to abbreviate, the details you mention are true, but totally unnecessary for my explanation.
By saying that the mind and physics are something which exists beyond biology is a way of saying that it contains non-physical or extra-physical elements.
I said the opposite. I said that mind study belong to physics. You also obviated the experiment I described, which illustrates what I say. I proposed to study consciousness strictly as a physical phenomena, but you try to make it look the opposite. If we can make it artificially (which is not known) then we can separate "mind" from "biology" to study it better, also checking for QM implications. It is not utopic, first stages are already in place, the BlueBrain project being an example. https://en.wikipe..._Project

Feb 04, 2016
The same goes for the experiment that I said. I had to condense it in few lines, but the idea is perfectly understandable. Obviously these experiments will need to simplify a lot of aspects, but nothing indicates that you need a complete human brain for consciousness to emerge. Just a basic model could work. I don't want to go into discussions how simple needs to be an "animal" to have some demonstrable consciousness, but if consciousness is a pure physical phenomena (and I agree with you on this) it must be obtainable without the need for naturally born creatures, and that will give us a much better tool to make a phisycs model to describe what it is, to understand it, and to develop powerful technologies.

Feb 04, 2016
For better understanding, please read "Natural Biology" wherever I said "Biology". There is going to be a point that we will need to differentiate between naturally occurring live from artificially induced, and all this is about it.

Feb 04, 2016
@RegMundy do you understand the difference between "inversely with distance"(what he said) and "with distance"(what you get)?

I suggest you change your username (ask that guy of the aether stuff how to do it, he does everyday...), and try a more humble approach from there. Writing insults you don't learn, for doing it you have to "read". In that way you may learn something rather than wasting others time. I can tell you that it works, I have learned several things from those guys you are criticising. And if you don't understand something you can simply ask about it, many of the people here don't mind to help others.

But by now, just read.

Do you know the difference between "increase" (what he said) and no increase? Anyway, the model for GL is fundamentally flawed. So why don't you "just read"?

Feb 04, 2016
@MM
Reg Mundy says
... photons passing near the center deviate slightly, and photons passing further out from the centre deviate MORE
This is WHY you can't approach G lensing in same way as optics under your odd methodology !

One is refraction at (sharp) density transitions, other is (gradual) deflection across a G field ('of influence' if you like) & only appear similar hence metaphor but, that's primarily the simplistic description for those not in Physics !

Reg Mundy says
..light is scattered, and DOES NOT FORM AN IMAGE!
No, any scattering is due to combinations of collisions, absorption/re-emission with light in a G field re 'point' sources plainly none of that occurs, ie metaphor
I see your intellect is not improving with the passage of time..Scattering due to collisions, etc., is NOTHING to do with this exchange, another of your red herrings.
No matter how you cut it, light must be bent more further from the centre of mass thus the model is incorrect.

Feb 04, 2016
Reg Mundy says
I see your intellect is not improving with the passage of time..Scattering due to collisions, etc., is NOTHING to do with this exchange, another of your red herrings
Feeble personal attacks again, a genuine credible graduate of Pure Maths would NOT write like this & not refuse Math !

Reg Mundy claims
No matter how you cut it, light must be bent more further from the centre of mass thus the model is incorrect
Why "must" it, please articulate clearly ?

Gravitational field drops as inverse square, we are NOT talking optics at all ie you cannot & should NOT apply optics in *any* respect of refraction here, can't you see that :P ?

PLEASE Note !

Fact that evidence confirms this (Eg earliest observation by Eddington & others) refutes your urging it "must" ie it just Doesnt !

Why, do think please ?

What does that tell us about your 'intellect' in particular along with your ease to make personal attacks when you can't explain *any* of your Math ?

Feb 05, 2016
Mike,

I've edited your comment so as to drop your dummy spit.

----

Hi Reg,

"Gravitational field drops as inverse square, we are NOT talking optics at all ie you cannot & should NOT apply optics in *any* respect of refraction here"

----

Much better.


Feb 05, 2016
bluehigh evidently idle hypocrite says
I've edited your comment so as to drop your dummy spit
If you were genuine, evenhanded, intelligent & free of idle prejudice you would/should observe I asked a question ie
"What does that tell us about your 'intellect' in particular along with your ease to make personal attacks when you can't explain *any* of your Math ?"

Which is in direct response to his ugly personal attack where Reg Mundy says:- "I see your intellect is not improving.."

You fail as fair 'policeman' re Reg Mundy as his is attack-claim yet I only ask Question ?

Had you *any* presence of mind to observe the history (earlier too), I only ask politely Eg Reg in the first place re Physics but was met with ugly attack !

So bluehigh, you're either hypocrite or incompetent not bothering to check fact re Reg's initial tone before adding prejudice also completely devoid of Physics !

At least bluehigh, why didn't U interpret his point & articulate it better ?

Feb 05, 2016
@MM
___
Cranks to be ignored:
Benni plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya
Pariahs to be ignored: bschott
This list is updated continuously.


You forgot RealityCheck? Or was that intentional?

Feb 05, 2016
@promile, thanks for the meal but why the exercise? My first post stated 2 valid questions which have not been answered.

The way i see it, if time is quantized, the spooky action at a distance can't be instantaneous since that would violate this statement. So which one is right?

Second, in my view you can't prove something if you don't have the means to verify it. Math might indicate the truth but without verification it will remain a theory.

Feb 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 05, 2016
@Promile, I do not understand what you mean with limited speed of force or how this is related to entanglement. When I look up the entanglement effect I am referring to on wikipedia I get: "According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly"

This means to me that an infinitely short amount of time has passed giving me the impression that time is continuous. Maybe there is such a thing as a response in t=0 after which the next step in time would be whatever lenght of time the minimum time size possible would be?

Feb 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 05, 2016
Ghotto, I agree with most of your opinions. But the way you manipulate my post is wrong. I said "Biologists" to abbreviate, the details you mention are true, but totally unnecessary for my explanation
You tried to justify the term 'mind' by somehow tying it with physics.

Science has no need for indefinable words, whatever the branch.

BTW I thought phys said this. Are you or he a sockpuppet?
consciousness is a pure physical phenomena (and I agree with you on this)
I didn't say this. I said the word is undefinable and the phenomenon, however manifested, is an illusion.

We are way too complex for our own good. Some of our delusions are ubiquitous. This by doesn't make them real.

Feb 05, 2016
@MM
It is amazing to read RM criticising _other_ people's intellect.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Oh Dear, Oh Dear! You PROMISED to ignore me, but here you go again.! Your promises are about as good as your logic, neither are worth a light (or beam if you prefer it). Now, PLEASE either put me on your ignore list or reply to my perfectly logical arguments with LOGICAL arguments of your own.

Feb 05, 2016
mole is short for grammolecule, a contraction of two words, each of which has no meaning in relation to spacetime.

Tell me where you think the number comes from. Not the constant, which has units of mol^(-1), but the number, which is dimensionless.

Feb 06, 2016
The time have no structure unlike the vacuum of cosmic space. This is one of absolutes which serve as absolute reference point for the speed of different physical interactions. Professional science does not give a true contribution to human knowledge. As lawyers do not give a real contribution to justice. They must eat and do carrier.

Feb 06, 2016
... As lawyers do not give a real contribution to justice.

At LAST!!
You've said something I agree with!

Feb 06, 2016
@Otto

I'm still not understanding your point here. No one here is saying 'consciousness' or 'mind' are things unto themselves (like "soul"). Science makes use of place-holder terms all the time. These terms are meant only to stand for observable phenomena, with the implication being that that phenomenon can in principal be described by physical or emergent laws.

Here is Newton on the term gravity ....

"I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses" - Newton

Because Newton did not understand what gravity "IS" does not mean he couldn't formulate scientific theory of its observable effects, nor did it mean "gravity" as a phenomenon, was an illusion.

....

Feb 06, 2016
..... so consciousness and mind are not illusions As Phenomena. They are "illusions" only to the extent that they are Emergent phenomena, ... from more fundamental laws. [I was careful to use the word 'emergent' above].

Is colour an illusion? Colour actually does not exist in objects. Colour only exists in your mind. It exists no where else in reality. Your mind Produces the experience of colour upon sensing various frequencies of EM,... but there is no physical "colour" in that fundamental force of nature except only by definition.

In this sense, you could say colour is an "illusion", because it is emergent from physical laws, but in itself does not exist as an independent reality,.... yet at the same time, the 'experience of colour' is a real phenomenon that is subject to scientific investigation.

Science investigates only phenomena. Some phenomena are emergent from physical laws, while other non-emergent phenomena are simply accepted, and their effects described.

Feb 06, 2016
.... no one knows how our impression of "colour" comes about, how it is produced in the brain. No one knows how our impression of self-awareness comes about. How does this phenomena emerge from a neural network? It's not enough to understand the mechanics of neurons and synapses, for then you're too deep in the trees to understand the forrest.

Some strong-A.I. proponents believe that consciousness will simply manifest from computation on a parallel network, as if by magic. Essential understanding is missing.

Feb 06, 2016
@Ghotto: BTW I thought phys said this. Are you or he a sockpuppet?
. No, see above, he also criticized my posts, that funny comment about the dinosaurs..
I said the word is undefinable and the phenomenon, however manifested, is an illusion.
The "mind" term is well defined. The "mind" is the set of cognitive faculties of the brain. And if it is an "illusion" it would still be a definable term with a physical reality. The wave function of a system where this "illusion" exist can never be the same as in a system where it is not.

Finally, my differentiation between Biologists and Physicists was in terms of specialities that are needed to explain this phenomena. You showed me I didn't express correctly, thanks, but I rectified: "Natural Biology" and "Quantum Biology" is the right differentiation in this context. I am not inventing those terms, here an interesting video about QM implications in cognitive processes https://www.youtu...EsYDlXJk

Feb 06, 2016
...And then the final frontier will be the mind. We can only hope that understanding it will not lead to some sort of recursion of thought ;)


Feb 06, 2016
Some strong-A.I. proponents believe that consciousness will simply manifest from computation on a parallel network
. It could be that, but it could be not enough. Neural networks in current computers can not represent quantum effects. The digitalization of information is done trough decoherence, and also each stage of digital processing storing results in digital bits. So quantum computers may be necessary for this. [speculation start] To me it looks like abstract thinking should be easier to produce with the help of quantum superposition. At the end of the day, if this powerful tool is available in nature and we can use it in quantum computing, then I don't see why evolution would not make use of it also. [speculation end]

Feb 06, 2016
@phys
I disagree. For example, there are no proteins in physics.

But physics determine how proteins develop...

Feb 06, 2016
I'm still not understanding your point here
Well no - you think consciousness disappears when we sleep. You dont know the difference between conscious and consciousness.

And before you say anything more just google the words together and have experts explain it to you.
No one here is saying 'consciousness' or 'mind' are things unto themselves (like "soul")
Oh I think if I bothered to search the thread I would find at least a few instances of that very thing.
science makes use of place-holder terms all the time.
Sure. They have 'brain' for one. Also sensory awareness, thought, and cognition.
These terms are meant only to stand for observable phenomena
What observable phenomena are you talking about? Provide succinct definitions for mind and consciousness that scientists, priests, philos, and psychologists agree on. Cite repeatable experiments that scientists have done on the mind.

Everybody agrees what the brain is and where it is to be found.

Feb 06, 2016
"The very word mind is like the word sky to astronomers." -Huber

"... there is no longer any need to appeal to such a naive term, with its faint smack of folk psychology."

-And it seems the preponderance of authors I find on the Web who are desperately against this are the clergymen, psychologists, and philos who have the most to lose when these non-words disappear.

You call them placeholders. Indeed - they are holding a place for the divine, the mystical, and the philosophical in light of increasing confidence that scientific inquiry will eventually exclude them completely.

And it most certainly will.

Feb 06, 2016
The "mind" term is well defined
NO its NOT. I already addressed this above.
https://en.wikipe...iki/Mind

-The wiki article, no doubt written and edited by philos and soft scientists, starts out with what appears to be a conclusive declaration.

But this is followed by a lot of 'some think' and 'others argue that' and a whole lot of meaningless philo words and philo name-droppings.

And I cited scholars above who think that consciousness and mind are obsolete, antiquated, useless, etc.
but I rectified: "Natural Biology" and "Quantum Biology" is the right differentiation in this context
-So? This does not make the term mind definable or useful.

Sure these pros might use it in the same way that astronomers will say they point their scopes into the sky, or how Einstein used the word god while not believing in it.

A little poetry can grab the attention and set the tone. Degrasse Tyson likes the words wonder and mystery for the same reasons.

Feb 06, 2016
@Phys1:
I think listing the people one ignores is a good idea.
Since physorg staff will not moderate this site I've put my peronal list of ignore candidates (including reasons) online. Might save a bit of space in comments to just post a link.
If there's any interest I would pool candidates from others as a quick reference for new posters.

https://docs.goog...=sharing

Feb 06, 2016
I was careful to use the term emergent
If you're using this word in the philo sense, it is meaningless and so has no place here.

"In philosophy, emergence typically[?] refers to emergentism[an -ism???] 'Almost all accounts'[-almost??? Accounts???] of emergentism include a form of epistemic[no def] or ontological[no def] irreducibility[no def in this context] to the lower levels..."

-And if you're trying to apply it scientifically, you're doing it wrongly.

"For instance, the phenomenon life as studied in biology is commonly perceived as an emergent property of interacting molecules as studied in chemistry, whose phenomena reflect interactions among elementary particles, modeled in particle physics" (this incident lying resolves the physics/biology issue)

By using emergence you imply that 'mind' emerging from functions of the brain, is a given.

Non-sequitur.

Feb 06, 2016
BTW

"The term "emergent" was coined by philosopher G. H. Lewes[figures] who wrote:

"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces..." (guess he never heard of synergy)
Since physorg staff will not moderate this site I've put my peronal list of ignore candidates (including reasons) online
Wow. Pretty soon you'll be talking to yourself.

Which is pretty much what you do already isn't it?

Just explain how 'no insurance company' means 'insured as required by law'.

-Incidentally, 'incident lying' above is spellcheck for 'Incidently'

Feb 06, 2016
I made it clear enough in context what 'emergent' means on several occasions above. I don't think you read my posts, as what you quoted above is what I said,.... that the mind is an emergent phenomenon from biological processes (my very first use of 'emergent' in this thread!). I further mentioned emergent laws in reference to 'arrow of time', and how the mind processes sense experience,... i.e. colour.

Everybody agrees what the brain is and where it is to be found.

And everyone consciously agrees on that by using their minds.

Feb 06, 2016
"Natural Biology" and "Quantum Biology" is the right differentiation in this context
-So? This does not make the term mind definable or useful.
No. That distinction was my answer to your other argument about differentiating between biology and physics.

In regards to the "mind" term, come on it is not so complex: "brain" is the organ, "mind" is the function. In the same sense, "eye" is the organ, "vision" is the function. According to your arguments, vision is not definable. But it is. And my distinction make sense in this context: Natural Biologists study both eye and vision, but are not specialised in QM effects. That is the speciality od Quantum biologists. They study the implications of QM in vision, like the example of some birds sensing earth magnetic field trough vision by using entangled electrons (I posted a link about it). Similarly, Quantum biology can study if there are QM aspects involved on the brain function (the mind).

Feb 06, 2016
Otto's A.D.D. extends the length of threads when they could have been more interesting.

What everyone understands as 'mind', our cognitive faculties or 'laws of thought', are an emergent phenomenon from more basic neurobiological processes which are themselves laws which are emergent from physical laws. Cognitive science in interdisciplinary for a reason.

To borrow Augustines quote on Time,... [Consciousness?] If no one asks me, I know what it is [as it is de facto the most immediate experience possible]. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know."

That the present state of knowledge is limited does not render the phenomenon an illusion.


Feb 06, 2016
Read my earlier post re emergence of life.

The word mind describes nothing which can be addressed scientifically.

"Quantum biology refers to applications of quantum mechanics and theoretical chemistry to biological objects and problems. Many biological processes involve the conversion of energy into forms that are usable for chemical transformations and are quantum mechanical in nature."

-This has nothing to do with 'mind'. You are just throwing terms around that you are not familiar with.
QM aspects involved on the brain function (the mind)
So you are saying that there is a thing called the mind which is the obvious result of QM aspects of brain functions?

How would you know this?

Feb 06, 2016
Laws of thought
"The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is often considered to be based. The formulation and clarification of such rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy and logic. Generally they are taken as laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc. However such classical ideas are often questioned or rejected in more recent developments, such as Intuitionistic logic and Fuzzy Logic."

-Classical... questioned... rejected... in light of actual scientific investigation of brain function.

You should be careful not to rely on the philo terms you learned in your youth which science has only recently rendered worthless.
what everyone understands
I provided you with quotes from at least one pro who thinks that the term is useless.

How do you reconcile that with 'everyone'? What is it about his sky analogy that you do not find enlightening?

Feb 06, 2016
To borrow Augustines quote on Time,... [Consciousness?] If no one asks me, I know what it is [as it is de facto the most immediate experience possible]. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
Uh he died 2 millenia ago. Bet he never heard the term evolutionary psychology.

Have you?

"Evolutionary psychology (EP) is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution."