[RD] Why is there so much suffering in the world?

[Lexicus]

Isn't it likely that the better fit of probability to quantum phenomena is not due to some actual reality of said phenomena fitting probability but due to lack of knowledge and ability to experiment in the same way with them?

In other words, my point was not about Copenhagen view vs many worlds. Even if "many worlds" exist, it still has nothing to do with math being non-cosmic.

I don't know quite know what it has to do with Copenhagen vs Many worlds, but this first quoted sentence is exactly what Einstein meant when he said "god does not play with dice" as far as I know. Einstein believed that further discoveries would lead the probabilistic elements in contemporary quantum theory to fall away revealing an underlying, deterministic reality.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't know quite know what it has to do with Copenhagen vs Many worlds, but this first quoted sentence is exactly what Einstein meant when he said "god does not play with dice" as far as I know. Einstein believed that further discoveries would lead the probabilistic elements in contemporary quantum theory to fall away revealing an underlying, deterministic reality.

I doubt that math (including probability) describes the actual world, so for me the question isn't phrased correctly.
I am not very familiar with the two sides of the argument re quantum. I think (?) one states that if an observer is present then what was a probability wave/set of probabilities gets to morph into a specific case, while the other states that every possible case actually occurs, just in different worlds. This doesn't have anything at all to do with whether the probability set actually exists itself as something which describes actual qualities of the quantum phenomenon - which is the other point I was making.

To be more specific/clear: I think that because math is not cosmic it should follow that even quantum phenomena aren't "really" having to be different than non quantum ones. They just are picked up as different by human observers, due to math (and other human mental stuff).

 

[El_Machinae]

"I don't know physics, but I think they're wrong"? I guess. But that kinda ends the conversation.

 

[Lexicus]

I doubt that math (including probability) describes the actual world, so for me the question isn't phrased correctly.
I am not very familiar with the two sides of the argument re quantum. I think (?) one states that if an observer is present then what was a probability wave/set of probabilities gets to morph into a specific case, while the other states that every possible case actually occurs, just in different worlds. This doesn't have anything at all to do with whether the probability set actually exists itself as something which describes actual qualities of the quantum phenomenon - which is the other point I was making.

To be more specific/clear: I think that because math is not cosmic it should follow that even quantum phenomena aren't "really" having to be different than non quantum ones. They just are picked up as different by human observers, due to math (and other human mental stuff).

I'm sorry, you lost me.

 

[uppi]

Isn't it likely that the better fit of probability to quantum phenomena is not due to some actual reality of said phenomena fitting probability but due to lack of knowledge and ability to experiment in the same way with them?

To be more specific/clear: I think that because math is not cosmic it should follow that even quantum phenomena aren't "really" having to be different than non quantum ones. They just are picked up as different by human observers, due to math (and other human mental stuff).

No. A century ago this was a valid view, but now we have the knowledge and ability to experiment with quantum phenomena very precisely (and arguably more precisely than we ever could with dice). The increased accuracy has only led to more precise confirmation that there is something strange going on with quantum mechanics that does not fit very well into a deterministic world view.

I don't know quite know what it has to do with Copenhagen vs Many worlds, but this first quoted sentence is exactly what Einstein meant when he said "god does not play with dice" as far as I know. Einstein believed that further discoveries would lead the probabilistic elements in contemporary quantum theory to fall away revealing an underlying, deterministic reality.

Exactly. And he was wrong. Unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated than that, so I cannot straight out confirm or deny the following:

@uppi my impression was that Kyriakos is basically rehashing Einstein's old claim that "god does not play with dice" and that experiments have since more-or-less proven that quantum events are inherently probabilistic, they do not merely appear so due to deficiencies in theory or instrument, can you confirm or deny?

There is a thin line between "proven by experiments" and "reasonable conclusion but not actually proven", so excuse me if I get too technical:

As you said, Einstein postulated that the probabilities in quantum mechanics must be due to some underlying unknown theory - there are some hidden variables, which determine the outcome and which we cannot measure (at least for now). And due to relativity, this theory must be local, i.e. constricted by the speed of light. Much later (after Einstein's death), John Bell showed that any theory with local hidden variables must have a different result than quantum mechanics in very specific situations. The nice thing about this, that if you could create such situations and measure the outcome, you could rule out either quantum mechanics or all theories with local hidden variables. And for the next 50 years, physicists sought to make such experiments and started to come up with results in line with predictions of quantum mechanics. The first ones had some obvious deficiencies, but in the last decade they were improved to the point where theories with local hidden variables can be ruled out beyond reasonable doubt (for my definition of reasonable).

However, this does not completely rule out deterministic theories for which quantum mechanics is just an approximation, because they could be non-local. This would require faster-than-light effects, violate relativity, lead to causality problems, but cannot be ruled out conclusively. So far, all experiments testing quantum mechanics and relativity have confirmed these theories and we have not found a way to enable faster-than-light communication (and it is proven to be impossible within quantum mechanics), so arguing for non-local theories is not very convincing - but not impossible. For example, an outside entity knowing or even manipulating the outcome of quantum experiments, or the universe just being a simulation on a very powerful computer cannot be ruled out (and might be impossible to rule out in principle).

The experiments also don't tell us how exactly we should interpret quantum mechanics. There are many possibilities to form a world view, which is compatible with quantum mechanics and cannot be ruled out. However most of them contain some component of probability (except for those that try to build a non-local theory, but I don't think those are very convincing).

 

[Farm Boy]

Usually how the far older debate I call this goes. One side says it isn't determined. The other says it is but we can't know it. Language depends on the cult.

 

[Lexicus]

As you said, Einstein postulated that the probabilities in quantum mechanics must be due to some underlying unknown theory - there are some hidden variables, which determine the outcome and which we cannot measure (at least for now). And due to relativity, this theory must be local, i.e. constricted by the speed of light. Much later (after Einstein's death), John Bell showed that any theory with local hidden variables must have a different result than quantum mechanics in very specific situations. The nice thing about this, that if you could create such situations and measure the outcome, you could rule out either quantum mechanics or all theories with local hidden variables. And for the next 50 years, physicists sought to make such experiments and started to come up with results in line with predictions of quantum mechanics. The first ones had some obvious deficiencies, but in the last decade they were improved to the point where theories with local hidden variables can be ruled out beyond reasonable doubt (for my definition of reasonable).

However, this does not completely rule out deterministic theories for which quantum mechanics is just an approximation, because they could be non-local. This would require faster-than-light effects, violate relativity, lead to causality problems, but cannot be ruled out conclusively. So far, all experiments testing quantum mechanics and relativity have confirmed these theories and we have not found a way to enable faster-than-light communication (and it is proven to be impossible within quantum mechanics), so arguing for non-local theories is not very convincing - but not impossible. For example, an outside entity knowing or even manipulating the outcome of quantum experiments, or the universe just being a simulation on a very powerful computer cannot be ruled out (and might be impossible to rule out in principle).

Very interesting stuff, thanks!

 

[Kyriakos]

No.

Ok, although the "no" isn't going to the second post of mine What I mean was that from a non-observer point of view (ie from the cosmos itself) quantum and non-quantum may not be an actual distinction. To say it in different words: just cause observer particularity plays a visible role in quantum does not mean it plays a less important role in non-quantum; it is just that a dichotomy there isn't inferred going by the observer alone.

As always, though, I am not going to try to argue physics. My interest - and knowledge - of it is nothing to speak about.

 

[uppi]

Ok, although the "no" isn't going to the second post of mine What I mean was that from a non-observer point of view (ie from the cosmos itself) quantum and non-quantum may not be an actual distinction. To say it in different words: just cause observer particularity plays a visible role in quantum does not mean it plays a less important role in non-quantum; it is just that a dichotomy there isn't inferred going by the observer alone.

As always, though, I am not going to try to argue physics. My interest - and knowledge - of it is nothing to speak about.

Yeah, ok, you can make the argument that non-quantum stuff is just the average of all the quantum stuff that is happening and thus these are actually the same thing. Which is correct. However, this also means that if you want to argue fundamentals, you need to avoid trying to apply non-quantum logic.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean, if we're discussing whether I think that Quantum effects have an underlying cause, then yeah. I do. This is what I mean about being a determinist. It's also how I divide the idea about being predestined. There's an underlying cause, but the future is not written yet. I forget which physicist that suggested that the universe is the cheapest way for reality to calculate itself.

 

[uppi]

I mean, if we're discussing whether I think that Quantum effects have an underlying cause, then yeah. I do.

From a scientific point of view this is possible, but quite implausible. It runs so much against empirical evidence that it is a fringe view.

 

[Birdjaguar]

...However, this does not completely rule out deterministic theories for which quantum mechanics is just an approximation, because they could be non-local. This would require faster-than-light effects, violate relativity, lead to causality problems, but cannot be ruled out conclusively. So far, all experiments testing quantum mechanics and relativity have confirmed these theories and we have not found a way to enable faster-than-light communication (and it is proven to be impossible within quantum mechanics), so arguing for non-local theories is not very convincing - but not impossible. For example, an outside entity knowing or even manipulating the outcome of quantum experiments, or the universe just being a simulation on a very powerful computer cannot be ruled out (and might be impossible to rule out in principle).

So how does entanglement fit into this?

 

[Kyriakos]

"I don't know physics, but I think they're wrong"? I guess. But that kinda ends the conversation.

Was that directed at me?
My point was about applying math (in this case probabilities) to a physical phenomenon.
From a philosophical standpoint my view is that observations of the cosmos (including physics) will in some future have to include a subset dealing with inevitable entanglement ( just not quantum) of the observer's mental world into the observation. In other words, the world isn't observable for what "it is" (assuming it is anything specifically in the first place).
Intuitively I am of the view that math itself is part of the entanglement, and is strictly observer-related.

 

[uppi]

So how does entanglement fit into this?

Entanglement is at the heart of the argument. In fact the word was coined in response to this challenge to quantum mechanics.

Suppose you have two entangled quantum states and you separate them by a large distance (e.g. two entangled photons flying in opposite directions for a while). Then you measure both in a short interval - short enough that no communication at light speed can take place between the measurement. If you later compare the results, you can see a correlation that is impossible if the results were predetermined (in a local way). A way around this would be a non-local theory. If one state "knew" what happened with the other state it could conspire against the experimenter and behave in a seemingly non-deterministic way. However that would require faster-than-light effects as well as some kind of mechanism for this conspiracy.

 

[El_Machinae]

From a scientific point of view this is possible, but quite implausible. It runs so much against empirical evidence that it is a fringe view.

Not that it's deterministic, underneath the layers that we can observe, merely that causal factors exist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Entanglement is at the heart of the argument. In fact the word was coined in response to this challenge to quantum mechanics.

Suppose you have two entangled quantum states and you separate them by a large distance (e.g. two entangled photons flying in opposite directions for a while). Then you measure both in a short interval - short enough that no communication at light speed can take place between the measurement. If you later compare the results, you can see a correlation that is impossible if the results were predetermined (in a local way). A way around this would be a non-local theory. If one state "knew" what happened with the other state it could conspire against the experimenter and behave in a seemingly non-deterministic way. However that would require faster-than-light effects as well as some kind of mechanism for this conspiracy.

So does entanglement violate light speed limits?

 

[Gorbles]

Insofar as my complete lack of knowledge of physics (theoretical or actual) goes, I believe it's not something that speed applies to. The state of entanglement is something that is (perhaps in a way we don't understand yet? Not sure), more than the parts of the pair travelling a specific distance. I don't believe the nature of the communication has been worked out.

 

[Kyriakos]

Entanglement is at the heart of the argument. In fact the word was coined in response to this challenge to quantum mechanics.

Suppose you have two entangled quantum states and you separate them by a large distance (e.g. two entangled photons flying in opposite directions for a while). Then you measure both in a short interval - short enough that no communication at light speed can take place between the measurement. If you later compare the results, you can see a correlation that is impossible if the results were predetermined (in a local way). A way around this would be a non-local theory. If one state "knew" what happened with the other state it could conspire against the experimenter and behave in a seemingly non-deterministic way. However that would require faster-than-light effects as well as some kind of mechanism for this conspiracy.

Iirc some contemporary physicist suggested a possible case where all particles of some type are "in reality" forming one object. So those similar particles already were tied in some "reality", and just are observed as distinct/not one by the human observer.
Of course, philosophically, this isn't exactly some new theory. Anaxagoras was a concurrent of Pericles

Edit:

By the way, if one assumes that the physical world simply isn't as it is picked up by us, there is no issue with stuff being more bizarre, eg (since I mentioned Anaxagoras), for all we know "every element may be a mix which includes every other type of element as well, just be identified by us as one (type of element) due to some unknown quality". Which would be a way to account for possible infinite division of mass as well (no final/smallest particle existing).
Anaxagoras was reacting to the discussion about the atom (notion by Democritos, who in turn devised it to argue with the eleatic philosophers and their claim that division of matter may be endless).

 

[uppi]

Not that it's deterministic, underneath the layers that we can observe, merely that causal factors exist.

A cause for the probability distribution of multiple events? Certainly. In many cases the causal factors are even known. For example, the probability of photon emission is determined by the properties of the vacuum. Alter those properties and you alter the probability for photon emission.

A cause for individual events? Not so much.

So does entanglement violate light speed limits?

No because nothing measurable is happening above the speed of light. If you only have one part of an entangled state, you cannot actually determine that it is entangled with anything. No matter what you do with the other part, the part you have will always show "normal" random behavior. It is only when you compare your measurement results with the measurements of the other part that you will notice the correlations. To do that comparison, you need to exchange information, which is limited by the speed of light. So everything you can do with an entangled state is also limited by the speed of light.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No because nothing measurable is happening above the speed of light. If you only have one part of an entangled state, you cannot actually determine that it is entangled with anything. No matter what you do with the other part, the part you have will always show "normal" random behavior. It is only when you compare your measurement results with the measurements of the other part that you will notice the correlations. To do that comparison, you need to exchange information, which is limited by the speed of light. So everything you can do with an entangled state is also limited by the speed of light.

Pretty slick "thinking" somewhere. Can three "things" be entangled? More? Are there known limits to entanglement?