17.03.2010 - Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox VI

Agatha Macbeth: Hi Gaya :)

Gaya Ethaniel: Sorry I'm late.

Agatha Macbeth: At least you're here!

Gilles Kuhn: you mentioned birric that you have found that in fact bell was in favor of einstein position ?

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: hello gaya you are not late we just begin

Birric Forcella: No, I did not say that

Gilles Kuhn: ah i dont remember clearly

Gaya Ethaniel: Great :)

Birric Forcella: But I said that with superluminary messages, you can made models of a fully hidden variable theory, like Bohm

Birric Forcella: I think you can use Bell that way

Gilles Kuhn: yes thats indeed what bell say too but he dont even seems to take that seriously

Gilles Kuhn: it would be interesting to study bohm position but i am not atm familiar with it

Gilles Kuhn: he assume non locality?

Birric Forcella: I'm too in favor of the QM/Bohr model - well, a modified version of it - mostly because of its elegance. The models using "pilot waves" are very clumsy and there is zero proof that they exist

Gaya Ethaniel knows Bohm through Krishnamurti :)

Gaya Ethaniel: Pema said Bohm is important because he asked right questions even though he didn't have 'correct' answers.

Agatha Macbeth: :)

Gilles Kuhn: gosh i took a very little interest to krishnamurti tks he seemed to interest bohm but...

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: well but models tools are not necessarily meant to exist birric, dont you think?

Birric Forcella: Bohm has a theory (which is also championed by Martin Gardner who is one of my alt-time heroes) which uses a superluminary "pilot wave" that makes everything work out "just so." That pilot wave is forever invisible and undetectable, btw. But it allows a model of physics that is "turtles all the way down." You can then measure up to arbitrary fineness in all ways you want.

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Betz :)

Betz Darwinian: Hello

Gilles Kuhn: and the model is compatible with classical qm results?

Agatha Macbeth: Hi Betz

Gilles Kuhn: hello betz

Betz Darwinian: Hi Giles

Birric Forcella: Apparently. I really only read Gardner's presentation of it about 15 years ago, or so.

Birric Forcella: But I actually wrote a paper on it

Birric Forcella: Should try to find it

Birric Forcella: brb

Gilles Kuhn: and it assume non locality?

Gilles Kuhn: well at your chronometer we can have an experiment about the chaos state of complexity of birric library ;-)

Gaya Ethaniel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

Agatha Macbeth: He was on the Manhattan Project?

Agatha Macbeth: Wow

Gilles Kuhn: what i always found amusing is that locality in the lorentz poincarrré definition is so much considered to be a point of faith, before newton this kind of non locality was very common in physics

Gilles Kuhn: boom you mean

Agatha Macbeth nods

Gaya Ethaniel: ^^;;;

Gilles Kuhn: well and bohr would have be if he was not caught in german occupied denmark

Agatha Macbeth: Mm

Birric Forcella: Well, it's somewhere on some hard disk. I have 65 of them. But the pilot wave is non-local. it propagates instantly.

Gilles Kuhn: actually heisenberg too but he worked for the german......

Agatha Macbeth: ;-)

Gaya Ethaniel: Please feel free to add to wiki when you find it Birric :)

Gilles Kuhn: well but as i said i have not the feelings that non locality at this level of modelling is problematic at all it is only if you believe in special relativity as a true theory of the world

Birric Forcella: In that paper I was trying to prove (or proved, I don't remember) that the "surfaces of the universe) can't be infinitely and monotonously smooth but have to become grainy somewhere. If not at Heisenberg's Lambda, then somewhere at a finer level. It can't be "turtles all the way down."

Birric Forcella: It may be half-baked. It's 15 years old at least. However, it led to my current ideas that whatever is in the "microcosm" MUST be needed to make the macrocosm we see around us.

Gilles Kuhn: well the idea of reductionism say so indeed and sheer logic say that if even micro world dont exhaust reality at the very least it is a fundamental condition of existence of it

Gilles Kuhn: but intertheoric reduction is at my opinion a unnecessary trick of the realist to defend themselves against the fact of history of sciences

Gilles Kuhn: atm in a poperrian way it seems aspect experiment tend to demonstrate non locality and therefore it could be argue they constitute a popperian refutation of special relativity

Gilles Kuhn: which at my opinion show that popper was a bit extreme ....;-)

Birric Forcella: I don't really mean it in a reductionist sense, but in an idealist sense. Basically all the sense the universe makes up here it must eventually be found to be making down there.

Gaya Ethaniel: Eastern contemplative traditions argue that each phenomenal object is a manifestation of reality in its entirety => macrocosm-micrososm relation between things and One.

Agatha Macbeth: 'As above so below'?

Gaya Ethaniel: ?

Agatha Macbeth grins

Gilles Kuhn: well that neglect the difference of level of explanation of complexity arousing at different level that are not directly property of the lowest level even if those are a condition of possibility well at least permit the next level as you can have different things giving birth to emergent properties

Gaya Ethaniel: What it means I think is each 'thing' is a manifestation of reality while complete in itself.

Birric Forcella: Give me a pass on this. It's very hard for me to express, which also means I haven't really worked it out right.

Gilles Kuhn: indeed gaya but i have not seen labs experiment to confirm that

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Agatha Macbeth smiles @ birric

Gaya Ethaniel: It's a philosophical idea.

Gilles Kuhn: yes it is but as in lot of oriental philosophy its a terribly fuzzy general and inapplicable one

Birric Forcella: Well, now. Are we at the point where we can link this up with "free will"?

Gilles Kuhn: when i spoke of emergence it was in part to permit the link birric yes

Gaya Ethaniel: Just different traditions ... Eastern ones require more than 'thinking'.

Gilles Kuhn: even if as i'm a instrumentalist and empirical constructivist in science i dont think any scientific theory can say something about ontology nor about free will so

Birric Forcella: Erm, what exactly do you mean with "emergence"

Gaya Ethaniel: Anyway, I won't derail the discussion!

Gilles Kuhn: yes indeed the concept of emergence is tricky and way too often used to disguise sheer ignorance

Gilles Kuhn: i would refer to poincarré that said "que quelque chose ne soit pas de la pensée est une proposition qui ne saurait avoir de sens " gaya

Gaya Ethaniel: >.< translator!

Gilles Kuhn: (that something shall not be thought its a proposition that cannot have meaning"

Agatha Macbeth: Vraiment! :)))

Gilles Kuhn: but when i use emergence i mean that we at a certain level some properties of organisation different of those of the infra substratic level come to empirical existence

Gaya Ethaniel: Maybe we can discuss Bohm's book, 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' one day.

Gilles Kuhn: molecular chimic reaction are due to qm but you would never use qm to describe or predict them you will use chemical theory

Gilles Kuhn: why because the level of explanation is different and so modelising it is more easy using a theory more "simple " for this level of prediction

Birric Forcella: I'm not entirely sure about emergence. But the question is really, is any emergent thing not naturally caused? Does that statement make sense?

Gilles Kuhn: yes but i know we differ about our definition of nature

Birric Forcella: Well, let's try to get at the definition of a "natural event."

Gilles Kuhn: i dont see why nature forbid free will you claim that free will implies something non natural

Birric Forcella: That's what I had hoped this whole exercise would clarify

Birric Forcella: Well, if you have an "after" mental state - how does it arise from a "before" one?

Gilles Kuhn: for me free will is the consequence of the complexity of the organisation of our brain about that my position is close of that of denett in his book "freedom evolve"

Birric Forcella: Well, our mental states are represented by material states in our brain. If we have a different state from the one before, somehow it must have happened

Gilles Kuhn: and too my definition of freedom own to a important remark of merleau ponty : you cannot be free if there is no constrain absolute freedom is non sense the concept of freedom is about what you can do inside a closed set of possibilities

Birric Forcella: Well, Dennet's idea is really weird. I wrote about it, too in my paper on free will, which I had hoped to finalize after all this

Gilles Kuhn: our mental state are not represented by our brain they are the direct product of brain activity in a manner we dont understand

Birric Forcella: Are you referring to Dennet's idea that free will is "emergent avoidance capacity"?

Gaya Ethaniel: That makes sense Gilles.

Birric Forcella: Well, if we don't understand it, then how can you say that free will is free. That sounds like a "freedom in the gap" argument

Gaya Ethaniel: Do you think we will understand one day?

Gilles Kuhn: well if you take a non absolute definiton of freedom (which as showed merleau ponty is anyway contradictory) then the fact you free will is constrained by the possibilities of your brain state is not a problem and freedom is a evolutionary thing more complex your mental/brain state are more choice you have

Agatha Macbeth nods

Agatha Macbeth and smiles

Birric Forcella: In the past people tried to find god in the places they did not understand (yet). In more recent times people try to find all kinds of things in that gap. Now you are trying to find free will there. Let me point out that that "gap" is the biggest loser in history. It has ALWAYS in the past been filled in, and the new gaps always come from science finding new questions which in turn were answered and led to new gaps.

Gilles Kuhn: and i dont claim absolute free will birrric i claim relative one and for what is important about the problem of free will we can at our societal and moral level of explanation claim our will are free even if they can be influenced

Gilles Kuhn: and about understanding in a absolute ontological manner we dont understand anything we have only theorues that permit us to make prediction and create technique and tools useful at our level of perception

Gilles Kuhn: but the ontological status of these theories is zero they are pure creation they are judged by their technological prowess but that dont guarantee at all a truth of correspondance with ""natural laws"" if those have any sense

Gaya Ethaniel: I think free will exists within a limited range of choices that are determined by influences. There is the deterministic element in this picture as well as free element though limited.

Birric Forcella: I don't think it works like that. I think the special pleadings of people for free will comes out of some fear. The fear that you have to admit that your brain actually acts "for you" or, in a very serious way "is you." And you don't realize that the brain is doing the best thing for you it can - nothing else than what you would do if you HAD free will.

Gilles Kuhn: anyway another argulment i use often is that if we are not free at all but nobody can predict my actions then the non prediction the incapacity of prediction is what freedom is

Gilles Kuhn: i am my brain i have np with that but the fact my brain will eventually cease to function and die

Gaya Ethaniel: I'm fine with what you said Birric except, brain = a person.

Birric Forcella: People want there to be free will because they want the freedom to "second guess" their "moral" choices - they don't want to be at the mercy of their "mere" brain

Gilles Kuhn: but second guess is a brain activity birric but a more absstract one one that permit you to not react by reflex and to take your time to evitate to act by primitive instinct

Gaya Ethaniel: Are you really saying a person is only an organism?

Gilles Kuhn: i do so gaya but that is not diminishing the fact a organism can be a person

Gaya Ethaniel: I'm not denying a person is an organism but I disagree that a person is an organism only.

Gilles Kuhn: (and yes i would prefer to have an immortal soul but it is not because i like unicorn that those exist)

Gaya Ethaniel: lol

Birric Forcella: I agree, Gilles, but it does not mean that the more sophisticated brain activity is free. You can have a very primitive computer program, and a very sophilsticated database with billions of entries. But even the most sophisticated program does not act with free will.

Gilles Kuhn: its an organism only what else but that organism is able to model itself and to modify itself which make of it a person

Gilles Kuhn: programs are simulation they at least for now cannot feel yes the qualia problem again

Gaya Ethaniel: What I mean is the organism is more 'porous' than we perhaps think.

Gilles Kuhn: say that to my liver ;-)

Gaya Ethaniel: rofl

Agatha Macbeth: :))

Gaya Ethaniel: I don't mean that level ^^;;;

Gilles Kuhn: well gaya i am less materialist than birric but still i am

Gaya Ethaniel: Don't you think though what people may have understood of 'materials' before qm is vastly different after?

Gilles Kuhn: i dont think so gaya the problematic of the concept of matter and of materialism is as old as philosophy the fact that we have more idea how to change and use matter than say democrit dont change fundamentaly the philosophical problem it only complexify it

Gaya Ethaniel: hm ... ok

Gilles Kuhn: pascal in his dialogue of the two infinite just take in a more refined way the aristotelicain reasonning about the chain of cause

Gilles Kuhn: pascal explain that there is always a sub cause and that so we have always a very limited knowledge

Gilles Kuhn: when i see string theoris claiming they are about to find the fundamental brick of the universe it make me smile

Birric Forcella: Well, I think the free will problem boils down to a simple alternative - either your decisions are caused or they are uncaused. There is no way to hide or gloss over the problem with words. If they are caused, you may invoke "unnatural or supernatural causes, or metaphysical" causes, and I would like to see them. If your decisions are uncaused, then please tell me how.

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gaya Ethaniel: uh ... how does one see 'metaphysical' causes?

Gaya Ethaniel: I mean in this forum context ...

Gilles Kuhn: i dont agree my decision are caused but too by my internal very complex brain process and those have memories and those can be influence by others and so you have a big causality complexity so big that even laplace demon could not use it for a prediction

Birric Forcella: Honestly, I wish they would come up with some new insights. We seem to have arrived at some kind of logjam. Cosmology has not moved forward in about 20 years.

Gilles Kuhn: 20 years i deem you optimist

Gilles Kuhn: i think physics has not really moved since qm and gr

Birric Forcella: Well, I count the COBE findings as the last significant ones

Gilles Kuhn: yes right but when i said that i mean about theoretical physic in experimental things we have make explosive progress....

Birric Forcella: Well, if I get around to it, I'll finish my free will paper - I actually have a draft that would serve, but it does not have my QM thoughts in it

Gilles Kuhn: ok birric i hope we will have thee pleasure to hoist your first presentation of it

Agatha Macbeth: Indeed

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Birric Forcella: Though my conclusion is that QM hs nothing to do with free will. But it's kind of important to see why.

Gilles Kuhn: i agree about that birric but indeed its important i remember to have saw a book that wanted to justify the transubstantation of the host (the wafer )by qm....

Gilles Kuhn: yep as a einstein boose consensate;-)

Birric Forcella: Okay. Nice. We'll see you all next week

Agatha Macbeth: Sounds good

Gilles Kuhn: have a good week everybody

Betz Darwinian: bye

Gaya Ethaniel: Thanks :)