17.02.2010 - Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox V

Gilles Kuhn: well we are not a big assembly today

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Birric :)

Gilles Kuhn: hello birric

Birric Forcella: Sorry to be late

Gaya Ethaniel: Birric, where did you get the cigar?

Gilles Kuhn: np

Birric Forcella: I always had it. anyway, it's a joint

Gaya Ethaniel: lol

Gilles Kuhn: ok let begin today let speak in philo general of the epr original paper i propose next week we pass on bell inequalities

Gaya Ethaniel: ok

Birric Forcella: Oh nice

Gilles Kuhn: yes hope to have your help with the math birric

Birric Forcella: Okay. the inequality is quite simple

Gilles Kuhn: yes next week birric

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello ara :)

arabella Ella: Hiya everyone ... am still rezzing

Gilles Kuhn: so in general podolsky use of a radically realist and reductionist view of science

Arisia Vita: welcome ara

Birric Forcella: Let me just say again, that my interest originated with the question of how we can define "free will" which led us the question of what is a "natural cause." That is what I am mostly interested in examining. And that is what Bell's Inequality is exactly about. How much "wiggle room" there is in the universe?

Gilles Kuhn: agreed

Gilles Kuhn: but the core of the problem then is materialist reductionism that is implicit in podolsky position

Gilles Kuhn: a theory must be complete and measure inside it define what is real and what is not physicaly speaking

Gilles Kuhn: (lol ara you selected one of the few armchair not free or was it on purpose ...;-) )

Birric Forcella: EPR is essentially an argument using a "reductio ad absurdum." The idea is that since this can't be so (epistemologically) - it ain't so (ontologically)

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: yes birric good analysis

Gaya Ethaniel: Can I ask a basic question?

Gilles Kuhn: but i think the argument of podolsky is analytical inside a huge non justified paradigm

Gilles Kuhn: sure gaya

Birric Forcella: Yes, and it must measure that for every point which it defines - since according to EPR, space and time are infinitely divisible - this is quite a tall order

arabella Ella: ah sorry about that just thought it weird i could not rez

Gaya Ethaniel: So are you saying Gilles, the theory is problematic because of the method used - materialistic reductionism or because it tries to come up with a theory that covers all?

Gilles Kuhn: well yes podolsky use implicitly space time as they are defined in newtonian physics which is very curious when einstein himself is coauthor

Gilles Kuhn: materialistic reductionism is not properly a method is a epistemological stance about science and so about the nature and properties of theories

Gaya Ethaniel: ok so a theory within another theory ...

Birric Forcella: Right, Bohr keeps pointing that out and keeps needling with that. In fact, Einstein got the Nobel Prize NOT for relativity but for the (I forget the exact name)-effect, which relies on a quantum phenomenon (I'll look up the name in Wiki, one moment)

Gilles Kuhn: correct birric

Arisia Vita: photoelectric effect?

Gilles Kuhn: mmh no a paradigm about theories epistemological stance are not empirical theoris even if some naturalist extreme would probably claim that

Birric Forcella: Yes, that's it. My brain is old

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gaya Ethaniel: ok

Gilles Kuhn: but to use a stance inside a theoretical development is highly discutable

Gaya Ethaniel: Yes ... I can see that now.

Gaya Ethaniel: Well, not very scientific is it? ^^;;;

Gilles Kuhn: podolsky use postulate not grounded on empirical theory to arrive to an empirical conclusion (the fact than qm is incomplete )

Gilles Kuhn: i think that the use of the criterion of reality he defines which is VERY discutable

Gilles Kuhn: in order to arrive to a conclusion so strong is really a big tour de force

Gilles Kuhn: and what is very very funny is that the thought experiment he devised and showed to be impossible if qm was complete was effectively empirically realised later and qm prediction were all realised !

Birric Forcella: Yes, in fact, in hindsight you can see that the conclusing of EPR was already contained in the premise - and you can actually quite easily state it in simple words: Since EPR assumes that space is infinitely divisible it's obvious that from this follows that a discontinuous theory like QM MUST be wrong. However, just like in the Michaelson-Morley experiment, we must ask Nature how things REALLY are and devise the right experiments.

Gilles Kuhn: and the reason i think is that he use a epistemological position way too strong and therefore incorrect i e ontological realism

Gilles Kuhn: yes and nature was surprising in that the most exotic theory ever devised was never falsified

Gilles Kuhn: even if qm pose horrific interpretation and theoretical problem in empirical criterion the theory work perfectly

Birric Forcella: Yes, Mother Nature kicked Albert in the butt and took him to the woodshed

Gilles Kuhn: lol it was a revenge because he unveiled a method to make sense of michelson morley result and worst of mercury excentricity

Gilles Kuhn: ;-)

Gaya Ethaniel: How do you 'ask nature'?

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Fefonz :) Long time no see!

Gilles Kuhn: by looking at it and then using torture chamber (laboratory) and torture device (instrument)

Arisia Vita: Hi Fef

Gaya Ethaniel: lol

Fefonz Quan: Hey Gaya, Gilles, all :)

Gilles Kuhn: hello fef!

Birric Forcella: As my old physics teacher always said - "We ask nature by devising an experiement that asks the right question."

arabella Ella: Hiya Fefonz

Gilles Kuhn: you had a good teacher

Birric Forcella: Yes, as Gilles said - nature then will answer through our instruments

Arisia Vita: did he define what "right question" was?

Gaya Ethaniel: I wonder if you can say more about this Gilles - [13:53] Gilles Kuhn: and the reason i think is that he use a epistemological position way too strong and therefore incorrect i e ontological realism

Gilles Kuhn: well a right or good question i s a fruitful one

Gaya Ethaniel: That's what Pema said once. Asking right question is as important as coming up with answers.

Gilles Kuhn: like what happen if i use terrestrial orbit speed to measure speed of light ....

Gilles Kuhn: when you have the good question you have almost the answer

Arisia Vita: ah, fruitful, now it's clear... :)

Gilles Kuhn: yes gaya the most extreme realist position is ontological one and podolsky i think gave the most extreme of it when he define by reality what a theory can measure

Fefonz Quan: talking about that, it took some time from that experiment to its explanation Gilles

Gilles Kuhn: yes well not so much a long time some 15 or 20 years

Gaya Ethaniel: ^^;;;

Arisia Vita: nature gave the answer, it took time for man to devise the interpretation

Gilles Kuhn: they are scientific problem that were thousand of year old

Gilles Kuhn: indeed arisia

Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok I understand ... @ the "extreme"

Gilles Kuhn: in fact the conclusion of the experiment is light has the same speed in all measurement setting

Fefonz Quan: the interesting question was in the interpretation, but i don't want to distract the issue here...

Gilles Kuhn: so if you remember galilean relativism and reformulate it you can say so light has the same speed in all referential

Gilles Kuhn: an d voila you have the basis of special relativity

Gilles Kuhn: only you need to accept that time an mass are no more constant einstein has done it poincarré who had the former insight didn’t jump the huge gap

Fefonz Quan: exactly. but you were talking about podolsky

Fefonz Quan: so the interesting leap was to 'drop' what we believe is constant and firm like time, space etc.

Gilles Kuhn: well podolsky confuse theory epistemology and empiry

Gilles Kuhn: yes that was einstein genius that and the idea to reformulate gravity as a property not of mass only but of space time

Gilles Kuhn: and very curiously if podolsky assume implicitly special relativity he just dont even take general in account in his development

Gilles Kuhn: but birric i am curious about the fact you dont defend podolsky against my instrumentalist, constructist verging on epistemological relativism critic

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Arisia Vita: maybe Birric agrees with you? (watches sky for lightning bolt...) :)

Birric Forcella: I'm trying not to be too distracting

Gaya Ethaniel: lol

Gilles Kuhn: it s a seminar not a lecture ! please distract !

arabella Ella: apologies Gilles I must go RL calling ... bye all

Gaya Ethaniel: Good night ara :)

Gilles Kuhn: bye ara

Fefonz Quan: Bye Ara!

Birric Forcella: I was thinking of making a comment, but it would be too long. Usually people do know relativity and we can just assume it.

Gilles Kuhn: yes birric and so?

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: because there was always a big problem for qm theory to integrate general relativity

Gilles Kuhn: qm world is still of absolute space time and at the qm experiment scale that is not problematic for the result

Gaya Ethaniel: [14:11] Gilles Kuhn: qm world is still of absolute space time and at the qm experiment scale that is not problematic for the result -- ?

Gilles Kuhn: but that is probably due to our instrument limitation

Birric Forcella: Well, essentially all of space is considered continuous in special relativity and EPR. btw, that leads to the infamous "singularities." - but it is an assumption. It comes from the assumption of Newtonian Math. If you look at the equations in the paper we have been talking about, it clearly does not bar ANY values to be inserted for the variables.

Birric Forcella: I mean special and general relativity

Gilles Kuhn: true

Birric Forcella: Thus you can use infinitely small values. Einstein simply assumed that would be okay

Gilles Kuhn: the format of the podolsky argument is sufficiently general

Gilles Kuhn: but i think is error is to use epistemological claim in his theoretical developement because without them he just predict aspect result and that is great

Gilles Kuhn: only due to this confusion of genre he predict them to say they are impossible

Gilles Kuhn: actually i think it is a interesting point in philo of science against ontological realism

Birric Forcella: Well, you also have to understand that Einstein's postulate is equal to his demand for locality - meaning that things MUST be locally connected in order to influence each other. It bars non-local "magical" actions at a distance. Unless you postulate continuous space and time - you open the door to non-locality. einstein was keenly aware of that. He clearly stated that he wanted to bar this possibility, even if it flew into the face of experiments.

Birric Forcella: Non-locality was basically the ULTIMATE obscenity for Einstein and friends

Gilles Kuhn: yes but non locality is not logically impossible you can have it without abandoning ratio

Fefonz Quan: yes, but what about abandoning the causality?

Gilles Kuhn: descartes spinoza etc thought that space was non local because of the fact they believed in the fact info travel instantaneously

Birric Forcella: Yes, it also means abandoning causality

Fefonz Quan: (or the 'this way or the other' logic?)

Birric Forcella: At least in Einstein's mind

Gilles Kuhn: you can have causality and non locality

Fefonz Quan: i think you can't because than you'll need non-locality in time too

Gilles Kuhn: no

Birric Forcella: Well, we are getting ahead of ourselves in the case of causality - since there is an interesting "rider" attached to Bell's Inequality which say that despite non-local actions at a distance, you can't violate Einsteinian causality by sending faster-than-light messages. We need to explain that later, since it goes to the crux of what is "natural" - we need to ask what it exactly is that is sent non-locally

Gilles Kuhn: indeed birric

Gilles Kuhn: but fef you can have spatial non locality in certain mode without having time problem you need only to seriously revise einstein relativity

Birric Forcella: Well, I think we should first discuss your paper next time before we talk about this. I think for the moment we need to make really clear what it is EPR meant to prove - and WHY they thought their case was airtight. We will then see next time why it is not airtight

Gilles Kuhn: i think i have show it was not airtight in a internal manner

Fefonz Quan: not sure, in the cat case, by opening the box you 'choose' not only one state now, but many past states too (tht werent there before you've opened it)

Gilles Kuhn: and then indeed the next paper will show its worst

Gaya Ethaniel: ok

Fefonz Quan: (agree with birric)

Gaya Ethaniel: I can see already it's not quite airtight from this discussion :)

Birric Forcella: I'm not sure we made it clear enough HOW sure EPR felt - and how much they were in agreement with what we would expect from simple epistemological arguments about "what simply cannot be"

Gilles Kuhn: even if my internal manner to show that is better than podolsky only because i know about bell and aspect

Gilles Kuhn: because the problem with purely theoretical argument is that without empirical test you can claim anything

Gaya Ethaniel: lol

Birric Forcella: Einstein made it quite clear that unless locality holds, you open the door to all kinds of "magical" effects - it flies into the face of all we generally assume to be true.

Gilles Kuhn: and podolsky introduce non empirical argument i e epistemological one and thus arrive at a conclusion that will be later demonstrated false

Gaya Ethaniel: Surely assumptions don't count Birric?

Gilles Kuhn: and einstein was very wrong about that even if the non locality we have in qm dont violate causality even in classical way

Gaya Ethaniel: eh? so all epistemological arguments are false?

Gilles Kuhn: but about that i have a troubling thought argument for next week

Gaya Ethaniel: ok :)

Gilles Kuhn: no but you cannot use them in a positive way inside a theoretical debate in science

Arisia Vita: even theoretical arguments are constrained to agree with existing knowledge?

Gaya Ethaniel: Yes, I can see that.

Gilles Kuhn: existing knowledge no but empirical test yes

Birric Forcella: Right, Gilles. I completely agree with you. I just am trying to bring out that EPR is not just making "any old mistake" like so many have been made in physics. EPR is asserting the very heart of what physics was considered to mean - and what logica and common sense are considered to mean. I mean, we can't just pretend that this all is matter-of-factly so. It REALLY does fly into the face of all that had been held true up to that point and IS being held true by most people still today.

Gilles Kuhn: or you fall in metaphysics

Gilles Kuhn: agreed birric

Gaya Ethaniel: Metaphysics isn't a current domain of science, would you say?

Gilles Kuhn: and the problem is fundamentally ontological realism

Gaya Ethaniel: Lots of lightening today ... Birric and Gilles in agreement :)

Gilles Kuhn: metaphysics is by definition out of empirical science

Gilles Kuhn: it mean what is beyond physics

Gaya Ethaniel: Maybe for now, who knows what happens in the future :)

Gilles Kuhn: and since kant we know that with that you can say everything and his contrary with perfect appearance of logic and reason

Gilles Kuhn: no gaya metaphysics as a discipline is what is concerned by the things that are beyond physics beyond empirical absolute capacity of test and observation

Gaya Ethaniel: I guess I'm thinking about how science would evolve ...

Gaya Ethaniel: It's very limiting currently in some sense.

Gilles Kuhn: science is about mlimitation and reduction

Gaya Ethaniel: So you see no bridge between science and philosophy?

Gilles Kuhn: at the contrary !

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Cosmo :)

Birric Forcella: Science is about what you have evidence for. Philosophy is the forge in which you prove that evidence

Arisia Vita: Hi Cosmo

Fefonz Quan: hi cosmo

Gilles Kuhn: philosophy created science and still as it role in order to define what science limitation methods and usefulness is

Cosmo Fenwitch: Hello. Are you going to stay, or is it about over. I fear I am late.

Gaya Ethaniel: Wonder how many scientists would accept philosophers telling what's what :)

Gilles Kuhn: we are on the verge of concluding the official part

Gilles Kuhn: oh i had epicals discussion with physicist

Cosmo Fenwitch: I'll read the transcript then.

Gaya Ethaniel: Did I add you to Google group Cosmo?

Cosmo Fenwitch: Yes, I'm in.

Fefonz Quan: good night all!

Arisia Vita: night Fef

Gaya Ethaniel: Good night Fefonz :)

Birric Forcella: Well, you do need a philosopher to distinguish the metal from the dross. You can see it in today's debates about evolution and all kinds of pseudoscience. I'm involved with the Skeptic's movement and you won't believe the kinds of things even scientists believe. You really do need principled philosophy to counter it

Birric Forcella: Good night

Gaya Ethaniel: Seminar on next week yes?

Gilles Kuhn: yes

Gaya Ethaniel: Great, see you then, thanks!