tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post3864096810703269305..comments2024-03-17T11:54:10.124+11:00Comments on Journeyman Philosopher: 2 different views on physics and realityPaul P. Mealinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-15679805121570416652012-10-08T18:04:04.103+11:002012-10-08T18:04:04.103+11:00Hi Eli,
Yes, it makes a philosophical point with ...Hi Eli,<br /><br />Yes, it makes a philosophical point with tongue-in-cheek humour.<br /><br />Not one of my better posts - a bit scattered, I admit.<br /><br />I find it interesting that some people think this is all settled.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-48310397685509544342012-10-08T04:46:31.035+11:002012-10-08T04:46:31.035+11:00I do like that last quote about math :-DI do like that last quote about math :-DElihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-71172910099034844092012-10-06T21:26:11.703+10:002012-10-06T21:26:11.703+10:00Hi James,
It's a very good rant. If the quant...Hi James,<br /><br />It's a very good rant. If the quantum multiverse was as definitively decided as you claim, then there wouldn't be so many words written about it, by highly respected physicists, contrary to it.<br /><br />I'd recommend you read <i>Tthe Ghost in the Atom</i> by J.Brown and P.C.W.Davies, which is a series of interviews with a number of eminent physicists in the field, including Alain Aspect, John Bell, John Wheeler, David Bohm as well as David Deutsch. Some of these people have since died, but their views are no less valid and unresolved as they were then.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-61023151432908414362012-10-06T13:41:45.702+10:002012-10-06T13:41:45.702+10:00Hi, Paul.
Recall that God is mathematics, i.e., t...Hi, Paul.<br /><br />Recall that God is mathematics, i.e., the Logos: which means logic, computation, thought, reason, cogitation, ratiocination, cerebration, cognition, mentation. Why would God violate Himself? Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates logic or natural law.<br /><br />Also, there exists only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that is the many-worlds interpretation. All other so-called "interpretations" either make no attempt to actually explain quantum phenomena (such as the Statistical interpretation), or they are merely the many-worlds interpretation in denial (such as David Bohm's pilot-wave interpretation).<br /><br />Anything that acts on reality is real and exists. Quite strange then that quantum phenomena behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist if in fact they don't exist. If the actual physical nature of the "wave functions" and "pilot waves" are not the other particles in the multiverse, then new physical entities with their own peculiar physics are being invoked: for if these aren't the other particles in the multiverse interacting with the particles in this universe, then we will do well to ask what is their actual physical nature? Pinball flippers, bumpers and ramps? What is their actual physical form, and why do they behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist?<br /><br />Further, all wave phenomena are nothing more than particle phenomena: there is no particle-wave duality. A wave is simply a collection of particles interacting with each other. It is the particles that actually exist; the wave is simply an action by particles interacting with each other. We see this with waves through, e.g., liquids: the individual molecules are jostled about via interacting with the other molecules. Likewise, a single photon in this universe behaves as a wave because it's interacting with the ocean of its parallel photons in the multiverse.<br /><br />As well, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse. For the details on that, see the following articles:<br /><br />Frank J. Tipler, "Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation", arXiv:1008.2764, Mar. 30, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003146<br /><br />Frank J. Tipler, "Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology", arXiv:1008.2764, Aug. 16, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2764<br /><br />And see:<br /><br />Frank J. Tipler, "Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates", arXiv:0809.4422, Sept. 25, 2008. http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4422<br /><br />Prof. Tipler also points out on pg. 95 of The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), "if the other universes and the multiverse do not exist, then quantum mechanics is objectively false. This is not a question of physics. It is a question of mathematics. I give a mathematical proof of [this] in my earlier book ...". For that, see Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality (New York: Doubleday, 1994), App. I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", pp. 483-488.<br /><br />See also the leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device), "Comment on Lockwood", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 47, No. 2 (June 1996), pp. 222-228. http://webcitation.org/5wajACpeI<br /><br />Quantum mechanics is strictly deterministic across the multiverse. If one does away with causation then one also does away with the possibility of explanation, as all explanation is predicated on explicating cause-and-effect relationships. So if by "interpretation" it is meant explanation, then Prof. Deutsch's point in his above paper about there actually only being one known interpretation of quantum mechanics is again found to be inescapable.James Redfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11284915453745539533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-51976863916048809362012-10-06T11:54:27.779+10:002012-10-06T11:54:27.779+10:00Hi James,
I have to admit I’m always wary of peop...Hi James,<br /><br />I have to admit I’m always wary of people who combine religion and science, or use science to support religious beliefs. I’ve quoted Barrow regarding ‘mathematics’ replacing the traditional idea of ‘God’ - a very Pythagorean concept – and you say something similar on p.39.<br /><br />But there are 2 very different concepts of ‘God’ which people routinely confound. There is ‘God’, who apparently exists outside of space and time, and created the universe in which we live. And there is ‘God’ that people ‘experience’ inside their heads. The latter concept I believe is a projection of the human psyche and is totally subjective – completely dependent on the individual. In other words, it couldn’t be more removed from the so-called objective ‘God’ who is the ‘mind’ behind the universe. <br /><br />But if you replace the objective ‘God’ with mathematics then the confounding disappears. In fact, one’s so-called God can’t change mathematics, no matter how omnipotent – God can’t change the value of pi, for example, or make a prime non-prime – mathematics is above God.<br /><br />On page 9 you say there are currently 2 to the power 10 to the power 123 universes, but no one can be so definite when the very idea of a multiverse is speculative philosophy, not a scientific theory. You realise, of course, that if the mutiverse becomes infinite then there are an infinite number of you and everything else.<br /><br />The reason the Hartle-Hawking model of the universe appeals to me, is because as we go backwards in time and the universe becomes more quantum, less classical, time disappears – in fact, becomes an ‘imaginary’ dimension. Marcus du Sautoy makes the point (<i>The Music of the Primes</i>, p. 267) that the quantum world, which we can’t see, is dictated by imaginary numbers, and it is only when these numbers are eliminated, mathematically, that the quantum event becomes classical and we can observe it.<br /><br />On pages 40-41, you give the impression that the universe is a computer simulation. As Paul Davies points out in <i>The Goldilocks Enigma</i>, this scenario is really a variant of ‘Intelligent Design’. In what universe does the computer exist, which is running the simulation?<br /><br />In regards to consciousness and time, it’s quite possible that consciousness is the only thing that exists in a continual present (after all we know photons don’t). Without consciousness, past present and future have no meaning. In fact, without memory we wouldn’t even experience consciousness because it’s continuously ephemeral. States of unconsciousness are most likely states when consciousness still exists but no memories are being generated.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-2785814424621635072012-10-05T14:47:16.257+10:002012-10-05T14:47:16.257+10:00Hi, Paul Mealing. For much more on the matters you...Hi, Paul Mealing. For much more on the matters you raised in your above post, particularly in respect to physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, see my following article, which also concerns the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):<br /><br />James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, <a href="http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything" rel="nofollow">http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything</a><br /><br />Regarding why anything exists as opposed to nothingness, see Sec. 7.2 of my foregoing article. On the inherent multiversal nature of Quantum Mechanics, see footnote 12 on p. 8.James Redfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11284915453745539533noreply@blogger.com