Religous debates and questions [2]

David H wrote:

Lancebloke wrote: I like to think (and I am sure it would be disputed) that I am a very logical, analytical person. To me, there is no need to have faith in something like a god or an afterlife etc. My logical(?) brain says there is no reason for a god to be and there is no argument I have ever heard that disputes that.

That's can be a totally consistent world view Lance. And if it answers all the questions you wonder about, why would there be any need to look further?

I was trained as a theoretical mathematician, so although I like to think i have a logical mind as well, I can't help but look deeper than that.

Have you ever met Gödel's incompleteness theorem? It basically says that even in a system as simple as the integers, you can't be both internally consistent and know everything. Truth will always slip through the cracks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.

It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God, but it does prove the limitations of logic.

Godel's theorem (how do you get the umlaut?) was explained in a simplified manner in Roger Penrose's the Emperor's New Clothes. At the time I read it it made perfect glorious sense, but I just re-read it and the way Penrose described it isn't as clear to me as I remember. But I like the way I've seen it described elsewhere. The problem is in constructing a logical system complete enough that it can refer to itself. Then the system is capable of making a statement along the lines of "I am a consistent liar."

While it may be true that somebody may be a consistent liar, they will not be able to make that statement, because then they will be telling the truth. If you think of the logic system as the person, then the logical system can't be complete enough to allow references to itself. If it is complete enough to make that statement, then it is inconsistent.

Or to bring it back somewhat to religion: if God is all-powerful, can he create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?

I should add that though I think Penrose was very good at describing the mathematical procedure behind Godel's theorem, he goes on to try to connect it to human observers and quantum mechanics - a ridiculous chain of reasoning I vehemently disagree with. Too bad, he's the guy who worked out the mathematics of black holes, so I'd like to be able to follow him into other strange trails of fundamental physics, but his thinking here is ludicrous. However, I still recommend it for the remaining 80% of the book. Math and physical theory taught be an eccentric master.

he goes on to try to connect it to human observers and quantum mechanics - a ridiculous chain of reasoning I vehemently disagree with- Halfy

What were his ideas? Im intrigued after that denouncement.

I don't remember clearly, it was silly and poorly formed. First off, he's a strong believer in the idea that intelligent observation is what collapses the wave function to the single point particles we actually see. Personally that discredits everything he says afterwards, and even though it was in vogue (mainly out of desperation) in the first half of the century, very few believe that tripe now. But Penrose extends the silliness: it was long felt there was some sort of dividing line between the scale where quantum effects dominate and classical effects dominate. Today most people would refer to decoherence theory, where you get enough various effects sloshing around as the scale increases that the simple waves envisioned by QM don't really apply anymore. But to Penrose there's still some mystical physical dividing line, and he decides Quantum Gravity will tell us where that dividing line is. Why? Because there's nothing else around so that's what gloms onto. Then since he thinks consciousness is necessary to forming this dividing line, he decides that we won't understand human consciousness until we understand quantum gravity.

It all sounds like somebody babbling about the new age wave energy they feel emanating from crystals must be connected to quantum waves. If I didn't know better I'd say Penrose was an idiot - but at least he knew enough to publish this claptrap in a non peer reviewed book rather than a journal.

it was in vogue (mainly out of desperation) in the first half of the century- Halfwise

So is it not the belief now that 'observation' plays no part in the outcome?

halfwise wrote: but at least he knew enough to publish this claptrap in a non peer reviewed book rather than a journal.

I'm not sure he deserves credit for this. Do you think a journal would really have excepted it?
That said, I'm a big fan of theoretical mathematicians and physicists throwing conventional wisdom to the winds and following random bizarre pathways. The best way to test your methodology is to take it "off road", and you never know what may come out of it.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:it was in vogue (mainly out of desperation) in the first half of the century- Halfwise

So is it not the belief now that 'observation' plays no part in the outcome?

I'd like to hear Halfwise speak on this too, but certainly observation plays a major part of observed outcome. The question then becomes, "what would a non-observed outcome look like?"

Now we would say "interaction" rather than observation.  The problem was that if you have one particle that must be thought of as a wave (in order to get the interference effects) and then it interacts with another particle to change both wave patterns, then you still have a wave.  So you still have the problem with when the wave has to be treated as the particle that is actually observed.  There being no other logical physical  dividing line for when the wave collapses to a particle, the early physicists picked the one line nobody could argue with: by the time a human being observes it, it is a particle.

But people have later come to realize something which should have been evident back then, I think they were still grappling with their comfort level too much to see the obvious.  If you know much about waves, you know that adding two waves together of different wavelengths will create a wave with wavelength equal to the average of the two wavelengths, but with an amplitude envelope that looks like a wave with the difference between the two wavelengths. (in music, called 'beats')



So as the system gets larger there's more of these out-of-tune waves being added together, and you get beats that are better and better defined, and eventually look no different than the objects we see in the classical world.

To answer David's question about the non-observed world, since it's interactions with other waves that count rather than observations, the unobserved is the same as the observed once you have enough interactions!

This doesn't resolve the mystery of the translation of quantum waves into particles, but at least takes consciousness out of the dividing line between the microscopic and the macroscopic observed world. A nice clean quantum wave unobserved should remain a quantum wave until we come in with our big clumsy instruments and disturb the nice coherent structure with an 'observation'. We can't really say that the waves to particles conundrum is solved, but by decohering the wave into beats we at least are getting closer to not being able to tell the difference.

Sorry if Im being stupid hear Halfy but are you saying anything which causes an interference pattern in the wave counts as an 'observation'? So anything from another wave, to a particle whizzing by to us measuring it with instruments?

The real world interactions cause these interference patterns, which eventually means you can't tell the difference between a wave and a particle.  So the point where a wave 'collapses' to a particle due to 'observation' becomes less of a shocking transition.  Make no mistake: the shocking transition is still there, it's just become less shocking.  The early developers were totally shocked by it, and sought to remove any ambiguity by positing that conscious observation provided a dividing line - modern physicists are more likely to shrug their shoulders and say "so long as we can calculate how it works and it doesn't conflict with what we see in every day life, we can live with it."  

Decoherence theory allows QM to not conflict with everyday life.  It may eventually explain the central mystery of wave particle duality, but hasn't quite done so yet.

The real world interactions cause these interference patterns- Halfwise

So how did it start when there were not yet any 'real world interactions' to cause interference?

Not sure I understand the question. Are you saying there will be no clean waves to begin with since everything is interacting with the real world? An atom out in space that emits a photon is in a pretty clean environment, so the photon can be described as a nice wave. Of course we don't see the wave effects unless you have a lot of photons being emitted and sent through something like a slit that will cause it to spread out in a wave like way. The 'interaction' perhaps becomes an 'observation' most definitely if the photon is absorbed so most definitely doesn't exist anymore as either wave or particle, but if you bounce it off a mirror you can measure the momentum change of the mirror and make an observation with it still being a wave/particle. A single photon can be measured this way while continuing to go on like a wave in part due to the uncertainty principle: if not measured to closely there's some latitude for it to be bouncing in different directions like a wave spreading out, but then you have to ask what you mean by 'not measuring too closely', and...well it goes on and on. The problem is not solved, but creating these wave packets through interference with the outside world does help by defining boundaries to the wave dimensions. Fuzzy boundaries, but still boundaries.

I was thinking of right back at the start of everything, before there was anything.
What caused the first wave to become something definite like a particle?
And for that matter where did the waves come from in the first place?

Not really a pertinent question. Finding out how the waves all started still doesn't solve the wave-particle duality problem.

As far as what first caused a wave to become a particle, theoretically there's no real difference once you decide conscious observation is not relevant. Once you measure particles you could work backward and treat them as particles up until the point where they do something wave-like such as having wave interference with other particles. Then you just have accept that they have properties of both particles and waves, though not necessarily at the same time.

It's hard at first, but you get used to it when the mathematics works out. Things propagate like waves but measure like particles.

But there has to be a starting point surely?
Before the universe there apparently wasnt any space or time, so presumably no space for waves to be in, and no time for them to do anything.
And now waves and particles everywhere.
So what comes first? Are they first in wave form or particle? What do you start out with when the universe began?

chicken or egg 

''It all sounds like somebody babbling about the new age wave energy they feel emanating from crystals must be connected to quantum waves''. Halfy

so crystals? do they or dont they? emanate stuff.

Nah, they just sit there. Smug little duffers. To be completely honest I would have to say that crystals emanating stuff does not align with our current understanding of the way the physical world works.

What about sharpening razors with pyramids?

I'm glad you stressed the current part of it halfy.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:What about sharpening razors with pyramids?

See the crystals comment.

Lancebloke wrote:I'm glad you stressed the current part of it halfy.

That's only a CYA to be completely rigorous in a mathematical sense. I don't think healing crystals (or most uses of magnetism) in the new age sense will ever make their way into accepted medicine.

Stranger things have happened... which are no longer strange but were at the time.

Hence the CYA. Acupuncture has become accepted, though still not understood in the framework of western science.

are crystals magnets? yeah I know I am teetering dangerously near to hippy chick doofusdom when I ask these questions.  

Everything that people think of when they say "crystal" are non-magnetic. But you can make crystalline magnets, nothing really stopping you since metals are usually made up of small crystals largely arranged at random. I guess nobody really sees much point in the effort involved in making metallic crystals: you just have to cool the metal down very slowly, slower than if growing a crystal out of solution.