1
   

Non-locality.

 
 
fresco
 
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 12:10 am
Physicists have found evidence that apparantly separate phenomena such as some properties of discrete objects are in fact "entangled" or indicate a "single entity". What philosophical implications does this have for such concepts as "causality" and "reality"?

Background material.
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,862 • Replies: 81
No top replies

 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 08:14 am
fresco, nice to see you Manchester. I briefly read through your article, but since I know zero about physics, it would be difficult to show the relationship.

I was impressed with the author's explanation of music and poetry, however. Would that be like Gestalt? Also the art of communication took on a different meaning.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 11:45 am
Greettings Letty.

I compliment you on your foray into this difficult area.

The essence of "gestalt" is "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" but non-locality goes a bit further than this implying that "parts" are a distraction. In "communication theory" the item "information" is often treated as a diembodied stream of "signals" without reference to the interdependent "semantic field" relating communicators. This "field" is a socio-culturual one and provides the stage or arena on which communicators "dance". The author implies we cannot "understand the dance" except as a dynamic unity, not as a collection of arm and leg movements. Nor can we understand "the dance" (think tango) without reference to its cultural history which transcends the lives of particular exponents with respect to time and space.

Where does this lead with respect to reality ? For me, any so-called "object" like the chair on which I sit has no independent existence as "an entity". Its "existence" as a chair presupposes the existence of "a sitter". The existence of "air" presupposes the existence of "an air user". The existence of "star" presupposes the existence of "a star gazer"....... and so on .....and the "space" between is of the same significance as the space between dancers....it is part of the relationship.... not a "partition" of existence.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 12:05 pm
Thank you Fresco. I understand what the implications are. It seems to be the same thing as the sound of a tree falling in the forest. <smile> Boy, has that been spoofed; nevertheless, I think that there is a parallel. While searching for some music, I ran across a really interesting piece of philosophy that matches my mind. Perhaps you will allow me to post it hear since it seems to deal with duality.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 12:07 pm
fresco-

Have you read Spengler?

The existence of science is there put down to the existence of the Faustian world idea beginning in Christianity around 1000AD. That it is actually an attempt to describe (confess) our culture's "soul".
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 04:25 pm
Letty,

With the proviso that the "recent" physics of non-locality may not be the last word on "physical reality" please feel to give your example. By this I mean that those of us who embrace the "superiority" of non-dualism can be "comforted" by such physical evidence for the appropriateness of our direction, without delimiting our destination.

Spendius,

Not read Spengler who appears to have been delightfully eccentric.
Perhaps you can briefly outline his case or give a weblink to a synopsis.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 04:37 pm
Sorry, Fresco. I lost the original, but it had to do with the bicameral mind and the notion of everything real being in two's. One example had to do with the tango, of all things.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 08:51 am
bm

that was an interesting link. Thanks. Smile
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 02:47 pm
Quote:
Physicists have found evidence that apparantly separate phenomena such as some properties of discrete objects are in fact "entangled" or indicate a "single entity". What philosophical implications does this have for such concepts as "causality" and "reality"?


I guess it implies that causality refers to the inner workings of this "single entity", to imagined parts of the whole phenomena. It tells us that things are not neccesarily happening in the order we experience them. Since we judge our reality by measuring the effect of things, we cannot see anything but reflections. The world is painted for our senses, but also by our senses.

Other animals share this defect in a way that can perhaps explain my angle. Some reptiles are blind to anything but movement, and if you stand still they cannot see you. Smile

So we have a choice, in defining our own reality. We can decide how we will appear, and what aspects we lay emphasis on will determine what is real to us. Reality is a sort of mutual agreement.

Also, I think it is in agreement with the ancient hindu wisdom that everything is illution, meaning that there is only this singularity wich we percieve in pieces.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 03:16 pm
The Ultimate REALITY of existence appears to be beyond our comprehension. Attempting to do so is akin to an ant trying to fathom quantum mechanics.

Of course, being human...we like to make guesses about the REALITY.

And being human, some of us like to disguise the fact that we are making guesses...by calling our guesses "beliefs."

Any and all comments about the Ultimate REALITY are almost certainly guesses...particularly the ones hidden in beliefs.

You Fresco...and JL and a few others...seem intent on peddling your belief system as fact.

No problem with that. You can try to sell the Brooklyn Bridge if you choose.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 04:35 pm
Cyracuz,

Your summary seems valid to me. BTW An excellent book encompassing QM and shifting concepts of reality is Brian Green's "The Fabric of the Cosmos".

Frank,

Never mind ants ! What do you make of QM ? In particular what do you make of the principle that the act of observation determines "reality" ?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 05:45 pm
fresco-

Didn't Mailer see that hoary old chestnut off when Croft got smacked in the centre of the forehead with a slug of lead?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 06:35 pm
fresco wrote:
Frank,

Never mind ants ! What do you make of QM ? In particular what do you make of the principle that the act of observation determines "reality" ?


Could be. Then again...maybe not.

Fact is...maybe REALITY is completely independent of anyone's (supposed) observation of it.

No way to really tell, is there.

No way to determine if you are just kidding yourself.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 06:39 pm
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or just Uncertainty principle (sometimes also the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle - a name given to it by Niels Bohr) states that one cannot measure values (with arbitrary precision) of certain conjugate quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 07:09 pm
Frank, not that I want to renew our past debate, but when you say that

"Any and all comments about the Ultimate REALITY are almost certainly guesses...particularly the ones hidden in beliefs. "

are you implying that YOUR thesis regarding our perspective is more than a "guess"?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 01:12 am
To be fair to Frank, some of these concepts are so counter-intuitive that even scientists like Einstein were wary of them. The significance of "non-locality" is that Einstein (and others) issued a challenge to the QM advocates to come up with "evidence" (They thought like Frank there was "no way of telling") However, developments in technology and mathematics eventually provided such "evidence". The Einstein group was obliged to concede!

Greene points out that at the macro-level, the probabilistic spread of "objects" in "space" is insignificant. i.e. Observations can be "agreed" for everyday purposes. It is from such agreement that we derive lay concepts of "true" and "false". (i.e. Probability very close to 1 or 0). It is the understanding of these limits of binary logic which makes usage of words like "guess" in discussions of "reality" as inappropriate as trying to play golf with a football.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 12:29 pm
As I understand it, the problem with quantum mechanics is that theories are impossible to verify through experiments.

Or was that just regarding M theory?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 12:33 pm
frank wrote:
Quote:
Fact is...maybe REALITY is completely independent of anyone's (supposed) observation of it



Well, that is hard to know, but the article linked to the initial post seems to back that notion.

So does the ancient hindu statement that everything is illution.

What I find interesting is how we (humans) keep coming up with new ways to confirm our reality, and time and again it is the same reality we unmask.

Goes to show the subjectivity of our experience. Maybe when two humans experiences the same reality it's just because the two individuals experiencing are so similar...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 12:50 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Frank, not that I want to renew our past debate, but when you say that

"Any and all comments about the Ultimate REALITY are almost certainly guesses...particularly the ones hidden in beliefs. "

are you implying that YOUR thesis regarding our perspective is more than a "guess"?


IT IS A GUESS...ABSOLUTELY...AND WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION!

It is something I simply cannot know.

I only wish other people who are making guesses would have the guts, integrity, and self-respect to acknowledge when they are.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 12:53 pm
fresco wrote:
To be fair to Frank, some of these concepts are so counter-intuitive that even scientists like Einstein were wary of them. The significance of "non-locality" is that Einstein (and others) issued a challenge to the QM advocates to come up with "evidence" (They thought like Frank there was "no way of telling") However, developments in technology and mathematics eventually provided such "evidence". The Einstein group was obliged to concede!

Greene points out that at the macro-level, the probabilistic spread of "objects" in "space" is insignificant. i.e. Observations can be "agreed" for everyday purposes. It is from such agreement that we derive lay concepts of "true" and "false". (i.e. Probability very close to 1 or 0). It is the understanding of these limits of binary logic which makes usage of words like "guess" in discussions of "reality" as inappropriate as trying to play golf with a football.


The concepts may be right...and I am not wedded only to concepts that are non-counter-intuitive.

But to offer them as the fact of REALITY goes against my grain.

I am NOT ARGUING that you folks are wrong. I am simply arguing that it is my guess that you are presenting guesses about reality as though they were facts...of which you have knowledge.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Non-locality.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 08:58:23