geoff@boulder.UUCP (Geoffrey M. Clemm) (04/18/85)
In article <spar.181> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >1. Quantum randomness -- not just loss of accuracy in measurement, > but a total loss of definite meaning to such expressions as `the state > of a particle at a moment in time' A great deal of effort in quantum physics is directed specifically at giving a correct meaning to `the state of a particle at a moment in time'. The fact that we cannot know the state of a particle to an infinite amount of precision in no way generates "a total loss of definite meaning". If someone is pulling the trigger of a loaded gun pointing at your head, I doubt very much that you would receive much comfort from the thought that there is a "total loss of definite meaning to such expressions as `the state of a particle (in this case a bullet) at a moment in time'". >* Single quantum events can and do cause macroscopic effects. The > breakdown of causality is not confinined to the microscopic. This misconception is at the heart of many quantum mechanical fallacies. Very little of the quantum mechanical "randomness" is visible in our normal experiences. Although we cannot be too certain about the exact location of a (low-energy) subatomic particle, the amount of error in our measurement of a macroscopic entity (such as a bullet) is so small as to be irrelevant. Applying quantum-mechanical analogies to macroscopic entities is as serious an error as applying macroscopic analogies to subatomic entities. >2. The predominance of irreversible, nonlinear processes in our universe, > having the property that an infinitesimal variation at time t0 can > give rise to a large variation at time t0 + x. There is no such "predominance". The majority of the processes in our universe (as we experience them) are statistically determined, which means that the effect of an infinitesimal variation is effectively damped by the states of surrounding particles. >* > The flapping of a single butterfly's wings may eventually result in > > the change in global weather patterns everywhere. This quote is amusing, but I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. In theory, all the molecules in my body could possibly vibrate in the same direction at the same time, slamming me against a nearby wall ... but I don't worry too much about it. > To those who find randamness unsatisfying in support of free > will, I ask: `how else would free will manifest itself to a > mechanistic viewpoint other than as random behavior?' That is exactly the question, and "randomness" does not answer it. Why should I be morally responsible for something I did out of a combination of pre-determined causes and randomness. If I grab someones hand and force them to roll some dice, I wouldn't consider it their "fault" because the number 5 was rolled. Geoffrey Clemm
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (04/21/85)
In article <347@boulder.UUCP> geoff@boulder.UUCP (Geoffrey Clemm) writes: >In article <spar.181> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > >>* Single quantum events can and do cause macroscopic effects. The >> breakdown of causality is not confinined to the microscopic. > >This misconception is at the heart of many quantum mechanical fallacies. >Very little of the quantum mechanical "randomness" is visible in our normal >experiences. ... This may or may not be true. The complexity of the brain is such that in many respects a great deal of the processes are "idling" so to speak. At other times (maybe all the time?) our consciousness awareness(i.e. what we are thinking or cognitive about at any give moment) seems to be a delicate balance between a vast number of competing impulses. It just may be possible that there are quantum influences whic actually determine tjust what implulses get to make up our final "awareness" from momemnt to moment. The idea of brain as random event generator has been suggested as one method for paranormal images to make their "impingements" into our everyday consciousness. If the speculation that quantum events can impact thought processes is accurate, then the very fact that you picked up your morning paper before sipping your coffee instead of after and therefore read more than you would have otherwise thus noticing your neighbor was in a minor accident which allowed you to contact them earlier could all be directly attributable to "quantum interference." There have been studies done which indicate just these effects. Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Dave Trissel Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet