If the quanta spoken of in the physical sciences are physically existent, they cannot be mere vacua acting on other vacua. Merely saying that they are statistically full of vacua-type quanta does not solve anything. If they are non-existent, they cannot act at all. Hence, there is no question even of the correlation between two sorts of processes and then if we somehow insert into it all the quantum-mechanical articulations in terms of statistical measurements (1) of existent causes or non-causes, (2) mere articulations of our statistical recognition of some BEHAVIOUR, etc.
In all of these, how can we now speak of the existence of things -- however minute, near-infinitesimal, even in the case of the quanta of energy? If they are physically existent -- and not merely capable of being spoken of --, then quantum-physical definitions of statistical causality, the notorious consciousness-dependence of the existent quantum world, etc. can be avoided by some new ways of re-interpreting statistical causality.
Something weird for some physicists would be this: If the photons are not merely a statistical or merely mathematically existent affair in STR, GTR, QFT, quantum cosmology, etc., they must be existing non-vacuously. How can a non-vacuous and non-infinitesimal photon be made to travel (1) in some experiments merely as a wave and (2) in some other experiments merely as particle?
Some seem to suggest that consciousness-level brain activities are to be subject to a quantum biology. But if photons and any other sort of quanta (say, of neutrinos) are not vacuous and hence Extended, they too should have parts, these parts too should have some sort of Change, etc., ad libitum. Why then should we limit consciousness-level brain activity to the current level of quantum physics?
Let us conclude by formulating a generally acceptable kernel of what in the very least is meant when we say that something exists. My use of the word ‘electron’ need not mean that any of the models of electron as an existent must as such be the case out-there. This is because the word ‘electron’ is a denotative word constructed linguistically. It denotes a denotable, which exists as whatever it is, without our having to take it to be exactly this way or that way. But there can be at least some physical-ontological guidelines as to how an electron cannot be. For example, it is not a pure vacuum. Let alone the discourse that only quantum vacua exist. This is exactly what I mean, too: a pure vacuum does not contain any existent, not even one quantum of energy. A quantum of energy should be carried by something existent, and not by something vacuous. This quality that it is not a pure vacuum is what I call Extension. Every existent must be in Extension. If extended, it has parts, which are in some Change, too. In short, it is impossible to say that anything termed electron can exist without internal Change, which may be caused externally and/or internally.
Extension and Change are the ways without which nothing can exist. If anything is in Extension-Change-wise existence, this is causal existence: some finite amount of causation happens there. An antecedent changes within itself due to the impact that its parts make and are made to take. It is continuous in the sense that it is continuously the manner of existence of anything, but this is not infinite causation. If anything existent should be such, this shows that all existents are in Causality. This is the pre-scientific Universal Law of Causality. Now clearly, quantum wavicles too should be in causation, if we are speaking of existents, and not of pure vacua.
I suggest that only those who are sure of the existence of the world, in it some biological existents, in them some developed or less developed brains, etc. need to attempt their thoughts here. Others are all blissfully convinced that there are no photons, there are no electrons, there exists only consciousness, etc. They need only to repeat "I am That". We can only envy their spiritual attainments.
I have revised the lead-text above, clarifying what Universal Causality could minimally be as a pre-scientific, pre-quantum-physical, Law.
Physical quanta exist-the shot noise of photons and of electrons has been measured. They don't have anything to do with consciousness, however.
Very good. But when I see scores of articles appearing on quantum biology, quantum neuroscience, and quantum brain science, I wonder why non thinks that the quantum level need not be the level at which everything organic and conscious happens!
"How can a non-vacuous and non-infinitesimal photon be made to travel (1) in some experiments merely as a wave and (2) in some other experiments merely as particle?" Why not? What you can measure is only the effect (you name it change), not the (physially existing) object itself. Do you know any transport aspect of a photon that could not be described with terms of waves?
If the photon is not exactly a mathematical wave or particle, then what moves in the Extension-Change-wise manner is neither the mathematical wave nor the mathematical particle. Hence, it is not necessary to say that the photon behaves at times as a wave and at times as a particle. We need only to say that the measurements behave so! In that case, the explanations of the indeterminacy principle, double slit experiment, EPR experiment, etc. should change accordingly too. In the EPR case, then, why not explain entanglement realistically as due to a superluminal velocity?
It still could be that Entanglement does not exist in real physics.
Einstein: Nothing is faster than light
Zeillinger: I can beam photons (He didn't say this literally)
Solution 1: Einstein was wrong
Solution 2: photons are nothing
Solution 3: Zeilinger is wrong.
I prefer solution 3.
Doubleslit: Some interesting aspects for the near range distance beween detector and dobuleslit plane:
Preprint Is this the path of the photons in a double slit experiment?
Entanglement only means that there is a common cause for separated effects. If the cause for one of these effects has been revealed, it automatically also applies to the other effect, at another location.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
"Entanglement only means that there is a common cause for separated effects." Yes! But the effect of Entanglement is often interpretated differently. Especially in Austria. This is my answer:
Preprint The Now Answered Question About the Alice-and-Bob Tests of W...
Thomas Kretschmer, My answer is that each entangled specific A and B pair have within themselves some causal exchange at every comparatively sufficiently big causal influence on any one of them from outside. The causal exchange between A and B should be superluminal too. Superluminal exchanges will be causal at a range where the STR Lorentz factor "root of (1 - [v-squared minus c-squared])" would substitute c with a superluminal C-1, C-2, etc., such that v does not exceed C-1, C-2, etc. as the case may be, and v may or may not exceed luminal c.
It is unnecessary to insist that c should be used in all of them as if someone had theoretically proved c to be the highest limit in all parts of the finite-content universe or the more probable infinite-content multiverse.
I have discussed this in my three book-length publications:
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
In my view this will not help at all. Because my view is from "outside", the real macroscopic world. And cause and effect is always a question of time. So if Mr. Zeilinger would change the polarzing beam splitter of Alice and Mr. Weihs writes down his detection list for Bob and then he finds, that his values are correlated with the new angle of Alice's beam splitter before the new angle was set, then this is a paradox. And this is what Einstein said: Whenever any information or anything else could be transported with a speed higher than light, this will cause a paradox. This is why I analysed the measuremnts of Weihs, Giustina and others....
Exactly this is what I expected!
Kretschmer: "If Mr. Zeilinger would change the polarizing beam splitter of Alice and Mr. Weihs writes down his detection list for Bob and then he finds, that his values are correlated with the new angle of Alice's beam splitter before the new angle was set, then this is a paradox. And this is what Einstein said: Whenever any information or anything else could be transported with a speed higher than light, this will cause a paradox. This is why I analysed the measurements of Weihs, Giustina and others...."
Raphael: The observation and objectivization by Weihs is had in terms of luminally based observations and measurements. At this level, the STR Lorentz factor "root of (1 - [v-squared minus c-squared])" is by definition in terms of the experimentally obtained value of c. Here we do not expect Einstein or Zeilinger or Clauser to say anything other than what they have been saying from the viewpoint of their faith in the value of c converted into a religious faith in the so-called assumption of the value of c as the highest possible in any part of the finite-content or infinite-content cosmos.
Now let me explain what, at the very least, THE LAW OF CAUSALITY can be. This may look weird to you, but please read:
I enumerate more than a score of the said contextual meanings of ‘to be’, without too much attention to arranging them in their derivative importance, since it is extremely difficult to reason into: (1) exist as a thing out-there and/or within ourselves, (2) exist as a process out-there and/or within ourselves, (3) come into existence as a thing, (4) come into existence as a process, (5) be such and such a thing, (6) become such and such a thing (without attention to its changes), (7) be of such and such a quality or property, (8) become of such and such a quality or property, (9) become such and such a processual thing (acquire the nature of a different form of existence), (10) be the same as, (11) be similar to, (12) become similar to, (13) be true, (14) become true, (15) be taken as true, (16) be possible as existent, (17) become a possible thing, (18) become a possible process, (19) become something possible, (20) be necessary as something existent, (21) be necessary as of such and such a nature (quality, property), (22) be necessary as such and such a thing, (23) be necessary as such and such a processual thing, (24) apply (as a quality or property) to, (25) happen (in a manner), (26) happen as this or that thing (from an already-existent), etc., and (27) a host of the same meanings in the past, present, and future tenses and various modal incarnations.
The above are some of the linguistic usages of To Be. What about their most fundamental senses, without which language cannot facilitate its own use in philosophy and science? I show that, in its implications, To Be works out to be taken as, but is not the same as, ‘cause to be’ or ‘cause to become’, because Extension and Change, the implications of To Be, together imply Universal Causality. But these implications are the only concepts that language can find as the most fundamental significances of the To Be of Reality-in-total. As I have suggested earlier, (1) the only two highest exhaustive implications of To Be are Extension and Change, (2) Extension-Change-wise existence is itself causation, and (3) all existents are causal: hence the pre-scientific Universal Law of Causality. Any linguistic formulation of this Law should not involve or justify merely what we understand or define as total order or lack of order. Instead, this Law implies that whatever exists, exists in all the ways in which they continue to exist. We may attempt to discover the ways of existence as the most simple universals and combine them into properties. But the order that there is in existents cannot substantiate determinations of order as equal to the order that there is in them.
Now, if Causality is a pre-scientific Law, it must be obeyed by all sciences. Entanglement, therefore, should not be used as a miracle occurring beyond the luminal velocity! Do we need to save physical existence in terms of the pre-scientific Law of Causality, or do we want to have superluminal miracles everywhere in the cosmos?
Causality should of course be (again) the fundamental principe of science. Causality is connected with change, not with existence. As we can only measure the quantities and not the objects itself, we need causality to find the (physically existent) objects. So I would define: an object is something what has any effect ( = change). This is why I try to analyze the measurements (and the rest of the world :-)) using functional diagrams where only objects and action lines exist. This gives me a clear view about the question what a quantity is and what an object is. But: This is only a physical model.The reason we can be optimistic that this describes reality is EPR: "If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e;, with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical
quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity." (And objects!).
However, I still have doubts about this definition, since the possibility of a real existing coincidence is not sufficiently taken into account if a prediction with a probability of 100% is required.
But the definition of (physically existing) objects through the analysis of cause-and-effect relationships: That is the way I do my work.
Kretschmer: "Causality is connected with change, not with existence."
Raphael: Do you think that existence is something like space, and change something like time? This is the way in which Parmenides and thereafter most of the Western tradition have thought: To exist means to be something spatial, and change and time are added to it...!
What I suggest is to take existence as implying equally well (1) Extension (having parts, being composite) and (2) Change, i.e., the parts impacting others, both inwards and outwards. These two implications together constitute existence of any kind.
Now, such Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but Causal existence! Hence, if anything is existent, it must be causal in every near-infinitesimal part of it.
Obtaining "a clear view about the question what a quantity is and what an object is" is good. For this, direct or indirect measuring, experimenting, etc. are necessary. But does this give a clear idea of whatever a thing is? Or, it gives a pragmatized idea? Pragmatic ideas are truths from their limited measurement-based viewpoint. But if the question is about the nature of existence and its most applicable implcations, then the whole view should change.
Otherwise what happens is this: Photons will first have to exist as spatial and only then have time. If they exist, they should already be Extended (OTHERWISE, THEY WILL BE PURE VACUA) and hence have parts, and simultaneously also in Change.
Sorry, a mistake: an object must have an output variable. The effect ist than the change of an output variable.
No, I think existence is what I desribe with an object. If anything does not have any output variable it is not worth to think about it. It is not conected with the world.
No, not spacial, I say explicit that the three-dimensionalyty is not demanded to define an object. It could be but I don't need it to handle with causality.
Time and space are the frame for the objects and the changes.
Superluminality: Have you ever heard about an Alice- and-Bob-test where the path from the source to Bob was shorter than the path from the source to Alice?
In this case, superiluminality would not help: Bob will produce different results before Alice has changed anything. This is the paradox.
The existence of photons: What I learned about relativity is the following:
If I could travel from earth trough the space with the speed of light, I wouln't be older when I came back. Por suerte no puedo, pero los fotones pueden. Entonces: How long did they live form emission to detection? In our view we can measure it. But if the photons had a clock they would find, that detection and emission happened at the same time. This is why we can talk about existence only from our point of view. From the view of the photons the livespan was 0.
Poz, you have already been told not to disturb us in my discussion sessions. We all had enough of your attacks. We (those who have read you for months and years) are convinced that you can only start attacking and boasting -- sooner or later. I have had more than 2 years of this experience. I have requested you not to behave so, but instead, you insulted continuously.
Please abstain from writing in my discussions.
Thomas Kretschmer,
Ktetschmer: "an object must have an output variable."
Raphael: Why an output variable? In theory there will be variables. But if an object exists, it needs only to have variable outputs, and not an output variable!
Ktetschmer: "I think existence is what I desribe with an object. If anything does not have any output variable it is not worth to think about it. It is not conected with the world."
Raphael: If existence is what you describe with an object, then whatever I describe WITH / ABOUT you is your existence! I think you need to read Quine better.
Ktetschmer: "Time and space are the frame for the objects and the changes."
Raphael: In that case, what is a frame? To my mind, time and space are epistemic conditions of perception, not frames of objects and changes. If you are convinced of their status as frame, what sort of a frame are they?
Ktetschmer: "not spacial, I say explicit that the three-dimensionalyty is not demanded to define an object. It could be but I don't need it to handle with causality."
Raphael: If spatial three-dimensionality is unnecessary to define an object, it is because space is an epistemic condition for perception. But if you define an object, you need perception as a condition for the possibility of definition. And you do not use spatiality at all for all these...! Kindly define yourself without these! I would like to read such a definition.
Ktetschmer: "Superluminality: Have you ever heard about an Alice- and-Bob-test where the path from the source to Bob was shorter than the path from the source to Alice? In this case, superiluminality would not help: Bob will produce different results before Alice has changed anything. This is the paradox."
Raphael: Even if B produces different results A has been changed in anything, there is no problem. B need not always change in accordance with all that happen in A. Only in certain basic they need to be correlated in their changes. If in everything they change “luminally simultaneously”, then they will have to be treated as identical even in their spatiotemporal quantities. (Not merely temporally.)
Ktetschmer: "The existence of photons: What I learned about relativity is the following: If I could travel from earth trough the space with the speed of light, I wouln't be older when I came back."
Raphael: Would not be older with respect to luminal-velocity accounts. Not with respect to superluminal ones.
Ktetschmer: "How long did they live form emission to detection? In our view we can measure it. But if the photons had a clock they would find, that detection and emission happened at the same time. This is why we can talk about existence only from our point of view. From the view of the photons the livespan was 0."
Raphael: They lived from emission to detection a finite extent of time. In my view, we can measure it luminally today. If instruments are ready for superluminal detection, such a measurement too will be possible. If the photons had a clock that measures everything luminally, THEY WOULD FIND the emission and detection at the same time. But if the clock measures superluminally, then the will not be simultaneous! And the life-span of photons is never 0 – in both the cases!
Raphael Neelamkavil , R. Poznansky
,Who is our audience if everyone already points some way?
How does anyone recognize being represented in conversation here, like how is what anyone talking about making sense without a proper context description? Surely the way around to confront this is with every paper proposal to at least describe the current "state of the art"?
Raphael, the term "output variable" comes from IEC 60050-351:2014-09 and the method desribed in 351-44-01
https://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=351-44-01
ist the method I analize structures. And this I do for quantum phenomena too.
Preprint Causal Quantum Physics is possible without Bohm's Theory. En...
Sorry, I'm not an philosoph. I was an engineer, then a professor for metrology and now I analyze "entanglement" with quit different methods than you. I love it if pilosophers work with precise definitions of words to avoid missunderstanding. I'd like to continue lerning from you about the use of words but in this case, I'd prefer to work with the definitions in the IEC.
The engeneer in me is pragmatic and it is okay for me if words are defined as precise as missunderstanding is impossible. But please don't be angry about the fact that other people have different experiences.
The question what is time and space does not have such a relevance for me until I need a clear definition of this words to understand physics.
I'd prefer to discuss the Alice-and-Bob-eperiment I described in
Preprint The Now Answered Question About the Alice-and-Bob Tests of W...
because this seems to be the key for the two views:
I discussed it in a longer email correspondence with Gregor Weihs whose doctor thesis was a very good start for me.
To come back to causality there are two solution approaches:
1) Superluminal speed is possible
2) All measurement of entanglement are interpreted false
In case 1) the time-correlations of the measurements at Alice and Bob do not depend on the length of any path between the source of entangled photons and Alice an Bob resp., even if the length from the source to Alice is not equal to the length beween Bob and the source. Do you agree?
The answer is a key for me to undersand your view.
In case 2) (this is my view) the correlation between Alice and Bob have a time shift compared to the case of equal length of Delta tau = Delta x/c
(c: speed of light). (Delta tau = time shift for correlations; Delta x = length difference between source-Alice and source-Bob)
If we agree about this context between the measurement results of this test and the solution approaches 1) and 2), than we "just" have to find someone who would do the test.
What is your opinion?
Three-dimensionality: I analyze structures, i.e. how output variables are changed by objects and which output variables are the inputs for other objects. In this context, I do not have to worry about the three-dimensionality of objects. The reason for this approach can be explained with an example: In the Mach-Zehnder experiment, the results can only be interpreted causally if one assumes that there is also something physical on the path along which a photon is not detected. Some people think that the photon is split, but in fact one half of a photon has never been detected. So my approach is: yes, there is something that is physically real because of causality, but I don't know what. In this step, I avoid thinking about dimensionality, spin, charge, etc.
We all just try to find the truth
R. Poznansky
, Raphael Neelamkavil , get a subscription to FOXTEL and watch Westworld.All of what you guys are talking about has been done in the form of a modern-day Shakespearian account of AI.
The idea itself of AI being real can only be scripted as a story based on a science that has yet to prove itself as being self-aware, right?
The real question is if science is using the right tools to check itself in the context of the science of reality, the true science of reality.
No one goes there, of course.
For science to check itself on a level we are intimate with, science needs to first use numbers applied to a code of our consciousness of space and time and to then let that run in then being compared with physical findings.
Just as a heads up, my first paper proposed this, and after 59 papers, 1500 or so pages, the penny has yet to drop, simply because that approach is judged by the scientific media not for AI yet something akin to either achieving or not achieving the idea of and expectant result of quantum gravity.
AI is all about living forever as an algorithm, right? IS that science though?
Thomas Kretschmer,
Thanks for the detailed reply, especially for your article. On many details of it, I express my agreement. My only difficulty is about the lack of clarity (as I would desire) of the terms being used. Since you prefer a pragmatic approach, I do not interfere. My way is different.
For example, the notion of causality, information, etc. For the immediate purpose of engineering-level work, these work.
I found your "A Method to Find Elements of Physical Reality" interesting, although very short. Thanks.
Wenn Sie einige Sätze auf Deutsch besser klar machen könnten, bitte schreiben Sie es auf Deutsch. Kein Problem.
Thank you for your reply but the central question is not answered yet: Assumption 1): the time-correlations of the measurements at Alice and Bob do not depend on the length of any path between the source of entangled photons and Alice an Bob resp., even if the length from the source to Alice is not equal to the length beween Bob and the source. Do you agree?
Would you agree that in the case that 1) is wrong the supposed simultaneous changes of the polarization angle at Alice and detections at Bob can not exist and superluminal speed can not be the reason for the effect of entanglement?
What could be the reason for the fact, that all "entanglement"-experiments with photons are carried out with identical distances between source to Alice and source to Bob?
Thanks
Thomas
Even in case the two lengths are not equal -- which could happen for various reasons (I mean causes) --, there can be superluminal-velocity causal contact between them, provided the total distance at any given time cannot be covered luminally. But if the redardation at one side is so low that the total distance becomes coverable luminally, we will not be able to say that it is by superluminal contact.
When the distances are identical, too, the question is of the total distance coverable luminally, is it not?
Now to have a laughter with the thought that I could cause some psychotic reaction from yet other person: Wenn Sie wollen, könnten Sie mir einige Sätze auf Deutsch schreiben! Nicht, daß Sie kein gutes Englisch können. Ich weiß. Aber ....
Le voy a mandar un correo electrónico a tú correo electrónico de Recherchgate.net en aleman. :-)
Very good. Thanks. I have sent you my actual email as a message.
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY