Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?
From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:06:19 +0100
Archived: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:30:10 -0400
Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?
>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
>Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:38 +0100
>To: post.nul
>Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?
>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0100
>>Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?
><snip>
>>I personally suspect that the entanglement correlations reflect
>>the fact that every particle state at every local "here and now"
>>is, despite the habits of "fuzzy" thinking in which 20thC
>>quantum theory has entrained us, _rigidly_determined_
>>(calculably or not) by an exhaustively-interconnnected,
>>nonlocal, cosmic causal background, but only probabilistically
>>connected to its local past. One way of framing this point of
>>view would be to say that it turns the old argument against
>>sub-quantum "hidden variables" inside out, by "hiding" them
>>_everywhere_. The "missing" half of the causal structure is in
>>the cosmic future of every measurement. We only see the the
>>palimpsest of that nonlocal imaginary background in correlations,
>>where it generates the here-and-now, sandwiched in a press
>>between it and the probabilistic local past. I also see this
>>global background as being the donator of gravitational and
>>inertial mass.
>Excellent. I think you are spot on with this Martin.
>Doesn't this view echo Bohm's Implicate Order conjecture?
Yes, Gerald, it definitely does.
>One small point I would make concerns your terminology: when you
>say 'only' probabilistically I'm not sure in what sense you use
>the word 'only'. Are you suggesting that the element of
>causality is somehow weak or loose (for want of better terms)
>because it is probabilistic? If that were the case then I would
>suggest that this idea fails to take into account the full
>implications of your view insofar as it clearly (to me at least,
>which is no guarantee...) _does_ echo Bohm's line of thought. We
>would need to view the causality involved as arising (strongly
>and definitely) from structures in the implicate order, and
>their probabilistic nature as a facet of their particular
>manifestation in the explicate order as we experience it
>empirically.
By chance I was looking today at a long manuscript I wrote some
years ago on this very topic, with a view to revisiting it, and
came across this paragraph:
'As we have already intimated, a sufficiently complex
looped-and-hidden order would be indistinguishable from absolute
"disorder". Indeed, this recalls the views of physicists such as
David Bohm, who argued that the "implicate" order of the universe
is hidden by its very complexity, and that randomness and
structure are alike expressions of this higher-level order
"enfolded" in what he called the flowing "holomovement". The view
that disorder really expresses a complex hidden order can be
easily dismissed as recidivistic determinism by its opponents,
which objection has force as long as our attachment to
indeterminism is a religious zeal against the bogey of
determinism. A stronger criticism is that it cannot be
discriminated from its counter-proposition, that absolute
disorder can be misconstrued as the outcome of an infinitely
complex order. But the real point is that neither view is
exclusive, and neither is privileged. In terms of the total given
set of events, if that set is a closed set of relations which are
in practice infinitely complex (like the sum of all particle
interactions), then it is an obvious truism that both
descriptions are exactly complementary. But this complementarity
can resolve into a meaningful duality, if we consider it as an
expression of relations between meta-states of the set.'
I could witter on, and on... but I feel merciful ;-)
>I've long felt that there is some sort of
>justification for this view deriving from Ramsey Theory where
>sufficiently large objects must necessarily contain a given
>substructure and complete disorder is impossible.
That's very interesting. Although I have had an interest in the
properties of complete graphs in this exact context, to my shame
I'd never heard of Ramsey theory, and had to look this up. My
first impression is that you have a point and I want to look
into that theorem.
For fun, just a couple more relevant extracts I'm finding in my
MS:
"... we might suspect that the non-local nature of quantum
phenomena hints at a mechanism whereby the complexity of the
whole may be encoded and expressed in something "dimly discerned
by us" as local indeterminacy. In the spirit of Arthur C.
Clarke's "law" that a sufficiently advanced technology will
always be indistinguishable from magic, so we might venture to
predict that a set with an infinitely complex organisation would
be indistinguishable from a set with no organisation at all. By
extension, would not a set with merely an immense but finite
complexity of organisation seem to embody, at a given point of
measurement, a mere ghost of information, much like an intricate
hologram visible only as a degraded representation of itself in
any abstracted fragment of the whole? What would we call such
ghost information? A law of probability?
'... So let us return to the question of what it means to say
that microphysical events are individually indeterministic,
whilst cumulatively the squares of their wave amplitudes
transform to classical probabilities and they exhibit
statistical determinism. What does this mean in the context of
an indefinitely complex, non-locally interconnected, universal
quantum ensemble? Evidently it means something rather different
from what we mean when we talk of two isolated particles
interacting in an abstract phase space. Never mind dead-and-
alive cats, half-digested ideas of quantum consciousness,
infinitely proliferating parallel worlds and god-the-observer:
why do lottery results, tossed coins and actuarial tables follow
the mathematical rules they do? Like Bottom's Dream, the foam of
probability "hath no bottom" and fills the universe without any
preferred scale or vector - the writ of chance runs everywhere.
But we are no longer so interested in questions like "Can events
really be due to 'mere' chance?" or "How can we the more
perfectly organise our chain of physical logic so as to get rid
of chance?" The question we are led to readdress in a new way
is: "What do we mean by chance?" And the kind of proposition
which seems to be emerging might go something like this: Chance
is the name that we give to that default distribution according
to which ensembles of quantum events are non-locally ordered in
the limit of reducing locally-imposed constraints.'
Etc....You get the idea. Hmm I'm starting to get interested in
this stuff again. Thanks, Gerald ;-)
>If there is merit in this view, then it leaves the way open, in
>theory at least, for local explicate violations of 'causality'
>(and, cf my previous post, an accompanying major revision of the
>validity of inductive reasoning) without abandoning a view of
>causality in which deductive reasoning still stands up (cf my
>previous post's remark on conclusions embedded in axioms) by
>virtue of consistency at the implicate (as you have variously
>put it 'global' or 'cosmic') level. To me, Ramsey Theory
>suggests something about the nature of the connection between
>the implicate and explicate orders, and offers a clue as to why
>some aspects of our explicate zone, might look to us, at
>bottom, probabilistic.
I'm on the same page.
BTW I heard of a _possible_ loophole in the neutrino experiment
discussed on Radio 4 here a little while ago, connected with the
spread of the beam over hundreds of km and the problerm of
determining the exact mid-point of the wave front. We'll see....
Now, about those UFOs...;-)
Best regards
Martin
Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast
At:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/
These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.