[PLUG-TALK] Re: Omniscience vs. Freewill

Keith Lofstrom keithl at kl-ic.com
Sun Apr 10 00:51:54 UTC 2005


"Keith" == Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com> writes:
Keith> Determinism:

Keith> ... is mathematically bogus, even given classical, pre-quantum,
Keith> pre-Boltzmann, pre-chaos physics.

Keith> The smallest possible representation of the universe that we
Keith> can imagine is the universe itself.  Determinism implies a
Keith> rigid linkage between past, present, and future.  [...]
 
Russell Senior <seniorr at aracnet.com>
> Just to clarify, when I say pre-determined (or whatever I actually
> said, I am too lazy to look), I don't mean that _we_ can determine it.
> It isn't calculable.  It isn't pre-determinable.  I just mean that it
> was always going to happen the way it happened.  The uncertainty
> principle applies to the observer, not necessarily to the universe and
> its myriad interactions.  The universe *is* the computer that
> determines what happens within it.

There is no "always going to happen".  That is what drove Einstein
bonkers regarding quantum mechanics, but most physicists accept it.  

The uncertainty principle applies to everything, though certain 
manifestations of it are describable only in observational terms.
Einstein liked to talk about "hidden variables" - but there aren't 
any.  Down at the bottom of things, the universe contains a finite
amount of information, and even that information is often *completely*
wiped out and replaced by different information, or no information at
all ( for example, black holes ).  Stephen Hawking said something
like "God not only plays dice with the universe, he plays dice where
you can't see".  That, plus Godel's theorem, plus chaos theory, plus
a whole bunch of other things, shreds, slices, dices, and atomizes
the whole 18th century concept of determinism.  Sorry, Albert.

All that is left are aspects of non-locality (if you measure spin-up,
somebody else is measuring spin-down), but those simply mean that the
reality available for us to observe has some constraints that do not
manifest at one point.  

BTW, I am not a physicist, but I did minor in physics at Berkeley. 
I learned that the human brain is not designed to process quantum
mechanics, so we turn what we observe into statistical math, which
some of us *can* process with a lot of coaching.  So without the
math, it is like a blind man discussing visual aesthetics, or a
Microsoft user discussing security.  It's easy to get confused,
especially by non-mathematical word-salad models.

Disposing of determinism may not completely dispose of certainty.
If you are playing Russian Roulette, and are *certain* that the
chamber is empty, pulling the trigger will never change your
stubborn attitude -- though it may disperse it as a fine red mist. 

Unfortunately, we finite-brained partially-evolved chimps have a real
hard time with plurality, so we make stuff up like God (today is an
odd day, I am an atheist) to invent a source of certainty that the
world itself does not manifest.  Another monkey invention is the
Total State, which increases apparent certainty by destroying
counterexamples.   We invent bogus philosophies to support our
inventions, like theology or logical positivism.  Few people escape
one or the other kind of monkey thought.  But the physics underneath
supports neither view, which is why physicists have a hard time
finding jobs, and why I (preferring to eat) did not become one.

The world is uncertain and indeterminate.  Cherish it, because 
tomorrow you may get hit by a bus.

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com         Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list