Re: Abiogenesis

On Oct 3, 4:24 pm, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alpha <omegazero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Fri, 3 Oct 2008 :

That something is logically necessary or not has little bearing on
whether in fact it happens or exists.

Yup, you're right.

Unfortunately, the statements you quoted (which are false)

Nope - they are not; depends on ones assumptions which depends on
one's interpretation of reality.

described a
logical implication.  (Namely, that a reductive explanation of quantum
entanglement must necessarily violate special relativity.)

Which is why your followup comments about whether entanglement is in fact a
kind of holism thingy ... are completely irrelevant.  Because, as you now
seem to suddenly realize, there is "little bearing" between the (false)
necessity claims, and whether the conclusion is true.  (The conclusion isn't
true either,

Sorry, you have not shown that at all.

but that's not what this particular thread is about.)

Do you get it now?  The claims you quoted said that "A implies B".  I'm
trying to show you that this claim of implication is false.

It is not false, it is simply that it is not logically necessary

So, when someone makes a claim that says "A implies B", but it turns out that
B is not a logically necessary consequence of A, then the claim is false,
right?

Which is what I've been saying from the beginning.

Just because it is not *necessary* does not mean it does not ensue.
That is what you do not understand.


We're discussing whether the _implication_ that "A => B" is true or not.
And the answer is, it's not.

Sorry, you made an assumtion that is not true - the non-existence of a
conflict according to some interpretations of physics.

Multiple Worlds is merely a single hypothetical counterexample.  I don't need
the "assumption" of MW in order to show that your quoted statements describe
an implication that does not follow.

You need *some* interpretation if you understand that their are
implied, particular interpreations of QM involved in the sentences
(the important one of which you left out!!!)


But MW is sufficient to show that there is at least a logical possibility of
a reductive explanation of quantum entanglement, which does not violate
special relativity.  That, unlike the claims, these concepts are not
_necessarily_ in conflict.

Perhaps not necessary, but neither then is *your* position! You are
grasping at straws here.

""Logical Necessity" means something must be so and cannot be
otherwise." (Wiki)

Your position is not logically necessay and neither is mine. Depends
on the interpretation of what the sentences mean in context, which in
turn are based on a particular (or some) POV WRT QM meaning.



And why does this matter?  Because it shows the (poor) quality of the
reasoning abilities of the people you like to quote.

No, it shows how poorly you understand the difference between logical
necessity and reality.

And what people (plural) does your contention apply to. You picked
out one where you claim (but do not show) that the result is not
logically necessary, but that is not showing it is false, andt indeed,
not even coming close to shoing that the content (where you left out a
crucial sentence joining the first and third sentence) is not the case
in any interpretation.



And, for that matter, yourself (given your own followups on this thread).

Given your inability to answer even 1/10th of the items I mentioned
(hey - it was a baker's dozen and you brought up one which depends on
interpretation, as I further explain below.), which is just like your
inability to show that all the phenomena I claim are emergent are not
so - this seems to be a pattern. You ignore data, facts, and
explanations that destroy your positions and pick out a quote of
someone else that you can try to argue against (because it may come
within your narrow limits of understanding - but even then your
reasoning is suspect), but the outcome is much less than you had tried
to claim.

Here are my replies to another post of yours, in this same thread:


On Oct 3, 2:47 pm, Alpha <omegazero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:02 am, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Alpha <omegazero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Fri, 3 Oct 2008 :

Your statement is irrelevent; there is not data to show that MW is *the*
correct theory/interpretation of what actually exists in Universe.

Alpha, you're still missing the point. I'll try to speak slower.

The point is that it _doesn't_matter_ whether Multiple Worlds is true or not.
It also doesn't matter whether quantum entanglement is an "irreducible
holism". Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I hypothetically agree
with both of your claims on these two points.

EVEN SO, the statements in your quote are STILL FALSE.

To repeat again, the problematic statements you quoted are:

the wholeness of the entangled system cannot be analyzed reductively
to the separate electrons without violating Einstein's special theory
of relativity.

and

If we preserve special relativity, then there must be an irreducible
relational holism at the quantum level

These two statements are false.

Can you show that they are false? Do you know what a relational
holism is?

EVEN IF holism is true, and MW is false.

That's the part you can't seem to grasp. That your quotes made the claim
that there is a necessary conflict between Special Relativity and
Reductionism, in the example of quantum entanglement.

This claim is simply false. There are no two ways around it, no matters of
opinion.

I disagree.



Unlike the claim in your quotes, there is not a _logically_necessary_
conflict between SR and reductionism, in entanglement.

That something is logically necessary or not has little bearing on
whether in fact it happens or exists. On some interpretations of what
is happening at that level, there are conflicts and they may,
according to those interpretations, be "necessary" consequnces of a
certain ontology of existence.



Do you get it now? The claims you quoted said that "A implies B". I'm trying
to show you that this claim of implication is false.

It is not false, it is simply that it is not logically necessary, as
is the case with most complex phenomena that is in no danger of being
explained using only the lwas of physics or particles interacting.

Your response is to
argue that "B" is true. Do you see how that's missing the point? It doesn't
matter whether "B" is true or not. We're discussing whether the _implication_
that "A => B" is true or not.

And the answer is, it's not.

Sorry, you made an assumtion that is not true - the non-existence of a
conflict according to some interpretations of physics.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

PS:

The *whole* quote, in which you took some important info out of, is
the following:

" Silberstein cites quantum entanglement as the strongest example,
because
the wholeness of the entangled system cannot be analyzed reductively
to the
separate electrons without violating Einstein's special theory of
relativity. (If entanglement is reductively explained by the forces
transmitted between parts, then a signal moving faster than the speed
of
light must carry the information between the parts.) If we preserve
special
relativity, then there must be an irreducible relational holism at
the
quantum level
"

You left out: " (If entanglement is reductively explained by the
forces
transmitted between parts, then a signal moving faster than the speed
of
light must carry the information between the parts.) "

Now, first I disagree that MW is an alternative that has been shown to
be the case. It has not. And as such it is not a driver in
determining whether any statements are false or whether there is or is
not a conflict.

The quote has three parts, *all related*, to wit:

1) Silberstein cites quantum entanglement as the strongest example,
because
the wholeness of the entangled system cannot be analyzed reductively
to the
separate electrons without violating Einstein's special theory of
relativity.

2) (If entanglement is reductively explained by the forces
transmitted between parts, then a signal moving faster than the speed
of
light must carry the information between the parts.)

3) If we preserve special
relativity, then there must be an irreducible relational holism at
the
quantum level

So, WRT (1), it is intimately tied to (2) and that is the sentence you
left out. So what these two mean *together* is that if the entangled
system (which is claimed to be emergent), cannot be analyzed
reductively without violating Einstein's STR, *it is because* 2 holds
and *that* if 2 holds, then we have a problem. A way to avoid the STR
problem (one way), is to realize that 2 forces a non-reductionist
approach to entanglement because otherwise, STR rears its head. And
since we do want to avoid such a STR problem, then it follows that we
should not try and reduce entanglement to two particles because the
*systemic* aspect will be lost to the detriment of STR (if we wanted
to preserve the entangled systems ability to enable instantaneous
changes to atom or photon or etc., 2 based on a change to atom or
photon or etc., 1.)

So interpretations *matter*!!!

To wit:

"Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the
quantum states of two or more objects are linked together so that one
object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of
its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially
separated. This interconnection leads to correlations between
observable physical properties of remote systems. For example, quantum
mechanics holds that states such as spin are indeterminate until such
time as some physical intervention is made to measure the spin of the
object in question. It is equally as likely that any given particle
will be observed to be spin-up as that it will be spin-down. Measuring
any number of particles will result in an unpredictable series of
measures that will tend more and more closely to half up and half
down. However, if this experiment is done with entangled particles the
results are quite different. When two members of an entangled pair are
measured, one will always be spin-up and the other will be spin-down.
The distance between the two particles is irrelevant. In order to
explain this result, some have theorized that there are hidden
variables that account for the spin of each particle, and that these
hidden variables are determined when the entangled pair is created.
But, if this is so, then the hidden variables must be in communication
no matter how far apart the particles are, the hidden variable
describing one particle must be able to change instantly when the
other is measured. If the hidden variables stop interacting when they
are far apart, the statistics of the measurements obey an inequality
(called Bell's inequality), which is violated both in quantum
mechanics and in experiments.

The phenomenon of wavefunction collapse leads to the impression that
measurements performed on one system instantaneously influence the
other systems entangled with the measured system, even when far apart.
But quantum entanglement does not necessarily enable the transmission
of classical information faster than the speed of light because a
classical information channel is required to complete the process.

Quantum entanglement has applications in the emerging technologies of
quantum computing and quantum cryptography, and has been used to
realize quantum teleportation experimentally[1]. At the same time, it
prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions
concerning quantum theory. The correlations predicted by quantum
mechanics, and observed in experiment, reject the principle of local
realism, which is that information about the state of a system can
only be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings and
that the state of a system exists and is well-defined before any
measurement. Different views of what is actually occurring in the
process of quantum entanglement can be related to different
interpretations of quantum mechanics." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Quantum_entanglement)
"

Please note the last sentence - your argument is destroyed and my
contention that the FULL quote you deride DOES depend on
interpretations.


And then there is, associated with quantum entanglement theory, the
notion of Bell's work, "loopholes" , quantum teleportation, HUP and
the measurement issues, and on and on that all have an association or
interdependence with entanglement etc. BTW, there is a lot more to HUP
than meets the eye; it afffects many aspects of QM processes. Like
why an electron does not go spiraling into the nucleous is tied to HUP
not allowing more information about the probability of finding the
elecftron in a smaller and smaller space-time as it spirals down,
while thence requiring that less info is available on the momentum and
it can vary much more and thence allows the electron to go flying back
out - a delicate balance. McFadden's Quantum Evolution tells all
about these fascinating aspects of HUP and other quantum effects of/on
Universe.

BTW, do not forget Aspect's experiments and recent followups that have
non-local results over 10 meters now.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
    ... chaotic process will quickly blow initial quantum scale ... > Now the probability that the photon is absorbed should be 1/4, ... >>say that a particle is entangled we are saying that some measurement ... >>entanglement is an empty concept ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Entropy classical only?
    ... over all time in equilibrium ... ... I'll found a quantum analogs of these results ... ... all the "proofs" of the second law i have seen which use entanglement ... the energetics relevant to position in the gravitational potential ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: QUANTUM WEIRDNESS
    ... entanglement and other quantum oddities to ... physicist Anton Zeilinger hopes to find out just how unreal ... for all that quantum physics cares. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • QUANTUM WEIRDNESS
    ... entanglement and other quantum oddities to ... physicist Anton Zeilinger hopes to find out just how unreal ... for all that quantum physics cares. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A Thought Experiment: Implications of Quantum Physics in Genetics
    ... and the relation of genetics to quantum physics. ... The additional information necessary has to be conveyed from DNA ... Even if you could grow a car by devising some ... It should open the mind to the necessity of a paradigm shift. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading