Instantaneous long-distance travel of LDS gods

[_Gadianton]

What I am talking about are proposals that there may be shortcuts through distortions in space-time at the quantum level that people think may exist and could use as a means of communication... you could utilize these distortions to shorten the distance between objects to allow this type of instantaneous communication.

Like wormholes etc? Whatever you call the mechanism, just call it "X", I think the idea is that when the space-time distortions or "X" are used as a telephone line by two people, causation is violated in the context of relativity. You may not believe the QM world is bound by relativity, but you must believe people are. I will probably screw this up if I try to explain it, I'll have to look for a link or maybe summarize it later after doing some reading, but I think you're concentrating too much on the mechanism. If two people are allowed to communicate instantly, it doesn't matter HOW that communication happens, a paradox is allowed where a message is received before it is sent. That's true in the case of the telephone line being a worm hole, exploited entangled particles, distorted inflatons, tachyons, or anything else.

Anyway, if you are interested in this topic and want to discuss it with people interested in it and do this professionally, I'd recommend visiting forums like the Physics Forum and asking questions. I think you'll find that there are a number of views on this and differing views about whether or not causality is necessarily true.

Just to clarify again: from the article I linked to in SEP, it's clear that real physicists, even famous ones, have held views about "causality" breaking down in the quantum world, and the quantum world allowing for backwards causation, or what, paradoxes, or seeming-ones I guess. Well, certainly, QM isn't properly bound to relativity. If you are saying professional physicists on these forums debate the status of causality at the quantum level, then I won't find that totally shocking even if my gut feeling is that stronger training in philosophy would likely convert many of them away from this idea. However, if you are saying professional physicists on these forums are arguing causality does not hold for "large" objects known to be governed by relativity, such as people, then I would find that shocking, and if you could link to such a thread, I'd be very interested. If causality does not hold, then paradoxes are allowed, right? So you're saying that some professional physicists are arguing for the viability of rejecting causality in the macro world, and thus allow for one to go back in time and kill their grandfather, or receive messages before they are sent?

[_Tobin]

Gadianton,

I'd encourage you to join the Physics Forums where people routinely discuss the issues better than I can because they have a broader background (these guys actually do experiments on this stuff and publish papers on it) on the issues involved. I think the research in the area is mainly focused on how quanta are contextual and how indeterminacy might be used to game the system and transmit information (it is kind of a game of I'm going to look, but I'm not really looking sort of thing).

And I don't think physicists agree that two different sets of rules for the universe are just fine as you seem to think where we have set of rules at the macro level and one at the quantum level. I believe they don't view this as a good situation and would like to unify the view. This is readily apparent when you discuss what happens within a black hole and these two views collide. It just makes little sense that causality is universally true for macro world and not true for the quantum world. I tend to agree with the view that causality is an agreed upon imposition from Newtonian physics which was imposed on relativity and wasn't questioned till we started delving into quantum mechanics where it breaks down. I believe physicists are questioning this imposition as we try to unify this view.

[_DrW]

Anyway, if you are interested in this topic and want to discuss it with people interested in it and do this professionally, I'd recommend visiting forums like the Physics Forum and asking questions. I think you'll find that there are a number of views on this and differing views about whether or not causality is necessarily true.

Tobin's creationist cousins could be very upset with him for suggesting that causality should be thrown under the bus in the search for a means of instantaneous long distance travel for the LDS gods.

After all, the First Cause argument, while a very poor one, is about the best that the creationists have for their gods. Take away causality and you take away any semblance of a need for God.

One of the big problems with religion, and especially a make-it-up-as-you-go-along religion such as Mormonism is that the internal inconsistencies, contradictions, logic fails and need to change basic beliefs as science advances just keep coming.

[_Gadianton]

Tobin,

I don't think there are two sets of rules, that is one reason I said that my gut feeling is that scientists with better phil backgrounds will be less inclined to question causality. Causality is properly a phil concept, an assumption of science, and an experiment can't contradict an assumption of the experiment. Often when the word cause is used, I think its being equivocated with something else with more invested in the idea than warranted. Well, like the SEP article I linked says, when pressed, backwards causation to the extent it's credible is just causation.

The heart of causality isn't newtons laws or relativity but logic, non-contradiction. If you want to be sure you're really overturning causality and not a scientific theory, then you must explicitly allow for a contradiction.

For instance, one could argue that a new experiment shows instantaneous communication happens, and therefore causality is violated. But if the new results are legit, then when the dust settles, it would be relativity that is violated and some new theory would come up, not to overthrow causality, but to rescue it.

Let me offer a more traditional sci-fi idea, time travel. Suppose wormholes exist that allow us to go back in time. Now a scientist goes back in time, kills his grandfather, and then comes back to receive his Nobel prize before going to jail.

Have we just allowed a paradox, and thus, overthrown causality? No.

Neither you nor any scientist on the physics forum is ever going to argue a contradiction has just been allowed, it's absurd. In the time travel example, someone will just cite the many worlds interpretation and say as the contradiction happened, the killing of grand dad, the universe split into two alternates and resolve the contradiction, saving causality, not overturning it.

Relativity has so much evidence for it that the likelihood it could be overturned by exploiting some loophole is next to nil. But if it happens, causality is just re-interpreted. Experiments to test this are fine with me, but what ultimately is of interest is the way such tests will fail.

I know what you mean by playing fast and loose with notions of something happening, but not really. The cat discussion is the icon for this.

[Guest]

Gadianton,

Again, I'd encourage you to study QM - the experimental results and theories behind those results. Both Heisenberg and Bohr stated that causality has little meaning in QM and there were a number of experiments conducted beginning in the 1920's and 30's that seem to support their conclusion. And I understand you wish to take up Einstein and others view that they are wrong and that everything in the universe must have a cause and predictable effect even at the quantum level. But I really doubt you'll find many physicists today that will agree with you. For example, many in that field accept retrocausality (such as the proposal that a positron is an electron moving backwards through time) as a perfectly valid solution to certain problems encountered in QM and I really don't have any desire to argue with you about the philosophical implications of this.

[_Gadianton]

re wrong and that everything in the universe must have a cause and predictable effect even at the quantum level.

this is the kind of excess baggage I'm talking about that you're reading into the notion of causality that you shouldn't be. causality doesn't necessitate the predictability of classical mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is very much rule-bound.

And yes, you do want to have a philosophical discussion about this because that's what you've been doing, having philosophical discussions.

I realize causality is a huge issue in QM, that's why I linked to the SEP article. If gravity is ever quantized, then the macro world and the micro world will be "one world" I suppose, and for the sake of consistency, we'll then have to ask ourselves if causality is a huge issue in QM AND the macro world, or if the notion of causality just needs to be updated for the micro world. I'm going with the latter, and from the SEP article, it's clear that most if not all physicists today agree with me, and not you. The problem with going with the former, is one eventually must allow causality in the macro world to be "problematic", or even false -- paradoxes must be allowed -- and I highly, highly doubt you'll find serious physicists who are OK with that.

What you're trying to do is get excessive mileage out of little more than linguistic ambiguities used to describe the stark contrasts between the quantum world and the macro world, then argue ultimately, both are part of the same world, and finally conclude that all the mind-blowing magic from QM must therefore translate to equivalent-seeming magic in the macro world, magic that empowers God, and lets him violate the macro rules we are familiar with.

by the way -- surely, with all the studying you've done, you can link to me one thread on a physics forum that demonstrates your point, that working physicists today are in favor of overthrowing causality in the macro world?

[Guest]

re wrong and that everything in the universe must have a cause and predictable effect even at the quantum level.

this is the kind of excess baggage I'm talking about that you're reading into the notion of causality that you shouldn't be. causality doesn't necessitate the predictability of classical mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is very much rule-bound.

And yes, you do want to have a philosophical discussion about this because that's what you've been doing, having philosophical discussions.

I realize causality is a huge issue in QM, that's why I linked to the SEP article. If gravity is ever quantized, then the macro world and the micro world will be "one world" I suppose, and for the sake of consistency, we'll then have to ask ourselves if causality is a huge issue in QM AND the macro world, or if the notion of causality just needs to be updated for the micro world. I'm going with the latter, and from the SEP article, it's clear that most if not all physicists today agree with me, and not you. The problem with going with the former, is one eventually must allow causality in the macro world to be "problematic", or even false -- paradoxes must be allowed -- and I highly, highly doubt you'll find serious physicists who are OK with that.

What you're trying to do is get excessive mileage out of little more than linguistic ambiguities used to describe the stark contrasts between the quantum world and the macro world, then argue ultimately, both are part of the same world, and finally conclude that all the mind-blowing magic from QM must therefore translate to equivalent-seeming magic in the macro world, magic that empowers God, and lets him violate the macro rules we are familiar with.

by the way -- surely, with all the studying you've done, you can link to me one thread on a physics forum that demonstrates your point, that working physicists today are in favor of overthrowing causality in the macro world?

Certainly, here is an example of a direct assault on causality in QM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality and the generally accepted QM models proposed under that.

And I think you are pretending to be ignorant here. Anyone with even a basic college-level education in the modern world must have studied some quantum mechanics (or at least be generally aware of the concepts) and heard of Heisenberg (famous for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), Bohr, and Schrödinger at the very least. I have no interest in this act you are putting on and I do not believe your response that you are unaware of QM and what is stated about causality. If that is your game, I simply will ignore you and refuse to discuss this topic any further with you. Again, it is not my job to educate you about QM or QM theory. If you wish to study it so you can speak intelligently about it and its implications, I'll welcome that. If not, then I'll just ignore your responses because I don't care about what your philosophical positions dictate must or must not be true about QM.

I also think your view that QM has no impact on the macro universe is patently absurd. Everything in the universe is made up of the stuff described under QM and the forces described under it. For example, the internal mechanisms of stars like our Sun and our understanding of it depends a lot on our understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Your attempt to divorce the two is ridiculous and if causality is merely an imposition and not universally true (as that seems to be the case in QM), then it has a lot to do with the macro universe.

[_Chap]

What you're trying to do is get excessive mileage out of little more than linguistic ambiguities used to describe the stark contrasts between the quantum world and the macro world, then argue ultimately, both are part of the same world, and finally conclude that all the mind-blowing magic from QM must therefore translate to equivalent-seeming magic in the macro world, magic that empowers God, and lets him violate the macro rules we are familiar with.

by the way -- surely, with all the studying you've done, you can link to me one thread on a physics forum that demonstrates your point, that working physicists today are in favor of overthrowing causality in the macro world?

Causality is alive and well in the macro-world. Ignorance of quantum mechanics is not required in order to hold that view.

From Tobin's link to Wikipedia:

As para-science

Outside the mainstream scientific community, retrocausality has also been proposed as a mechanism to explain purported anomalies, paranormal events or personal events, but mainstream scientists generally regarded these explanations as pseudoscientific. Most notably, parapsychologist Helmut Schmidt presented quantum mechanical justifications for retrocausality,[31] eventually claiming that experiments had demonstrated the ability to manipulate radioactive decay through retrocausal psychokinesis.[32] These results and their underlying theory have been rejected by the mainstream scientific community,[33][34] although they continue to have some support from fringe science sources.[35]

That seems to sum up the situation quite fairly.

Oh Tobin - it's HeisenbErg, not HeisenbUrg, by the way. But no doubt you were just pretending to be ignorant.

[_Gadianton]

Certainly, here is an example of a direct assault on causality in QM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality and the generally accepted QM models proposed under that.

Interesting, Tobin, this is a shorter, less exhaustive summary of the non-locality material I referenced in SEP that I didn't think you are interested in. Anyway, I have no problem with the wiki article, let's discuss it. Earlier, I asked (about instantaneous communication):

if you disagree, can you offer an example of a living scientist, employed at a real university who believes that it can work, with the right technology? I'm not saying there aren't any, I have no idea.

Your article answers, offering John cramer. Here's one article on him.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/UW-p ... 91071.html

"I think 50 milliseconds might be interesting to Goldman Sachs," says Cramer sheepishly.
"You could do real-time communication with objects on other plants," says Cramer. "You could put on a virtual reality helmet and be driving your remote dune buggy on Mars."

Yep. That's the real deal.

You also said:

I tend to agree with the view that causality is an agreed upon imposition from Newtonian physics which was imposed on relativity and wasn't questioned till we started delving into quantum mechanics where it breaks down. I believe physicists are questioning this imposition as we try to unify this view.

John Cramer is noted, but where is the revolution? The "assault" on causality?

Here's another fairly recent article on him:

http://nichegeek.com/seattle_scientist_ ... experiment

according to him:

"All we need to keep going is maybe $20,000, but nobody seems that interested in funding this project."
"I've heard that NASA is closing down NIAC so I don't expect to get any funding from them," Cramer said. "And the guy from DARPA decided what I was trying to do was too weird even for DARPA."
"In 20 years, nobody has been able to tell me why this can't work," Cramer said. "They just say it can't work like that. It's unacceptable."

Sounds like a one-man rush, not the consensus of experts. I for one hope he gets his funding and let the chips fall, but clearly, his opinions do not represent the scientific community at large. And what you've been telling me, is that if I start asking real physicists questions about QM, I will come to believe, as they do, that causality is an old Newtonian notion on the way out. The material you are sharing increases my confidence this is not the case.

I don't care about what your philosophical positions dictate must or must not be true about QM.

Retrocausality is primarily a thought experiment in philosophy of science based on elements of physics, addressing the question: Can the future affect the present, and can the present affect the past?

it's the philosophical interpretation of QM where the discussion of "causality" happens. You can't avoid philosophy if you wish to refute this idea.

I also think your view that QM has no impact on the macro universe is patently absurd...Your attempt to divorce the two is ridiculous

Until gravity is quantized, they aren't married yet.

[_Nightlion]

Until gravity is quantized, they aren't married yet.

How do you quantize the commandment of God Almighty?