When one tries to put together two fundamental constants of nature, with their current interpretation, one gets into trouble.
These constants are Planck's constant and the speed of light.
ħ = 1.054 571 628(53) 10-34 J s
c = 299,792,458 m/s
One conflict is the absence of simultaneity implied by the constant value of the speed of light in vacuum. This absence implies that two measurements taken as simultaneous by two observers, are not simultaneous when considered by other observers. The first constant is understood to mean that every measurement affects the state of the measured object. The question then rises which event affected which?
One solution to this problem is provided by the TSQM.
This new interpretation of QM is based on two axioms:
1)Past and future events affect the present.
2)There is causality.
In order to make these two apparently contradictory statements, the description is uncertain. It seems that God plays dice because he has to, otherwise free-will disappears from the picture.
Posts
4 comments:
Why should you necessarily expect that free will really exists?
As I understand it, there is no way to know this, so you'd need a complete theory of everything to assume it.
The one I use says that it doesn't exist, because the arrow of time is as inherent and fixed as the asymmetry in the energy of the universe is. This is also the reason for it, in other words, there is a very slight inherent disequilibrium that exists between matter and antimatter, and this inequity is the very natural and intuitive impetus that drives the universe to move to reconcille the imbalance.
How obvious is that?... WHY does everyone insist on some idealistically perfect world that cannont exist and can never be evidenced by any single *inherently flawed* object?!
Duh
The effort to reconcille the inequity is futile, because the asymmetry is inherent, so the effort of the universe is in the direction of the unattainable *goal* of absolute symmetry.
And that, "final cause" defines real purpose in nature that CAN be quanitified by science.
I do have an opinion on free will, here I was trying to explain Aharonov and Tollaksen.
My opinion on free will is that if you know the future then you can change it; so there is no way to know the future exactly, or free will does not exist.
I prefer the first option, there is no way to know the future exactly, but I will be hard pressed to prove that free will exists.
As far as your believe in a matter anti-matter asymmetry, it is interesting but I have not thought about it. I will think about it.
Here I was trying to explain Aharonov and Tollaksen.
Sorry, I should have been more clear:
Why would anyone expect that free-will *necessarily* exists?
As far as I am concerned, the only thing that "necessarily" exists is myself, in the Cartesian sense. I think, therefore I exist.
I do not know if free will necessarily exists.
Post a Comment