Towards an age of certainty

oo---OOO---oo---OOO----oo

2011-08-18T04:24:00.000-07:00

In an age of certainty

Waxing philosophical

2011-08-18T03:34:00.000-07:00

It's not a matter of being heavier on lighter matters but of being a bit lighter on heavierlighter on heavier matters.

End of Little Gidding - Four Quartets - T. S. Eliot

2011-08-18T02:38:00.000-07:00

The end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. At the source longest river the voice of the hidden waterfall. Not known because not looked for but heard, half heard in the stillness between two waves the sea. Quick now, here now, always a condition of complete siimplicity and all shall be well and all manner shall when the tongues of the flame are infolded and the fire and the rose are one.

An Abstract

2011-06-28T04:15:00.001-07:00

Quantum theory has been developed into a Standard Model that has been highly successful in terms of accounting for many properties of matter and the energy tat matter radiates, the prediction of new experimental results and in its use in technological innovations. Yet attempts to understand what is hidden beyond the observable experimental results have only led to various and conflicting interpretations. Although there is just one type of approach to the quantum findings where a wide range of experimental results are accounted for in a determinate causal interpretation, and which includes a detailed description of a wave property and defined particle trajectories.

Here we present an argument for and then a development of such a causal interpretation where a cause that would have nonlocal effects is indirectly represented by means of diagrams, while other causal properties are verbally described. We then find that this hypothesis can be supported by available large scale natural evidence of where such a cause can also be thought to act. So that only thus are we able to clearly relate properties of a nonlocally acting cause to Big Bang cosmological theory, observable astronomical findings and evidence of living organisms. We suggest how further observation and experiment could support and further develop a general theory of a distinct cause that can only be described from its effects in addition to those of the known forces.

2010-09-04T06:07:00.000-07:00

A Scientific Discovery?

Alice: So, Merlin, can you tell us why you think that modern science is a long way from explaining how the universe is the way that it is?

Merlin: Well, one can reasonably assume that modern physics is the science that should provide an understanding of the universe in general. And many physicists have been involved in attempts to develop a single unified theory of matter, energy and forces. Such a unified account has been called a theory of everything. Whereas I suggest that any such theoretical attempts could not reveal something fundamental and universal that’s missing from the present physics but that needs to be discovered and described in enough detail to gain a general understanding of the universe that includes life on Earth.

Bob: OK, so suppose we accept that there is this fundamental and universal something, couldn’t we think it rather extraordinary and improbable that it’s still missing after so much time and effort has been expended on research and theorising by so many intelligent people in the field of physics?

Merlin: Yes, you could indeed. But then I’d suggest that the means of clearly revealing this something - as much the most elusive of all natural causes and its effects - could also be thought quite extraordinary and improbable. So I say what’s essential for making this cause and effect discovery is the need to reach beyond both the conventional methods and the scope of a physics that assumes the known forces to be all the causes that act universally, and yet still give an account of what’s discovered that can be regarded as properly scientific, although only by examining together much and various natural evidence of where this further cause can be considered to act. So that only thus, I propose, can there be found a general explanation for how the universe is of a certain natural form that resists the action of all the forces.
Although as I’ve been able to develop an account of it so far, anyway, I’m not sure I could convince a physicist of the scientific validity of this discovery, partly because it needs further development while also conflict-ing with certain current theories that are now quite well developed.

Alice: Um, so are you saying there’s another universal force?

Merlin: Not necessarily what you’d call a force, I’d suggest. And that’s because you could think of any force as a cause that has a strength of effect where it in some way acts upon matter and energy by pulling or pushing objects. Whereas I say a central problem for this discovery is how to justify and describe enough details of an invisible cause where it can’t be said to possess the pull, push, attract or repel properties of a force.

Bob: Although prior to that, I would’ve thought, is the question of whether there could be any such cause at all.

Merlin: Well yes. So, by much careful experiment, measurement and mathematical calculation a great deal of evidence of various kinds has now been found and described of matter on the minute scale of its constituents that are called atoms and molecules and of their subatomic components, as well as the parts or quanta called photons of light and other energy that matter can radiate. While the conclusion can be that from none of this evidence could it be definitely shown that any invisible cause acts upon matter and energy in addition to the forces.
Yet suppose from the small scale findings there can be justified and developed a certain kind of hypothesis where appropriate means are used to describe and represent certain essential properties of this further cause from it’s effects. Then it’s found that only this hypothesis can provide clear reasons to consider that, where and how the same cause may act on a larger scale. Then a large amount of observable and detectable evidence can be examined together of where the cause can be considered to act on a larger scale, and by indicating how this supports the initial hypothesis.

Alice: So why would you say that a physicist hasn’t yet developed such a hypothesis?

Merlin: Ah well, I could suggest several reasons. But most crucially, I think, is the fact that this development needs to be so unlike any other theoretical account in physics, and , I’d say, could be thought so speculative by many physicists that, to construct the hypothesis in the first instance, you’d need to have quite strong prior reasons to believe that it could be clearly supported by large scale natural evidence. And I’d say a physicist would be hard put to find such prior reasons. Also, what’s more, I have to admit that the initial hypothesis cannot deduced or justified any new mathematical calculation or formula.
And then again, of course, there’s the whole history of the development of quantum physics that, since 1927, has been dominated by what’s called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. While I propose that a detailed enough theoretical development that begins with this causal quantum hypothesis is the only way of finally demonstrating that the Copenhagen account of the unobservable behaviour of quantum objects is incorrect.

Bob: Ah right, so that sounds as though you’d claim it’s possible to finally solve the problem of particle/wave duality.

Merlin: I would indeed claim that, actually, and without creating a measurement problem. So the Copenhagen interpretation insists that the uncertainties of measurement and prediction plus the dual particle and wave nature of quantum objects means that, beyond any experimental results, quantum behaviour is indeterminate and has no cause. And so, in effect, it’s observation and measurement from the experimental results that determine the properties of quantum objects and their behaviour. Although the problem then arises as to exactly how observation and measurement can do this.
Whereas, essentially, I’m proposing that what needs to be generally explained is how the universe in general can be in it’s particular natural form as matter and the energy it radiates, and given the known action of the forces. While for such an explanation to be possible the assumption, to begin with, needs to be that the invisible behaviour of quantum objects is of a particular determinate form, and that there’s something distinct from all the forces that causes this to be so.
This initial causal assumption means that, so far, the closest to a true account of what occurs beyond the measurable results of quantum experiments needs to be what’s been called the de Broglie-Bohm inter-pretation of quantum mechanics. And one can note, in particular, that in this quantum account some details are described of an invisible cause that would act in addition to the forces, and which is called the quantum potential.

Alice: I have actually read a few popular books about quantum physics, so I know something of the Copenhagen interpretation. But I can’t remember reading much about this de Broglie-Bohm version.

Merlin: Well no, and that’s because in such books this causal interpretation is so often mentioned just in a paragraph - or not much more than a page or two, anyway. While I’d say it’s arguable that the reasons for this are more historical than scientific. So, in fact, because the de Broglie-Bohm account has been shown to be consistent with a wide enough range of experimental results and is not in conflict any experiment, just as in the case of the Copenhagen interpretation, this contrary account can’t be demonstrated to be incorrect from any quantum evidence.
Apart from the causal difference between these two interpretations is the fact that the Copenhagen conception views the behaviour of travelling quantum objects that can’t be observed or measured in any experiment to be such that it can’t be visualised. Whereas the de Broglie-Bohm account actually justifies a particular description of this invisible quantum behaviour as objects in motion, which therefore can and has been visualised.
The causal account has been called a hidden variables interpretation, which was developed by the physicist David Bohm and first published in 1952 as two scientific papers. Although the title de Broglie-Bohm derives from a conceptually similar interpretation that was developed by Louis de Broglie, which he called a pilot wave theory, and which he presented at the fifth Solvay Conference in Belgium in 1927. And, in fact, it was at this same conference that details of what was later to be called the Copenhagen interpretation were first made public by three key contributors to the devel-opment of the original quantum mechanics, and who won their argument at the expense of the pilot wave theory. Although a few years earlier De Broglie had played a key role in the theoretical development of quantum physics by indicating, for the first time, enough details of how matter particles should possess a wave property of behaviour similar to that of light.
So, essentially, the hidden variables accounts of both de Broglie and Bohm have in common the conception of travelling quantum objects being particles that are each accompanied by a laterally extended wave. While in certain experiments the quantum wave would steer each particle travelling in a beam to produce effects that are called interference and diffraction patterns. Although in these experiments what produces the patterns can only be observed as the particle-like impacts of quantum objects on a screen. But the use of very low intensity beams showed how these patterns could be produced as the objects hit the screen one at a time.

Bob: Well alright then, so you can say that if this hidden variables inter-pretation of quantum mechanics is correct then the quantum wave would act in addition to the forces as an invisible cause. But from what I know of the development of quantum mechanics and theory a physicist could insist that there are good scientific reasons why this hidden variables account isn’t mentioned much in the popular literature.
So it can be pointed out that a very detailed and successful quantum theory has been developed without the need for any alternative to an inde-terminate interpretation of quantum mechanics. Because this theory has explained a great many chemical, nuclear and other properties of matter, as well as properties of light, and x-rays, microwaves, radio waves, and other invisible electromagnetic radiation. And then you can consider how quant-um theory has predicted the results of further experiments and the existence of previously unknown particles, and has also been essential for the development of technologies that include all those that require transistors and lasers.

Merlin: Yes, none of that be denied, of course, nor the remarkable ingen-uity of many physicists in making all these developments possible. But then you can say that all this has been achieved by finding the appropriate means of measurement and mathematical calculation only from the direct evidence of quantum behaviour. So you can still insist that without any direct means of confirming it from the behaviour of matter or energy, you can’t demonstrate that an acausal indeterminate account of the unobserv-able quantum behaviour is correct. While the existence of a working determinate and causal alternative does mean that the Copenhagen account of what invisibly occurs beyond the experimental results could be wrong. That is, even if the causal interpretation indicates that quantum objects defy - or appear to defy - the known fundamental principles of the observable behaviour of matter and energy.
Also, there are still found to be large problems in constructing a unified theory of physics – or just of gravity and the electromagnetic, nuclear weak and strong forces - that can be confirmed by observation, and that’s based on what’s now called the standard model of quantum theory. And even after all its successes, some prominent physicists have still expressed doubts that a quantum mechanics is satisfactory or complete that can’t give a definite account of quantum behaviour that’s independent of the observer. Although, admittedly, nor have they recommended the de Broglie-Bohm account of quantum mechanics as a providing a possible solution to this theoretical limitation.
But actually, I propose that there are certain crucial limitations to this causal hidden variables interpretation itself. Because to construct the appropriate quantum hypothesis that I’m advocating, there’s a need to justify a description and visual representation of certain details of a cause that could produce the quantum wave in addition to those described of the quantum potential.
Although I’ve found that before tackling the causal problem of the quantum wave it’s best to consider a phenomenon that’s been called quantum entanglement. So there was no need to presume a causal interpretation to find that the quantum mechanics implies a unique kind of connection at a distance between pairs of quantum objects. This implication was pointed out in detail in 1935 in a paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, who insisted that, in reality, there could be no such connection that would be instantaneous and invariable at any distance between objects. At that time there was no experimental means of measuring such a connection at a long distance between quantum objects that have been described as being in entangled states.

My email: mo-wood(at)hotmail.co.uk

Manifesto for the Real World Scientific Revolution

2010-06-13T10:38:00.000-07:00

Here the following is held to be the case:

(1) Given that it can be assumed that the universe consists just of matter/energy and the forces, what is called the standar model of quantum and particle theory does not make sense. And given any assumption that the known forces are all the causes that act universally, no theory can be successfully developed that generallly explains how the universe is the way that it is.

(2) How an invisible cause could act universally in addition to the forces cannot be demonstrated by measurement and calculation from any evidence found of matter and energy on the smallest scale. Nor can it be demonstrated that this cause acts in the world from any such evidence found of atoms, molecules, their subatomic components or photons of radiant energy when examined alone. This is a cause that, rather than attracting or repelling objects with some measurable strength, acts so that matter can remain in its naturally organised forms despite the action of the forces, and produces the effects that are called quantum wave, spin and entanglement. And only by sufficiently justifying and describing enough details of this cause by examining together enough available natural evidence of where it acts can it be explained how matter can exist at all while consisting almost all of the space be between its subatomic components as particles.

(3) Modern physics lost its rational scientific aim at the fifth Solvay Conference in October 1927 where an indeterminist interpretation of quantum mechanics was first propounded - and subsequently incorporated into the language of all quantum physics textbooks - in what was to be called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The 1927 conference was also where Louis de Broglie's pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics was rejected.

(4) The closest to a true account of quantum behaviour and its cause yet to be published was argued for in two papers by David Bohm entitled "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden Variables' I & II"(1952). This account was a more sophisticatd version of De Broglie's Pilot Wave account, and was shown to be consistent with all the experimental evidence from which the original quantum mechanics was derived. This account demonstrated that the uncertainties and probabilites of measurement in quantum meechanics could be understood as limtations in any experimental set up, rather than real properties of quantum behaviour beyond the experimental results. And these observed results could be accounted for by quantum objects being both waves and particles with definable trajectoreies while in motion. As such Bohm's account can be described as a determinate nonlocal causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v85/i2/p166_1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

(5) The probabilities and uncertainties of measurement of quantum behaviour that led to the Copenhagen interpretation were a diversion from the fact that matter had been discovered to consist of so little of of anything that could be called material objects. So that just this discovery in 1909 of the minute atomic nucleus was a clear indication the matter needed to consist of more than mere particles. Then the discovery of the electron wave property and Schrodinger's wave equation were clear indications that the quantum wave needed to exist universally as a real property for matter to exist at all as atoms and molecules.

(6) The present Standard Model of quantum and particle theory is severely limited by its lack of a causal explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour, and its description of virtual particle exchange and vacuum energy is not a true account of what occurs on the small scale beyond the measurable results of experiments. And there is no large scale evidence to support the existence of either virtual particals or vacuum energy in the quantity thaat quantum field theory predicts. But rather, the cosmological evidence is of a mysterious 'dark energy', of which there is less than the quantum fiels theory vacuum energy by many orders of magnitude This huge anomoly exists because, rather than causally explaining quantum behaviour in termsof objects in motion, quantum field theory assumes that Heisenbers's Uncertainty Principle applies to the actual behaviour of quantum objects in motion, while there is no direct evidence to justify this assumption. The Standard Model is thus successful as a mathematical scheme that accounts for many properties of matter by describing quantum behaviour just as directly detected and measured. But this model does not causally explain the quantum behaviour itself, and thus provides no scientific explanation of how the natural form and organisation of matter in general is possible.

(7) No sufficiently detailed expanatory cosmology can be developed on the assumption that the known forces or fundamental interactions are all the causes that act universally upon matter and energy. So that an appropropriate nonlocal causal hypthesis needs to be developed to deduce enouigh properties of a cause of quantum wave behaviour. This hypothesis then provides sufficient reasons to consider that and how a nonlocally acting cause could act universally on the astronomical scale.

(8) The only possible empirically verifiable account that may be called a theory overything will be a natural explanation of everything that cannot be explained by the action of the forces alone. This account could be more accurately called a General Theory of Natural Organisation, where a determinate nonlocal causal nterpretation or hypothesis of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour is supported by an examination of sufficient large scale natural evidence, and thus demonstrates, in enough detail from its observable effects, that and how a cause acts universally, constantly and nonlocally in addition to all the forces.

(9) In a General Theory of Natural Organisation the evidence examined on the large scale will be of available astronomical findings in relation to the evolution of the presently observed large scale structure of the cosmos and the formation of galaxies, stars and planetary systems; as well as living organisms in relation to the nature of the mind as a part of a nonlocal cause, the evolution of consciousness and general features of organic behaviour. This theory may be regarded as a sufficient general explanation of how the universe that includes living organisms is the way that it is, but is capable of indefinite further development.

(10) The General Theory of Natural Organisation may be regarded as a scientific explanation which demonstrates that the real universe makes eough sense of life from a human point of view and will allow human beings to make more sense of their lives by their actions.

The limits of present scientific explanation

2009-09-19T06:21:00.000-07:00

Scientific research has found the material universe to be of a certain form and an intricate organisation on the small scale. Yet the standard model of modern science only describes push or pull forces as causes to explain how the universe is the way that it is. So that universally, the world appears to consists just of matter/energy and these forces.

Present physics describes matter and light and other energy as possessing a wave property that can be regarded as universal. Yet there is no sufficient cause and effect explanation of how this quantum wave occurs. While the question could be asked Does this quantum wave not need to exist for matter to be and remain in all its forms as atoms, molecules and living organisms?

So that matter is found to consist almost all of the space separating subatomic particles as its smallest parts, and it can be thought that matter could have no form at all without these component parts also possessing an extended wave property of behaviour.

Manifesto for the Real World Scientific Revolution

2009-08-25T03:49:00.000-07:00

We hold the following to be the case:

(1) Given that from what is called the standard model of quantum and particle theory it can be assumed that the universe consists just of matter/energy and the forces, this theory does not make sense. And given any assumption that the known forces are all the causes that act universally, no theory can be successfully developed that generally explains how the universe is the way that it is.

(2) How an invisible cause could act universally in addition to the forces cannot be demonstrated by measurement and calculation from any evidence found of matter and energy on the smallest scale. Nor can it be demonstrated that this cause acts in the world from any such evidence found of atoms, molecules, their subatomic components or photons of radiant energy when examined alone. This is a cause that, rather than attracting or repelling objects with some measurable strength, acts so that matter can remain in its naturally organised forms despite the action of the forces, and produces the effects that are called quantum wave, spin and entanglement. And only by sufficiently justifying and describing enough details of this cause by examining together enough available natural evidence of where it acts can it be explained how matter can exist at all while consisting almost all of the space be between its subatomic components as particles.

(3) Modern physics lost its rational scientific soul at the fifth Solvay Conference in October 1927 where the ideology of indetermism was first propounded (and subsequently incorporated into the language of all quantum physics textbooks) in what was to be called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The 1927 conference was also where Louis de Broglie's pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics was rejected.

(4) The closest to a true account of quantum behaviour and its cause yet to be published was propounded in two papers by David Bohm entitled "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden Variables' I & II"(1952). This account was a more sophisticatd version of De Broglie's Pilot Wave account, and was shown to be consistent with all the experimental evidence from which the original quantum mechanics was derived. This account demonstrated that the uncertainties and probabilites of measurement in quantum meechanics could be understood as limtations in any experimental set up, rather than real properties of quantum behaviour beyond the experimental results. And these observed results could be accounted for by quantum objects being both waves and particles with definable trajectoreies while in motion. As such Bohm's account can be described as a determinate nonlocal causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v85/i2/p166_1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

(5) The probabilities and uncertainties of measurement of quantum behaviour that led to the Copenhagen interpretation were a diversion from the fact that matter had been discovered to consist of so little of of anything that could be called material objects. So that just this discovery in 1909 of the minute atomic nucleus - which has since been measured to be about a 10,000th the diametre of the atom - was a clear indication the matter needed to consist of more than mere particles. Then the discovery of the electron wave property and Schrodinger's wave equation were clear indications that the quantum wave needed to exist universally as a real property for matter to exist at all as atoms and molecules.

(6) The present Standard Model of quantum and particle theory is severely limited by its lack of a causal explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour, and its description of virtual particle exchange and vacuum energy is not a true account of what occurs on the small scale beyond the measurable results of experiments. This is so because quantum field theory assumes that Heisenbers's Uncertainty Principle applies to the behaviour of quantum objects in motion. The Standard Model is thus successful as a mathematical scheme that accounts for many properties of matter by describing quantum behaviour just as directly detected and measured. But this model does not explain the quantum behaviour itself, and thus how the natural form and organisation of matter in general is possible.

(7) The only possible empirically verifiable account that may be called a theory of everything will be a natural explanation of everything that cannot be explained by the action of the forces alone. This account could be more accurately called a General Theory of Natural Organisation, where a determinate nonlocal causal quantum hypothesis is supported by an examination of sufficient large scale natural evidence, and thus demonstrates in enough detail from its observable effects how a cause acts universally, constantly and nonlocally in addition to all the forces.

(8) In a General Theory of Natural Organisation the evidence examined on the large scale will be of available astronomical findings in relation to the evolution of the presently observed large scale structure of the cosmos and the formation of stars and planetary systems, and living organisms in relation to the nature of the mind as a part of a nonlocal cause, the evolution of consciousness and general features of organic behaviour. This general theory may be regarded as a final explanation of how the universe that includes living organisms is the way that it is, but is capable of indefinite further development.

(9) The General Theory of Natural Organisation may be regarded as a scientific explanation which demonstrates that the real universe makes enough sense of life from a human point of view and will allow human beings to make more sense of their lives by their actions.

The Real World Revolution

2009-08-13T04:00:00.000-07:00

There have been industrial and technological revolutions and those for democracy or based on a theory of history. But no revolution has been brought about by pure scientific knowledge and that has really changed the status quo. So the findings of Copernicus, Newton and Darwin may have changed the minds of many but have not, just as such, led people to change their world in any radical way. And although it could be said that Marxism may not have come about without the influence of scientific findings, the influence of Marxist thought itself has now much diminished.

But suppose there could be a scentific discovery that clearly showed that the real universe that includes all life on Earth is not as it appears to be?

Such a discovery could be regarded as a completion of the quantum revolution, which so far has only really brought about technological change. For given the discoveries of matter and energy on the smallest scale it can be asked how can matter in any form, including human beings and all other living organisms be and remain composed out of its smallest parts? Could this question only be answered by discovering and describing enough details of an invisible cause acting in addition to the forces? And could such a cause also act in the universe on the very large scale?

From the scientific findings of the natural world so far it can seem very much as though the world is governed just by the push or pull forces and that the universe has no real purpose from a human point of view. But what if a discovery and description of a further universal cause from its effects showed that a viable cosmos could last indefinitely, and finally revealed the true nature of the mind and consciousness...?

The trouble with a physics of the forces alone ll

2009-08-06T03:50:00.000-07:00

Such a physics can construct the most successful of all scientific theories in the form of the Standard Model of quantum and particle theory and yet cannot explain how matter or the energy it radiates exists or is subatomically organised.

Why not? Because the theory does not explain how matter and radiant energy possesses behaviour that is called quantum wave, spin and entanglement.

Thus, like atoms and molecules themselves, the Standard Model is virtually hollow at the core without an explanation of how matter persists while being composed of so little that can be detected as material objects and be organised into elements and compounds. But instead this model tries to interpret and calculate the quantum wave out of existence, or argue that its explanation is of no significance or has already been explained by the quantum theory.

Whereas it can be asked:

How can any theory that, like the Standard Model, assumes the action of the forces alone, explain quantum wave spin and entanglement?

How can matter consist almost all of the space between its smallest or subatomic parts without the quantum wave?

Surely isn't the quantum wave something in addition to the forces that cannot be explained by them since the wave allows atoms and molecules to remain in their forms despite the action of the forces and can be measured when the subatomic particle are not components of atoms and molecules?

Self discovery

2009-05-29T04:43:00.000-07:00

Is there an 'I' behind the body that's me?
Is it something real but invisible
That's this 'I' behind the body
And the world that I can see?

Could there be a scientific discovery
That could find and show
What it is that's invisible
Behind the world that is visible
And the body that is me?
And which could be something
That needs to be
For there to be
A universal reality,
And despite the forces
Acting in the world we can see,
hear, smell, taste or touch
of matter and energy?

A universal cause for concern

2009-05-29T02:28:00.000-07:00

A century ago this year a scientific experiment was performed revealing, for the first time, that matter consists almost all of the space between its universal components, the electron and the atomic nucleus as particles. And it can be concluded that there is still no generally recognised theory that explains how matter, and thus the observable universe, can so exist and be naturally organised into atoms, molecules and living organisms, and while the forces act within and upon it.

So although present quantum theory can mathematically describe principles of behaviour that the atomic orbitals of electrons obey, these principles do not explain how this behaviour is possible and thus how matter can be solid and remain in its forms despite the action of all the forces. Such an explanation can be considered to require a sufficiently detailed and empircally justified cause and effect account of how electrons and other quantum objects possess their wave, spin and entanglement behaviour.

But then for such an explanatory account to be possible the thought could be that there would need to more evidence that can be examined of where an invisible cause could act than anything that could be described from the evidence found on the smallest scale of matter and the energy it can radiate. While to discover how matter can be and remain in its forms as the atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds and of the species of living organisms, there would need to be an invisible cause that would act universally in a different way to that of any force.

For a world where mind really matters 1

2008-07-30T01:43:00.000-07:00

[last edited 8 August 2008]

Ask where are the contents of conscious experience just as the thoughts, emotions, sensations and sensory perceptions one can have? And the answer could be that these subjective experiences cannot be found anywhere in the body or the world experienced. So the thought might be that to experience one's body and the world there would somehow need to be more than anything that can be found anywhere in the world experienced.

Then consider how the findings of modern science can be thought to indicate that all the causes that could be found to act universally in the world experienced that includes one's body, are of a kind that can be described as pushing or pulling objects as they produce their effects. These are causes that have all been called forces, including those that could be described as surrounding objects as forces of attraction or repulsion and that have also been called fundamental interactions.

The scientific findings have also indicated matter in general, as the atoms and molecules of the elements and compound of inanimate matter and so, also, all living organisms, consists almost all of the space between its component parts that have been called electrons and atomic nuclei. And the powerful charge force that produces electrical and magnetic effects could be measured to attract electrons towards nuclei and repel between electrons. So that all matter as atoms. molecules and living organisms could be thought to remain in their physical forms despite the action of all the forces. And one can also ask: given, it seems, just the charge force acting within all such matter as it surrunds electrons and and nuclei, what causes matter to be in all its various and particular forms as the elements and compounds of inanimate matter and the species of living organisms that include human beings?

So for matter just to remain in all these forms as atoms molecules and living organisms, it may be reasoned that, somehow, a cause would need to act universally and constantly in addition to all the forces just so as to maintain or conserve all the forms and organisation of matter. This would be a cause that could not be described as pulling or pushing or attracting or repelling objects. So that by not being such a push or pull force, this further cause would have no strength of effect that could be measured to decrease or cease with increasing distance between objects. And such, it may be thought, could be a cause of an effect that has been called quantum entanglement. This is a kind of effect that could be measured to occur at a distance between objects that include electrons as the subatomic components of atoms.

Thus, unlike the effect of any force, quantum entanglement could be described as arising just from a fixed relationship between certain forms of behaviour of objects that can be measured as a correlation. So that between matter particles that include pairs of electrons such behaviour can be described in terms of different directions of spin. And the measured relationship could be called spin-up in one component and whereby the other component would be measured to be in the opposite spin-down direction.

Hence although the entanglement effect has no measurable strength the thought could be that for it to be measured, a cause would need to act so as to maintain or conserve the fixed relationship of behaviour between the objects measured. And, by producing effects that have no measurable strength that reduces or ceases with increasing distance between objects, such a cause could not, like all the fundamental interactions, be described as producing its effect as it surrounds objects. The conclusion can be, therefore, that if the effect of quantum entanglement has any cause, this could not be described as acting in the world experienced.

Also, given that the quantum entanglement effect could have a cause that does not surround objects, this could also be true of quantum wave behaviour. So that, while the entanglement effect can be regarded as evidence of there being a distinct cause that maintains the organisation of the behaviour of subatomic components in relation to each other or one another, the wave property of electrons could maintain the overall form of atoms and molecules.

So what of all living organisms including human beings? Could there be an invisible cause acting in addition to the forces so as to maintain or conserve their material organisation and overall physical forms? And could this be the cause of conscious experience? And then what of a cause that could be thought to act universally upon matter from outside the world experienced, how could this be so?

See related blog.

From mind problems to a matter problem...

2008-07-03T06:04:00.000-07:00

There may described, on the one hand, physiological, biochemical and electrochemical states of the brain which can be observed or directly detected, and on the other hand, states of mind as thoughts, emotions, sensations and perceptions that, just as subjectively experienced, can't be observed or directly detect by examining anything in the body at all. Although, from the physiological evidence of the brain, it could be assumed that for every mental state there is a corresponding brain or bodily state that produces it.

But then you can ask how do brain states get to being mental states? So how can any brain process that may produce the smell of coffee be transformed or translated into the smell of coffee itself? And also while you may able to detect and identify the brain process that produces the coffee smell you can ask where in the body is this smell that one has of coffee, just as a mental state? Or where is the experience of the colour red, the pain in the foot, the feeling of optimism or despair and so on?

So for such reasons that neither mental states nor, indeed, anything the may be called the mind, self or experiencing subject that may possess these states, can be observed or directly detected anywhere in the body, the thought can be that there at least needs to be something invisible and immaterial that makes the states of mind possible, and so is not itself a bodily state.

There is, however, a quite simple argument against any idea that there is anything invisible and immaterial in addition to the body that accounts for any states of mind or conscious experience in general.

So the above idea is that there would need to be something that can’t be observed because it’s not made of matter, and would need to have a certain distinct general property or some such properties so that brain states are changed into mental states.

But then it can be pointed out that there are already such things that are unobservable, just as such, and so that they can only be described from their effects, which may be called forces that act at a distance or fundamental interactions (it has been fond that such forces can be described as resulting from an exchange of virtual particles but these virtual objects have never been observed or directly detected). And as generally described from their effects these forces each only has one identity. So it doesn’t make sense to say there are many forces of gravity or of electromagnetism (unless there is the idea that there are many universes each with different properties of the forces). Yet it would need to make sense to say there are many immaterial minds in each of many individual human beings or other creatures.

And then even if it is supposed that each immaterial mind could have a property that is unique to each individual, it can be pointed out that essential to there being many minds is that each individual at least has a unique perception of the external world from the point of view of a particular body, so how could this be explained by individually differing immaterial mental properties?

But then this problem of mind could be considered in the context, first of all, the experimental findings of matter on the very small scale of atoms, molecules and their subatomic components. And from this evidence the question can arise as whether there is a universal problem in explaining the existence of matter, and which cannot be sufficiently resolved by any means, or at least not by considering any of the small scale findings alone. This problem can be considered to originate from the results of experiments first carried out in 1909, and concerns the question of how matter can persist as atoms and molecules, and while consisting almost all of the space beween its subatomic components.

Then also, this question of how matter can remain in its naturally organised forms as the atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds of inanimate matter could also be asked of the whole material form and natural organisation of all the species of living organisms including human beings.

Although when considering whether there might be a universal causal explanation of how matter can remain in its natural material forms and organisation the conclusion could easily be that nothing could be described of any such universal cause from its effects upon matter.

Or alternatively, especially from certain kinds of experimental evidence found of matter - as well as the energy it radiates - on the the very small scale, reasons may be found to consider that an invisible cause could act so it would possess properties that are quite different from those of all the known forces, and including the fundamental interactions such as gravity and electromagnetism...