| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Probability and quantum outcome...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Jones |
 Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 4263
|
We may take probability as a measure of our certainty about the
occurrence of some event or as a measure of the frequency of occurrence
of the event (these originally listed by herbzet). But isn't there a
more fundamental issue to be considered? -
- What counts as an 'outcome'? If I throw a die up onto a glass ceiling
and the outcome is a one for the floor-below dweller, it will be a six
for the floor-above dweller. For the dwellers who floor-slide there will
be no single outcome. Again, 'thrown' in space a die appears to have no
outcomes at all.
We might then conclude that an event carries its possible outcomes with
it, fully formed and 'ready to go', like the die with 6 faces. But
doesn't outcome here mean simply 'property'? No. 'Ready to go' in this
case would mean an apparant, perspectival, restriction being placed on
the dies outcomes that arises by by hooking up the thrown die to another
event, an event such as the limited view granted by the perspective of a
glass ceiling dweller. Importantly then, 'outcome' is 'property' in
relationship.
Now, when some quantum theorists say that an observation 'affects the
outcome', they also mean 'affects the properties'. Outcome is synonymous
with property for these theorists.
This is like saying that a die that is thrown by a floor dweller is, in
fact, a 'thrown object' which has as its property only one variable
side. There seems only one argument that we can advance for this, the
quantum theorists position, and that involves, for science and logic at
least, a radical perception of objects. First, we must assume that
'outcome' for these theorists is never just a mapping of two events, but
is an object changing relationship: unlike a mapping, relationship
changes the properties of its objects. But this particular quantum
theory is demanding something stronger. Not only are object properties
changed by being viewed, but the object itself is a consequence of
viewing. 'Viewing' however, is too weak a word here, but let's recap:
the quantum theorists position takes it that properties are defined by a
view. This is to take a transcendental position similar to Kant's, where
objects are manifested by a framework. We may call that framework a
'view', but it may be better to call it an ontological condition - a
condition for manifesting ontological objects.
That the quantum theorists position appears magical or even incoherent,
is I suggest, in part a consequence of the failure to announce a radical
change in their position taken of the ontology of objects IN GENERAL.
They move from a transcendentally real perspective, where objects
supposedly announce themselves and their properties, to a
transcendentally ideal position where objects are 'views' or appearances
whose behaviours/properties are a consequence of a transcendental,
object manifesting framework. For our quantum theorist, this framework
is given not logically but rather - and this is the incoherence of it,
given by (a return to) transcendentally real properties of an
ontologically real world structured by the speed of light and Planck's
constant. In other words, quantum theory is logically built on the
distinction of framework and object, on a transcendental logic, yet
empirically requires that the framework that manifests its quantum
objects is at once an object and a framework. |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Alan Smaill... |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
J Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) aol.com> writes:
Quote: We may take probability as a measure of our certainty about the
occurrence of some event or as a measure of the frequency of
occurrence of the event (these originally listed by herbzet). But
isn't there a more fundamental issue to be considered? -
- What counts as an 'outcome'? If I throw a die up onto a glass
ceiling and the outcome is a one for the floor-below dweller, it will
be a six for the floor-above dweller. For the dwellers who floor-slide
there will be no single outcome. Again, 'thrown' in space a die
appears to have no outcomes at all.
fair enough
Quote: We might then conclude that an event carries its possible outcomes
with it, fully formed and 'ready to go', like the die with 6
faces. But doesn't outcome here mean simply 'property'? No. 'Ready to
go' in this case would mean an apparant, perspectival, restriction
being placed on the dies outcomes that arises by by hooking up the
thrown die to another event, an event such as the limited view granted
by the perspective of a glass ceiling dweller.
This is scarcely an "event"; but it is relevant to what counts as the
observation.
Quote: Importantly then,
'outcome' is 'property' in relationship.
depends what you mean, of course.
Quote: Now, when some quantum theorists say that an observation 'affects the
outcome', they also mean 'affects the properties'. Outcome is
synonymous with property for these theorists.
the analogy with throwing dice just does not work here.
Suppose that you are throwing the dice, not moving around
to different perspectives but always regarding the "normal" face
of the dice. Then the quantum claim (not from all theorists,
of course) is that your choice of whether to look at the die
or not (or determine the result as you would normally understand
it in any other way you like) affects the result.
Quote: This is like saying that a die that is thrown by a floor dweller is,
in fact, a 'thrown object' which has as its property only one variable
side.
No, it's not.
--
Alan Smaill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:00 am
|
|