When our discussion group first assembled and read this question, into the initial silence I half jokingly blurted "100%." We were all amused I thought. As we discussed further, I think we all basically agreed that 100% was actually a pretty good answer. Someone mentioned individual death as a certainty, but as someone else mentioned it does depend on the definition of death. If viewed as a "termination," it does appear certain. If viewed as "transformation," it becomes only one segment of a larger flux or cloud of possibility where nothing is certain except change. In other words we get certainty only by definition. Now we did not mention taxes which is often paired with death as the only two things which are certain. This one is easier to determine as uncertain; think corporate welfare in capitalist society and the existence of taxes for the rich becomes as uncertain as the weather.
However, if the Universe is 100% uncertain, there is implication that the statement itself is certain. The statement is in the Universe, and is therefore uncertain by definition. If the Universe is 100% uncertain, then change is the only certainly and couldn't by definition exist in the Universe. And we see again that everything holds the kernel of its opposite.
How would one go about proving a certainty? Infinite trials? Maybe we can only really conclude there is a mix of certainty and uncertainty in the Universe. For practical purposes, we do live our lives as if there is certainty. Aren't we here studying (and teaching) CM because we do rely on some degree of certainty in the Universe? Particular herbs have particular properties, and those who have studied herbs will tell us with certainty that we must begin to know these properties. Maybe the paradox is best approached by distinguishing "certainty" from "really so highly probable that we may functionally remove from consideration the likelihood of anything unexpected." In other words: Live with expectation, but remain flexible.
Do Particles Have No Definite States Before Measurement?
The question, I think, begins with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which states that on the atomic level one can not be certain of both momentum and position of a particular particle at the same time. In other words, we can not with certainty measure both at the same time. But, as a thought problem, does this mean that the particle, before we measure it, has neither momentum or position at the same time? Is it characteristic of particles to have neither attribute at the same time independent of our observations? Or have we just figured out that we are incapable of measuring these attributes of particles at the same time? We might be able to prove mathematically that we are incapable of measuring these attributes at the same time, but wouldn't a secondary proof be necessary to prove that the attributes can not exist in the same particle at the same time when we weren't looking?
If observation invariably influences what is observed, then in some way we are very limited in our senses. Gosh, I suddenly feel a bit trapped in the seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching machine. Thank goodness our minds can wander (and wonder!).
Another aspect to this question, and it bothered me in the discussion of Schrodinger's cat, is the near approach to a solipsistic view of the Universe engendered in some of the conclusions. Just concluding that we are only able to determine the characteristics of the world "out there" by using senses which appear to be only "in here" and therefore subject to any number of, well, pernicious influences, does not justify the conclusion that there is no objective reality "out there." In any realm of the unknown which may present an infinite array of possibility, there still are things that "are," which, although their apparent characteristics are influenced by our observations of them, still have realities in their own right.
On the one hand, the reader may challenge me to prove the existence of this independent (of measurement and/or human preception) reality, and I will counter by indicating the "western" nature of the challenge. On the other hand, if we do not accept that there is an objective reality beyond our perhaps poor and constantly interfering perceptions of it, we get such ridiculous manifestations on the macroscopic level as Clinton's infamous, "It depends on what your definition of is, is."
What Does This Tell Us About Causality?
Cause and effect are useful constructs of the human mind, although we may not understand the dynamics of either independently, nor the true character of the ways in which they are linked. Our energies and the constraints on our perceptions influence the way we observe causes and effects (and everything else). We have to assume, though, that the Universe was here long before us, and that it will continue long after we are gone. To quote a once popular television program: The truth is out there! Perhaps we are not really here in order to study the Universe, but rather the Universe places us (and everything else) within the Universe to learn about its Self. The Universe obeys its own rules independent of the inadvertently skewed impressions we obtain of it.
2 comments:
The more I learn, the less I know. That's what this study of physics is drawing me to. I find that when I learn a concept, it makes sense and I can accept it. But when I start to study and read more about it, the less it makes sense to me, like that basic animal acceptance of the universe gets confused with so much discussion. When I think about the universe knowing that my understanding is totally limited, and that everything can follow all the laws and rules and break them all at the same time, I feel comforted. When I think that the universe can be known and understood, categorized into compartments, I feel uneasy and a little afraid. I don't want to think that all the mysteries of the universe to be knowable, especially when the first thing our humanity would do with that knowledge would be to destroy each other with the drive for military and political power . . . We don't deserve the knowledge until we are smart enough to use it wisely.
I couldn't agree more. Personally, I am not interested in knowing the ins and outs of all the mysteries, even were it possible, but I really enjoy struggling mentally/physically with them. The "not knowing" can be as much a guide to us as the "knowing." I have always struggled against the compartmentalization of things, especially in human relations. I dislike all the "boxes" we seem so fond of using. Thanks, Sarah, for your comment to my blog.
Post a Comment