Does either chance or accident exist?
- diracophile
- lbondx
- dancooper
- diracophile
- diracophile
- diracophile
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» diracophile - All we ever see is one outcome or branch of an event at a time.
Have always been intrigued by the notion that "chance" per se is only an illusion produced by the limited, moving view window through which we reduce to conscious appreciation the basically fixed tableau of spacetime. Other than the inconvenience that this outlook belittles the statistical basis for a lot of other branches of science, is there really any other way to comprehend time-reversed light or particles being equivalent to anti-particles moving backwards in time? Does this intrude in Intelligent Design debate, if there are really no "accidents" whatsoever?-- posted by diracophile
» lbondx - Re: All we ever see is one outcome or branch of an event at a ti
I am sorry that I just now saw your post and so much "time" has gone by. You bring up an interesting idea - If there are no accidents, I certainly think this would impact the concept of "free choice" but I would have to think a while about the impact on the intelligent design debate. In any event, I do not know who will be taking over this topic in the next month or so. I find that "time constraints" limit my ability to continue, but I trust the new writer will be more knowledgeable than I. Best wishes!Linda
-- posted by lbondx
» dancooper - Anti-thesis
Carl Jung had some interesting theories on the possibility of extra-causal reality. And I don’t think he envisioned what you are proposing.I am not personally familiar with the concepts of “time-reversed light or particles being equivalent to anti-particles moving backwards in time.” But if chance and accident are merely illusions, there will be serious consequences for human morality equations, legal precident’s applicability to current and future cases, and the ability for human interaction on a meaningful basis, since causality will dictate all that comes to pass. If there is no chance and no accident, then there is no freedom of choice and no free will. Hence, there is not only no need for, but also no possibility of divine intervention, including (perhaps?) the concept of Intelligent Design.
If I am wrong here, what did I miss?
Dan Cooper
-- posted by dancooper
» diracophile - Re: Anti-thesis
In response to Anti-thesis posted by dancooper:Putting aside all the philosophical implications, what also interests me is that in describing a particle as being equivalent to its anti-particle traveling "backwards" in time, the a-particle is often described as coming from the future. But the a-part really isn't coming from the future. It departed its point of origin in the past, just like the particle did. Both particles then advance in our familiar direction of time until they coincide at the time and place we are making the measurement. I don't know enough physics to properly equate this situation to a pair of normal particles whose quantum states are intertwined or co-mingled. Also, if parallel universes exist, do they really affect this debate about cause and effect at all, or do they only extend the "frozen tableu" without making it any less frozen?
-- posted by diracophile
» diracophile - Re: Re: Anti-thesis
Or in other words, if nothing is coming from the future, then causality isn't violated.-- posted by diracophile
» diracophile - Re: Re: Re: Anti-thesis
and what goes on in the double slit experiment between the cathode and the screen seems a lot less mysterious. since WE pick where wave functions will be collapsed, free will re-appears, but the unseen substrate constrains us to only select outcomes that are possible according to the laws of physics. maybe we can still have a hunch as to the next measurement we want to make, as when I put money on black or red in roulette.....-- posted by diracophile
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.