Philosophy and Literature Blog

     I'm reading a book on quantum stuff that said the the EPR paper said we have to choose between "realism"(that there are a definite states determining quantum objects prior to measurements) and "separability"(that states of separated points cannot instantly affect one another).  The book said that most scientists reject realism.  It seems to me that we are forced to reject both of them.  This is so obvious to me I don't see how anyone can think differently.  What am I missing?  The states of an entangled system exist in probability functions until they are collapsed by some measurement(that ends realism), the measurement of one side of an entangled pair changes the probabilities for the other side(this defeats separation).       Einstein was clearly convinced that quantum theory violated separability, which upset his field theory notions, and then spent the last decades of his life trying to rescue separability a...

     The Poincare Group is the group that leaves invariant the interval in Minkowski spacetime.  It is the 'semidirect' product of translations in R^3 and 'boosts' written in terms of Lorentz transformations.  In quantum field theory we have to have our Lagrangian satisfy the symmetries given by this group if we're going to satisfy Special Relativity.       It's interesting to think about how we have to satisfy Special Relativity in a theory that includes entanglement. 

I evidently pushed a button so that some of the phrases I typed are underlined and connected to advertisements.   Well, anyone can do anything they want on my blog, but I hope they are comfortable with what I write on it.  I mean, you know, like Chik-Fila or however you spell, it should know that I think homosexuality is a good thing, probably better than heterosexuality since homosexual activity doesn't run the risk of unwanted pregnancy.  Actually, wasn't there a movie where Arnold Schwarzenegger got pregnant?

       I guess what I'm going to say here is really a non-epiphany for anyone thinking about physics for any period of time, but as I think about it I am re-inspired by relativity.  Relativity begins by insisting that the laws of nature be invariant under change in reference frame, whether inertial or not.  It doesn't matter what induces change from one reference frame to another -- gravity, electro-weak, strong -- the invariance principles must apply, else the laws of physics are inconstant, or, non-'covariant' in the Einsteinian sense.  So, while gravity stands out in that it induces an 'accelerated frame' for all masses in the area, the principle of relativity is almost a kind of theorem for all physical law, so that whatever causes a change in motion in an object also creates a context where relativity must be considered.  In this regard then, relativity is logically prior.  If acceleration didn't produce dilations and cont...

     I am going to start General Relativity by Wald.  I will be using this as an opportunity to review some topology, analysis, differential geometry etc...  This is prompted by watching some of Don Howard's wonderful lectures on Einstein.  I also have a couple of other books on black holes that might be interesting -- one has a computation of how relativity is used in GPS.  In the meantime I will wax philosophical about God knows what.      In the meantime I have been skimming a very nice book called 'Galileo's Muse', which details the artistic, literary, and philosophical context within which Galileo made his discoveries.  The book credits Dante with discovering the 3-Sphere.  Evidently a lot of people see this in the relationship between Hell and Paradise.  There are passages in the Inferno that speak of how one knows whether one is at rest or moving.  It seems as much or as little can be made of t...

     The explanatory gap can be used by those who wish to be 'idealists', in the sense that the ultimate course of the universe is actually guided by a mental goal.  If physicalism has problems, then spiritualists rejoice.  The problem with the kind of evolution Chardin and others describe is that it is goal directed.  Evolution, even mental evolution, is guided by local challenges, not universals.  Now, this can be seen as a metaphysical point, but it is actually based on what we know about adaptation.  Any universal goal is something we make up later.  Evolution is messy and undirected.      It may be that a life of increasing conscousness is the most fulfilling, but that doesn't mean that evolution is leading to that kind of life.  It is plain wishful thinking.  Besides, I'm beginning to find a peaceful but pointless life pretty enjoyable.  The existentialists admonish us that we must fin...

     The 'Explanatory Gap' was a term coined by Levine in the '80s.  It refers to the seeming inability of physical concepts to account for subjectivity.  I have commented on a number of books by folks who seem not to understand this gap or at least seem not to fully appreciate it.  This expression situates the old mind/body and other minds problem in a more modern philosophical idiom( sorry this sounds so pretentious, but philosophy does that sometimes.  Interesting, the basic problems are in some sense always the same but re-expressed.).  Basically, the concepts and inference rules of the natural sciences are not sufficient currently to account for subjectivity.  The view that experience is somehow the result of purely physical processes is called 'physicalism'.  While I ultimately have a strong feeling that all mental phenomena are dependent upon physical phenomena, this has not been proven philosophically....