Entanglement Could Be a Deterministic Phenomenon 259
KentuckyFC writes "Nobel prize-winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft has joined the likes of computer scientists Stephen Wolfram and Ed Fredkin in claiming that the universe can be accurately modeled by cellular automata. The novel aspect of 't Hooft's model is that it allows quantum mechanics and, in particular, the spooky action at a distance known as entanglement to be deterministic. The idea that quantum mechanics is fundamentally deterministic is known as hidden variable theory but has been widely discounted by physicists because numerous experiments have shown its predictions to be wrong. But 't Hooft says his cellular automaton model is a new class of hidden variable theory that falls outside the remit of previous tests. However, he readily admits that the new model has serious shortcomings — it lacks some of the basic symmetries that our universe enjoys, such as rotational symmetry. However, 't Hooft adds that he is working on modifications that will make the model more realistic (abstract)."
Hidden controlled by Hidden (Score:4, Insightful)
I've often been skeptical of the idea that you could disproove a hidden variable. The hidden variable itself could be dynamic controlled by another hidden variable.
I guess I just assume that there is more we don't know about the universe that we do know about it.
Universe.tar.gz (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Come up with a generic theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Come up with a generic theory...And then tweak it to match reality.
I'm afraid people do that all the time, each one new and different.
Uh...yeah. That is how the scientific process is supposed to work. You form a hypothesis based on what you know already, you test it, and as the results of your tests roll in, you modify the hypothesis accordingly. Form and then tweak. This is the essence of all scientific progress we have made to date.
Why do you have a problem with this? I'd say the proof is in the pudding.
But why do they bother? We already have the ultimate "parameterize and tweak the theory to match reality" theory in String Theory, so why bother with anything else?
Because string theory lacks evidence, and we don't have the technological means to gather much evidence for it (at present). Also, at present, the theory fails to offer much utility (we can't build any useful devices based on string theory).
Your attitude sounds a bit scarey. I read it as, "we already KNOW the truth, so why continue looking?" This very attitude inhibited scientific progress for most of human history. I wonder if it also inhibits you?
Re:Hidden controlled by Hidden (Score:1, Insightful)
Whoa who modded this troll? The parent is making a valid point. The line between deterministic and stochastic can sometimes be blurry. Hidden variables don't have to exactly stochastic. A stochastic variable, for instance, can often be approximated by deterministic variables -- you just create multiple scenarios. This is often done in stochastic programming -- certain stochastic programs can be transformed into deterministic form (e.g. multiperiod formulations).
Someone's obviously trigger happy this morning.
Re:I knew it. (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, but everyone have free will. It's just the decision you will make is determined by your biology, experiences and environment.
It doesn't mean you don't make a decision.
Re:I knew it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I choose NOT to make a choice!
Rush [lyricsfreak.com] thanks you for making your choice.
Re:I knew it. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's where the philosophy chokes. It assumes making a decision, i.e. weighing pros and cons and your emotions and information, is somehow magically free of both determinism and random control. They may have influence, but ultimately there's some mysterious spiritual thing beyond determinism and randomness that's doing the deciding in a manner that doesn't involve either.
Which, I submit, makes no sense. Weighing options is the essence of determinism, for that matter.
More importantly, back to the physics, you can easily base quantum on determinism if you give up on Einstein's concept of reality. Which is to say, that there are "real things out there with real, measurable properties".
Quantum implies heavily that, for example, there is no particle out there with an actual, measurable position, and so on.
But if Quantum Mechanics itself was, say, a computer simulation, then the whole hidden-variables problem disappears as an issue. I.e. the "wavicles" of QM and their quantum properties don't even exist as real objects. The "probability cloud" and entanglement are not real features. Of course, that really violates Einstein's sacred belief about real objects out there.
Re:"Backwards" Causation (Score:1, Insightful)
Given that Bell's inequality has been violated routinely in experiments any theory is going to have to give up on either local realism or causality. Is it really surprising that it's easier to toss out local realism? Personally I find it a lot easier to give up on locality than causality. Is a theory that rejects causality really straightforward?
Re:I knew it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free will is a sham. Of course, believe whatever you will. It's not like you have a choice.
Dude, if you were counting on the non-determinism of quantum entanglement to save the concept of free will, then you were out on a limb to begin with. How is randomly following the rules of the universe any more a matter of "will" than deterministically following them?
You could try to rely on a seriously weird and unlikely interpretation of QM which is basically a pun (measurement -> observation -> observer -> sentient observer), but then you're using the concept of sentience/free will influencing quantum events to explain how sentience/free will is possible in the first place. Maybe it's possible, but it's quite a long shot to be basing your whole concept of self awareness on.
I have free will because as far as I can tell I exercise it. In a pure philosophical sense you could never prove you have it even if we somehow did show that QM is influenced by "observers". But that act of faith has worked well enough for me. I'm certainly going to live my life as though I have free will, and if I'm only "automatically" making that choice, then so be it.
Re:"Backwards" Causation (Score:2, Insightful)
Einstein's Law of Causality states pretty clearly that Time is Uni-driectional, and you'd have to present a pretty solid proof to disprove the Law of Causality. People have tried but short of building a time machine I'm pretty sure the Law of Causality isn't about to fall just yet.
Its just a matter of modeling (Score:5, Insightful)
When you model the universe in terms of will-less mechanisms, you will (amazing!) discover that free will is a logical impossibility.
Trying to model free will in terms of physics is like trying to describe the combustion engine using only the words found in a book on home gardening.
The only reason some people find this personally problematic is because they have decided that our current model of physics is also the concrete, accurately-represented holy truth. In fact, our current model is just an abstract representation of something we can't see, and it is just the best we've come up with so far (in fact, any scientist worth his salt will predict that our models will change in the future).
So the quantum-mechanical model of the universe is incompatible with any free-will-is-real model of the universe. So what? This incompatibility doesn't make either theory right or wrong. The evidence for each theory is all that matters.
As Epicurus [wikipedia.org] (one of the fathers of the modern scientific method) advised, "if several theories are consistent with the observed data, retain them all."
Re:"Backwards" Causation (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, it does imply free will, just not your free will.
Being able to choose a single path in a branching multiverse implies the existence of a choice function (selection among possibly indistinguishable elements of a set) defined on each branching point.
No matter how you interpret the structure of the universe, there's always at least one choice in there somewhere and your choices are embedded in the universe's choices.
Konrad Zuse? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I knew it. (Score:4, Insightful)
> But if Quantum Mechanics itself was, say, a computer simulation... ...then the computer on which the simulation is running must exist in a universe. You now have replaced a few hidden variables with an entire hidden universe. Apply Occam's Razor.
Ask an alchemist. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe a Sorceror.
Or maybe a Christian.
Modeling the universe in terms of magic is what humanity has been doing for most of recorded history.
Modeling the universe in terms of mechanical interactions of particles or waves is the new-and-cool. And we are still getting our heads around how to do it.
Re:Its just a matter of modeling (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never seen a definition of "free will" that would be empirically testable. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a definition of free will that is even logically coherent. Those would be preconditions for debating whether science endorses free will. My own position for the moment is that the concept is not well defined and, hence, the question of whether we have free will is meaningless.
I once had someone argue to me that free will was a necessary condition to make an arbitrary choice, so that was a test. But, of course, making an arbitrary choice just shows you're non-deterministic. If that's your definition of free will, then an electron has free will. However, if your actions are just determined randomly I'm not sure why you'd call that a "will".
Any model will do (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
But if Quantum Mechanics itself was, say, a computer simulation... ...then the computer on which the simulation is running must exist in a universe.
Not necessarily. The computer on which the simulation is running may be the universe. A very simple one perhaps, but capable of running itself as well as any number of simulations.
Re:Its just a matter of modeling (Score:2, Insightful)
... than if you think you're in pain you can be wrong.
of course you can be pretty obviously wrong about being in pain [yahoo.com]
A very wise man must once have said (in other words I'm just making this up) : "Never underestimate the stupidity of humans". Let's not forget there are suicide-cults, people who enjoy watching "neighbors" AND well ... there are religions, even horrible ones. I mean religions by itself are not an especially good sign of intelligent life, but killing little girls and/or homosexuals because in some desert ages ago some massacring thief told some people to do so ... I mean ... we humans defineatly are pretty fucking stupid.
Of course your entire sentence means nothing. "Your own definition of free will" ... is never elucidated. Nevertheless this non-existent definition is supposed to prove all sorts of things. That's not how it works. First you make a definition of something, then you combine that with axioms and other definitions and then you get an exact conclusion. Everything else is just random babblings of philosophers.
And this is my thoughts about philosophy. In history, you always had empiricists, and you had philosophers (or proto-philosophers, called theologians, or proto-theologians like the village priest). They generally argue in opposite directions. Guess who always turned out to be right ?
Re:I knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I choose NOT to make a choice!
That seems foolish to me.
- If you have free will and do your best to exercise it in your own interest, you have a chance to exert some control over your situation and benefit yourself.
- If you have free will and do not do your best to exercise it in your own interest, you are likely to do poorly.
- If you don't have free will it doesn't matter.
So the best path seems to be to assume you have free will and act accordingly.