On Einstein's Peace with Quantum Mechanics

[sulo33]

Einstein's ideal picture of the World was born out of seed called: "God of Spinoza." But the disturbing factor in the face of Quantum Mechanics spoils the Einstein's ideal picture. Shall we take another philosophical driving seed, and plant it into the brain?

Watch the video about the great battle of minds and ideas:

What is the "salt" of this?

Einstein with his barrier (the speed of light) was not happy with quantum mechanics (QM) in any of its forms. Our very hasty conclusion is: "we have super-speed in QM". Yes! The scientific revolutionary works make their way free. Driving a car without speed limitation turns into "non-locality". The theists are used to word "omnipresence". I do not understand the Einstein, because in General Relativity the hyper-speeds are allowed (the warp-drive), even the time machines are allowed in the General Relativity, so the instantaneousy (and non-locality) throughout the time and space is available. In General Relativity one can replace the need of undiscovered "exotic matter" with pre-curved fabric of spacetime (no need for the exotic matter to act through Einstein's math, latter math can be avoided because of "Synge argument").

More boldly the work goes on "quantum computers". Already the classical barrier is removed: the calculations can be more than one at once.
Calculation - is small "fact for the Science", so "No limits" mean: omniscience. Knowledge of Science is Potency. No barrier - "omnipotence".

The QM has the uncertainty (Heisenberg's). Alan Aspect's Experiments have proved this: there are no hidden laws ("the variables")! Uncertainty is freedom. Freedom is beyond the physical laws. This is the sciences in social area: philosophy, psychology, politics, history, theology.

There is freedom, which can be limited by (quantum) statistic. If the particle is found at the point A, and then found at point B, all the intermediate conditions are possible. Yes, it is True, even having the Copenhagen interpretation: because one is not sure in this interpretation of where the particle is or isn't. And the open opportunities is freedom.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, it is True, even having the Copenhagen interpretation: because one is not sure in this interpretation of where the particle is or isn't. And the open opportunities is freedom.

. ........................ .

 

[Heissonear]

Einstein's ideal picture of the World was born out of seed called: "God of Spinoza." But the disturbing factor in the face of Quantum Mechanics spoils the Einstein's ideal picture. Shall we take another philosophical driving seed, and plant it into the brain?

Watch the video about the great battle of minds and ideas:

What is the "salt" of this?

Einstein with his barrier (the speed of light) was not happy with quantum mechanics (QM) in any of its forms. Our very hasty conclusion is: "we have super-speed in QM". Yes! The scientific revolutionary works make their way free. Driving a car without speed limitation turns into "non-locality". The theists are used to word "omnipresence". I do not understand the Einstein, because in General Relativity the hyper-speeds are allowed (the warp-drive), even the time machines are allowed in the General Relativity, so the instantaneousy (and non-locality) throughout the time and space is available. In General Relativity one can replace the need of undiscovered "exotic matter" with pre-curved fabric of spacetime (no need for the exotic matter to act through Einstein's math, latter math can be avoided because of "Synge argument").

More boldly the work goes on "quantum computers". Already the classical barrier is removed: the calculations can be more than one at once.
Calculation - is small "fact for the Science", so "No limits" mean: omniscience. Knowledge of Science is Potency. No barrier - "omnipotence".

The QM has the uncertainty (Heisenberg's). Alan Aspect's Experiments have proved this: there are no hidden laws ("the variables")! Uncertainty is freedom. Freedom is beyond the physical laws. This is the sciences in social area: philosophy, psychology, politics, history, theology.

There is freedom, which can be limited by (quantum) statistic. If the particle is found at the point A, and then found at point B, all the intermediate conditions are possible. Yes, it is True, even having the Copenhagen interpretation: because one is not sure in this interpretation of where the particle is or isn't. And the open opportunities is freedom.

Welcome another Mr. Feb. They are adding up.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Einstein's ideal picture of the World was born out of seed called: "God of Spinoza."

Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (wiki)

 

[sulo33]

Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (wiki)

Are humans a part of Nature for Spinoza? Perhaps yes, because even the god am the Nature for Spinoza. The humans blow up atomic bombs, so it is harm for Nature-god and Nature itself. So why then God of Spinoza has no concerns with people? Is it logical?

 

[Murby]

Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (wiki)

Are you KIDDING ME??? You just said something that was both true and reasonable in the same post!!!!! Someone get a screen shot of this fast before he changes his mind!

Nice post Joshua19.. usually I'm not a fan of your postings but you got that one right! +1 and I hit the like button for you.

 

[Murby]

And if you all think that's cool, you should brush on on Quantum Entanglement... Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a Distance". And its been recently proved true.
http://www.cnet.com/news/physicists-prove-einsteins-spooky-quantum-entanglement/

Entangle two quantum particles then separate them by any distance.. Even on opposite sides of the universe.
When you do something to change the quantum state of one particle, the other one does the opposite INSTANTLY.. as in, faster than any signal traveling at the speed of light could have reached it.

 

[Oafman]

Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (wiki)

So, along with refusing to accept entanglement and the expansion of the universe, that's 3 things Einstein was wrong about

 

[timewerx]

Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (wiki)

I believe it's a little of both. The influence upon the fate of humanity is so subtle, it's far too late once most people realizes it.

It's like a giant spider camouflaged against its surroundings, it set out baits called "progress". The bigger and prettier it gets as you get closer to the impending doom. By the time you finish the last progress, it already wrapped its arms and webs around you.....game over!

 

[Murby]

So, along with refusing to accept entanglement and the expansion of the universe, that's 3 things Einstein was wrong about

Considering he figured out all he did with nothing more than a pen, paper and a desk, I think he did pretty darn good.

 

[Oafman]

Considering he figured out all he did with nothing more than a pen, paper and a desk, I think he did pretty darn good.

I wasn't criticising. We may never again see such a huge shift in the way we understand nature.

My issue is that Einstein is continually used as an argument from authority. It's worth remembering that nobody is always right.

 

[[serious]]

And if you all think that's cool, you should brush on on Quantum Entanglement... Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a Distance". And its been recently proved true.
http://www.cnet.com/news/physicists-prove-einsteins-spooky-quantum-entanglement/

Entangle two quantum particles then separate them by any distance.. Even on opposite sides of the universe.
When you do something to change the quantum state of one particle, the other one does the opposite INSTANTLY.. as in, faster than any signal traveling at the speed of light could have reached it.

Not quite. Entangled pairs existing in a quantum superposition will reliably measure such that the system as a whole remains in balance. Classical information is not transmitted faster than light.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (wiki)

Indeed. He also said, "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University).

 

[Gracchus]

Are humans a part of Nature for Spinoza? Perhaps yes, because even the god am the Nature for Spinoza. The humans blow up atomic bombs, so it is harm for Nature-god and Nature itself. So why then God of Spinoza has no concerns with people? Is it logical?

Fission and fusion are natural, and it is just as natural for humans to make bombs, and blow things up (including people!) as it is for beavers to make dams or bees to make honeycombs. To check instinct and impulse by interposing reason is perhaps the most "un-natural" thing a human can do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not quite. Entangled pairs existing in a quantum superposition will reliably measure such that the system as a whole remains in balance. Classical information is not transmitted faster than light.

Yes; there are various interpretations of these observations; entanglement can also be interpreted as behaving as though there are two superposed pairs of particles with complementary attributes, and your measurement determines which pair you're dealing with.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are humans a part of Nature for Spinoza? Perhaps yes, because even the god am the Nature for Spinoza. The humans blow up atomic bombs, so it is harm for Nature-god and Nature itself. So why then God of Spinoza has no concerns with people? Is it logical?

Spinoza's metaphysics is tricky, but he says humans are part of nature, and there is no Cartesian duality of substance (material and mind - with the accompanying interaction problem). For Spinoza, there is only one substance, god ('a being absolutely infinite - that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality. ... that which is absolutely infinite contains in its essence whatever expresses reality' Spinoza: Ethics - Part I: Concerning God); mind and matter are different aspects of it (perhaps different ways of viewing or thinking about it). Thus there is no interaction problem; also, because we are part of physical causality, we don't have free will.

 

[Gracchus]

Yes; there are various interpretations of these observations; entanglement can also be interpreted as behaving as though there are two superposed pairs of particles with complementary attributes, and your measurement determines which pair you're dealing with.

Or you could see just one particle projected to more than one position in our limited four dimensional perception of space-time. Or you might conceive of a single echoing resonance that is the universe producing a pattern of reinforcing and canceling waves producing the illusion of particles. If you look to closely your eyes will become permanently crossed.

 

[Gracchus]

Spinoza's metaphysics is tricky, but he says humans are part of nature, and there is no Cartesian duality of substance (material and mind - with the accompanying interaction problem). For Spinoza, there is only one substance, god ('a being absolutely infinite - that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality. ... that which is absolutely infinite contains in its essence whatever expresses reality' Spinoza: Ethics - Part I: Concerning God); mind and matter are different aspects of it (perhaps different ways of viewing or thinking about it). Thus there is no interaction problem; also, because we are part of physical causality, we don't have free will.

But if we can learn to interpose reason between perception and reaction there may be something rather like "free will". This can be done, at least to some extent, by conforming our self-image to our real nature. That means giving up both self justification and self blame.

But again we are drifting out of the physical and life sciences into mere philosophical speculation, because neuropsychology has, as yet, made few inroads into this largely unexplored territory.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Indeed. He also said, "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University).

Einstein and Spinoza were Hebrew (Judea) A lot of science esp quantum physics is based on the Kabbalah that a lot of Christians do not accept. Even Islam has it's own version of creationism. Although all three religions are said to have started with Abraham and they call Abraham their father. Abraham was a Chaldean just one step removed from Sumeria where it all began.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...A lot of science esp quantum physics is based on the Kabbalah...

What makes you think that?