Just finished reading Second Foundation

[CommanderSouth]

Man. What a story. Mild spoilers to follow  

I am incredibly intrigued by the idea of communication between second foundationers and themselves. And others. 
I have thought about the spirit along these lines myself. 
TLDR version is that they communicate through thought and emotions. Thought and emotion are able to be quantified and sensed by them. And also to be pushed out to others by them.

When this is done to others that don’t sense this. It can be so subtle that it is just a thought or feeling in one’s mind. They also stress their own secrecy and not give themselves away. 
I am blown away how much I can gather from even Science Fiction about the spirit. 
While I’m not hitching my wagon to this horse, I think it has legs and spurs discussing. I think in the end we know that everything real isn’t mystical once understood. And I see this as one of many fascinating possibilities. 

[mikbone]

Did you read the Robot & Empire series as well?

R Daneel Oilvaw may be my favorite Christ figure in literature.

Edited November 21, 2024 by mikbone

[CommanderSouth]

4 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Did you read the Robot & Empire series as well?

I have I Robot but not yet. 
Who did Empire?

[mikbone]

7 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I have I Robot but not yet. 
Who did Empire?

Isaac Asimov, like 15 books.  They are all linked.

Edited November 21, 2024 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

36 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I am blown away how much I can gather from even Science Fiction about the spirit. 

FWIW, I don't believe the depiction of telepathy in the Foundation series is even close to the impressions/communications of the Spirit.

[CommanderSouth]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

FWIW, I don't believe the depiction of telepathy in the Foundation series is even close to the impressions/communications of the Spirit.

I don't know, I feel like the description of both sensing, and reaching out and interacting with the emotions and thoughts of another is apt enough.  I think Jesus sensing the thoughts of the Pharisees, the impressions we receive, the phrasing of being spoken to in the "mind" and "heart", make this analog sound apt.

Mechanically of course, I have no idea.

[CommanderSouth]

I also believe strongly in something close to the metaphysical system in Ender's Game (Xenocide in particular).   I read that book about 6 months before I struggled with questions of Free Will.  I now believe very strongly that this universe is "Philotes doing what they want".

But of course, I'm happy to be wrong,  I just need God to help me understand later

Edited November 21, 2024 by CommanderSouth

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I also believe strongly in something close to the metaphysical system in Ender's Game (Xenocide in particular).   I read that book about 6 months before I struggled with questions of Free Will.  I now believe very strongly that this universe is "Philotes doing what they want".

But of course, I'm happy to be wrong,  I just need God to help me understand later

You may not realize that any system (including so-called philotes) that allows for faster-than-light "instantaneous" communications between separate points in the universe violates Einsteinian physics. Specifically, FTL communications, instantaneous or otherwise, violates the existence of time dilation, a principle that is firmly established. Violating this principle necessarily introduces the "Grandfather paradox".

[CommanderSouth]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

You may not realize that any system (including so-called philotes) that allows for faster-than-light "instantaneous" communications between separate points in the universe violates Einsteinian physics. Specifically, FTL communications, instantaneous or otherwise, violates the existence of time dilation, a principle that is firmly established. Violating this principle necessarily introduces the "Grandfather paradox".

And that's fair.  My approach is more that I approach some type of panpsychism, that the bottom level of everything has some degree of conciousness.
But I wouldn't claim how that would work mechanically.

[NeuroTypical]

AppleTV did a not-horrible job with their first two seasons of Foundation.   Not too horrible anyway, IMO.   The book is always better, but it was fun to see the genetic clones of the emperor sitting down to the breakfast table and occasionally moving in perfect synch with the napkin or the forking of the fruit or whatever. 

[Carborendum]

26 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

AppleTV did a not-horrible job with their first two seasons of Foundation.   Not too horrible anyway, IMO.   The book is always better, but it was fun to see the genetic clones of the emperor sitting down to the breakfast table and occasionally moving in perfect synch with the napkin or the forking of the fruit or whatever. 

I don't recall a scene even close to that in the books.  Which emperor?

[CommanderSouth]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't recall a scene even close to that in the books.  Which emperor?

Yeah, I haven't seen the show yet, I'm intrigued, but we'll see  I don't remember anything close to this either.  But then again, Foundation shoots from Empire to First Foundation VERY quickly, and then doesn't touch on the empire as much, so this might be filler earlier on.

[Carborendum]

I've only read the original Foundation Series (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation, and the eventual finale Foundation and Earth).  I have not read the prequels or the other book that the other author wrote.  So, maybe that series starts with the prequels.

[mikbone]

Robot Series (with Short Story Prequel)

1. “Mother Earth”

2. I, Robot

3. The Caves of Steel

4. The Naked Sun

5. The Robots of Dawn

6. Robots and Empire

 

Empire Series

7. The Stars, Like Dust

8. The Currents of Space

9. Pebble in the Sky

 

Foundation Series

10. Foundation

11. Foundation and Empire

12. Second Foundation

13. Prelude to Foundation

14. Forward the Foundation

15. Foundation’s Edge

16. Foundation and Earth

Edited November 21, 2024 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I don't recall a scene even close to that in the books.  Which emperor?

Heh.  Memory is funny.   It's been 20+ years since I read Asimov's foundation books.  When I watched the TV series, I said "Yeah, 3 clones of the same emperor - just like the books!"   

Then Carb asked this question, and I had to go to Wiki to learn that I was basically creating false memories for myself.  

Don't tell my wife - she thinks I already remember too much history all wrong.  

[mikbone]

Cleon I (Cleon of the Entun dynasty).

From ChatGPT…

No, the concept of the three clone emperors—Dawn, Day, and Dusk—representing different life stages of the same genetic ruler—was not part of Isaac Asimov’s original Foundation books. This idea is unique to the Apple TV+ adaptation of Foundation and was introduced to provide a more centralized and dramatic representation of the Galactic Empire’s leadership.

 

In the books, the Galactic Empire’s rulers, such as Cleon I, are depicted as individual monarchs who age and are replaced by successors, without any cloning or shared rule across generations. The show’s innovation adds a layer of political and philosophical intrigue not present in Asimov’s writings, emphasizing themes like continuity, identity, and the challenges of ruling a decaying empire.

Edited November 21, 2024 by mikbone

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

You may not realize that any system (including so-called philotes) that allows for faster-than-light "instantaneous" communications between separate points in the universe violates Einsteinian physics. Specifically, FTL communications, instantaneous or otherwise, violates the existence of time dilation, a principle that is firmly established. Violating this principle necessarily introduces the "Grandfather paradox".

Does quantum entanglement fit with the above?  I have no idea, but it seems like "entangled particles" might be "communicating" faster than the speed of light...  (NOTE: I'm utterly ignorant of physics and just pick up these wild ideas from when Jordan Peterson interviews physicists and play with them as the basis for magic systems in fiction. )

At this link, which should load the video to the correct second, dude hints that quantum entanglement and worm holes may be the same idea in a different language - but he only spends 2 minutes teasing us with the idea...

(If this comment serves only to illustrate my complete ignorance, feel free to say so - there's a reason I prefer fiction... )

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Does quantum entanglement fit with the above?  I have no idea, but it seems like "entangled particles" might be "communicating" faster than the speed of light...  (NOTE: I'm utterly ignorant of physics and just pick up these wild ideas from when Jordan Peterson interviews physicists and play with them as the basis for magic systems in fiction. )

At this link, which should load the video to the correct second, dude hints that quantum entanglement and worm holes may be the same idea in a different language - but he only spends 2 minutes teasing us with the idea...

(If this comment serves only to illustrate my complete ignorance, feel free to say so - there's a reason I prefer fiction... )

I don't know what to make of "quantum entanglement", which is another way of saying I don't deeply understand well what it's supposed to mean. The wormhole idea seems reasonable, though I (and many actual physicists) don't believe that wormholes are anything other than science fiction. So I am left not knowing what to make of the idea.

What does it mean for two separated events to happen "simultaneously"? I mean, by definition of the word, that seems clear enough. But Einstein showed that any two events that are "simultaneous" in a given intertial (non-accelerating) reference frame are non-simultaneous in most other inertial reference frames. So what does that mean in "quantum entanglement" terms? If I force an entangled waveform to collapse to a certain state, then its entangled partner some distance away (perhaps light-seconds away, or even light-years away) must also collapse into that state. But then I can find an inertial reference frame where the entangled partner waveform collapsed before I forced my entangled waveform to collapse. Does that mean the entangled particle actually forced me to collapse it in that way? Becaues that's sure what it looks like.

Unless you decide you don't believe in causality (cause and effect; A happened which led to B, therefore A caused B), there is no way that I see that the idea of FTL communications can be accepted. Can a son be born before his father? If so, then FTL communication makes sense. If not—and I say not—then it can't be possible.

[Vort]

ChapGPT comfortably agrees with me. Not that ChatGPT is the final word, but it does seem to back up my own understanding. If you can get through the particle physics goop, the following conversation is enlightening. At least, it was to me.

****************************

Vort said:

Many say that entangled waveforms can be made to collapse into identical states at the same moment, regardless of the distance between them. But this cannot be correct. As per Einstein, you cannot even define simultaneity outside of a specified inertial reference frame. So how can you have this "infinitely fast" or "faster-than-light-speed" communication between the entangled waveforms?

 

ChatGPT said:

You are absolutely correct that the idea of simultaneity being frame-dependent, as laid out in Einstein's theory of relativity, poses a challenge to any interpretation of entanglement as involving "instantaneous" or "faster-than-light" communication. Let’s break this down:

Entanglement and Nonlocality

When two particles are entangled, their quantum states are correlated in such a way that measuring one particle determines the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them. However, this does not imply any actual communication or transfer of information faster than light. Here’s why:

1. Quantum Mechanics is Nonlocal, But Not Causal: The correlations between entangled particles appear "instantaneous" because the outcomes of measurements are connected by the shared quantum state. However, these correlations do not allow for faster-than-light communication because:

   • The result of a measurement on one particle is random.
   • Observers cannot control the outcome of their measurements to transmit information.

   Without a way to control these outcomes, no meaningful signal can be sent.

2. Relativity and the Absence of Simultaneity: As you noted, simultaneity is relative and depends on the observer's frame of reference. When one particle is measured, the other "seems" to collapse into the correlated state in the observer’s frame. But in another frame of reference, the sequence of measurements could appear reversed. Quantum mechanics doesn't specify a preferred reference frame or an absolute notion of simultaneity, which is consistent with relativity.

3. Bell's Theorem and Local Realism: Bell's theorem and the experiments confirming violations of Bell inequalities show that quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables. This demonstrates nonlocality but doesn't imply faster-than-light communication, as the nonlocal correlations respect relativistic causality.

4. Quantum Field Theory: In quantum field theory, interactions and information transfer are constrained by the light cone. The apparent "instantaneous" correlations in entanglement are consistent with this, as they don’t involve physical signals exceeding the speed of light.

Resolving the Paradox

The key lies in understanding that the "collapse" of the wavefunction is not a physical process that propagates through space. Instead, it reflects a change in our knowledge about the system. When one measurement is made, the state of the system is updated globally in the mathematical formalism, but this doesn’t imply a physical signal traveling between the particles.

Conclusion

While entanglement correlations are remarkable and defy classical intuition, they do not violate relativity. The lack of absolute simultaneity does not pose a problem because quantum mechanics sidesteps the need for a causal mechanism linking the measurements. Instead, it emphasizes the probabilistic and holistic nature of quantum systems, without enabling faster-than-light communication.

Vort said:

So are you saying that it is impossible to have entangled waveforms/particles that can be forced to collapse into either of two possible states?

 

ChatGPT said:

Yes, it is impossible to force entangled particles to collapse into one of two possible states in a way that allows for control or communication between them. Here's why:

1. Measurement Outcomes are Random

When you measure one particle in an entangled pair, the outcome is random, though correlated with the measurement on the other particle. For example:

• If you measure one particle and find it in state ∣0〉, the other particle will instantaneously collapse into the corresponding state ∣1〉 (or the same state, depending on the entangled relationship).
• However, you cannot control whether the outcome is ∣0〉 or ∣1〉. The result is governed by the quantum wavefunction's probabilistic nature.

2. No Hidden Signals

Even though the measurement outcomes are correlated, this does not involve any physical signal or mechanism that travels between the particles faster than light. The collapse is a nonlocal feature of the quantum state, but it does not constitute a "communication channel."

3. Forcing Collapse Cannot Be Controlled

The act of measuring one particle doesn’t "force" the other to collapse into a specific predetermined state in any controllable way:

• The collapse happens as a consequence of the entangled quantum state.
• You can't choose the outcome for the first particle to "force" a corresponding outcome for the second.

4. Quantum Mechanics and No-Communication Theorem

The no-communication theorem explicitly states that entanglement cannot be used to transmit information. The theorem relies on the fact that:

• The reduced state of either particle (i.e., its observable state when ignoring the other particle) is completely random.
• Any manipulation of one particle cannot be discerned by observing the other alone.

5. Entanglement and Bell's Theorem

Bell's theorem demonstrates that quantum correlations are stronger than any local hidden variable theory could explain. However, these correlations are "passive" in the sense that they reflect statistical properties of measurements across many trials. They cannot be harnessed to actively control or send messages.

---

What You Can Do

• You can measure one particle and infer information about the state of the other, but only after comparing measurement results via classical communication (which is limited by the speed of light).
• Entanglement experiments confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics but never allow for faster-than-light signaling.

---

Conclusion

Entangled particles cannot be forced to collapse into a particular state that you choose, nor can this process be used for communication or influence at a distance. Entanglement is a deeply fascinating phenomenon, but it operates within the limits of quantum mechanics and relativity, preserving causality and prohibiting faster-than-light control.

 

Vort said:

What you say makes sense, and it reflects my understanding. But in popular discourse, there seems to be the notion that we can create an entangled waveform capable of collapsing either into |0> or into |1>, and that we can choose into which of these two states we can collapse the waveform. That last part must necessarily be false, though. Correct?

 

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that last part—the notion that we can choose which state the entangled waveform collapses into—is necessarily false. This idea is a common misunderstanding or oversimplification in popular discussions about quantum mechanics.

Here’s why this claim is incorrect:

1. Collapse is Intrinsically Random

In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (e.g., the Copenhagen interpretation), the outcome of measuring an entangled particle is fundamentally probabilistic:

• If the entangled system is in a state like , measuring particle A has a 50% chance of collapsing into ∣0〉 and 50% into ∣1〉.
• The corresponding particle B collapses into the complementary state (∣1〉 if A collapses into ∣0〉, and vice versa).
• Crucially, you have no control over whether A collapses into ∣0〉 or ∣1〉.

2. Measurement Does Not Allow "Steering"

Although entanglement creates correlations between the particles, the observer cannot "steer" the state into a particular outcome. The measured results are consistent with the probabilities dictated by the quantum state but are not influenced by the observer's will or actions.

3. Misinterpretations of "Collapsing the Waveform"

In popular discourse, phrases like "choosing the state of the waveform" often misrepresent the subtle and counterintuitive nature of quantum measurements:

• The choice of measurement basis (e.g., whether you measure spin along the zzz-axis or xxx-axis) can affect what kind of result you see, but this doesn’t equate to choosing the outcome.
• Once the measurement is made, the result is determined probabilistically, and the other entangled particle's state is correlated accordingly—but again, no freedom exists to choose the specific result.

4. No Faster-Than-Light Signaling

This misunderstanding often leads to the erroneous belief that you can use entangled particles for faster-than-light communication. If you could choose how the wavefunction collapses, you could theoretically send information instantaneously. Since this doesn’t happen:

• Entangled systems cannot be used for communication.
• The process respects the no-communication theorem and causality in relativity.

---

Why the Misconception Persists

• Simplified Explanations: Pop-science articles and media often describe entanglement in ways that emphasize its "spooky" nature but gloss over the limitations of what entanglement actually allows.
• Quantum Jargon: Terms like "collapse" and "wavefunction" can sound deterministic, leading people to assume there is control over outcomes when there isn’t.
• Appeal of Science Fiction: The idea of controlling entanglement to send messages or make "instant decisions" aligns with exciting science fiction narratives, but it’s not physically possible.

---

Conclusion

While entanglement is a remarkable phenomenon that defies classical intuition, you cannot choose how an entangled waveform collapses. The collapse is governed by the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics, ensuring that the process adheres to causality and prohibits faster-than-light communication or control.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Vort
Okay, I took a screenshot of the expression I couldn't clean up and just pasted it in.

[Vort]

Oops. I wrote my followup prompt for ChatGPT here. *blush*

Edited November 22, 2024 by Vort

[Vort]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

At this link, which should load the video to the correct second, dude hints that quantum entanglement and worm holes may be the same idea in a different language - but he only spends 2 minutes teasing us with the idea...

By the way, the ChatGPT explanation disallows Dr. Greene's explanation of entanglement. His description of entangled particles as being "instantaneously connected" is (according to ChatGPT and my own understanding) hooey.

I think that his idea that entanglement and wormholes might somehow be the same phenomenon sort of makes sense in a way. But in that case the "wormhole", which we usually think of as having some length, would instead be a sort of zero-length connection between the two points in space, more like Portal than the normal idea of a wormhole.

Worth noting that Dr. Greene appears to be a string theorist. Pretty much no one believes string theory these days, as the theory has proven to be non-robust, far too brittle to survive really, and seems to carry no predictive power whatsoever. Every string theory test has failed to produce results, and the mental gymnastics required to keep modifying string theory to allow for all the negative results makes the Olympics look like a competition of four-year-olds. At this point, string theorists are just collecting paychecks.

Full disclosure: ChatGPT judges the preceding paragraph as unfair (Conclusion: "The paragraph contains elements of truth, particularly about string theory’s challenges and lack of experimental verification, but it employs hyperbole and dismissiveness that distort the reality of the situation"), so take it with as many grains of salt as you think appropriate.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Vort

[zil2]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

would instead be a sort of zero-length connection between the two points in space, more like Portal than the normal idea of a wormhole.

Magic loves zero-length connections between two points in space.   Also, as I told my Austrian scientist and fountain pen friend, it appears that Quin's message paper* is quantum-entangled.

*Quin being the main character in my ink review story, and "message paper" being two pieces of paper which allow a person with one sheet to write a message that will appear on the other.  (I don't think I've explicitly said so in the story, but in my mind, the communication goes one way - one sheet can be written on and the other shows what was written, but can't be used to send a message back.  For two-way communication, you'd have to have a second set of linked papers. )

ETA: Oh, and Quin's world very definitely has magic portals to travel long distances quickly.

Edited November 22, 2024 by zil2

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Magic loves zero-length connections between two points in space.   Also, as I told my Austrian scientist and fountain pen friend, it appears that Quin's message paper* is quantum-entangled.

*Quin being the main character in my ink review story, and "message paper" being two pieces of paper which allow a person with one sheet to write a message that will appear on the other.  (I don't think I've explicitly said so in the story, but in my mind, the communication goes one way - one sheet can be written on and the other shows what was written, but can't be used to send a message back.  For two-way communication, you'd have to have a second set of linked papers. )

ETA: Oh, and Quin's world very definitely has magic portals to travel long distances quickly.

Have you ever watched the anime (or read the manga) Death Note?

[mikbone]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Have you ever watched the anime (or read the manga) Death Note?

Maybe

[zil2]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

Have you ever watched the anime (or read the manga) Death Note?

No.  Cartoon / comic books / graphic novels and anime/manga have never called to me.  The fantasy I read is novels, mostly very long novels.