John Wheelers "answer" to the EPR paradox


The EPR paradox was a thought experiment by Einstein and two other scientist. They wanted to proof that the Copenhagen interpretation of quanta mechanics was wrong.

There can be no chance involved in the normal world and not even in the really small world of atoms and photons.

The paradox showed that the outcome of the quanta mechanics was that two atoms or photons that are entangled and then separated could react to each other with no time in between in the quantum world according to the thought experiment - and that would be impossible, said Einstein. Some information must sent between the particles - and that takes time...

But experiment done later have shown that it is so. If you measure  one atom/photon the other will react immediately to the measurement.

John Wheelers solution to the paradox was that the human thought creates reality. If we decide that a book is something to read it will be like that. If someone decides to build a house of books, they become "bricks" for him.

That seems to be the same view as the philosopher, Hilary Lawson, director of IAI, has. Lawson claims that we close the reality when we decide that a book is just something to read. It can so many other things. He calls this closure.
Most people don't agree with him.
 A mountain is a mountain is a mountain.

But when, exactly, becomes "a hill" "a mountain"?

Words are vague and there are even disagreements about what terms as "information" and "knowledge" mean.

The Swedish physicist, Ulf Danielsson takes help from an episode in Wheeler's life to explain his solution of the EPR paradox.
We don't close reality with our minds as Wheeler and Lawson seem to say. It's more sophisticated than that;
Wheeler once played the game "twenty questions" with some colleagues; Usually one person goes out of the room and the other agrees of a word. When the first person comes back he shall guess the word by asking questions that only can be answers with yes or no.

But when it was Wheeler's turn to ask the questions it was more and more difficult for the colleagues to find an answer. Anyway Wheeler after a while made a try and it was right, but then everyone started to laugh; They had changed the rules behind the back of Wheeler....;~}
They hadn't decided any specific word. Instead they answered arbitrary but the answer should be compatible with the earlier ones.

So the right answer didn't exist when the play started, but was built up by the cooperation between Wheeler and the colleagues.

Danielsson means that this is is a metaphor of the quanta world: the reality is created in interaction with the spectator!
(a big hill becomes "a mountain" if the spectator decides that's it high enough).

And this is exactly what Buddha said about the normal world, there are no flower without its interacting with the sun, the mud and the water and so on.

The flower, and I, is empty of an separate self....

And to call it a flower there must be a human watcher that see it as a flower.

But I  want to add; something holds the flower and me together. That something doesn't have to be a self. But we can say that it is in power of the flower and me.
When its no longer there we will fade away,

But hopefully we then have left some good seeds after us....










 
.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more