Building Blocks of Reality (Algorithms?) ~ Part 2

In the blog ‘Building Blocks of Reality’, I wrote that “It would appear that an electron is ethereal and representative of some form of probability event … the moment we observe it with intent to measure it is when it behaves as a particle … this new theory with regards to the nature of electrons became known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’; ‘Einstein and Niels Bohr would debate passionately about whether quantum mechanics meant giving up on reality or not.” 

Further, that “entanglement has to do with the relationship that exists between a pair of quantum particles whose fates are intertwined. If for example, they were created in the same event, it would not matter if there appeared to be any measurable distance between them as many of their properties would be linked. The Copenhagen interpretation says that, in the example of two spinning coins, neither of them is heads or tails. In the case of entanglement, once one coin is stopped and becomes heads, the second coin will simultaneously become tails. This suggested that somehow the two coins had to be communicating instantaneously across space and time.”

And that “Einstein refused to believe this faster than light communication as his theory of relativity said that nothing could travel that fast, not even information. He referred to the phenomenon of apparent communication between two quantum particles as ‘spooky action at a distance’ and claimed that it was a flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation. Einstein’s theory was that instead of there being any spontaneous occurrence, somehow the destiny of the two quantum particles was already fixed long before we were able to observe them and had instead been hidden from us. Einstein did not view quantum particles as being anything like spinning coins that are representative of a field of spontaneous potential or probabilities, but as components of a larger picture of reality that we are simply becoming aware of at any moment of observation.”

It seems that Einstein could not contend with the proposition that the mechanics were to be understood as a probability without any causal explanation and in a letter to Max Born in 1926, he wrote that “I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.” Einstein acknowledged that whilst much had been accomplished, the work was not yet over and a model still had to be developed and clarified to show the underlying causes from which apparently random statistical methods resulted. It was not so much that Einstein rejected the idea that positions in space-time were not knowable, but was uncomfortable with allowing for the uncertainty principle to necessitate a seemingly random, non-deterministic mechanism by which the laws of physics operated. He would insist that quantum probabilities are epistemic and not ontological in nature. 

It may be that Bohr was not as troubled by the same concerns as Einstein, but was able to make his peace with the contradictions by his proposition of complementarity, also referred to as a principle of complementarity; this holds that objects have complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously e.g. wave and particle. An emphasis on the role of an observer over the observed is that it is not possible to regard objects in the quantum world as having intrinsic properties which are independent of determination with a measuring device; the type of measurement determines which property is shown (albeit that experiments such as the single and double-slit show that some effects of wave and particle can be measured in one measurement).

A key aspect of complementarity is that it not only applies to what can be measured or known of any property pertaining to an entity but also applies to the limitations of that entity’s very manifestation of a property in the physical world. All properties of physical entities exist only in pairs, which Bohr described as complementary or conjugate pairs; Physical reality is being determined and defined by the manifestation of properties which are limited by trade-offs between these complementary pairs.  An example would be of an electron being able to manifest a greater and greater accuracy of its position only in even trade for a complementary loss in accuracy of manifesting its momentum. Complementarity and Uncertainty therefore dictate that all properties and actions in the physical world manifest themselves as non-deterministic to some degree. 

The implications of this in terms of how we choose to view our perception and experience of reality are huge, as it means that the more we peer into any given property or facet of what is appearing before us, the more we will lose touch with an ability to focus upon other properties which are pertinent with regards to what is available for us to know. Clearly it would be prudent not simply to focus upon events in isolation but to regard them within context and as part of an ecosystem; implications being not only in terms of how we have been interacting with the resources of the planet but of how we are navigating in the midst of our human relationships, socio-economic and cultural differences. Whilst self-interest remains paramount, it has inevitably opened a doorway into the purposeful targeting of and influence of individuals, communities and political agenda through stealth. 

At this point in my narrative, it may appear as if I am going to change tack slightly by revisiting one of the most fundamental philosophical questions, which is ‘how did human beings get here and is there any larger purpose for why we are here or do we determine purpose for ourselves?’ but it has relevance to the discoveries that have been made in terms of revealing the nature of a quantum world.

There are many who would answer that a creator brought forth everything into existence and that this creator has a plan for its creation, although we might never know what that is (but it could be revealed to us when we die). This provides us with a spiritual and moral imperative to be good citizens of our communities and to uphold particular religious doctrine and tradition. 

Others might argue that we can never know whether there is a creator or not, so it is best to live life in the now and as fully as possible (the level of regard for consequence will vary according to the individual).

Others will be either outwardly hostile to the suggestion of a creator or will express sympathy that a person who does believe in a creator seems to have ‘a void’ in their experience of life which they are drawn to fill with the presence of a supernatural deity.

I’d like to explore what I am able to glimpse of a worldview of the agnostics and atheists so that I can become clearer as to their orientation with regards to life. To begin with, how might they answer the question of ‘what can turn simple dust into human beings?’ 

The context from which many would begin to formulate some form of response to this question may be appreciated as arising from a foundation of ‘chaos theory’, a theory which is regarded as accounting for the unpredictable behaviour and tipping point of all manner of physical phenomena ranging from the swinging of a pendulum to revolution to the stock market. 

One of the pioneers of chaos theory and of a new field of science was the British mathematician Dr Mary Cartwright whose work in the 1940s, along with her colleague Professor J E Littlewood in connection with radar, contributed to the wartime defence of Britain against air attack. Cartwright and Littlewood began to explore the effect of differing values being fed into the standard equation they were using to predict amplifiers’ performance. What they were able to demonstrate with regards to oscillation was that as the wavelength of radio waves shortens, the performance is no longer regular and periodic but becomes unstable and unpredictable. 

Cartwright and Littlewood’s contributions were valuable, but it was to be another 20 years or so later before chaotic behaviour would be recognised as vital and integral to all manner of physical systems in the world. The physicist Freeman Dyson has pointed out that true mathematical originality and innovation can be missed until later in time when the initial groundwork for the work has been done. He has said that he remembers being impressed with one of Cartwright’s lectures in 1942 and although could appreciate the beauty and elegance of her discoveries, was unable to pick up on its potential beyond an immediate context in which the work was being applied.

In 1961, when the mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz was running a weather simulation through an early computer and tested the configuration a second time around, he noticed that the outcome differed dramatically from an earlier run. He was able to track down this differential to a small alteration that he had made in transferring the initial data.

In a paper published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences in 1963, Lorenz states: “Two states differing by imperceptible amounts may eventually evolve into two considerably different states … If, then, there is any error whatsoever in observing the present state – and in any real system such errors seem inevitable – an acceptable prediction of an instantaneous state in the distant future may well be impossible…In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”

Lorenz’ lecture entitled ‘does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas’ became part of a chain reaction in terms of a revolutionary understanding of the physical world; it drew attention to the same kinds of unpredictability arising from small changes in initial conditions that Cartwright and Littlewood’s work had recognised with regards to radio waves. It turns out that there is an unexpected relationship between order and chaos, but to be able to glimpse and appreciate this, we will need to turn our attention towards pattern recognition. 

It so happens that besides Cartwright, there was another British scientist and mathematician whose work was of immense value to the war effort and underpins the modern computer. His name was Alan Turing and he worked as part of a project which was set up to crack the German military codes. Turing had an uncanny ability to see patterns in the midst of what appears to be chaos or of what is termed as a presence of the irregular in the natural world. He began to explore the possibility that simple mathematical equations were able to describe aspects of the biological world and in particular, that there might be a mathematical basis to human intelligence.