PSI Blog 20220523 Laplace’s Demon and Infinite
Universe Theory
Abhishek asks:
What do you mean by Laplace's Demon on page 26 of TTAOS?
[GB: Thanks, Abhi. That was part of my
explanation of the
Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of
material causes).[1]
That form of causality is the only one consupponible with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity
(The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).
It is the reason all measurements have a plus or minus. The infinite subdivision
of the universe always contains yet another microcosm contributing to any
particular event.
Although he did not intend it that way, Laplace’s
imaginary demon was an illustration of the colossal failure of the Newtonian
assumption of finity. In the
imagined finite universe controlled by finity there are
finite causes for all events. Thus, a particular event, Y, might involve collisions
from three microcosms: Y = A + B + C. There would be no plus or minus. In
actuality, the equation would be: Y = A + B + C…∞. This is what the quantum
physicists ran into when they studied the smallest objects. Unfortunately,
instead of realizing there were an infinite number causes for any event, they
assumed a singular cause: probability. That saved their religious assumption of
certainty (It is possible to know everything about
some things). Note how Laplace’s visualization fits with both the religious and
scientific traditions, with the proclamations of today’s quantum mechanists being
no different.]
Here
is the section in "The Ten Assumptions of Science" pertaining to Laplace's’
Demon:
“Perhaps the best explanation of finite
universal causality was given by Pierre Simon Laplace, the philosopher-scientist who,
independently of Kant, advanced the nebular hypothesis of the
origin of the solar system. Laplace illustrated his view of determinism by
hypothesizing a super intelligent being that has come to be known as Laplace’s
Demon:
We ought to regard
the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as
the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence, who for a given
instant should be acquainted with all the forces by which nature is animated,
and with the several positions of the beings composing it, if his intellect
were vast enough to submit these data to analysis, would include in one and the
same formula the movement of the largest bodies in the universe and those of
the lightest atom. Nothing would be uncertain for him, the future as well as
the past would be present to his eyes.”[2]
As did Einstein, a few old-fashioned “determinists” still
hold to this view although it has suffered at the hands of determinists and
indeterminists alike. We now recognize that Laplacian determinism is
invalid because it contradicts a major Assumption of Science, INFINITY, to which Einstein, of course, did not subscribe.
In his fanciful illustration, Laplace was
implying that the cause of a particular effect could be determined with
absolutely perfect precision, that the motion of a particular body is
determined solely by a finite number of the motions of other bodies.
But any concept of knowledge also requires
the concept of subject and object. In 1927 Werner Heisenberg presented the Uncertainty Principle, which demonstrated that the knowledge
required of some objects, at least, could not be obtained without interfering
with those objects. The interference produces changes in motion that, in turn,
cannot be evaluated without additional interference with the object. This leads
to an infinite progression in which, theoretically, Laplace’s Demon would require infinite time to
determine the position and momentum of a single object. The demon would be so
busy in this effort, that it would be forced to ignore the rest of the universe.
Unobtrusively, the assumption of INFINITY, the materialist theory of knowledge,
and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle presided over the death of Laplacian
determinism and
the theory of finite universal causality.”[3]
[GB: Now, isn’t it strange, ironic, and even silly that our finest
brains still believe the imaginings of long ago. But, perhaps not so. Remember
how difficult it was for you to give up the belief in finity, a myopic, "common sense" assumption that has been with
us for millennia. And what is it with this claim there are an infinite number of
causes for a single event? How can that be possible? How could you ever prove
that? The truth is that the Infinite Universe, by its very nature, will never
allow that to happen. Popper was right although he didn’t know why he was
right. The empiricists are slowly learning they will never be able to prove
everything because the universe is infinite. So, what do we do with this so-called
infinite universal causality? We have no choice; we can only assume it.
Be reminded, however, that fundamental assumptions such as those
in "The Ten Assumptions of Science" are derived from the natural
world. They are consupponible even though they are not completely provable.
Those plus or minuses actually appear whenever we perform more than one suitably
precise measurement. There are no two identical snowflakes. No portion of the Infinite
Universe is exactly like any other. In spite of the aether denialists, there
is no evidence perfectly empty space actually exists. In spite of the
cosmogonists, there is no evidence for an “end to the universe” or that it had a
beginning without a cause that was not completely imaginary. The upshot is that
there is no harm in theoretically assuming an infinite number of causes for any
event even though practice allows only a few of them. By doing
so, our understanding of the Infinite Universe will be changed forever.]
[1] Borchardt, Glenn,
2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview:
Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].
[2] Quoted in Castell, Alburey. An Introduction to Modern Philosophy. 3 ed. New York: Macmillan, 1976, p. 520.
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, pp. 25-26. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment