The way to see the particle-wave duality as well as
the quantum theory in general depends nowadays
completely on the interpretation of QM. The classical
Copenhagen interpretation from the '20s of the last
century has gone through the major changes, that it
isn't possible anymore to speak of the interdependency
of the "observed" and the "observer" without referring
to the exact meaning of these terms which is one of
the points where the interpretations of QM exactly
differ. In any case, I still don't see how this could
have an effect on the classical notion of causality
dominant in physics in general.
As for the relativistic concept of time, it's a bit
misleading to call it "subjective", unless under
"subjective" we mean "relative to a particular frame o
reference". I also wouldn't agree that for a body
(mind) traveling at the speed of light there would be
no time. The time "passes" for such a body just as
usually, but not for an observer outside of that
system (for whom the time of the other one has slowed
down). Now, there is a particular effect that the
theory of relativity makes on the concept of causality
(though still preserving it, only within the limits of
the light speed), but I still don't see how it makes a
shift from the "efficient" towards the "final"
--- Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The particle-wave example illuminates quantum physics'
new phenomenology: the observed cannot be separated
from the observer. Subjectivity in this case
determines the object. The self/other split is
In Einsteinian physics, the phenomenon of time is
subjective. At the speed of light, there is no time --
consciousness travelling at that rate would be
timeless. In a timeless state, considerations of cause
and effect do not obtain, since chronology is a
function of time. Diana
From: Dunja Seselja <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:08:48 -0700
--- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> E=MC(2) refocussed the idea of causality
> in terms of the building blocks out of which things
> are made.
> Matter as both particle and wave.
But why would this imply (or presuppose) a different
sort of causality? There is a cause, there's an
effect. I don't see any "final purpose" present in
As for the particle/wave problem - how do you relate
that to the problem of causality at all? Besides,
contemporary interpretations of quantum physics still
have a lot of trouble trying to connect this theory
with relativist physics, so I don't understand what
you meant when you said that sentence... :-/
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around