Guest essay by Nancy Green
At the close of the 19th century physics was settled science. The major questions had been answered and what remained was considered window dressing. Our place in the universe was known:
We came from the past and were heading to the future. On the basis of Physical Laws, by knowing the Past one could accurately predict the Future.
This was the Clockwork Universe of the Victorian Era. We knew where we came from and where we were going. However, as often happens in science, this turned out to be an illusion.
A century before, the double-slit experiment had overturned the corpuscular theory of light. Light was instead shown to be a wave, which explained the observed interference patterns. However, Einstein’s 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect turned the wave theory of light on its head.
We now accept that Light is composed of particles (photons) that exhibit wave-like behavior. Each photon is a discrete packet of energy (quanta), determined by the frequency of the wave. What Einstein did not envision was the implications of this discovery, which led to the famous quote, “God does not play dice”.
But as it turns out, with our present level of understanding, God does play dice. Consider the dual slit light experiment. What does it tell us about the nature of our universe when we view light as particles?
In the dual slit experiment, light from point A is shone towards point B. What we find is that the individual photons will go through slit 1 or slit 2 to reach point B, but there is no way to determine at Point A which slit (path) the photons will choose. And equally perplexing, there is no way to determine at Point B which path the individual photons will arrive from. Relabeling the slits as paths we have:
This property is not confined to light; it can also be recreated with other particles. The implications are profound. Point A has more than one possible future, and Point B has more than one possible past. Rearranging our double slit experiment so that A and B coincide with the Present, we end up with:
Which we can simplify:
Our Victorian Era picture of one future and one past is no longer correct. Our deterministic view of the world now becomes probabilistic. Some futures and some pasts are more likely than others, but all are possible. Our common sense notion (theory) of one past and one future does not match reality, and when theory does not match reality, it is reality that is correct.
Now you may say, well that may be true for very small particles, but surely it doesn’t apply to the real world. Consider however, that in place of a particle, we used you the reader.
Let point A be your office and point B your home. Some days you will travel from the office to home via path 1. On other days however, maybe you need to go shopping first, or meet friends, or your car may break down, or any number of activities may require you to take path 2 to reach home. So you take path 2.
For all intents and purposes your behavior mimics the behavior of a particle. An outside observer will not be able to tell which path you are likely to take. To an outside observer your “free will” is no different than the behavior of the particle. To the observer the reason for both behaviors is “unknown” or “chance”. It cannot be determined, except as a probability.
Chaos is routinely discussed when considering models. What does our double slit experiment tell us about Chaos?
Consider that instead of starting at point A, we start at A1. A1 is a microscopic distance along the path from A to P1. Or, instead we start at point A2, which is a microscopic distance along the path from A to P2.
From geometry, A1 and A2 will be an even smaller distance from each other than they are from A. They are less than a microscopic distance from each other, yet they lead to different futures. At A1 you can only travel to P1. At A2 you can only travel to P2. Thus with a less than microscopic difference in “initial values” we get two different futures, neither of which is wrong.
But wait you say, ignoring that P1 and P2 are in A’s future, they both lead to the same future. They lead to B. But in point of fact, B is only one possible future. We purposely kept the diagram simple. Reality is more complex. From points P1 or P2 the particle may travel to a whole range of futures. (thus the interference pattern of the double slit experiment).
And this is what we see when trying to forecast the weather or the stock market. Very small differences in the values of A1 or A2 quickly lead to different futures. All the futures are possible; some are simply more likely than others. But none are wrong.
Climate Science and the IPCC argue that climate is different. Because climate is the average of weather, we should be able to average the results of weather models and arrive at a skillful prediction for future climate. However, does this match reality?
![clip_image018[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image0181.png?quality=75 "clip_image018[1]")
Climate science argues that future climate = (C+D+B)/3, where 3 = number of models.
However, climate is not the average over models. Climate is the average over time. Thus:
If we arrive at B via path 1, then climate = (A+P1+B)/3, where 3 = elapsed time
If we arrive at B via path 2, then climate = (A+P2+B)/3, where 3 = elapsed time
Since P1 <> P2, even though we have arrived at the identical future B, we have two different climates, none of which resemble the IPCC ensemble model mean. And this only considers future B.
Futures C and D are also possible, with different probability. We will arrive at one, but there is no way to determine in advance which one. Thus for a single starting point A, there is an infinite number of future climates that are all possible. Some are simply more likely than others.
Thus the failure of climate models to predict the future. The IPCC model mean predicts B, simply because it happens to be in the middle. However, this is simply accidental. As the “Pause” demonstrates, nature is free to choose C, B, or D, and in the real world nature has chosen D. As a result the models are diverging from reality.
In reality the models are attempting an impossible task. There are not simply 3 futures and are not simply 2 paths; there are for all intents and purposes an infinite number of futures, and an infinite number of paths. All are possible.
Some futures are more likely, but that is simply God is playing dice. We are not guaranteed to arrive at any specific future, thus there is nothing for the climate models to solve. They are being asked to deliver an impossible result and like Hal in 2001 they have gone crazy. They are killing people by cutting life support via energy poverty.
HAL: “The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error”.
Nice essay, thanks.
IMHO, models are re-presenting something that already exists . If you drive your model… good chance you are going to crash.
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
This article convolutes Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory and completely ignores the fact that despite the limitations of these two concepts, many scientific models of systems simpler than climate, successfully predict a great many phenomena to a high degree of accuracy.
It is true that some complex systems (like weather) behave so as to have a high dependence on initial conditions, such that the accuracy of future predictions is limited by the accuracy of the initial model inputs (an essential tenet of chaos theory). It is also true that the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics may place fundamental limitations on the ability to measure an initial state, ultimately limiting a model’s predictive capability for such complex systems. However, that does not make the modeling endeavor futile. Rather, it simply means that modelers must use skill in deciding what parameters can be predicted, durations over which those predictions may be accurate, and how those results are interpreted.
There are many examples of successful models, from regional weather models to models of planetary and satellite orbits. I, personally, have used computational fluid dynamics models to optimize processes for the semiconductor industry and I’ve worked closely with those using diffusion, device, and even reliability models to predict short- and long- term performance of semiconductor devices. Many properties of turbulent flow, a chaotic process, are readily modeled, as witnessed by the vast improvements we have seen in modern aircraft, automobile, and boat designs.
Even climate modeling is a worthwhile endeavor, so long as one acknowledges the limitations of our current capabilities. I am baffled by the IPCC and other advocates, who insist on the viability of long-range climate predictions, when the models are known to be lacking in such an important phenomenon as cloud formation and I’m sure many other critical factors (I am not a climate scientist). Nevertheless, I’m also sure that there are some skilled modelers in the climate science community using even these imperfect models to understand the interactions between geography, ocean currents, jet streams, and the sun and their effects on climate. Ultimately, it is this understanding that will also lead to an understanding of what phenomena are lacking and how the models and our understanding of climate can be improved in the future.
SemiChemE:
Caution: Under official IPCC terminology, those squiggly lines on a plot of the global temperature vs time are not “predictions.” They are “projections.” Predictions are essential to the control of a system. Projections are useless.
There have been a number of comments questioning the utility of using a classical quantum mechanical experiment (the double slit experiment) as a metaphor for a complex dynamical system, e.g. the Earth’s climate.
Implicitly, Nancy views the time evolution of the Earth’s climate as a stochastic diffusion process. By viewing climate in this way, quantum mechanics immediately becomes an analogue for climate – not because quantum mechanics and diffusion are similar physical processes but, rather, because the underlying mathematical description of the two processes is essentially the same.
On the one hand, diffusion processes are described by, well, a diffusion equation – a second order differential equation involving ‘spatial’ and ‘time’ derivatives. On the other hand, the time evolution of a quantum mechanical is described by the Schrödinger equation – essentially a diffusion equation, albeit one with complex coefficients. Just as there is path integral formulation of quantum mechanics (think double slit experiment in this context), there is a corresponding path integral formulation of classical Brownian motion. The underlying physics of the two processes is vastly different, but the mathematics used to describe them is essentially the same.
For me, the real issue raised by Nancy’s essay is the extent to which the time evolution of the climate system can be modelled as a (possibly bounded) stochastic diffusion process. If it can, then Nancy’s observations stand.
“Claiming that, underneath it all, there is actually a fully determined real world with no dice-throwing is not supported by experiment. Such a claim is a statement of faith, a “religious-type” claim, not a scientific claim: maybe true…maybe not…no way to know.”
Point well taken, but I would say it is philosophical-type claim, not religious-type.
Of course, the opposite is also true that “underneath it all, the universe is a dice game” is also a philosophical-type claim. It is neither provable, nor refutable. Arguing that “… there is no way to determine at Point A which slit (path) the photons will choose” proves the point, is flawed logic. It is argument from ignorance. Just because WE don’t know how to predict it, doesn’t mean that it is a random choice.
While we are talking about philosophical questions, either claim, “deterministic universe” or “random universe”, prohibits “free will” both in the religious sense and in common meaning of the word – I have a choice where I’ll eat lunch. I cannot prove it, but I believe that what I just wrote was not predetermined for me, nor was it just a random outcome of some carp shoot. (Maybe others would favor the latter over the former. 🙂
Nancy
Flip a coin 100 times. It’s virtually impossible to predict the outcome in the correct sequence. But you can calculate the outcome should be approximately 50 heads and 50 tails. If you actually try to do this experiment, you will get mixed results. Sometimes you get more heads. Sometimes more tails. Sometimes equal.
This is like climate predictions. If you get more heads, it’s warming in the next 100 years. If more tails, cooling in 100 years. Though we can calculate the probabilities, you cannot accurately predict the outcome – warming or cooling, much less the correct sequence. Of course it’s possible to predict it correctly by sheer luck.
Dr. Strangelove:
Associated with a sequence of coin flips is a pair of frequencies e.g. 50 heads and 50 tails. A coin flip is an example of an event. The frequency of “heads” is the count of events for which “heads” was the outcome. The frequency of “tails” is the count of events for which “tails” was the outcome. For the IPCC climate models, there are no events, frequencies or relative frequencies.
A “prediction” is a proposition regarding the numerical values of the relative frequencies of the outcomes of events. As for the IPCC climate models there are no relative frequencies, there can be no predictions from them. In the official parlance of the IPCC, these models produce “projections” rather than “predictions.”
One validates or falsifies a predictive model by comparing the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of events. For an IPCC climate model there are neither predicted nor observed relative frequencies. Thus, such a model can be neither validated nor falsified. It can, however, be “evaluated.” In an IPCC-style “evaluation,” model “projections” to the global temperature are compared to a selected global temperature time series. An “evaluation” is, however, logically and scientifically worthless.
I’m reminded of Godel’s Theorems of Incompleteness—which, oddly, are never mentioned to explain why it’s impossible for a computer, which operates from a program which is essentially a set of mathematical laws, cannot predict the future.
Sorry. As I said, a muddle of observations, thoughts, etc. that I haven’t formed into a theory coherent enough to put across yet. I DID say so!
‘Scuse!
Retired Engineer John:
Re: “…models are never going to tell you the correct answer.”
A trick of the model building trade makes it possibility for a model to give the correct answer to a question not withstanding details like the possibility of an under sea volcano. The trick is to abstract (remove) the descriptions of things from selected details. Thus, for example, the description of the macrostate of a thermodynamic system gives a correct answer to the question of the state of this system.
Terry, what I was saying was you could have a perfect model based on the climate as it existed at the start of the model forecast, but the physical plant of the Earth can change and your perfect model will no longer be correct. In other words, the Earth changes after the model forecast, change the real world and the model cannot track those changes as they are not predictable and are not included. The longer the time period the greater the probability. The Earth is too chaotic to predict for extended periods of time.
I have a choice where I’ll eat lunch
————-
If you live in a deterministic universe then the prior state of the universe determines where you will eat lunch. You have no say in the matter, as it has already been decided long before you were born.
It’s like you reached into my head an organized a bunch of thoughts that have been bouncing around randomly for some time now
————-
Much the same for me. I woke up Sunday morning with an inspiration. A dream of how to connect the dots. Spent the day madly scribbling, fired it off to Anthony before the dream could fade. Very pleasantly surprised to see the paper in print and the many kind comments.
Your comments on the b-Body problem are especially interesting. I had wanted to include this in the paper, as I do see it as part of the whole. It ties the microscopic to the macroscopic, relating the number of attractors in a chaotic system to the number of bodies in orbit, with a similar computational future.
Contrary to what has been written, Einstein’s ideas were not readily accepted. Rather, Relativity has become accepted because its predictions have proven correct, time and time again. And lets face it, Relativity defies common sense. Time dilation, length contraction, how is any of this possible? Where is the mechanism?
Perhaps the single greatest practical example of this is GPS. When the system was launched the time correction for Relativity was not turned on. There was still considerable doubt that is was required. However, when the system proved inaccurate the Relativity correction was enabled and the rest, as they say, is history.
Perhaps this will serve as inspiration to you the reader. Seize an idea and put it to paper. You are at least as likely to be correct as the Climate Models.
” Intuition tells me that determinism is incompatible with free will.”
The bane of determinism is emergent properties. Perhaps QM is a slew of these properties, yet the argument goes full circle when by merely perceiving something you have created it. Can we then create reality by free will?
Seems like what the modelers are trying to do.
Edward Lorenz,the meteorologist and mathematician,discovered at MIT in 1961 that the equations of meteorology have chaotic solutions .As Freeman Dyson notes, in “A Many Coloured Glass: Reflections on the place of Life in the Universe,” John Von Neumann in the 1940s had invented coded software for computers and believed that through simulating the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere it would be possible to both predict and control climate. ” If the situation is stable, we can predict what will happen next.If the situation is unstable , we can apply a small perturbation to control what will happen next…..So we shall be masters of the weather.Whatever we cannot control, we shall predict , and whatever we cannot predict ,we shall control”, wrote Von Neumann.
Dyson comments, ” Von Neumann of course was wrong. He was a great mathematician but a very poor predictor of the future……Von Neumann was wrong because he did not know about chaos.He imagined that if a situation was unstable , he could always apply a small perturbation to move it into a situation that was stable and therefore predictable. In fact this is not true. Most of the time,when the atmosphere is unstable,the motion is chaotic,which means that any small perturbation will only move it into another unstable situation which is equally unpredictable. When the motion is chaotic ,it can neither be predicted or controlled.So Von Neumann’s dream was an illusion.”…..
Terry
My example applies to the chaotic climate system, not the IPCC models. The models are just a curve fitting exercise and wishful thinking that if we can fit a curve, we can predict the future. If that were true, there would be many billionaires from predicting the financial markets.
@dolan
Godel’s theorems and the 2nd law of thermodynamics are not the same. The theorems are about the completeness and consistency of logical systems. The 2nd law is a statistical description of heat flow based on kinetic molecular theory. The uncertainty in thermodynamics is inherent in the physical system. Nothing much you can do about it. The uncertainty in logical systems is due to the limitation of a particular logical system. You can devise a better system. For example Godel’s theorems do not apply to Peano arithmetic whose completeness and consistency are provable.
Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory are both deterministic. Quantum mechanics is not. That’s why some physicists say relativity is a “classical” theory. Well, kinetic molecular theory is a classical theory but not deterministic, at least not in the micro level.
@nancy
“I have a choice where I’ll eat lunch”
Sure you have free will. We cannot predict the movements of all the neurotransmitters in your brain. But if I drop a bowling ball, it has no choice but to obey gravity. Its motion is deterministic. The debate whether the universe is deterministic or random is like debating whether the glass is half full or half empty.
@ur momisugly Dr. Strangelove,
I know well what Godel’s theorems are, as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and did not ever say they were the same. Please note that you are not correct about what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is,either. What I was saying (or trying to) is that Godel is useful for predicting why a closed system like a computer program cannot predict the future. As I also said, I see a connection between them and the limitations that the Second Law puts on the system we refer to as reality.
I see that you too are hung up on “deterministic”. Yes, Relativity is considered “classical” mechanics. Is that a way of “dismissing” it? Does that make it “incorrect”? Flawed, somehow? I think you are too dismissive while tossing discriptions around and not explaining yourself—at least, not that I can follow. Stating that “uncertainty” is part of the system of Thermodynamics is non-sequitor. Not sure how you mean that regarding the Second Law…?
Feel free to disagree with me, and if you can put it into words, and have time, please explain why (and if you can’t put it into words yet, that’s fine too—it’s a complex subject. I’ve been thinking about Godel and what I see as a connection between the implications of his theorems and the Second Law and what it says about entropy on and off for decades now, and still can’t put it into words). But please don’t bother to lecture me about the meaning of either the Law or Theorem. I don’t need it, and it adds nothing to the discussion.
Also, I believe Edward Nelson of Princeton proved Peano Arithematic to be inconsistent a few years ago.
@ur momisugly Nancy Green
March 12, 2014 at 9:46 pm
You said: “I have a choice where I’ll eat lunch
————-
If you live in a deterministic universe then the prior state of the universe determines where you will eat lunch. You have no say in the matter, as it has already been decided long before you were born.”
Both are true. I believe in Free Will in the sense that our thoughts influence our actions, and our thoughts influence those thoughts which influence our actions. Our tastes, experiences, beliefs and values, habits and judgements, genetics, emotions, sobriety, perceptions and errors influence the thoughts that influence the thoughts that influence the actions.
But with all my Free Will, I cannot do as a parrot does, and flap my wings as a result of my free choice. The prior state of the universe over millions of years has given me no say in the matter; it was already determined long before I was born, over the course of hominid evolution.
“But as it turns out, with our present level of understanding, God does play dice”
On the contrary – it proves that HUMANs ARE NOT GOD and cannot know everything. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle states that humans cannot measure both speed and position of a sub-atomic particle at the same time.
It says nothing abut God.
We cannot predict the movements of all the neurotransmitters in your brain
————
Our inability to predict an event is limited by our knowledge. Determinism has no such limitation. If the movements of all the neurotransmitters in your brain can be fully determined by physical laws from the some previous state, then you are not free to chose. The choice was made by the previous state.
This has been an interesting and curious thread.
Consider this. I am lost on the ocean or in a rural area. It is dark, overcast, and I have no navigation equipment. Assume for the moment that the setting is a rural roadway and I have reached a T intersection. I ask my passenger which way to go. She says: don’t ask me, I have no idea. Neither do I so I flip a coin and it turns out to be the right way home. Is this deterministic or random (i.e. 50/50 chance)?
On another note. While I have absolutely no idea if it is true, I could present quite valid arguments that a photon travels in a spiral/corkscrew trajectory. I have no reason to believe it but I could rationally argue the point with only a couple of assumptions and one being that the trajectory is similar to a corkscrew.
Only on a thread like this would I offer the above statement. I look forward to another thread in the future which I can offer such unproven but supportable claims that I would make in the world that is not the one we know now. Photons travel in a spiral trajectory and are maintained and driven by their own own gravitational (?) and/or other force. It will be interesting, but it could be a bunch of BS. If you think about this you may lose sleep.
Col Mosby says:
March 11, 2014 at 8:28 pm
The human mind , as we can all clearly see, is not particularly impressive as a thinking organ.
———————————————————————————————————————–
That can be improved upon. The problem there is that most people are somewhat lost within themselves, and/or have never tried to peer inside to understand that which lies within. Maybe they do for a short time when young and full of interest to learn and experiment, but almost all quickly give up on the inner search and focus everything on that which lies outside. I know this because I kept on searching within, and I remember how most others simply wandered away to pursue the glittering objects that abound in this world and will distract and amuse. I have had friends who were involved in that search ask me many years later “Did that really happen, Did we really make those connections?”. My brother even responded to me in this fashion. Yet, when I related the story as I remembered it and detailed the circumstances, I could see a light spark on within him and he would get a glimmer of the old memory within himself.
Regarding models, this reminds me a bit of what I had to do to be successful at football betting. Although I also used a similar exercise for other tasks. I started betting football on the spur of the moment. Starting out, I knew very little about key issues that a normal handicapper would consider in his decision making process. I formed my own method to assess the most likely outcome, and I soon had success. I found that it was very important to develop a strong formula for discarding the least likely or poorly understood propositions. Thinking of how I accomplished that and the benefits derived from doing so, the IPCC method of using models to glean understanding seems absolutely absurd. They should have been weeding out the weaker models from early on, but they also had the very serious problem of confirmation bias right from the beginning. In a betting system, confirmation bias is a dead end. At the peak of my skill in handicapping my own brother actually asked me if I could foresee the future. He couldn’t believe that I could make so many right decisions, because he knew how little I knew about the teams. The crowd at Reno, Nevada was also impressed. I had to take to sitting with my back to a wall when I did my homework, to keep people from trying to look over my shoulder. From my handicapping experience in particular, I have a partial understanding of the modeling problems.
so I flip a coin and it turns out to be the right way home. Is this deterministic or random
————–
its luck!
Nancy
Yes the present state is determined by previous state. That’s how your brain makes a choice. If there is no neurotransmitter near the neurons, there is no activity in those neurons. If this happens to a large part of your brain, you can’t make a decision. Probably you can’t even breathe or your heart will stop since all these are regulated by the brain.
We can argue philosophically about free will. But neurologists are pretty sure brain activities obey the known laws of physics and chemistry. Some even argue free will is an illusion since experiments show some actions happen faster than the rational processing speed of the brain. Like tennis players hit the ball faster than their brain can think about how to hit the ball.
“so I flip a coin and it turns out to be the right way home. Is this deterministic or random”
The motion of the coin is deterministic. It obeys Newtonian mechanics. That it is the right way home is random. It obeys probability theory. P1 = 0.5 the right way. P2 = 0.5 the wrong way
Godel is useful for predicting why a closed system like a computer program cannot predict the future
————–
Murphy’s Laws of Computer Programming
Any non-trivial program contains at least one bug.
@ur momisugly Nancy Green:
Murphy is more useful than Determinism.
Dr. Strangelove says:
March 13, 2014 at 8:03 pm
“Godel is useful for predicting why a closed system like a computer program cannot predict the future”
Computer programs predict the flights of spacecrafts. If Godel was a problem, the Apollo astronauts would be dead.
Sir, I beg to differ from you: the programs did not predict anything. They calculated a solution to a complex problem, and at the end, the men in control of the command module and lunar module actually flew the craft to achieve their final orbit and landings, respectively, fine-tuning the results of the caculations. No computer program at the time could’ve done what the astronauts completed, by themselves, and again, computers DIDN’T. Engineers armed with slide rules did most of it.
Nancy, again, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful. Not gonna bring world peace or convince Alarmists, but you’ve made me happy, if that means anything, and with your permission, will use your description to teach others.
Dr. Strangelove, I don’t wish to trade inconclusives or snippets of what anyone with google can collect and display, to achieve no further learning or understading. I get the impression that if i say “Fire engines are red,” you will tell me what percentage are actually green.
I consider these last exchanges futile examples of blurb-parsing with no intelligible content worth the effort. You have your opinions. I have mine. I’m happy, on this subject, to leave it at that.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle … It says nothing abut God.
———-
Bell’s Theorem answers the question of God playing dice. It establishes that local hidden variables are inconsistent with observation, at our present level of understanding.
neurologists are pretty sure brain activities obey the known laws of physics and chemistry
—————-
These laws do not establish determinism. Quite the opposite. My point remains. Free will is inconsistent with determinism, because your decisions would depend on the state of the universe before you were born.
Since in our earlier article we established that your “free will” could not be distinguished from the actions of a particle, it could well be that free will is an illusion of mind.
Dolan
Don’t be offended. This is not a lecture. I don’t do that that’s why I don’t bother to explain in great lengths. I would rather you do your own self-study. BTW I’m referring to Boltzmann’s formulation of the 2nd law. If you’re thinking of Clausius or Kelvin’s formulation, I see why you disagree.
I’m afraid you misunderstood Godel’s theorems. The fact that you’re saying Edward Nelson proved Peano arithmetic to be inconsistent is actually the proof that Godel’s theorems do not apply to Peano arithmetic. The theorems apply to logical systems whose completeness and/or consistency are unprovable. BTW majority of mathematicians accept Gentzen’s proof that Peano’s axioms are consistent. But that’s beside the point.
I do not dismiss relativity theory. It is correct. I merely pointed out that it’s deterministic.