5

I am more interested in a high level conceptual approach than the quantitative one that talks about how quantum mechanics is/is not relevant to concepts such as what I mentioned above, and why. Suggestions and pointers will be very helpful.

Combat Convention
  • 59
  • 2
  • 5
    I'd wager that any book that discusses fate and free will longer than saying that they're not relevant physical concepts is not a good book. –  Oct 04 '14 at 20:18
  • 1
    I'd second that wager -- except for the fact that you already have two seconds on that wager. I guess I'll have to third that wager. –  Oct 04 '14 at 20:31
  • Thanks for the replies. I will try posting in the Philosophy section. And ACuriousMind, I do agree with you, but when getting into things like these, it's always nice to keep an open mind! –  Oct 04 '14 at 20:35
  • There are no books like that because it is wrong. QM is nothing but statistics. (Notice an important distinction - not a probability not a chance but statistics) And statistics has nothing to do with fate. – Asphir Dom Oct 05 '14 at 09:59
  • @asphir dom thank you for your interpretation of QM (notice an important distinction - not a description not an explanation but an interpretation) – Quentin Ruyant Oct 05 '14 at 13:34
  • @quen_tin Prove me wrong. By doing doing an experiment. Looking forward to hear from you. – Asphir Dom Oct 06 '14 at 09:50
  • @asphir precisely, interpretations of theories are not a matter of experiment. However they can be argued for. Take this argument: if QM is about statistics, why does it provide real numbers rather than rational ones? Isn't a statistic supposed to be a ratio? – Quentin Ruyant Oct 06 '14 at 09:53
  • @quen_tin Which interpretation is closer to your heart? Thus being more correct. Following from your nice comment. – Asphir Dom Oct 06 '14 at 10:06
  • @aphir it seems to me that you confuse how the theory is tested and what the theory is about. At this rate, quantum mechanics is a theory about giant acceletators and their computational machinery... – Quentin Ruyant Oct 06 '14 at 10:07
  • I didn't say "being close to one's heart" was a good reason to adopt an interpretation, I talked about arguments. Another argument: QM allows one to make predictions for an experimental setup, even if used a single time. What does it mean to be a statistics for an experiment which is run only once? – Quentin Ruyant Oct 06 '14 at 10:10
  • @quen_tin U will be surprised (maybe not) to know that in accelerators most important theories are electrodynamics and special theory of relativity. The only theory humanity has to really worship is electromagnetism. – Asphir Dom Oct 06 '14 at 10:11
  • @asphir That is irrelevant to my point. The way a theory is tested is not what the theory is about. – Quentin Ruyant Oct 06 '14 at 10:14
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Quentin Ruyant Oct 06 '14 at 10:15
  • @quen_tin To be short. There are billions of amazing physical effects related to microcosmos. There is just no good understanding of their origin. QM is a collection of theoretical methods created by trial and error. Not a single coherent insight into physics of microcosm. QM is work in progress like unfinished book. It can not be discussed just yet. – Asphir Dom Oct 06 '14 at 10:17
  • I'd say standard QM or QFT are coherent unified theoretical frameworks rather than collections of methods (at least not less than newtonian mechanics, which goes along with a collection of methods too but still has a unified core). This framework is suitable for interpretation. You don't have to be an instrumentalist: this is one among other possible stances. – Quentin Ruyant Oct 06 '14 at 10:25

6 Answers6

5

Its probably best to scope this question a little more widely: I'll take it to mean what books discusses physics along with philosophy in the wider sense:

  1. The pre-socratic Empedocles developed a cosmology of Love (philotes) & Strife (neikos)

  2. Lucretious's de rerum natura, ties together Epicurus's theory of 'life' together with the atomic theory of matter. Quite amazingly, they have the 'swerve' which corresponds to quantum indeterminancy.

  3. Spinoza Ethics discusses classical physics in relation to cosmology and God.

  4. Fritjof Capra The Tao of Physics, which discusses quantum physics with the philosophy of the dao and Buddhism.

  5. Though its specifically not related to physics its worth noting Dawkins The Selfish Gene for its immense contemporary impact where he relates the Fortuna (chance) that governs evolution to an explicit athiestic cosmology. Smolin adapts the evolutionary thesis to cosmology where he defines his own highly speculative multiverse theory.

  6. Simone Weils Gravity and Grace which is devoted to a mystical interpretation of Christianity. Its worth noting a possible and speculative connection here with Empedocles, where Love becomes Grace, and Strife becomes Gravity.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 47,073
  • 14
  • 93
  • 243
2

Quantum mechanics has very little direct relevance to free will, which is a moral and philosophical concept.

It has some indirect links. For example, it is possible for you to understand how the world works, including issues like how to create knowledge. So having a critical discussion with you about something bad you have done can make a difference to your future behaviour. Part of the reason why you can understand how the world works is that a computer made from simple components can simulate any finite physical system. Part of the reason why such a computer can work has to do with the quantum theory of computation and so with quantum mechanics.

In addition, it is common to deny that quantum mechanics is comprehensible. And if that is true the world isn't comprehensible because everything interacts with quantum systems. So having a good explanation of what quantum mechanics says about how the world works is indirectly relevant to ideas like free will.

See "The Fabric of Reality" and "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch.

alanf
  • 7,748
  • 13
  • 20
1

The difficulty with seeking out material on these topics is the amount of pseudoscience you'll have to wade through before finding anything worthwhile. From a scientific viewpoint the following are fairly safe positions to hold (in the absence of evidence to the contrary): quantum mechanics is inconsistent with fate; coincidence is just that; free will is an illusion (assuming you can define what it means).

Here's a paper which makes a serious attempt to address what I think is a more interesting question: Consciousness as a State of Matter.

Einer
  • 1,200
  • 9
  • 26
MartinG
  • 111
  • 2
1

I was once quite fond of Roger Penrose, starting from "The Emporer's New Mind", as a way of putting quantum mechanics together with information theory and computing. (I disagree with him at a basic level, but I think he presents the relationships well.)

  • I've skimmed the book but didn't discover who was the emperor, who is he? – Mozibur Ullah Oct 07 '14 at 19:14
  • Har-har. We are all, I suppose the Emperor, with technology playing the tailor in the fable. Computing makes us think we understand thinking, but Penrose would insist that in fact there is no explanation to be had there. In the end, I am not a fan of magic, and Penrose comes very close to quantum mechanics as epistemic thaumaturgy. But I really like a lot of books I disagree with. –  Oct 07 '14 at 19:38
0

I would think "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" by David Bohm would be along the lines you're looking for.

There are a couple of essays about his ideas here:-

The Cosmic Plenum: Bohm's Gnosis: The Implicate Order

David Bohm ... and The Holographic Universe

For a more recent take on this theme there is also "Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything" by Ervin László

Chris Degnen
  • 5,777
  • 2
  • 15
  • 23
0

'Quantum Physics and Ultimate Reality: Mystical Writings of Great Physicists', Michael Green Editor

'What is Life?: With "Mind and Matter"' By Erwin Schrodinger

Swami Vishwananda
  • 3,640
  • 2
  • 20
  • 27