FUNDAMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY ( FP )
Part I
HYPERPHYSICAL MATERIALISM
(The nature of PSYCHE)
Chapter 2. DISTANT PERCEPTION (DP)
2.4. INFORMATION and THOUGHT
2.4.1. "PHYSICAL" PARADOXES
è
Distinction between information and knowledge is very important.
An objective information turning into a subjective knowledge gets its sense. If there is snowing, this (the same!) information has different, if not opposite, sense for a skier and for a yard keeper. The initial information itself and both its (these) meanings, senses differ functionally, but not qualitatively. So, a chemical analysis of three test specimens of wood could not help to know, which of them has been taken from a table, which from a chair, and which from a board, not used yet.
Besides knowledge is the coded information. It is always expressed by some language, and its initial information can be restored (decoded – transferred to someone, understood by him, comprehend) only at possession of this language. But also language has the same, the mentalum nature, as information itself too. That's why the information, knowledge, an idea, sense are indistinguishable qualitatively.
Just tangling of the concepts of information and knowledge (mixing, non-distinguishing, identification of them, substitution of one by another) has led Schrodinger (Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander S., 1887-1961, – the Austrian physicist – theorist, the Nobel prize winner (1933) on physics) to paradox (ostensibly physical one!), continuing to be discussed with full earnestness during more than 70 years (it is published in 1935).
To ascertain whether a radioactive atom (a cat has died – a state Â) has already split or not yet (a cat is alive – a state À) is possible only after certain measurements. In the popular form (in one of encyclopedias) the situation is described so:
|
In a closed box a cat is placed. In the box there is a mechanism containing a radioactive nucleus and a capacity with poisonous gas. Parameters of the experiment are picked up so, that the probability of the nucleus radioactive decay during 1 hour is 50%. If the nucleus has, it puts the mechanism in action, it opens capacity with gas, and the cat dies. According to the quantum mechanics principles if a kernel is not supervised its state is described by superposition (mixture) of two states – the decayed nucleus (Â) and the not decayed nucleus (À), hence, the cat sitting in the box, is simultaneously both alive and idead ("mixed or smeared out in equal parts"; by the expression of Schrödinger himself – "absurden Mischzustand zwischen Tod und Leben" – an absurd mixing state between life and death – À.Ì.). But if the box is opened, the experimenter must see only one concrete state – "the nucleus has decayed and the cat is dead" or " the nucleus has not decayed and the cat is alive".
|
There are two principle mistakes (besides shallow ones) here.
1. A nucleus state is described not by superposition of its two states, but by the (Schrodinger’s) "wave function", reflecting probability p (the mathematical value, NOT physical one!) to find out at measurement the state À, or (that is the same) probability q = (1 – p) to find out the state Â. And superposition is really not a change of one state by another, and all the more not "mixture" of mutually excluding states, but is overlapping of several processes which are practically not influencing each other (for example oscillations of sound and light) in the same place – in the same space (linear one, i.e. which does itself not change character of these processes) and at the same time.
2. A nucleus state (physical: let it be À or Â), as well as the information about this state, doesn’t depend on a measurement process. But after a measurement, the knowledge of probabilities (p and q) of states A and  is replaced by the knowledge of the actual state (either À or Â).
The logic of the author of this cat allows to present with not less reason also a "paradox of a playing card":
let’s put on a table carefully reshuffled pack. The top card (as well as any another) becomes a "superposition (mixture)" of all (four) suits and simultaneously of all worths (from the deuce up to the ace). And only after it is overturned (opened), it gets its concrete characteristics.
The same principle misunderstanding, not reflecting a physical reality, is the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (the author’s attention to which was attracted by K.N. Mkhitorian /Ê.Í. Ìõèòàðÿí).
GTR (general theory of relativity, and physics in general) identifies information with a signal transferring physical code of information, and identifies speed of information transfer identifies with speed of this signal moving in space (in particular with speed of light). At such approach it would be paradoxical/inexplicable synchronous (simultaneous) change of properties (or parameters) of elementary particles irrespective of distance between them (in particular – of new particles which have arisen from an old one at its decay).
This phenomenon (“non-local interaction” or “faster-than-light information transfer”) would lose its paradoxicality (would be understanable) at the hyperphysical approach to it: the information does require neither to be coded, nor to be transfered on any distance, because it is metaphysical (mental) object, it is non-localized, it exists beyond (independently on) space that is equivalent to its presence simultaneously in whole space, in all and any areas/points/loci of space.
However, the EPR-paradox hardly needs to be explained. It was born from (on the base of) a mental, not a physical experiment – as well as the paradox with a cat. And besides in its mental statement there is an initial mistake. The requirement of synchronism is valid only at a condition that the particles are a closed system. But actually, in a physical reality this condition cannot be realized.
è
|
