Hmmmm... that word "tells" does not sound very scientifically rigorous to me. Is Wheeler anthropomorphizing matter and spacetime here? There's no "telling" in Newtonian mechanics; there are only causes and effects.
Why do you say "Cause and effect only provides a circular argument?" Please explain.
You wrote:
Now here is the trillion dollar (inflation you know) question, does the observer 'cause' the results? This becomes even more interesting when time and nonlocality come into play. Future and/or past events can change the results, nullifying and changing the 'cause and effect' of the event. These paradoxes falsify 'cause and effect'.Newtonian cause and effect "breaks down" at the quantum level. His theory demands all causes be local. But we know that, in the quantum world, there are nonlocal causes as well.
My understanding is that Newtonian cause and effect (generally involving the first three Aristotelian causes, with final cause prohibited) operates in the "mesoworld," the world of ordinary 4D spacetime as humans normally experience it. Newton's laws turn out to be something like 99.997... "accurate" in describing and predicting phenomena in the band of the mesoworld. Not perfect, but pretty durned good! And of course, Newton's science is premised in physical causation.
There is also the metaworld "above" the mesoworld, described by Einsteinian physics; and the microworld "below," the quantum world. It seems that Newtonian physics is eclipsed in both these worlds.
So to your question, "does the observer 'cause' the results" in the double-slit experiment by choosing what he wants to observe — i.e., particle or wave? Certainly he can determine (cause) which he "sees" if he knows the proper experimental set up (i.e., the detectors). But did he "cause" the particle or wave? No, I don't think so. They were already there, as complementary descriptions of this mysterious thing called "matter." The observer is just bringing one of the descriptions into focus, as it were: He knows he can't "see" both at once, so he has to choose. But it seems to me nothing new is created here.
I don't see Aristotle's four causes as essentially "religious." Rather they are epistemic and logical.
Elsewhere you've written that Aristotle has been "discredited." By whom? You???
That fact is, if anything, he's getting more attention from physicists and mathematicians working on theoretical biology issues these days.... People who have come to realize that they need to speak of final cause.
Maybe here is where your confusion arises, not only was Aristotle wrong, Newtonian Mechanics was wrong too : )
Why do you say "Cause and effect only provides a circular argument?" Please explain.
I will try another explanation. Everything has a 'cause', therefore there is a first 'cause'.
Newtonian cause and effect "breaks down" at the quantum level. His theory demands all causes be local.
Hmm, kind of correct. Newton and 'cause and effect' are wrong. Newton did demand instantaneous action at a distance though. I am mystified by your continued reliance on Aristotle and Newton.
So to your question, "does the observer 'cause' the results" in the double-slit experiment by choosing what he wants to observe — i.e., particle or wave? Certainly he can determine (cause) which he "sees" if he knows the proper experimental set up (i.e., the detectors). But did he "cause" the particle or wave? No, I don't think so. They were already there, as complementary descriptions of this mysterious thing called "matter." The observer is just bringing one of the descriptions into focus, as it were: He knows he can't "see" both at once, so he has to choose. But it seems to me nothing new is created here.
The collapse of the wavefunction creates a new state. Something new is certainly created, but there is no cause, that is the point.
I don't see Aristotle's four causes as essentially "religious." Rather they are epistemic and logical.
Philosophy in other words, they most certainly are that : ) Religion is mostly philosophy too.
Elsewhere you've written that Aristotle has been "discredited." By whom? You???
Science. Logic on its own doesn't create truth. Aristotle's basic assumptions were wrong. It is too bad that Aristotle never tested any of his assumptions. Have you read "The Black Swan" I highly recommend it.
That fact is, if anything, he's getting more attention from physicists and mathematicians working on theoretical biology issues these days.... People who have come to realize that they need to speak of final cause.
Puhleeaze, there is no first cause, final cause, intermediate cause, uncaused cause, uncaused uncaused cause, etc. etc. It is pretty funny if you think about it : )
LeGrande, you were quoting Wheeler here as if you agreed with his statement, or more accurately, as a proof of your position. When bb observes that there is no communication involved between space-time and matter you say that proves your point of no cause and effect and then declare it an "Aha, eureka!" moment. Was your purpose for posting the Wheeler statement to say he was full of it? It didn't seem that way. In keeping with your history you seem once again to be practicing linguistic gymnastics.
Now here is the trillion dollar (inflation you know) question, does the observer 'cause' the results? This becomes even more interesting when time and nonlocality come into play. Future and/or past events can change the results, nullifying and changing the 'cause and effect' of the event. These paradoxes falsify 'cause and effect'.
Once again, being unburdened with knowledge seems a blessing. The answer to these appear simple to me.
Since position is a fixed point and momentum is movement one obviously cannot measure both at the same time because they can't both exist at the same time. Yet, as is always the case, they are both part of the whole.
The two slit experiment also seems elementary to me. If you want to see a particle you experiment with one slit, a wave with two. However, I do not know, and apparently no one else does either, why a wave would not go through a single slit. I assume it has to do with Newton's Law of Conservation of Energy. I guess that is the one, it sounds like it is.
Since it is obvious that subatomic particles are both particle and wave, because they can be seen as both, (they are Newtonian particles and Einsteinium waves) then they adapt to their environment and use whichever form is appropriate to their environment and the task at hand. Since they travel at the same speed a particle cannot split in two when faced with two choices so it converts to waves and accomplishes the goal. I am sure that must be wrong but to the untrained it seems right.
I also see the same in man and his two natures, physical and spiritual. The physical is his Newtonian self and the spiritual is his Einsteinium potential.
Thank you for sharing your insights!