Neelamkavil Contents Print

{\rtf \ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\viewkind1\margt750\margb620
{\fonttbl{\f11\fswiss\fcharset0 Arial Narrow;}{\f10\fswiss\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f1

2\fswiss\fcharset0 Franklin Gothic;}{\f12\fswiss\fcharset0 Verdana;}{\f20\froman
\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f21\froman\fcharset0 Garamond;}{\f22\froman\fchars
et0 Palatino Linotype;}{\f30\fmodern\fcharset0 Courier New;}{\f31\fmodern\fchars
et0 Lucida Console;}{\f40\ftech\fcharset2 Symbol;}{\f50\fscript\fcharset0 Minion
;}{\f60 Haettenschweiler;}}
\pgwsxn8390\pghsxn11905
{\phpg\posx0\pvpg\posy0\absw8400\absh11900 \overlay
{\*\shppict {\pict\jpegblip\picw420 \pich595
\picwgoal8400 \pichgoal11900
\picscalex135 \picscaley135
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9aab2b3b4b5b6b7b8b9bac2c3c4c5c6
c7c8c9cad2d3d4d5d6d7d8d9dae1e2e3e4e5e6e7e8e9eaf1f2f3f4f5f6f7f8f9faffc4001f010003
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
a7a8a9aab2b3b4b5b6b7b8b9bac2c3c4c5c6c7c8c9cad2d3d4d5d6d7d8d9dae2e3e4e5e6e7e8e9ea
f2f3f4f5f6f7f8f9faffda000c03010002110311003f00fefe28a28a0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a
0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a0028a28a
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
}}\par}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue64;\red0\green0\blue128;\r
ed0\green0\blue192;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green64\blue0;\red0\green64\blue64
;\red0\green64\blue128;\red0\green64\blue192;\red0\green64\blue255;\red0\green12
8\blue0;\red0\green128\blue64;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue192;\red
0\green128\blue255;\red0\green192\blue0;\red0\green192\blue64;\red0\green192\blu
e128;\red0\green192\blue192;\red0\green192\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red0\gr
een255\blue64;\red0\green255\blue128;\red0\green255\blue192;\red0\green255\blue2
55;\red64\green0\blue0;\red64\green0\blue64;\red64\green0\blue128;\red64\green0\
blue192;\red64\green0\blue255;\red64\green64\blue0;\red64\green64\blue64;\red64\
green64\blue128;\red64\green64\blue192;\red64\green64\blue255;\red64\green128\bl
ue0;\red64\green128\blue64;\red64\green128\blue128;\red64\green128\blue192;\red6
4\green128\blue255;\red64\green192\blue0;\red64\green192\blue64;\red64\green192\
blue128;\red64\green192\blue192;\red64\green192\blue255;\red64\green255\blue0;\r
ed64\green255\blue64;\red64\green255\blue128;\red64\green255\blue192;\red64\gree
n255\blue255;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green0\blue64;\red128\green0\blue128;\
red128\green0\blue192;\red128\green0\blue255;\red128\green64\blue0;\red128\green
64\blue64;\red128\green64\blue128;\red128\green64\blue192;\red128\green64\blue25
5;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue64;\red128\green128\blue128;\red12
8\green128\blue192;\red128\green128\blue255;\red128\green192\blue0;\red128\green
192\blue64;\red128\green192\blue128;\red128\green192\blue192;\red128\green192\bl
ue255;\red128\green255\blue0;\red128\green255\blue64;\red128\green255\blue128;\r
ed128\green255\blue192;\red128\green255\blue255;\red192\green0\blue0;\red192\gre
en0\blue64;\red192\green0\blue128;\red192\green0\blue192;\red192\green0\blue255;
\red192\green64\blue0;\red192\green64\blue64;\red192\green64\blue128;\red192\gre
en64\blue192;\red192\green64\blue255;\red192\green128\blue0;\red192\green128\blu
e64;\red192\green128\blue128;\red192\green128\blue192;\red192\green128\blue255;\
red192\green192\blue0;\red192\green192\blue64;\red192\green192\blue128;\red192\g
reen192\blue192;\red192\green192\blue255;\red192\green255\blue0;\red192\green255
\blue64;\red192\green255\blue128;\red192\green255\blue192;\red192\green255\blue2
55;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green0\blue64;\red255\green0\blue128;\red255\gre
en0\blue192;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green64\blue0;\red255\green64\blue64;
\red255\green64\blue128;\red255\green64\blue192;\red255\green64\blue255;\red255\
green128\blue0;\red255\green128\blue64;\red255\green128\blue128;\red255\green128
\blue192;\red255\green128\blue255;\red255\green192\blue0;\red255\green192\blue64
;\red255\green192\blue128;\red255\green192\blue192;\red255\green192\blue255;\red
255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue64;\red255\green255\blue128;\red255\gree
n255\blue192;\red255\green255\blue255;}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy812\absw1364\absh398 \b \f50 \fs28 \cf0 \b \f50 \fs28 \
cf0 Preface \par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0
The present monograph attempts to overcome a one-century old o
pinion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in
some circles of Physics and Philosophy of Physics. This highly varieg
ated
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ten
dency holds that generally Quantum Mechanics (QM), Special Theory of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Rel
ativity (STR) and particularly the experimental solutions of the Einste

in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Pod
olsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox render some regions of the micro-world non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cau
sal. I wonder how the other regions of the same world can remain causal and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 not
really connected to these "non-causal" regions. Some scientists and thinkers
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tak
e the "non-causal" regions of the QM world as non-committed ('acausal'
)
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to
causal ubiquity. Some at various periods have gone to the extreme of saying
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tha
t the ontological nature of things quantum-physical is variously "probability",
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "pr
obabilistic causality", "randomness", "freedom", etc., which are ontologi
cally
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 muc
h different from the Universal Law of Causality, which does not take care of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 the
se realities in its usual definitions.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \fi
226 Surprisingly, none of these scientists and thinkers endeavors to connect cau
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sat
ion and non-causation in the matter-energy field of real physical existence or
show the structure of connection or lack of connection between them.
Nor
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 doe
s any of them write off causation or non-causation from the scene ra
tion\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 all
y. The radical standpoint represented by the present work is to be understood
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as
engendered by the mind-boggling paradoxes which the questions of non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cau
sality and acausality in QM present to sciences of all description, in particula
r
scientific ontology and philosophy. Can one create a reasonably system
atic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ont
ology merely from epistemic-cognitive concepts like "probabilistic causality",
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "ca
usal probability", "random causality" etc. without there being something pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ces
sual that is called non-causal? What sort of a process then is the non-causal?
226 I use arguments and results from Philosophy of Physics, Metaphysics
, QM
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 and
STR. The thrust is on contributing my own general ontological soluti
ons
the problem of QM causality via reinterpretation of the EPR paradox, some
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sti
pulations in STR and many concepts in QM in general. For this purpos
e I
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dev

elop a somewhat broader notion of the Universal Law of Causality for Physics
Philosophy - which I would claim to be realistically acceptable in QM too,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 if
the essence of non-causality may be exposed as impossibly ontological
and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phy
sical-ontological. \par
}
{\phpg\posx7274\pvpg\posy10955\absw128\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 5
\par
}
\sect\sectd\pard\plain
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
}}\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \fi226 \f5
0 \fs17 \cf0 Accordingly, the following comment about the theme is in place. I d
raw from
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vari
ous results of micro- and macro-physics. This does not pose the threa
t of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 supe
rficiality of treatment, because we deal not with all these disciplines in their
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enti
rety, but with a specific theme (realist causal ubiquity in QM) across these
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 disc
iplines. The choice of the theme renders copious use of sources from
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 afor
e-said fields feasible. The extent of them used does not make the work un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nece
ssarily technical for philosophers. Nevertheless, the work may as well
be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reco
mmended for physicists interested in categorial foundational questions i
n
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phys
ics. Chapters 9 to 12 deserve their special attention.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \fi2
26 Given the personal origin of many reflections here, a few statements about
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 them
follow. (1) The basic QM arguments here took shape while I did Master
Philosophy, where I attempted to work out a set of systemic categorie
s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 for
a General Ontology and Scientific Ontology that (a) think beyond Phys
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ics,
Cosmology and various contemporary Metaphysics, and (b) critique the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 foun
dations of Kant, Wittgenstein, Husserl, Heidegger, Whitehead, Quine,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Gdel,
Armstrong, analytical ontology and postmodern anti-metaphysics.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (2)My
critique of the criterial velocity in STR took shape as I did Bachelor in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Phil

osophy, where I read enough on imaginary-valued superluminal veloci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
. In the present work I use these two directions of my critiques to develop
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 an
all-pervasively causal micro-physical ontology in view of later developi
ng
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 what
I call 'General Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology' (see Bibliography).
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 If I
have not found in other authors such arguments as in the present work, I
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 do
not try and find out related ideas to make references to them in or
der to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 subs
tantiate my reflections.
26 The main general-ontological and physical-ontological notions of causa
lity
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 are
introduced in the initial chapters - beginning with a debate from the very
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 intr
oductory chapters on and around the Law of Causality. Then I proceed
to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 conc
entrate on a spectrum of questions of concern to causality in QM as such.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 The
concluding chapter ends with recapitulated final arguments in favour o
f
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
al ubiquity in the QM world. Clear distinction is made between the onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal Law of Causality that applies without conditions to all that exis
ts, and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spec
ific laws of causality applicable to regions of reality with conditions specific
regionally discoverable causes and effects, where too the Law of Causa
lity
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 shou
ld hold without conditions. Discussion of the points of distinction between
is made to yield causal all-pervasiveness in QM, (1) provided something
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 proc
essually real (and not a miraculous "nothing") exists in the so-called "non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
al" moments in EPR entanglements, and (2) if real-valued superluminally
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loca
l-causal propagations are allowable in STR. I have kept this line of arguments
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in m
ind throughout, and have not presupposed, for the QM world, causal ubiquity
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-300 \par\f50 \fs17 \cf0
6 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
}}\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17
\cf0 as given by the Law of Causality, before detailing a sufficiently probable
and sol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 idly
causal-ontological solution to the EPR paradox (Chapters 9 and 10).
26 I defend the freedom taken here to critically accept or general-ontologically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eval
uate the notions and theories discussed when I refer to authors from whom
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I hu
mbly diverge or with whom I converge in philosophical opinion. Postpon\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
such comments until we reach appropriate sections or chapters can burden
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 us
with hectic cross-references and disturb smooth presentation and under\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
ding of the arguments. Moreover, as I cite a physicist or philosopher, I pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 supp
ose the state-of-the-art in QM and something of what we discuss later in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deta
il. On the other hand, I give some of the causal preliminaries of the work
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in e
ach chapter, wherever found apt, for completeness of the arguments, so that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inde
pendent reading of the chapters does not go unprofitable. In this sen
se,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 late
r mentions of already discussed points may not be deemed repetitions.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Some
may find some sentences a bit too long and complex - this is my way of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 writ
ing as I try to include various possible "questions and answers" toge
ther
be succinct.
26 I present my reflections as radically as possible, so a similar reaction may
be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 arou
sed in the form of critiques. The hope is that the discussion is kept alive, and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gets
as broad in range as possible. Perusing this book, if the intereste
d reader
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 opin
es that I question the validity of the logical-positivistic mathematical instru\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
alism and ontological validation of probabilistic causalism in QM, I shall
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 feel
rewarded. The radical attitude against partially non-causal physical o
ntol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ogy
has at least this to aspire for. I welcome critiques by e-mail and promise to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 resp
ond at the earliest possible occasion.
26 The present work has developed out of my Ph.D. work in Philosophy of Phys-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ics

at J{\f63 \u257\'3f}na-D{\f63 \u299\'3f}pa Vidy{\f63 \u257\'3f}p{\f63 \u299\'3
f}{\f20 {\f63 \u7789\'3f}}h (JDV), Pune, India, under the guidance of Pr
of.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Job
Kozhamthadam, Professor Emeritus and former President of JDV. He is a
icist-turned-philosopher of science, a pioneer in various science-religio
n
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dial
ogue initiatives, visiting professor at many institutes, and the founding- and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 curr
ent Chief Editor of Omega: Indian Journal of Science and Religion. I thank
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 him
in appreciation of his erudite and empowering guidance, and for accepting
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 two
extracts from the thesis for two consecutive articles in Omega as the final
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 requ
irement for obtaining the degree.
26 The distinguished Readers of the dissertation deserve my thanks: (1)P
rof.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Step
hen Jayard, Professor in Philosophy of Science, a physicist-turn
ed\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phil
osopher at JDV, visiting professor at International Institute of Inform
ation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Tech
nology, Hyderabad, and Sogang University, Seoul. (2) Prof. Saju Chack\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alac
kal, Professor of Philosophy and President of Dharm{\f63 \u257\'3f}r{\f63
\u257\'3f}m Vidy{\f63 \u257\'3f} K{\f20 {\f63 \u7779\'3f}}etram
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (DVK
- my MPh Alma Mater), Bangalore, formerly Chief Editor of Journal of
\fi6253 7 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Dharma, Director of the Indian Regional Programme of Globethics.ne
t and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7016\absh2270 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 visi
ting professor at many institutes. Critiques by both these Professors have im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7016\absh2270 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prov
ed the present work.
26 I wrote a three-part Ph.D. dissertation on "The Possibility of Causal Ubiquit
y
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7016\absh2270 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in Q
uantum Physics, Cosmology and Scientific Ontology", and chose to defend
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7016\absh2270 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 only
the first part, which is offered here in an elaborate shape to those interested
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7016\absh2270 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in t
he categorial foundations of Physics.

26 I thank Dr. Benjamin Kloss, Leitender Lektor fr Philosophie at Peter Lang
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7016\absh2270 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 GmbH
, Berlin, for his personal interest in my work and for his friendship; and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7016\absh2270 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 all
at Peter Lang for their generous support. \par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw3090\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 w
isdomcontemplation@gmail.com \par
}
{\phpg\posx5683\pvpg\posy3604\absw1965\absh467 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 R
aphael Neelamkavil
77 Bochum, July 2014 \par
}
\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
}}\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy812\absw1659\absh398 \b \f50 \fs28 \cf0 \b \f50
\fs28 \cf0 Contents \par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2421\absw6989\absh6813 \b \f50 \fs20 \cf0 \b \f50 \fs20
\cf0 Preface{\b0 \fs18 .......................................................
..................................................................5 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2421\absw6989\absh6813 \sl-296 \par\b \f50 \fs20 \
cf0 Chapter 1. Introduction:
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2421\absw6989\absh6813 \sl-270 \b \f50 \fs20 \cf0
The Law of Causality and Its Methodology{\b0 \fs18 .............................
.................13 }
{\b0 \fs18 1.1.}{\b0 \fs18 Some}{\b0 \fs18 Ontological}{\b0 \fs18 Questions}{
\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 Quantum}{\b0 \fs18 Physics}{\b0 \fs18 ...............
..........................13 }
{\b0 \fs18 1.2.}{\b0 \fs18 Universal}{\b0 \fs18 Causality}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0
\fs18 Constancy}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Nature.............................
....................16 }
{\b0 \fs18 1.3.}{\b0 \fs18 Purely}{\b0 \fs18 Ontological}{\b0 \fs18 Definitio
n}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Causality..........................................
............18 }
{\b0 \fs18 1.4.}{\b0 \fs18 Physical-ontological}{\b0 \fs18 Definition}{\b0 \fs
18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Causality}{\b0 \fs18 ........................................
...........25 }
{\b0 \fs18 1.5.}{\b0 \fs18 From}{\b0 \fs18 Physical}{\b0 \fs18 Causality}{\b0
\fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 Universal}{\b0 \fs18 Law}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Caus
ality}{\b0 \fs18 .................................28 }
{\b0 \fs18 1.6.}{\b0 \fs18 Statement}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18
Main}{\b0 \fs18 Theses}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 Attitudes}{\b0 \fs18 .....
..............................................31 }
{\b0 \fs18 1.7.}{\b0 \fs18 Methodology}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Causal}{\b0 \

fs18 Horizonal}{\b0 \fs18 Research}{\b0 \fs18 ................................
...................36 }
{\b0 \fs18 1.8.}{\b0 \fs18 Our}{\b0 \fs18 Procedure}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18
Study}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Causality}{\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 QM}{\b0 \
fs18 ...................................................37 }
cf0 Chapter 2. Recent Causal Realism
in Quantum Physics{\b0 \fs18 ..................................................
..........................................41 }
{\b0 \fs18 2.1.}{\b0 \fs18 Way}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Procedure}{\b0 \fs18
of}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 Literature}{\b0 \fs18 Review}{\b0 \fs18 ......
...............................................41 }
{\b0 \fs18 2.2.}{\b0 \fs18 Physicists}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 Ontologists}{
\b0 \fs18 on}{\b0 \fs18 Orthodox}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 Causal}{\b0 \fs18
QM}{\b0 \fs18 .............................42 }
{\b0 \fs18 2.3.}{\b0 \fs18 Quantum}{\b0 \fs18 Ontologists}{\b0 \fs18 on}{\b0
\fs18 Realist}{\b0 \fs18 Quantum}{\b0 \fs18 Causality}{\b0 \fs18 ...........
........................58 }
cf0 Chapter 3. The Law of Causality: Hume, Quine
and Quantum Physics{\b0 \fs18 .................................................
.......................................67 }
{\b0 \fs18 3.1.}{\b0 \fs18 The}{\b0 \fs18 "What"}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Ca
usality}{\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 QM}{\b0 \fs18 ..............................
..........................................67 }
{\b0 \fs18 3.2.}{\b0 \fs18 Hume,}{\b0 \fs18 Russell}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18
Cartwright}{\b0 \fs18 on}{\b0 \fs18 Causation}{\b0 \fs18 ...................
...............................70 }
{\b0 \fs18 3.3.}{\b0 \fs18 From}{\b0 \fs18 Particularist-}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0
\fs18 Universalist}{\b0 \fs18 Causation }
\fi328 {\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 Regularity}{\b0 \fs18 ........................
..............................................................................75
}
{\b0 \fs18 3.4.}{\b0 \fs18 Causality}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 Ontological}{\
b0 \fs18 Commitment:}{\b0 \fs18 Beyond}{\b0 \fs18 Quine}{\b0 \fs18 .........
....................82 }
{\b0 \fs18 3.5.}{\b0 \fs18 Way}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Causal}{\b0 \fs18 So
lution}{\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 QM}{\b0 \fs18 Ontology}{\b0 \fs18 ..........
..............................................84 }
{\b0 \fs18 3.6.}{\b0 \fs18 Determinism}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 Causalism:}{
\b0 \fs18 General}{\b0 \fs18 Considerations..................................8
6 }
{\b0 \fs18 3.7.}{\b0 \fs18 Determinism}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 Causalism}{\
b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 QM:}{\b0 \fs18 Details}{\b0 \fs18 ...................
...............................94 }\par
}
\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs20 \cf0 Chapter 4. Ontological and Probabilistic Causalisms{\b0 \fs17 .....
................}{\b0 \fs17 103 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy838\absw7272\absh9348 \sl-353 \b \f50 \fs20 \cf0 {
\b0 \fs17 4.1.}{\b0 \fs17 Causalism,}{\b0 \fs17 Non-causalism,}{\b0 \fs17 Pro
babilism, }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy838\absw7272\absh9348 \sl-239 \b \f50 \fs20 \cf0 \
fi328 {\b0 \fs17 Probabilistic}{\b0 \fs17 Causalism}{\b0 \fs17 ...............
....................................................................}{\b0 \fs17
103 }
\b0 \fs17 4.2.}{\b0 \fs17 Universal}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
Causality}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of }
fi328 {\b0 \fs17 Regularity}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Nature}{\b0 \fs17 .......
................................................................................
..}{\b0 \fs17 110 }
\b0 \fs17 4.3.}{\b0 \fs17 Nature}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Cau
sal}{\b0 \fs17 /}{\b0 \fs17 Non-causal}{\b0 \fs17 Disjunction}{\b0 \fs17 ...
........................................}{\b0 \fs17 115 }
\b0 \fs17 4.4.}{\b0 \fs17 Nature}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Physical-Ontologica
l}{\b0 \fs17 Discourse}{\b0 \fs17 .............................................
.......}{\b0 \fs17 118 }
\b0 \fs17 4.5.}{\b0 \fs17 Involvement}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Consciousness}
{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 Subjectivist}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 .............
........................}{\b0 \fs17 119 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy838\absw7272\absh9348 \sl-240 \par\b \f50 \fs20 \c
f0 Chapter 5. Laplacean Causalism in Quantum Physics{\b0 \fs17 .................
....}{\b0 \fs17 123 }
\b0 \fs17 5.1.}{\b0 \fs17 Ontology}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Epistemology}{\b
0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Laplacean}{\b0 \fs17 Causalism}{\b0 \fs17 ............
.....................}{\b0 \fs17 123 }
\b0 \fs17 5.2.}{\b0 \fs17 Kernel}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Laplacean}{\b0 \fs1
7 Determinism}{\b0 \fs17 Present}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 ...
...................................}{\b0 \fs17 127 }
\b0 \fs17 5.3.}{\b0 \fs17 Paradoxes}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Laplacean}{\b0 \
fs17 Determinism}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 ....................
..........................}{\b0 \fs17 132 }
f0 Chapter 6. Ontological Commitment
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy838\absw7272\absh9348 \sl-270 \b \f50 \fs20 \cf0 i
n Quantum Physics{\b0 \fs17 ...................................................
......................................}{\b0 \fs17 141 }
\b0 \fs17 6.1.}{\b0 \fs17 Objectual-ness,}{\b0 \fs17 Ontological}{\b0 \fs17 C
ommitment,}{\b0 \fs17 Subjectivity,}{\b0 \fs17 Objectivity}{\b0 \fs17 .......

}{\b0 \fs17 141 }
\b0 \fs17 6.2.}{\b0 \fs17 Objectual-ness}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Quinean}{\
b0 \fs17 Quantification}{\b0 \fs17 ............................................
....}{\b0 \fs17 145 }
\b0 \fs17 6.3.}{\b0 \fs17 Ontological}{\b0 \fs17 Commitment}{\b0 \fs17 vs.}{\
b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Quantum}{\b0 \fs17 Concept}{\b0 \fs17 ...............
..................}{\b0 \fs17 151 }
f0 Chapter 7. Causality in Some Quantum Experiments{\b0 \fs17 ..................
...}{\b0 \fs17 157 }
\fs17 7}{\b0 \fs17 .1.}{\b0 \fs17 Starting}{\b0 \fs17 Point}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b
0 \fs17 Causal}{\b0 \fs17 Arguments}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17
.................................................}{\b0 \fs17 157 }
\b0 \fs17 7.2.}{\b0 \fs17 Black}{\b0 \fs17 Body}{\b0 \fs17 Radiation}{\b0 \fs
17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Meaning}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 'Quantum'}{\b0 \fs17 ...
...................................}{\b0 \fs17 159 }
\b0 \fs17 7.3.}{\b0 \fs17 Wave-Particle}{\b0 \fs17 Complementarity}{\b0 \fs17
and}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 .........................................
..}{\b0 \fs17 163 }
\b0 \fs17 7.4.}{\b0 \fs17 Elements}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causation}{\b0 \f
s17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 Probabilism}{\b0 \fs17 .....................
.............................}{\b0 \fs17 169 }
\b0 \fs17 7.5.}{\b0 \fs17 Traditional}{\b0 \fs17 Double}{\b0 \fs17 Slit}{\b0
\fs17 Experiment}{\b0 \fs17 vs.}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 .............
...........................}{\b0 \fs17 173 }
f0 Chapter 8. Interpretations of Important
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy838\absw7272\absh9348 \sl-270 \b \f50 \fs20 \cf0 R
esults in Quantum Physics{\b0 \fs17 ............................................
.............................}{\b0 \fs17 183 }
\b0 \fs17 8.1.}{\b0 \fs17 Hidden}{\b0 \fs17 Variables}{\b0 \fs17 Interpretati
on}{\b0 \fs17 .................................................................
...}{\b0 \fs17 183 }
\b0 \fs17 8.2.}{\b0 \fs17 Propensities-}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Potentialit
ies}{\b0 \fs17 Interpretation}{\b0 \fs17 .....................................
.......}{\b0 \fs17 187 }
\b0 \fs17 8.3.}{\b0 \fs17 Copenhagen}{\b0 \fs17 Complementarity}{\b0 \fs17 In
terpretation}{\b0 \fs17 ............................................}{\b0 \fs17
189 }
f0 Chapter 9. Causality in the EPR Paradox:
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy838\absw7272\absh9348 \sl-270 \b \f50 \fs20 \cf0 P
art 1. The Physics{\b0 \fs17 ...................................................
.........................................}{\b0 \fs17 199 }
\b0 \fs17 9.1.}{\b0 \fs17 Non-causality,}{\b0 \fs17 Causality,}{\b0 \fs17 Sub
jectivity, }
fi328 {\b0 \fs17 Objectual-ness}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 EPR}{\b0 \fs17 .....
................................................................................
}{\b0 \fs17 199 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy838\absw7272\absh9348 \sl-222 \par\par\b \f50 \fs2
0 \cf0 {\b0 \fs17 10 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 9.2. Wave-, Particle- and Wavicle Natures.................................
........................... 202
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw6930\absh9333 \sl-240 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 9.3.
Essence of the EPR Entanglement Experiment.....................................
....... 203
Causal Interpretation of the EPR Experiment in General ........................
.. 205
Causal Solution of the EPR Paradox: Detailed Discussion........................
. 209
"Upward" and "Downward" Causality .............................................
............. 216
{\b \fs20 Chapter}{\b \fs20 10.}{\b \fs20 Causality}{\b \fs20 in}{\b \fs20 t
he}{\b \fs20 EPR}{\b \fs20 Paradox: }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw6930\absh9333 \sl-270 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 {\b
\fs20 Part}{\b \fs20 2.}{\b \fs20 The}{\b \fs20 Physical}{\b \fs20 Ontology}
..................................................................... 219
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw6930\absh9333 \sl-353 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 10.1
. Causal Realist Ontology in the Entanglement Experiment...................... 2
19
. Ontological Commitment and Causality
24 in the EPR Paradox ..........................................................
.............................. 225
. Non-locality and Causality in the EPR Paradox ................................
........ 226
. Causal Pervasiveness in QM....................................................
..................... 237
{\b \fs20 Chapter}{\b \fs20 11.}{\b \fs20 Causality}{\b \fs20 in}{\b \fs20 a
}{\b \fs20 New}{\b \fs20 Double}{\b \fs20 Slit }
\fs20 Experiment}{\b \fs20 and}{\b \fs20 in}{\b \fs20 EPR}...................
............................................................... 239
. A Recent Double Slit Experiment and the EPR Paradox..........................
239
. Classical Simultaneity in QM as Unacceptable .................................
......... 246
. Meaning of Causality in the Uncertainty Principle ............................
....... 249

. Causality vs. Phenomena-Noumena Continuity ...................................
.... 251
. Causal Existence vs. Instrumentalism over
24 Mathematical Results.........................................................
............................ 253
. A Non-mechanistic, Non-probabilistic Causal Law...............................
... 257
{\b \fs20 Chapter}{\b \fs20 12.}{\b \fs20 Causality}{\b \fs20 in}{\b \fs20 t
he}{\b \fs20 Special}{\b \fs20 Theory }
\fs20 of}{\b \fs20 Relativity}.................................................
......................................................... 263
. Source-Independence and Highest Velocity .....................................
......... 263
. QM-STR Marriage and the Causal Paradox........................................
....... 269
. Superluminality and Causality via STR Transformations.........................
271
. Luminally and Superluminally Causal Velocities ...............................
....... 286
{\b \fs20 Chapter}{\b \fs20 13.}{\b \fs20 Micro-Physical}{\b \fs20 and}{\b \f
s20 Cosmic }
\fs20 Causal}{\b \fs20 Continuity}.............................................
................................................ 289
. Classical and Reformed Views of Causal Continuity.............................
... 289
. Causal Wavicles vs. Mathematical Description..................................
........ 292
. Falkenburg on Physics and Mathematics of Wavicles.............................
.. 301
. Physical Wavicle vs. Mathematical Wave / Particle ............................
....... 304
. Causal Realism of Quantons....................................................
..................... 308
\fi6157 11 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 13.6. Micro-causal Solution to the Many Worlds Interpretation ............
.......... 312
. Causal-Realistic Sinusoidal Wavicle Path .....................................
.............. 314
{\b \fs20 Chapter}{\b \fs20 14.}{\b \fs20 Conclusion:}{\b \fs20 Causal}{\b \f
s20 Ubiquity }
\fs20 in}{\b \fs20 the}{\b \fs20 Micro-World}.................................
.......................................................... 319
. Causal Extent in Ultra-quantal Causal Wavicle Realism ........................
.. 319
. Causal Continuity and Ubiquity in QM Reality:
24 A Summary ...................................................................
.................................. 329
. Important Results and Their Prospects.........................................
.............. 332
{\b \fs20 Bibliography} ........................................................
................................................ 335
{\b \fs20 Index} ...............................................................
........................................................ 353 \par
}
2 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 1. Introduction: The Law of Causality
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy812\absw7222\absh704 \sl-340 \b \f50 \fs28 \cf0 \f
i1556 and Its Methodology \par
}
\cf0 1.1. Some Ontological Questions in Quantum Physics
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 present}{\b0 \fs17 work}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs1
7 a}{\b0 \fs17 new}{\b0 \fs17 way}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 questioning}{\b0
\fs17 quantum}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 (QM) }{\b0\up006 \fs10 1}{\b0
\fs17 ontol- }
{\b0 \fs17 ogy}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs1
7 attempting}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 establish}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs1
7 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0\up006 \fs10 2}{\b0 \fs17
as}{\b0 \fs17 central }
{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 sciences}{\b0 \fs17 including}{\b
0 \fs17 philosophy.}{\b0 \fs17 If}{\b0 \fs17 Extension}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\
b0 \fs17 Motion,}{\b0 \fs17 after}{\b0 \fs17 Matter- }
{\b0 \fs17 Energy,}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 primary,}{\b0
\fs17 purely}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 categorial
}{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 that }

{\b0 \fs17 exist,}{\b0 \fs17 Space}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Time}{\b0 \fs
17 are}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 epistemologically}{\b0 \fs17 measuremen
tal}{\b0 \fs17 explication }
{\b0 \fs17 respectively}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Extension}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b
0 \fs17 Motion.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 cat
egorial}{\b0 \fs17 plank}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 which }
{\b0 \fs17 Ibegin}{\b0 \fs17 my}{\b0 \fs17 arguments.}{\b0 \fs17 Space}{\b0 \f
s17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Time}{\b0 \fs17 belong}{\b0 \fs17 epistemologically}{\b0
\fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 categor- }
{\b0 \fs17 ies}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 existence.}{\b0 \fs
17 I}{\b0 \fs17 take}{\b0 \fs17 Matter-Energy,}{\b0 \fs17 Extension-Moti
on}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 to }
{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 classificational}{\b0 \fs17 physic
al}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 categories}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
science,}{\b0 \fs17 where}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 world}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 real.}{\b0 \fs1
7 Concepts}{\b0 \fs17 like}{\b0 \fs17 mass}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 more}{
\b0 \fs17 specific}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 subsequent}{\b0 \fs17 to }
{\b0 \fs17 Matter-Energy. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 By}{\b0 \fs17 'real'}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 mean,}{\b0 \fs
17 negatively,}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 connote}{\b0 \fs17
whatever}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 absolute}{\b0 \fs17 nullit
y }
{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 vacuum.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 serves}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 include}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0
\fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 materially}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17
also }
{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 "physical"}{\b0 \f
s17 in}{\b0 \fs17 any}{\b0 \fs17 other}{\b0 \fs17 manner.}{\b0 \fs17 B
y}{\b0 \fs17 'reality'}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 meant,}{\b0 \fs17 negati
vely,}{\b0 \fs17 all }
{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 denote}{\b0 \fs17 whatever}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs1
7 not}{\b0 \fs17 absolute}{\b0 \fs17 nullity.}{\b0 \fs17 Thus,}{\b0 \fs17 i
n}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 expressions}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 ordinary }
{\b0 \fs17 parlance,}{\b0 \fs17 'This}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 real'}{\b0 \fs
17 and}{\b0 \fs17 'This}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 reality'}{\
b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 does}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 differentiate}{\b0 \f
s17 between }
{\b0 \fs17 them.}{\b0 \fs17 In}{\b0 \fs17 philosophizing,}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0
\fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 better}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 differentiate,}{\b0 \fs1
7 since}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 first,}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 adjective
, }
{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 connotative}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 s
tate}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 affairs,}{\b0 \fs17 whereas}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b
0 \fs17 second,}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 noun,}{\b0 \fs17 tends}{\b0 \fs17 t
o}{\b0 \fs17 denote}{\b0 \fs17 a }

{\b0 \fs17 matter}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 fact. }\par
}
1 Though the term 'quantum physics' is wider and inclusive, I use the more tech
nically
176 oriented term 'quantum mechanics' in order to limit myself to the technical
contribu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8166\absw7313\absh2752 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
176 tions of this branch of physics. Since a majority of books still call it qua
ntum mechan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8166\absw7313\absh2752 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
176 ics, in the sense of the mechanics of the atomic and subatomic world, and ab
breviate
176 accordingly, I do the same.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8166\absw7313\absh2752 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 2
To understand the real import and ultimate purpose of the formulations of the Un
i\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8166\absw7313\absh2752 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
176 versal Law of Causality in the present work, I invite the reader to peruse m
y "General
176 Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology: A New Cosmological Argument for Continu
176 ous Creation" (61-84), Divyadaan Journal of Philosophy and Education, Vol.{\
b 25}, No. 1
176 (2014). This article provides the breadth of region of application to the Un
iversal Law
176 of Causality without access to traditional metaphysics.
\fi6157 {\fs17 13 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 A "process" includes in one such instance all the four of (1) one r
eal object
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unde
rgoing a difference within, (2) the one, at least by partial instrumentality,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prod
ucing a difference in another or others that are parts of the proces
s, and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (3)bo
th the parts being different from their earlier states and still being part of a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fini
tely mutually physically related whole, not entirely different from the earlier
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stat
es, and (4) the whole and its parts having simultaneous similar relationships
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 with
other such wholes. The measure, duration, or extension of the differ
ence
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 brou
ght about need not be definite in such a general concept.
26 To begin with the theme of the work in the very Introduction, I place some
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ques
tions for inquiry. First of all, what can an "appearance" be, if not based on a
e of affairs in which some real and causally connected {\up006 \fs10 3} process
es exist {\up006 \fs10 4} in ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tens
ion and motion, cognized at least partially as real processes in themselves and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 part
ially as processes toward other processes, and measured spatiotemporally
?
present work deals with Causality as a law and causality as obtained in QM.
26 Causality is a relation that produces a difference in things. Thus, it includ
es
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 any
relation in a matter of fact in which the one real antecedent (caus
e) has a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 diff
erentiating impact (giving rise to some change in an effect process b
y the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 impa
ct of transfer of elements onto it) on the consequent (effect) - a relation that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 qual
ifies the effect to be different from what it would otherwise have been if not
{\fs16 3}{\fs16 When}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 state}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 affairs}{\fs16
consisting}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 reals}{\fs16 renders}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 real}{\f
s16 capable}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 being}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 absolutely }
76 {\fs16 different}{\fs16 from}{\fs16 another}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 some}{\fs16
respect}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 state}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 affairs,}{\fs16
it}{\fs16 may}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 said}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 yield}{\fs16 a }
76 {\fs16 'connection'}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 some}{\fs16 sort}{\fs16 between}{\fs
16 the}{\fs16 two}{\fs16 reals. }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-219 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 {\fs
16 4}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 abstract}{\fs16 verbal}{\fs16 term}{\fs16 'existenc
e'}{\fs16 means,}{\fs16 generally,}{\fs16 "being"}{\fs16 (definitional}{\fs1
6 tautology!) }
76 {\fs16 any}{\fs16 object}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 particular}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 to
tal}{\fs16 denotation,}{\fs16 i.e.,}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 being}{\fs16 (again}{\
fs16 tautology!)}{\fs16 anything }
76 {\fs16 other}{\fs16 than}{\fs16 nullity}{\fs16 denotatively.}{\fs16 'Exis
ting}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 something}{\fs16 (processual)'}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 the}{
\fs16 purely}{\fs16 de- }
76 {\fs16 notative}{\fs16 act}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 differentiation}{\fs16 of}{\f
s16 a}{\fs16 matter}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 fact}{\fs16 ("something}{\fs16 existi
ng",}{\fs16 so}{\fs16 circular!).}{\fs16 As }
76 {\fs16 one}{\fs16 further}{\fs16 defines}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 terms}{\fs16
involved}{\fs16 -}{\fs16 'denotation',}{\fs16 'matter}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 fact

',}{\fs16 etc.}{\fs16 -}{\fs16 one}{\fs16 realizes }
76 {\fs16 that}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 definition}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 'existence'}{\f
s16 is}{\fs16 always}{\fs16 tautological}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 circular.}{\fs16
This}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 unavoidable, }
76 {\fs16 since}{\fs16 'To}{\fs16 Be'}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 ground}{\
fs16 of}{\fs16 all}{\fs16 notions,}{\fs16 co-implied}{\fs16 everywhere.}{\f
s16 The}{\fs16 infinite}{\fs16 circular- }
76 {\fs16 ity}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 two}{\fs16 irreplaceable}{\fs16 e
quivalent}{\fs16 terms}{\fs16 'Exist'}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 'To}{\fs16 Be'}{\fs
16 pertaining}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 all}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 is, }
76 {\fs16 makes}{\fs16 this}{\fs16 concept}{\fs16 absolutely}{\fs16 the}{\fs
16 most}{\fs16 fundamental}{\fs16 Transcendental}{\fs16 "category"}{\fs16 o
f}{\fs16 all }
76 {\fs16 that}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 thinkable.}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 way}{\fs16 of}
{\fs16 existing}{\fs16 (To}{\fs16 Be)}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 total}{\
fs16 denotative}{\fs16 (Reality-in-total) }
76 {\fs16 can}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 found}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 theoretical
ly}{\fs16 more}{\fs16 fundamental}{\fs16 than}{\fs16 all}{\fs16 the}{\fs16
particular}{\fs16 forms}{\fs16 (to}{\fs16 be) }
76 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 way}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 existing.}{\fs16 I}{\fs
16 like}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 call}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 way}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 bein
g}{\fs16 total}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 purely}{\fs16 verbal}{\fs16 sen
se}{\fs16 as }
76 {\fs16 'To}{\fs16 Be',}{\fs16 which}{\fs16 latter}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 not}{
\fs16 a}{\fs16 being,}{\fs16 but}{\fs16 belongs}{\fs16 uniquely}{\fs16 to}
{\fs16 Reality-in-total}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 only }
76 {\fs16 most}{\fs16 adequate}{\fs16 form}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 ontological}{\fs
16 explication}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 total}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 itself.}
{\fs16 Thus,}{\fs16 all}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 exists, }
76 {\fs16 together,}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Transcendent}{\fs16 Realityin-total,}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 has}{\fs16 its}{\fs16 To}{\fs16 Be,}{\fs16 tho
ugh}{\fs16 To}{\fs16 Be}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 not }
76 {\fs16 "had"}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 any}{\fs16 sense}{\fs16 other}{\fs16 than}
{\fs16 the}{\fs16 existing}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 being}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\f
s16 total.}{\fs16 Since}{\fs16 it}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 most}{\fs16 funda- }
76 {\fs16 mental}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 thing,}{\fs16 it}{\f
s16 may}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 called}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 most}{\fs16 Transcendent
al}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 all}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 imagina- }
76 {\fs16 ble.}{\fs16 In}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 similar}{\fs16 but}{\fs16 diminuti
ve}{\fs16 sense,}{\fs16 'to}{\fs16 be'}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 way}{\f
s16 of}{\fs16 being}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 reality-in-particular. }
14 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 under the said relation with the cause. One often forgets (1) that due to
the very
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 act
of the cause upon the effect, a subsequent act causes the cause to be different
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 from
what it has been before the act, after it has caused the difference called the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 firs
t effect proper, and (2) that this second process is a different causal process
must always be differentiated from the first - not absolutely but relative to
extension-motion region assignable.
26 This portion of difference in the cause is a second real state of relation, b
ut
one that might be due to any simultaneous impact by the effect as such upon
cause as such of the first act. Thus, in the alteration in the cause of the firs
t
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 act,
the so-called function of an alleged absolute mutual symmetry between the
e and effect of the first act is improperly taken to be due to absolute mutual
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 symm
etry. Instead, the difference in the cause within the first act of causation is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 that
portion of difference in the cause, which makes it different within at least
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 port
ions of itself due solely to a second causal act of enabling a difference in the
e of the first act.
26 Secondly, what else can any process be, if it is not a process o
f causation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thro
ughout its parts, none of which can exist without the same sort of (causal)
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 conn
ections within and without its extension-motion? Thirdly, what else can
ation be, if not expressed as a "measurementally" spatiotemporal relati
on,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 whic
h, in its processual extension-motion, is a relation from the antecedent but
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 yet
mutually related processes towards the formation of the consequent in every
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 minu
te or near-infinitesimal part of the former and latter aspects of the
pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
? Here 'spacetime' is a physically epistemological concept of measureme
nt
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or
quantity with its qualitative aspects to be conceived as ways of bein
g (uni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vers

als). Everything other than ways of being is not qualitative but quantitative.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 To
that extent, spacetime is also a mathematical concept. Space and Time
are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trad
itionally taken in physical science to be the categories in place of Extension a
nd
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Moti
on. At the very start of the present work I suggest that space and time are
measures of extension and motion. Space and time are the (mathematically
physically measuremental) epistemological categories, whereas Extension
Motion are the real physical-ontological categories thereof. To the mathe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cal and physical concept of spacetime is extension-motion the physical cate\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gori
al counterpart. This sort of interpretation of spacetime and its mathematical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 aspe
ct of measurement may inspire revamping of the categories of physics into
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Matt
er-Energy, Extension-Motion, Causality, and also the epistemologically
ical and mathematical category of Space-Time.
26 Thirdly, what can QM and in general science be, if some parts of their the\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ory
with their interpretations obstruct recognition of causal-processual exi
st\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
of entities in extension-motion, limit the province of the Universal Law of
\fi6157 15 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Causation, and do not describe the chances of the process being causal? Al
l is in
name of the "statistical probability" or "probabilistic causality" that describe
s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 just
the chances of entities to be tracked down during a process. Do they contain
reasonable world view or the foundational "truth dimension" that makes
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ever
better world views possible?
26 Fourthly, suppose one speaks of physical reality as not part of consciousness
or
created haphazardly and non-physically by consciousness. Can one then remain
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sati

sfied saying 'Non-causality is part of reality', without knowing that the "reali
ty"
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 here
is mixed up paradoxically with some epistemic ('epistemic' denoting 'what hap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pens
in the mind in the process of knowing and such feeling') subjectivity which
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (1)ma
kesdecisionbetweencausation andnon-causationimpossibleand(2)elevates
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cert
ain lack of access to causal history from within itself to the status of a reali
ty
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tota
lly instantiated within mind, with nothing physically of the order of extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on and nothing causally relational to do with realities other than itself?
26 Does such epistemically subjective "probabilistic causality" (probably causal
in
nature of knowing, and not in the ontological nature) mean anything to the re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alit
y of "freedom", if freedom is essentially self-determination? Self-determination
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is s
elf-causation considered in isolation from routes of past causal inheritance fro
m
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 beyo
nditself.Doesprobabilisticcausality whichallegedlyincludessomeelementof
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausality save self-determination or self-causation? Can self-causation in any
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 way
isolate itself from causation in general? Can such isolated self-causation save
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "fre
edom" for religious, anthropological, ethical and legal consumption, and if yes,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 how
without ontological clarification about its nature (qualifications), str
ucture
process? The current work treats only of the questions of the Law of Causality
probabilistic causality in QM. The remaining parts of the questions, related to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 free
dom, are equally relevant but are postponed to future work on my part.
{\b \fs21 1.2.}{\b \fs21 Universal}{\b \fs21 Causality}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs
21 Constancy}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Nature }
The connection between the concepts of causality and constancy of Natu
re is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wort
h noting, since absence of causality means absence of constancy. Often in
physical sciences the empirical principle or empirically founded assump
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of constancy of (processes of) Nature has been taken to be the axiomatic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 basi
s for the extent of validity of the Law of Causality: "the principle of causalit
y
the law of constancy of energy are very closely related and {\field{\*\fldinst S
YMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the latter was
the last century regarded as the basis of the former."{\up006 \fs10 5}
The causality meant
{\fs16 5}{\fs16 Mili{\f63 \u269\'3f}}{\fs16 {\f63 \u268\'3f}apek,}{\fs16 "
Ernst}{\fs16 Mach's}{\fs16 Biological}{\fs16 Theory}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 K
nowledge"}{\fs16 (400-420),}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Robert }
76 {\fs16 S.Cohen}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Marx}{\fs16 W.}{\fs16 Wartofsky,}{\fs
16 Eds.,}{\fs16 Boston}{\fs16 Studies}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Ph
ilosophy}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Science}{\fs16 , }
16 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 here may be the classical one. The present-day scientific-ontologi
cal concept
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 of
causality is not akin to it in its connection to the concept of con
stancy of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Natu
re, due to the element of causal doubts in QM. With relevant adaptations
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-249 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 prop
er to the most general use of the physical-ontological concept of causation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 to b
e developed here - as one of the physical-ontological categories of science \par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 the
Law of Causality is ontologically more categorial than that of constancy of
re, since all-pervasiveness of Causality alone can vouchsafe for constancy.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 This
we will discuss in what follows and in the discussions of causality
in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 micr
ophysics.
26 To state generally, the Law of Causality is ontologically prior to
and episte\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 molo
gically simultaneous with the Law of Constancy. That is, (1) due to the on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 tolo
gically causal nature of processes exemplified by the Law of Causality, due
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 to c
ausality in all physical processes, there is ontological constancy too, and not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 vice
versa; and (2) due to the epistemological fact of co-extensiveness of the two
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Laws
, they are epistemologically on par.
26 For the foundations of physics we assume ontologically (1) that the
re are
ical processes and their totality and call it Nature, and (2) that t
here can
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 be e
ither total constancy or total inconstancy or a mix of both in Nature, all of
h remain to be rationally justified in QM. As a result - as will be discussed \par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 we h
ave to conclude in the end that the so-called "inconstancy in Nature" due
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 to a
lleged non-causalities in QM can never be an absolute absence of constancy
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 in s
ome parts of Nature, but only the epistemic absence of discovery or mention
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 of a
ll the causes proper to any particular (set of) effect(s) - this absence being
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 base
d on human limitations and the limitations of any specific reality (process)
actually render itself open at any given extension-motion region for t
otal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 huma
n cognition.
26 We also note that the empirical axiom of constancy of Nature is a
n episte\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 molo
gically generalized ontological version of the Law of Causality, withou
t
h (i.e., Causality) Nature does not exist in process and without the
con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 clus
ion of which, in turn, physics or any science is impossible. Constanc
y of
re is ontological in that it specifies the causal nature of Nature as the reason
concludes to constancy from causality which is ontological. Again, thi
s is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 onto
logical because, as we say that without causation there is no natural
, so also without the existence of objects in Causality, and without the most
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 gene
ral structures of this so-called constancy in Causality, there is no
Nature, \par
}
Vol.V, Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1966-19
68
\par}{\phpg\posx1196\pvpg\posy10146\absw6982\absh970 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 (Do
rdrecht: D. Reidel, 1969), 408.
\fi5981 {\fs18 17 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 of which Causality is an important categorial way of being of Nature in pr
ocess.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 And
constancy is the epistemologically concluded generality of Nature because
total fact of Causality in nature is ontologically more primary, the conclusion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of c
onstancy is epistemologically drawn, and it is Causality and not constancy
h primarily is ontologically verified. I attempt to bear out such a concept of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Caus
ality for QM.
{\b \fs21 1.3.}{\b \fs21 Purely}{\b \fs21 Ontological}{\b \fs21 Definition}{
\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Causality }
The concept of causality is such that it is that of a temporal rela
tion between
antecedent and a consequent. It consists not merely of an antecedent-a
nd\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cons
equent relation but also, additionally, of the occurrence or existence
of
former, occurrence of the consequent and the inevitability of occurren
ce
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of t
he former for the occurrence of the consequent. This inevitability is of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ante
cedent with respect to the consequent, but not vice versa. If we can rightly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pres
uppose Matter-Energy and Extension-Motion as categories conceptu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
superior (though processually simultaneous) to the category of Causali
ty,
Spacetime only as the epistemological (measuremental) category related
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to E
xtension-Motion, we may show causality as a relationship that involves an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 occu
rrence of being-or-becoming-related dependence of a consequent being upon
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 an a
ntecedent, and not between non-becomings or non-beings. Entities like ideas,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thou
ghts, words etc., as causal agents, have to be related and reduced t
o the
esses involved thereat.
26 Thus, causality is generally the motive (motion-level, "temporal" in measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
) relation between two extended processes in which the one antecedent
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 has
been inevitable for the existence or occurrence of an activity in the conse-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quen

t. This definition is inclusive even of the possibility of creation as originary
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (hav
ing to do with absolute origination from nothing){\up006 \fs10 6} causation. He
re we have
removed extensive (extension-level, "spatial" in measurement) relations
{\fs16 6}{\fs16 In}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 broadest}{\fs16 case,}{\fs16 the}{\fs
16 Law}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Causality}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 statement}{\
fs16 of}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 certain}{\fs16 relation}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 (if }
76 {\fs16 physically}{\fs16 possible)}{\fs16 originary}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 phys
ically}{\fs16 impacting}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 both}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 ways}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 dependence }
76 {\fs16 between}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 within}{\fs16 two}{\fs16 sets}{\fs16 of
}{\fs16 processes,}{\fs16 namely,}{\fs16 causes}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 effects,}
{\fs16 that}{\fs16 are}{\fs16 related}{\fs16 by }
76 {\fs16 measurable}{\fs16 temporality}{\fs16 (antecedent}{\fs16 and}{\fs16
consequent)}{\fs16 -}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 short,}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Law}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 Causality }
76 {\fs16 gives}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 universally}{\fs16 exemplified}{\fs16 orig
inary}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 impacting}{\fs16 relation}{\fs16 via}{\fs16 antecede
nce}{\fs16 and }
76 {\fs16 consequence.}{\fs16 Originary}{\fs16 causation,}{\fs16 if}{\fs16 i
t}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 case}{\fs16 for}{\fs16
the}{\fs16 origin}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 universe,}{\fs16 in }
76 {\fs16 part}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 whole,}{\fs16 need}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 theor
etically}{\fs16 mean}{\fs16 violation}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 law}{\fs1
6 of}{\fs16 conservation,}{\fs16 since }
76 {\fs16 conservation}{\fs16 pertains}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 already}{\fs16 exist
ing}{\fs16 matter-energy}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 the}{\fs16
causation}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 ex- }
76 {\fs16 istence}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 matter-energy.}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 temporal
-directionally}{\fs16 prior}{\fs16 originary}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 impacting}{\fs
16 part }
76 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 processes}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 entities}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 pr
ocesses}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 cause}{\fs16 proper}{\fs16 and}{\fs16
the}{\fs16 originated}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 affected }
18 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 from the definition, nor have we definitely concluded whether cause proper
and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 effe
ct proper in their ultimate exactness can ever be absolutely simultaneous. We

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 have
included the motive nature (temporality) of physical occurrences because
he irreducibly before-and-after nature of causal relations. In the sense of its
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exte
nsive and motive nature the causal relation is an occurrence. That is, causal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
is an extensive-motive relation in a matter-energy occurrence implying the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inev
itability of extended existence and motive activity of the antecedent to the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cons
equent.
26 If not extended existence, there is no other possible form of existence at al
l
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - an
y purely "intensive" or "intentional" existence has its ontologically existen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tial
(occurrence-type) basis on extension. Therefore anything supposedly non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
al or acausal must be something extended (not pure vacuum), and thus be
al in its ontological foundations. But if there are non-causal occurre
nces,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 let
us grant them for the time as mere occurrences, non-specifically of whether
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thes
e are causal or not.
26 Thus, the most general and minimum ontological concept of an occurrence
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (as
a process / entity) is as that which is capable of making a causal or non-causal
ct or influence, however minute, in something else. Here 'impact', 'in
flu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
' and 'occurrence' mean arbitrarily 'what happens on the object or process',
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 whet
her by reason of a cause (impact, influence, etc.) as causalists hold, or, by
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 no
cause at all as non-causalists and acausalists would say. 'Occurrence'
as a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 term
makes both the causal and the non-causal conceptually possible. Hence
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'inf
luence', 'impact' and 'occurrence' are intended here not to mean any
cause
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dire
ctly, but to generally imply 'causally or allegedly non-causally happen
ing
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 chan
ge of state' in case non-causality and acausality are the case in at least some
rrences in Nature. This allowance is based on the fact that some interpreta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s of QM assume non-causal occurrences taking place at some provinces of
QM world.
26 I mention some authorities for the causalist, non-causalist and acausalist in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 terp
retations of QM. The discrepancies between them make us in the presen
t
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 work
to argue in favour of causal all-pervasiveness. Von Neumann, e.g., at least
ially, held the non-causal view as feasible. {\up006 \fs10 7} The Schrdi
nger equations, he
\fi176 {\fs16 part}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 processes}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 e
ffect}{\fs16 proper.}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 differences}{\fs16 between}{\fs16 or
iginary}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 physical }
76 {\fs16 causation}{\fs16 do}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 interest}{\fs16 us}{\fs16 h
ere. }
16 7}{\fs16 Niels}{\fs16 Bohr,}{\fs16 "The}{\fs16 Causality}{\fs16 Problem
}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Atomic}{\fs16 Physics"}{\fs16 (11-45),}{\fs16 in}{\fs16
New}{\fs16 Theories}{\fs16 in }
76 {\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 (Paris:}{\fs16 International}{\fs16 Institute}{\f
s16 of}{\fs16 Intellectual}{\fs16 Cooperation,}{\fs16 1939),}{\fs16 ci
ted}{\fs16 in }
76 {\fs16 Dipankar}{\fs16 Home}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Andrew}{\fs16 Whitaker,
}{\fs16 Einstein's}{\fs16 Struggles}{\fs16 with}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16
Theory: }
76 {\fs16 A}{\fs16 Reappraisal}{\fs16 (New}{\fs16 York:}{\fs16 Springer}{\fs
16 Science+Business}{\fs16 Media,}{\fs16 2007),}{\fs16 212. }
\fi6157 19 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 says, are causal since otherwise they would not have been compatible with
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rela
tivistic equations; but he says, many have later thought that the Schrdinger
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 equa
tions are non-causal. {\up006 \fs10 8} The purely non-causal theory of QM and i
ts dangers
discussed by G. t'Hooft. {\up006 \fs10 9} W. Michael Dickson may be referred to
for a con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vinc
ed attempt to render a non-causal solution to the entanglement{\up006 \fs10 10}
scenario.{\up006 \fs10 11 }
26 For the causal interpretation of QM without full commitment to phys
ical\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 onto
logical causality everywhere in the micro-world and at the same time clearly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 atte
mpting to save locality, David Bohm is possibly one among the more famous
icists. He is not very famous among some physicists due to his causa
list
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
dpoint.{\up006 \fs10 12} One important recent acausalist tendency has evidenced
itself in de
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Muyn
ck, who treats QM in an empiricist manner. This results in anti-causalism
at times non-commitment to causalism or anti-causalism in de Muynck.{\up006 \fs1
0 13 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Most
ly the acausal interpretation of QM is prevalent in amateur and over\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enth
usiastically "freedom"-oriented, postmodernist and non-foundationalist
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 circ
les of philosophy of science. There have also been arguments in favou
r of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prag
matism in the QM attempts to retain causality.{\up006 \fs10 14 }
26 Causality as an extensive-motive relation in matter-energy involves t
he in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 evit
ability of the antecedent to the consequent. This need not necessarily
in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cur
circularity or constant regress in the definition that uses the terms 'impact',
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7121\absh4517 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'inf
luence' and 'occurrence', if these terms are clearly spelt out as not
directly \par
}
8
Peter Enders, Von der klassischen Physik zur Quantenphysik: Eine historisch
-kritische
266 deduktive Ableitung mit Anwendungsbeispielen aus der Festkrperphysik (
Berlin:
266 Springer, 2006), 215.
G. t'Hooft, "The Fundamental Nature of Space and Time" (13-25), in Daniele Ori
ti,
266 Ed., Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Towards a New Understanding of Space, Ti
me
266 and Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
The term 'entanglement' for the state of relation between two EPR anti-particle
s was
262 coined by Schrdinger during the discussions on the EPR paradox.
W. Michael Dickson, Quantum Chance and Non-locality: Probability and Non-local-

262 ity in the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer
sity
262 Press, 1998), 181ff.
R. D. Sorkin, "Does Locality Fail at Intermediate Length Scales?" (26
-43), Daniele
262 Oriti, Ed., Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Towards a New Understanding of Sp
ace,
262 Time and Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 28.
Willem M. de Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist Approach
262 (New York: Kluwer Academic, 2002), 316ff.
Peter R. Holland, The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bo
hm
262 Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ
ersity
262 Press, 1993), 78ff.
{\fs17 20 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 implying cause alone but also any occurrence that is deemed to be non-caus
al.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Only
when these terms are further qualified will their nexus mean causality.
26 For our purpose of including causality, non-causality and acausality as pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e cases in the general concept of becoming-level dependence-rela
tion,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (1) '
impact', 'influence' and 'occurrence' (which are terms more general tha
n
e) mean either causal or even the so-called non-causal state-difference (or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abse
nce of difference) of a particle or wave or any other process as a result of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 beco
ming-level relation the consequent has to the antecedent, and (2) the exis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tent
ially becoming-level inevitability-aspect of the relation specifically de
fined
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at t
he level of motion ends up implying nothing other than causality, where the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inev
itability as such is not causality without the restrictions served by extensive-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti

ve relation. These two aspects make the definition non-circular. Thus we do
use the concept of cause to define cause.
26 The terms 'causation', 'cause' and 'effect' differ from each other
and from
relation called causality. Causation is the act of an object's or a
process's
ing an impact or influence or occurrence in anything. The cause is that part
er of a process that makes a becoming-level inevitable impact or occurrence
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in a
nother which is or has the impact; and an effect is the impact proper as made
essually by the cause proper. Temporarily, for the purpose of subsumin
g
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 also
the possibility of non-causality, our concept of 'impact' or 'influen
ce' or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'occ
urrence' is kept open not to mean merely things causal, but to include any
rrence that might not be causal and still "takes place", by reason o
f any
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exis
ting relation named "non-causality" that does not accept a certain type of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 infl
uence (or lack of influence) as causal. Since causality is primarily an onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal and additionally a physical category of science, we have no absol
utely
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncircular way of defining the concept where the terms within the definition
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 impl
y nothing like cause.
26 If causality is a motive (at motion-level, and temporally measurable) relatio
n,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it i
s that motively sufficiently well-defined (however minute the difference, not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 simu
ltaneous) relationship between an antecedent and a consequent process,
which (1) some proper portion of elements of the first is transferred
to the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 seco
nd with further motive modification of the portions, and (2) at least some
er portions of the process in any other motive form of relationship obtain\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
between the two is transferred thereafter by reason of the process s
poken
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of i
n (1), i.e., by physically effective continuity of causality proper. This is a k
ey
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 argu
ment in the present work. It facilitates continuity in causality without an ir\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rati
onal "Dedekind cut" in the dimensional arrow of temporal motion.
26 In a causal relation any element transferred from the antecedent to the con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sequ
ent process will naturally be transferred with modification, since motion is
\fi6157 21 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 involved in the transfer too, where time is the measure of motion / change
. The
tionship of being mother to somebody, of being the cause of photosynthesis,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of k
icking a ball, etc. are such that the transfer of elements proper occurs caus\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
. On the other hand, a relation like that of a cause merely having (allegedly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "mee
ting", "possessing", or "finding" in a theory) a corresponding element
or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 qual
ity in the effect is not a causal relation. They involve no transfer of elements
the prior to the consequent; instead, it has only a correlation assigned by a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
king mind.
26 A cause and its effect are motively (termed "temporally" in measure
ment)
symmetrical. This is challenged, but rarely, only from the point of view of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scie
nces that deal merely with causality in reality-in-particular (not with
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Univ
ersal Law of Causality that pertains to Reality-in-total), which do not take
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 theo
retical access to the whole possible causal horizon of any individual process.
ation can be symmetrical only if exactly mutual causal implications ov
er
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 time
symmetry, and presupposedly without spatial symmetry (!), are possible
,
in the following two statements: (1) A caused B, (2) B caused A. He
re the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 excl
usion of spatial symmetry shows exclusion of the extension-aspect of t
he
esses. This is proof enough of the imaginary nature of temporal symmetry
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in c

ausation. That is, if an absolutely mutual causal entailment of cause proper
effect proper is possible, there have to be extensive and motive symmetries
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 toge
ther in causation.
26 Partially symmetric causation is impossible, since there are no ways
of Na\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ture
being in a causal relation where causation is partially symmetric. T
his is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 even
more the case, since one part being causal the "immediate" next non-causal
the next causal can only reduce causation into something completely cut off
each other in its occurrence in Reality as such. Otherwise one would have
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to t
erm everything as absolutely non-causal.
26 Though there have been some thinkers who considered temporal symmetry
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 betw
een cause and effect, thinkers like Michael Tooley opine that this is impossi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ble.
{\up006 \fs10 15} Physical-ontologically,scientificpracticecannotbefoundtobeba
sedpurely
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 on t
emporal asymmetry alone in causation. Mere temporal symmetry without
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spat
ial symmetry is unrealistic and imaginary. What the Law of Causation
h is proper to general ontology - exemplifies are processes in extens
ion\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on, not in extension alone or motion alone. Hence, the standpoint followed
is this: Insofar as temporal symmetry in isolation from spatial symmetry in
ation may be considered impossible, it is derivable from the admission of the
{\fs16 15}{\fs16 Michael}{\fs16 Tooley,}{\fs16 Time,}{\fs16 Tense}{\fs16 a
nd}{\fs16 Causation}{\fs16 (Oxford:}{\fs16 Clarendon}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 1
997),}{\fs16 see}{\fs16 "3.2. }
62 {\fs16 The}{\fs16 Question}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Backward}{\fs16 Causation",}{
\fs16 especially}{\fs16 63ff. }
22 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 general arrow of time in any sort of cosmos that the idealization of the o
therwise
nsive (spatially qualified) causal processes is no symmetry in the real physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
causation. From this it follows generally that causality will have to be the cas
e
in QM entanglement for the additional reasons that (1) any specific cause
to be prior to the effect and (2) as we shall see later, a communication (an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 elem
ent of impact transferred to the effect) cannot speed infinitely.
26 From what has so far been said it seems safe to conclude as follows: In causa
the element transferred from the cause to the effect is such that this element
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 too
is spatiotemporal in measurement. If spatiotemporal then extensive-motive,
this is process. A part of it alone cannot separately be non-spatiotemporal
non-extensive-motive. Hence this element is also processually causal from
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 its
original extensive-motive side to any later extensive-motive side of process. In
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 shor
t, all extensively and motively real matter-energy is irreducibly causal from
past to any future, however minute the difference between the past proper
the future proper is, and however micro-physical or relativistically v
arie\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gate
d the criterion of fixing the spacetime of an extensive process with respect to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 anot
her is. This is Universal Causality. It is not merely about the specific region
ction of any specific cause. That is, as long as a specific causal process is on
to\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cally extensive-motive and epistemologically spatiotemporal it remains mo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
ly (temporally) irrevocably asymmetrical, as the dimensional arrow of time
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is i
rrevocably asymmetrical in all its minute parts.
26 A simple commonsense question here is: What about a body that only tends
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to m
ake a change and does not actually succeed to change? First of all, the "tend\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
to change" here is an ontologically defective term because a specific
tend\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
is already a change, which need not be the specifically expected (me
asure
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of)
change. If not, that term does not have universality in the meaning
of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 func
tion of "cause" and "change". Moreover, there are other causes taking place
in the body that cause a transfer of elements even in a 'tending to change',

gh this tending is not cause with respect to the specific cause. All the same,
object is in causal processes and is changed in general. Some other processes
affected it or have been affected by the process of tending to change. Simply
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enou
gh, the preferred sort of change in the critical measure does perhaps
not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 take
place in this case; but some sort of change does happen, without w
hich
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "ten
ding to change (in the preferred way)" would have to be equal to "no change
soever, including in the act of tending". That is to say that what we mean
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by c
hange is not a particular or preferred or forecasted kind of change but any
ge whatever within the processual entity.
26 Similarly, when we say that a thing changes in a particular manner or causes
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a ch
ange in something else, all the minute physical elements of the whole gross
\fi6157 23 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 thing are not directly involved in the specific kind of change, but they d
o change,
some or other of them effect other changes constantly in every element within
object. From this it is clear that it is too general to call an entity or proces
s as a
e (or effect), if merely a part of it has caused a specific effect (or is the ef
fect of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a ca
use). When we say 'cause' in specific extension-motion contexts we mean the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exac
tly or properly causal part of a process, which proper part effects a specific
ct; or, if rationally tenable or proved to be the case, an originary occurrence
reation, with its cause clearly distinct from the effect. A specific proper-caus
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 grou
p can be millions of light years spread apart from its proper effect
group
respect to an instance of causation. In this case the causes and effects of the
er elements of the specific instance of causation are parts of the process. This
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 make
s it impossible for all things in an infinite multiverse - if it is infinite - t
o be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inst
rumental in the causal formation of all other parts of it.
26 The Law of Causality is the relational generality regarding the spe
cifically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 orig
inary or non-originary occurrence in extension-motion, of the becoming\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 leve
l necessity transmitted via non-vacuous energy by proper antecedents to
er consequents in a finitely measurable space and time of extension-motion,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wher
e the proper antecedents and proper consequents are not simultaneous, but
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mutu
ally partially overlap in sufficient spans of spatiotemporally measurabl
e
nsion-motion. The last clause here, "but {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbo
l }}", refers to the causal cone (extent
nfluence of cause in time) as the widest expanse of causal influence possible
respect to any limiting speed of impact-transfer in the respective universe.
causation can be originary or non-originary - a conceptual improvement
facilitates any possible causation by (continuous) creation of matter
into
ical existence.
26 We name here only the proper part of an origin-inducing process or
of an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 affe
cting (physical) process as cause; and only the strictly originated part of the
equent process and the affectation part of the consequent process as effect.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 A pa
rtial entity is cause insofar as only a certain portion of an entity or portions
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of e
ntities (it need not exactly be the identified one, but a part of the whole enti
ty
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or e
ntities, and not the whole) is the cause-part in an entity that contains also
ents that have not caused a particular effect. Other partial causes within the
ess can be elsewhere in measurable spacetime, and are parts of the w
hole
e of a specific effect. This is not an illustration but theoretical circumscrip\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of specific causes.
26 All possible cases together of all causes will constitute the total
ity of cases
cause and effect that there are, and this totality is the subject-mat
ter of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 defi
nition of the ontological Law of Causality. Such a Law is a generali
zation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 over
all totalities because it is not merely about a particular cause and effect but
24 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 simultaneously about all causes and effects. The attempted definition is v
ery gen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eral
, and includes the possibility of creation and the purely physical ef
fecting
change in a process posterior in general time-direction by a process prior
the time direction - all by exertion of some impact. Here the defini
tion of
ality by the concept of an impact or affectation or occurrence assumes trans\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fer
of some or another form of energy - without which nothing can happen at
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 all.
Mere energy transmission is itself an actual process, which in general is one
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 form
of causation. We have not defined the ontological Law of Causation here in
s of one instance of energy transmission or just made a mere physical illus\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trat
ion of all kinds of causation. Illustrations that may be given are only of genu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inel
y physical causation. So any analogy to another form of causation is tacit.
26 If, as I have done for breadth of argument, creation may be included as part
ausation, the form of transmission of impact may have to be considered as
erent from physical causation. The term 'originary' in the more general, on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical definition generalizes to the possibility of there being an external cause
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 if a
ny for the universe. Though we keep this possibility open, we do not treat of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 this
aspect in a work on QM causality. Our attempt is to show that any minute

of process within or without the universe must irreducibly involve causa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
. Thus causal all-pervasiveness as the explanation for all that transpires in th
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 univ
erse would be the clearest understanding of causality; and what is taken as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausality or acausality within and without the universe would be not better
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 than
causality as explanation of anything.
{\b \fs21 1.4.}{\b \fs21 Physical-ontological}{\b \fs21 Definition}{\b \fs21
of}{\b \fs21 Causality }
The purely ontological definition of Causality above is insufficiently delineate
d
consumption in the particular sciences. It is too wide for the scien
ces,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (1)si
nce the whole past extent of causes is not absorbable in scientific practice,
(2) since the concept of origination is prior to and unnecessary for the physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
law of conservation of matter-energy. Thus, we define physical causation as
becoming-level necessity mediated via transmission of elements of impac
t
the temporally (motively) antecedent to the temporally (motively) conse\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quen
t, which are in finite spatiotemporal distances as measured at any given in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
ce of extension-motion.
26 Here we have presupposed 'necessity', 'spacetime', 'antecedent', 'cons
equent'
'impact'. 'Antecedent' and 'consequent' yield the general notion of ti
me as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 succ
ession. Succession is of motion, and is not the same as impact. In impact,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 matt
er-energy (i.e. a content) is involved in measurable space and time of exten\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
and motion, but we may bring it in here, since 'impact' should additionally
\fi6157 25 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 be in terms of Extension (measured as space) which is a physica
l ontological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cate
gory along with Motion.

26 I presume the former, most general one of these definitions to have been the
logical maximum of a general concept of causality. For a philosophical study
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 acro
ss inner-universe physical causality in QM based on the physical principle
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of f
undamentality of the velocity of electromagnetic propagations in the Special
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Theo
ry of Relativity (abbr. STR) would show that they share a common predica\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
of having had to insert non-causality and acausality somehow into an other\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wise
causal world. Any solution for this predicament would yield that int
ernal
ality in the universe is ubiquitous, all-pervasive. If I succeed in bearing out
need to accept causal pervasiveness in the whole universe, and if I simultane\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ousl
y abstain from using 'ubiquitous' with 'causality', I commit the same mistake
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as m
aking some non-causality and acausality possible within things causal.
26 All sciences presuppose the epistemological category of Space-Time in some or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 othe
r manner, but its ontological counterpart is Extension-Motion. The history of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phil
osophy took the epistemological-measuremental for the ontological-real. Kant
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 coul
d not recognize by an appropriate application of ontological commitment
the conditions for the possibility of sensibility and understanding are more
the epistemological space-time conditions, and that they are the ontological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ones
of extension-motion. Upon the categorial condition of ontological commit\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
(in a slightly more general vein than what we find in Quine) had to be based
epistemological notions, the notion of substance as something in exten
sion\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on, and the Law of Causality which is of all that is in process. The notion of
tance as something in extension-motion would give rise to the mereolog
i\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
whole-and-part concepts of micro- and macro-particles, things and processes.
mereology of processes is thus ontologically more adequate than of things.
26 Not Space-Time but Extension-Motion, and Matter-Energy, are the ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
categorial base of definition of the Universal Law of Causality. Causation is
togetherness of dimensions of extension-motion-level spreading of matter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ener
gy impacts - particularly between any two processes and generally between

wider extents (of epistemically spatiotemporal measures) of extended
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 move
ment of impacts. Spatiotemporal definition of extended motion is only that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of m
easurements of causal processes - a fact that particular sciences tend to for\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 get.
I take Causality as the scientific category co-extensive with the categories of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Matt
er-Energy and Extension-Motion. From this viewpoint causation is a basic
ept even in spacetime description - the ontological ill-advisedly immersed
he epistemological. Classical Mechanics and 20{\up006 \fs10 th} century physics
have used
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 some
sort of this concept, though not in the irreducible mutual dependence of
nsion-motion in their space-time measures.
26 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 I tend to call entities as processes since the common concepts of E
xtension
Motion are the physical-ontological forms of existence of all processual mat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ter
/ substance, called entities, in the real world. But these were reduced by phys\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ics
to space and time without the ontological awareness that the latter
are the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "giv
en values" of actual processes in extension and motion. This mistake
has
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 been
followed almost literally by Newton and the whole tradition of Farad
ay,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Maxw
ell, Bohr, Einstein and up to the present-day QM, GTR and astrophysics,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perh
aps with some unclear exceptions in some philosophical discussions. For
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Desc
artes, the very same concept of space could be discussed "more geometrico",
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 geom
etry being in those days only Euclidean. It was when Faraday and Maxwell
oduced the concept of electromagnetic field that matter could be found
to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be
irreducibly spatiotemporal. It was as the need was felt by Einstein t
o base
spacetime field concept of STR and GTR on some adaptable variety of non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Eucl
idean geometries that the real change in the concept of space and spacetime
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 came
about. If in Kant space and time were forms of sensibility, Einstein reduced
into two mathematical properties of physical existence, thus having n
ot
ake the epistemological categories of Space and Time as real objects outside
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of p
hysical existence. {\up006 \fs10 16} One did not tend to substitute them with E
xtension and
on which too are no entities but ontological categories.
26 For Einstein, 'position' as 'space' has always reference to a frame of refere
nce.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Posi
tion could then only be a trajectory or "path curve", which simultaneously
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 invo
lves also time. Therefore we can speak only of spacetime. Measurements
rajectories involve the velocity of light as the measuring rod, measured first
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by
Heinrich Herz as equal to that of light. Therefore measurement of spa
ce\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 time
trajectories is dependent always on the velocity of light in all of
physics
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 till
date.{\up006 \fs10 17} Minkowski formulated a concept of spacetime for STR and
Einstein
nded it to the General Theory of Relativity (abbr. GTR) against the
back\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 grou
nd of gravitational physics. With respect to motion, spacetime was for them
real (i.e., physical-ontological) structure of events, which may be stretched,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sque
ezed, rippled or poked holes into by other spacetime events. Unfortunately,
e properties belong to matter-energy and not to spacetime, and the physical
logical categories that they should have meant are Extension-Motion; and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Spac
etime should have been merely the epistemological - descriptive-measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
al - aspect.
{\fs16 16}{\fs16 Hermann}{\fs16 Weyl,}{\fs16 Space,}{\fs16 Time,}{\fs16 Ma
tter}{\fs16 (New}{\fs16 York:}{\fs16 Cosimo}{\fs16 Publications,}{\fs16 201
0,}{\fs16 reprint }
62 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 1922,}{\fs16 4 }{\up006 \fs9 th}{\fs16 editi
on),}{\fs16 1ff. }

16 17}{\fs16 Albert}{\fs16 Einstein,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Special}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 General}{\fs16 Relativity}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 Robert}{\fs16 W.}{\
fs16 Lawson,}{\fs16 Trans. }
62 {\fs16 (London:}{\fs16 Methuen}{\fs16 &}{\fs16 Co,}{\fs16 1920),}{\fs16
23-25. }
\fi6157 27 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Thus, I hold Space-Time to be the epistemological appropriation of
two sci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enti
fic ontological categories, i.e., Extension and Motion, and also to be the ideal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stru
cture of the measure of impacts in processes. This despite the fact that the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 math
ematical (general relativistic) spacetime description does not have to apply
concept of causation due to the difficulty in mathematically formulati
ng
al processes in spacetime physics devoid of mathematical treatment of the
nsion-motion structure of the universe. If spacetime is the ideal stru
cture
easuremental description of extension-motion, then extension and motion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prec
ede space and time ontologically. In ordinary language we express concepts
uch a way that movement were taking place in space and time, and so space
time were to precede matter-energy in extension-motion. This is the c
ase
if we take the ideal mathematical entities to be actual beings or
physical
esses being quantitatively described by it. This is an epistemological state of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 affa
irs. With these statements we practically want to forestall the many possible
ments that somehow posit space and time as real beyond their foundedness
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 upon
the real physical universe of extension and motion.
{\b \fs21 1.5.}{\b \fs21 From}{\b \fs21 Physical}{\b \fs21 Causality}{\b \fs
21 to}{\b \fs21 Universal}{\b \fs21 Law}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Causality }
The requirement of existence of physical processes via causation is made clear
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by o
ur definition of the Law of Causality through the concept of specific impact
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by e

lements. Elements are nothing but matter-energy. Their impacting is partial
ment with partial staticity, whose pragmatic measurements are, respec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
ly, in terms of time and space. Orthodox QM is simply not sure of this causal
upposition insofar as it is not sure to have to do something with causation in
of its realms of mathematical description, e.g., in the statistical interpreta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of wave-particle duality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 real
ity and the entanglement communication. Accordingly, the next chapter
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 revi
ews some important causal theorists' contributions; and the remaining few
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 chap
ters show in my own way that it is possible to give a causal interpretation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of Q
M.
26 The section on the methodology of Causal Horizonal Research (section 1.7)
the chapter on STR endeavour to show that the causal interpretation is most
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prob
ably a must, and is proportionately extendable to all cosmological extents
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sinc
e the concept of Causal Horizonal Research and a revision of the fou
nda\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
al velocity of STR can apply to all physical reality. Causality in physics is pr
e\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 supp
osed, but ubiquity or all-pervasiveness of causality is not presupposed in the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 init
ial stages of the present work. Therefore, we need only to show that
ubiq\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 uity
is most probably the case in the QM world and consequently in the whole
28 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 universe - this will make the primacy of the Law of Causality evident as a
gainst
questionable status of causality in the physical sciences. The aim is to show
the categorial presupposition of Causality in some parts of physical reality
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lead
s to a consistent, coherent and theoretically more satisfying understanding
he universe if causal pervasiveness or ubiquity is the case in some of the caus-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally

doubtful experiments of QM.
26 All sciences, for their part, presuppose causation as active, but neither for
sure
ll realms of reach of science within their own provinces, nor for sure in prov\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ince
s that presuppose causal strains from ever broader realms of Reality-in-total.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 We h
ave presupposed above a purely ontological definition of causality roughly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as a
n originary or impactual relation of antecedents to consequents in specific
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 regi
ons of extension-motion, and a physical one without the originary impactual
ct. Our ontological and other concepts will ever be capable of being defined
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bett
er. This means that the understanding of the Law of Causality may change
the better in the future - in the very breadth of understanding of the defini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
and in its constitutive aspects.
26 The improvement I have suggested in the concept of the Law of Cau
sality
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is r
elated to the conception of bivalent co-variance - implying the question of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temp
oral symmetry in causation from cause to effect and effect to cause - and
ted to the concept of proper cause and proper effect within the process of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 one
and the same causation. These have not sufficiently well been treated
at
s as intimately part of the definition of causation - so I opine. S
ince the
cedents (only the proper causes) have undergone some change by way of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tran
sfer of impact elements, however minute, in the process of issuing in
the
equents (the proper effects) the said impact, any other change in the course
he antecedents by way of impact from the consequent is another causal pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
. Though this is part of the constant course of internal and external changes
ected minutely to the impact in question exerted by the causes proper in
effects proper, yet it is not part of the said act of causation. The Law of Cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty is not specific about this one act, but about all that is causal impact in al
l
exists.

26 Due to this newness in the pure concept of the Law of Causality, we exclude
purely Aristotelian-Scholastic-Mechanistic invariance of perfectly (concep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tual
ly) static antecedents and consequents which are unchanging within them\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 selv
es (as was thought from the conceptual unity of concepts of the substances
he causal- and effect-processes). They were thought to be unchanging in the
iotemporal interval of the given event of causation or thereafter in extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on. Such mistake of invariance is merely due to taking the conceptual status
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of u
nity of our concepts and definitions as the reality outside. The tendency of
\fi6157 29 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 these schools to rigid representation of extension-motion processual subst
ances
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 usin
g conceptual substantives is further present in all aspects of our representa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
thinking and statements. I am of the opinion that the semantics of rigidity
analytical ontologies has to give more thought to the absolutely proce
ssual
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 natu
re of their beings and events, and thus bring about semantic changes in ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cord
ance with processual demands.
26 In the desired absence in philosophy of the above-said inappropriate
in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vari
ance normally attributed to the subjects of causation (cause and effect) in
ourse, we can only hold an irreducible but variegated covariance of causes
effects of all causally possible description. The Law of Causality pertains
ll these that exist in causal processual terms. This is sufficient flux for con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
ualizing all in terms of infinitesimally deep causal processes within. Add
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to i
t the chaos-theoretical understanding of the famous butterfly effect ("sensi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
dependence on initial conditions"{\up006 \fs10 18}) of processes in extensionmotion in
possible past dependence - and we have the theoretical possibility of blan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 keti
ng inclusion, in theory, of the causes of an effect in far distant past events

their parts as well as within the inner recesses of the immediate c
ause.
retically encompassing the totality of all involved elements of action
in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a g
iven effect has thus to be the work of specific-scientific causal pri
nciples
r the support of the ontological Law of Causality; and the Law does not
ern itself merely of a specific cause and effect but of all causes and effects
general way.
26 The ontological Causal Law is not merely about a region of bodies, but about
ything. It implies by definition also the theories of causation of the particula
r
nces, but not within their limited purviews. The Law of Causation and the
icular scientific theories of causation differ. The former is ontologically more
ral than the latter. QM would have to discuss micro-implications of the cos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gy of causality as rationally as possible and accommodate the ontologically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 most
general Law of Causality, as it ascertains that everything in its r
egion is
al. But this has not been the case to date. Hence, we inquire if ubiquity or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 allpervasiveness of causality could be the interpretation of causality in QM. Our
nition was of this concept of ubiquitous causation. But we take for granted
the partially causal view of QM and attempt to show that ubiquity is ration\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
more necessary than optional in QM. \par
}
18 California Institute of Technology, "Chaos on the Web", "Physics 161: Introd
uction
262 to Chaos, Chapter 1, Lorenz Model", URL: http://haides.caltech.edu/~m
cc/Chaos_
262 Course/Lesson1/Introduction.html (Accessed on 15 December 2012).
{\fs17 30 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9

\fs21 \cf0 1.6. Statement of the Main Theses and Attitudes
f0 {\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 present}{\b0 \fs17 study}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs1
7 the}{\b0 \fs17 place}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs
17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 attempts}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 fol- }
\b0 \fs17 lowing:}{\b0 \fs17 (1)}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\
b0 \fs17 define}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 justify}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \f
s17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 within}{\b0 \fs17
the }
\b0 \fs17 micro-universe;}{\b0 \fs17 (2)}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 develop}{\b
0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 methodology}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causal}{\b0 \fs1
7 Horizonal}{\b0 \fs17 Research }
\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 ontology;}{\b0 \fs17 (3)}{\b0 \f
s17 to}{\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 speculate}{\b0 \fs17 beyond}{\b0
\fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 moments}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 non- }
\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 acausality}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \
fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 general;}{\b0 \fs17 (4)}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0
\fs17 find}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 reasons}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 sci
entific}{\b0 \fs17 in- }
\b0 \fs17 consistencies}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 experimental}
{\b0 \fs17 sources}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 (the}{\b0 \fs17 U
ncertainty}{\b0 \fs17 Principle,}{\b0 \fs17 the }
\b0 \fs17 statistical}{\b0 \fs17 interpretation,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 th
e}{\b0 \fs17 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen}{\b0 \fs17 (EPR)}{\b0 \fs17 paradox}{\b0
\fs17 with }
\b0 \fs17 respect}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 entanglement}{\b0 \
fs17 experiment),}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 (5)}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 sh
ow}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 pervasive- }
\b0 \fs17 ness}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 defendable}{\b0 \fs17 if}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 experimentally}{\b0 \fs17 fixed}{\b0 \fs17 (but}{\b0 \fs17 la
ter}{\b0 \fs17 made}{\b0 \fs17 theoretically}{\b0 \fs17 fun- }
\b0 \fs17 damental)}{\b0 \fs17 highest}{\b0 \fs17 luminal}{\b0 \fs17 velocity
}{\b0 \fs17 limit}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 transportation}
{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 shown }
\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 absolutely}{\b0 \fs17 n
ecessary}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 STR. }
fi226 {\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 work}{\b0 \fs17 builds}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs
17 arguments}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 gradually}{\b0 \fs17 approach}{\b0 \fs
17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 all-pervasiveness }
\b0 \fs17 based}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 following}{\b0 \fs
17 points}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 acknowledgment:}{\b0 \fs17 (1)}{\b0 \
fs17 Reality-in-total}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 such, }
\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 reality-in-particular}{\b0 \fs17 (token}{\b0 \fs17 e
ntities}{\b0 \fs17 individually}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 proce
ssual}{\b0 \fs17 groups}{\b0 \fs17 like }

\b0 \fs17 types}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 natural}{\b0 \fs17 kinds,}{\b0 \fs1
7 however}{\b0 \fs17 spatiotemporally}{\b0 \fs17 minute}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \
fs17 scale),}{\b0 \fs17 exist}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 pro- }
\b0 \fs17 cesses}{\b0 \fs17 outside}{\b0 \fs17 our}{\b0 \fs17 mind,}{\b0 \fs1
7 without}{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 physics}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 any
}{\b0 \fs17 discourse}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 mat- }
\b0 \fs17 ter}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 impossible.}{\b0 \fs17 (2)}{\b0 \fs17
Extension-motion}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 existence}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0
\fs17 any}{\b0 \fs17 type,}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 reason }
\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 very}{\b0 \fs17 spatiotemporal}{\b0 \f
s17 nature}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 measurement}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 ph
ysical}{\b0 \fs17 extension-motion, }
\b0 \fs17 somehow}{\b0 \fs17 presupposes}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 general}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0
\fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 (that}{\b0 \fs17 every- }
\b0 \fs17 thing}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 cause/s)}{\b
0 \fs17 -}{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 in}
{\b0 \fs17 principle}{\b0 \fs17 more}{\b0 \fs17 than}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0
\fs17 various }
\b0 \fs17 principles}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 proper}
{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 various}{\b0 \fs17 particular}{\
b0 \fs17 sciences.}{\b0 \fs17 (3)}{\b0 \fs17 Any}{\b0 \fs17 truth }
\b0 \fs17 claim}{\b0 \fs17 about}{\b0 \fs17 entities}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17
Reality}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 such}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0
\fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 partial}{\b0 \fs17 claim}{\b0 \fs17 with}{
\b0 \fs17 higher}{\b0 \fs17 or }
\b0 \fs17 lower}{\b0 \fs17 truth}{\b0 \fs17 probability,}{\b0 \fs17 because}{
\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 limitations }
\b0 \fs17 (like}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 inability}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
Nature}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 give}{\b0 \fs17 itself}{\b0 \fs17 us}{\b0 \
fs17 humans}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 clear}{\b0 \fs17 terms,}{\b0 \fs17 lac
k}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 clarity}{\b0 \fs17 in }
\b0 \fs17 our}{\b0 \fs17 definitions,}{\b0 \fs17 lack}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs1
7 absolute}{\b0 \fs17 succinctness}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 theory,}{\b0 \fs
17 etc.)}{\b0 \fs17 already}{\b0 \fs17 imposed}{\b0 \fs17 by }
\b0 \fs17 Nature}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 any}{\b0 \fs17 truth}{\b0 \fs17 cl
aim}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 limited}{\b0 \fs17 human}{\b0 \fs17 minds,}{\b0
\fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 because}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ontol
ogi- }
\b0 \fs17 cally}{\b0 \fs17 trans-disciplinary}{\b0 \fs17 nature}{\b0 \fs17 of
}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 concepts}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
categories}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 systems,}{\b0 \fs17 the
}
\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 o
ther}{\b0 \fs17 natural}{\b0 \fs17 laws.}{\b0 \fs17 (4)}{\b0 \fs17 Any}{\b0
\fs17 formulation}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causation}{\b0 \fs17 that }

\b0 \fs17 involves}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 specific}{\b0 \fs17 laws}{\b0 \
fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 various}{\b0 \fs17 sciences}{\b0 \fs17 is
}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 comprehensive}{\b0 \fs17 enough }
\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 considered}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 g
eneral}{\b0 \fs17 theoretical}{\b0 \fs17 claims}{\b0 \fs17 pertaining}{\b0 \f
s17 to}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 causality. }
fi226 {\b0 \fs17 Large}{\b0 \fs17 portions}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 physics}{
\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 other}{\b0 \fs17 sciences}{\b0 \fs17 accept}{\b0 \f
s17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 as }
\b0 \fs17 fundamental.}{\b0 \fs17 But}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 aspects}{\b0
\fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 exist}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b
0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 statistical}{\b0 \fs17 explanation }
\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 predictions}{\b0 \fs17 casts}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs1
7 all-pervasiveness}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 such}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \f
s17 the }
\b0 \fs17 very}{\b0 \fs17 essence,}{\b0 \fs17 need}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
nature}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 into}{\b0 \fs17 doubt.
}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 brings}{\b0 \fs17 me}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 r
esearch }
\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 question}{\b0 \fs17 here.}{\b0 \fs17
Our}{\b0 \fs17 problem}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 whether}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0
\fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 begin}{\b0 \fs17 without}{\b0 \fs17 admitting }
\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 ubiquity}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
any}{\b0 \fs17 way}{\b0 \fs17 rationalize}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 non-cau
sality}{\b0 \fs17 (or}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 epistemo- }
\b0 \fs17 logically}{\b0 \fs17 non-committed}{\b0 \fs17 acausality)}{\b0 \fs17
that}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 encounters}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM. }
f0 \fi6157 {\b0 \fs17 31 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Non-causality is clearly the diametrical opposite of causality. Aca
usality is the
eptual result of the epistemic state where one does not choose between the
opposites as the case, because the pragmatic statistical considerations
de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mand
ed by the process of discovery and systematization of causes from within
esses of causation (as in QM) defy the very discovery of and the very con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nect
ion between the causal and what is assigned the name 'non-causal'. This de-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fian

ce leaves one distributing only a less than total part for causation to play in
nsion-motion processes and leaves the other part reserved in suspension
.
is acausality, to wit.
26 Planck was sharply aware of this state of affairs in QM and objec
ted to it.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Thou
gh he was one of the initiators of QM,
\fi226 {\fs15 he}{\fs15 rejected}{\fs15 firmly}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 frequently}
{\fs15 the}{\fs15 introduction}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 acausality}{\fs15 into}{\fs
15 the}{\fs15 world}{\fs15 picture }
26 {\fs15 and}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 subjective}{\fs15 elements}{\fs15 of}{\f
s15 complementarity}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 uncertainty.}{\fs15 He}{\fs15 re
garded}{\fs15 these }
26 {\fs15 doctrines}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 throwbacks}{\fs1
5 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 dangerous}{\fs15 dogmas}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 Mach,}{\fs
15 but}{\fs15 also}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 pessi- }
26 {\fs15 mistic}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 premature}{\fs15 surrender}{\fs15 to}{\fs
15 scientific}{\fs15 difficulties.}{\fs15 He}{\fs15 chided}{\fs15 Bohr,}{\f
s15 Born,}{\fs15 Heisen- }
26 {\fs15 berg}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 followers}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 c
onfusing}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 sensory}{\fs15 world,}{\fs15 where}{\fs15 the}{\
fs15 limitations}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 meas- }
26 {\fs15 urement}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 impose}{\fs15 practical}{\fs15 limitation
s}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 knowledge,}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 world}{\fs15 p
icture,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 free}{\fs15 creation}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 human}{\fs15 mind.
}{\up006 \fs8 19 }
This attitude of Planck entitles us to question the status quo in QM and attempt
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to f
ind a way out.
26 I introduce also the concept of proper cause and proper effect in
order to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 avoi
d taking a gross object or process as the cause or effect when in fact only a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 few
elements of them are the cause or effect. For example, 'The people of India
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gave
birth to the present system of governing' is too gross and vague to identify
proper cause; 'Many people of India directly gave birth to the present system
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of g
overning' is more exact and proper, and the statement may further be made
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 more
exact about the proper cause. This strategy can eventually help avoid mak\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
cause and effect simultaneous or the effect precede the cause, because one
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gros
s process can have a majority of parts that do not directly particip
ate in a
ific causal impact on (or from) others, and so, taking the whole gross process
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as t
he effect (or cause) will result in the proper-effect- or proper-cause portion o
f
gross object being clubbed with some causally silent part of the gross causal \p
ar
}
19 J. L. Heilbron, "Max Planck's Compromises on the Way to and from the Absolut
e"
262 (21-37), in James Evans and Alan S. Thorndike, Eds., Quantum Mecha
nics at the
262 Crossroads: New Perspectives from History, Philosophy and Phys
ics (Heidelberg:
262 Springer, 2007), 30.
{\fs17 32 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 process, whose proper time is different from that of the specific causal p
rocess
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in q
uestion.
26 I differentiate between spacetime and extension-motion starkly through
out.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 As I
attempt to show (or, as I so claim) with a relatively high truth probability,
definition of the Law of Causality as something that does not commit to all\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perv
asiveness of causation in QM - i.e., as something without the highest onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal reach of the reign of causation in the micro-recesses of reality - is always
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 slig
htly suspect with respect to extension-motion "occurrences". 'Occurrence' here
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enco
mpasses any region of extension-motion events or processes and causation\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 neut
rally permits professing this region to be causal or non-causal. Spacetime oc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 curr
ences are hereafter ontologically extension-motion occurrences for us, since
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spac
etime is the epistemic (measuremental) aspect of the ontological extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on. I hope to investigate and ascertain the theoretical realization of the valid
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
of the Causal Law throughout the whole extent of Reality as the fulfillment of
genuine ontological meaning in real extension-motion of matter-energy.
26 Innumerable schools and sub-schools of philosophical reflection on causation
t. The basic stand assumed in the current work on the micro-cosmology of
ation is roughly that of analytic and scientific ontology of systemic realism.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I at
tempt to be as systemic as possible within the limits of analytic and scientific
logy and of the quantitative thrust of physical and mathematical scien
ces
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (wit
h the help of Causal Horizonal Research as discussed below). That is,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 anyo
ne from a purely phenomenological, hermeneutical, linguistic-analytical,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prag
matist or other position may find the work slightly ill-advised or presump\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tuou
s about the extent of reach of human reason and about the realism t
hat
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is d
erivable from them all. I would point out, but, that my position about our
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inte
llectual reach of the infinitesimal and infinite recesses Reality-in-total is th
at
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 char
acterized by the highly futile nature of representative thinking, attribution
easuremental and reasoned properties and values to processes as the real\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 actu
al, etc.
26 I am of the persuasion that somehow things and processes as such are basi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y inscrutable from any one perspective alone; that things do exist primarily
independent of the reflecting mind; and that physics should take thing
s as
ting as "something-s" outside of minds and of any experimental or theoreti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
framework conceptually imposed by minds, though our the workings of our
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mind
s can create conceptual realities and change physical realities. I assume that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we d
o not have to bring in a contemporary version of Cartesian arguments for
existence of the world. Transcending the Humean-Kantian epistemological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 limi
ts put on conceptual approach to things-in-themselves by our making phe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nome
na and noumena ontologically mutually continuous has been attempted

\fi6157 33 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 in a condensed but sufficiently detailed fashion elsewhere.{\up006
\fs10 20} Therefore I leave
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh3392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 such
purely ontological or metaphysical discussions for granted as yielding the
nsion-motion existence of entities for themselves as extension-motion pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh3392 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es. More on the concepts of processes, events and objects will be mentioned
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh3392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in o
ther chapters, in order to derive conclusions from the merits of the totality
he present work.
26 As we shall see, the luminal speed limit is even non-causally contradictory t
o
recent "non-local" interpretations of the entanglement experiments by physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh3392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cist
s like Alain Aspect, which fact makes a causal solution necessary. I will argue
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh3392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in f
avour of this basic position from all sides.
26 The more or less mutually related nature of all notions and all fields of sci
ence
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh3392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 guar
antees some exceptionally admirable form of rationality in any science and
ltaneously bestows ambiguity to it all. All the same, granted that the terms
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh3392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'eve
rything', 'nothing', 'causal', 'non-causal', 'partial' etc. are systemically and
prag\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh3392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cally at least dimensions (not fixities) of ever less ambiguous meanings with \p
ar
}
20 Raphael Neelamkavil, Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Gener
ation
262 Scientific Ontology (Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2006). This work dev
elops
262 categories for a physics-and-cosmology-compatible ontology based on the phil
oso\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy5084\absw7222\absh5526 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 phy of physics and analytical and other forms of metaphysics. It keeps itsel
f open to
262 all possible worlds of being real in process. I have called it Einaic Ontolo
gy, from the
262 Greek Einai, which I define as "the pure To Be of Reality-in-total". It keep

s to this pure
262 To Be and builds an ontology based on To Be as the unique verbal-nomic way o
f being
262 of all processes. To Be is the highest quality possible; "to be" is the prim
ary quality
262 of reality-in-particular; and all genuine (primary) qualities, as the ways o
f being of
262 processes, are universals incurrent in processes. This frees secondary quali
ties (like
262 colour) to be reduced to quantity and primary qualities reduced to ways of b
eing of
262 beings. The categories of Einaic Ontology transcend the classificati
onal categories
262 of sciences (namely, Matter-Energy, Extension-Motion, Causality and Space-Ti
me),
262 which have for their object the provinces of reality-in-particular. The cate
gories of
262 Einaic Ontology collude with each other in the broadest manner possible so a
s to co\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy5084\absw7222\absh5526 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 imply each other and all that come under them, and are thus ideal for system
-building.
262 Attracting philosophy back into system-building is an important func
tion of this
262 system of categories. This work gives an Appendix: a critical appraisal of t
he ontology
262 and "cosmology" of Martin Heidegger, from the point of view of Einaic Ontolo
gy.
493 Physics without Metaphysics (1) is an exercise in showing that new generatio
n sci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy5084\absw7222\absh5526 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
280 entific realist categories for system-building must be mutually collusive, (
2) develops
280 three mutually collusive general ontological categories for scientifi
c ontology, and
280 (3)subordinates the traditional scientific categories of Matter-Energy, Mass,
Space\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy5084\absw7222\absh5526 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
280 Time and Causality to the three new generation scientific realist
categories. The
280 present work adds to this list the ontological categories of Extension-Motio
n.
{\fs17 34 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 time and effort in science, we need to fix their meanings ever better, eac
h time
ning them as fixed for practical purposes. This compels sciences to fix their
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mean
ings for the time being and to admit at the outset, without reservat
ions
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 agai
nst or in favour of specific scientific points of view, that the only imaginable
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 poss
ibilities regarding causation are that either (1) everything is causal (causal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
is ubiquitous), or (2) everything is partially causal, or (3) nothing is causal.
I
ose that, rationally, the only real possibility is causal ubiquity. Here 'causal
'
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is
just a dimension of meanings, but at the ontological categorial aspect
of all
is.
26 By 'ubiquitous or all-pervasive causality' I mean causality that is extended
to
the near-infinitesimal (however small at any given time) aspects of the micro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 worl
d and all the large-scale extents of the macro-world. Since the unive
rse is
tructed of what exist in its micro-world, which all combine to form
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 macr
o-world as such, micro-world processes and macro-world processes must
rvene on each other with respect to inheritance of physical-ontological at\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trib
utes. Our conclusion from our discussions on causality in QM and STR
is
most probably all is causal. This will eventually justify our broader defini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of the Law of Causality.
26 The verb 'is extended' used above may be clarified as follows: The wider con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 text
of the macro involves the causal structures in the micro. The macro
hap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pens
by combining of the micro. This takes place within the broader cont
ext
the micro-macro antecedents, from within the causalities of which the
mi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cro
emerges. This takes place each time with something new contributed by the
al past of the micro and the macro and each time both contributing some\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g of its own to the future of the selfsame-and-different stuff that the ingredi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ent
micro and macro are. Hence, causality does not belong to just one of these
levels. If all that are probabilistically interpreted in the micro are causal as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we a
im to show - then causal emergence of novelty in things consists in effects
the more minute micro- and the broader macro-levels which are outside
very particular micro- and macro-levels at issue. Put differently, I
will at\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temp
t to show that there shall be no aspect of the micro- and macro-levels of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 worl
d that is not causal in its own paths of extension-motion and at least physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y emergently contributive to many (not all) other extension-motion regions.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Cons
ideration of the ever higher causal horizon of causal contribution is thus the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 need
of the hour in cosmology.
26 In the present work, statements containing 'should', 'must' 'evidently', etc.
have
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thei
r respective meanings with an additionally appended 'most probably, due to
afore-given reasons' in each circumstance. I will avoid categorical statements
uch as possible. Still it is to be borne in mind that it is difficult to repeat
this
\fi6157 35 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 qualified meaning of categorical statements everywhere in the text. Though
it is
nd the purview of the chosen philosophical theme to give a full justification
any claim to be categorical, I give direct and indirect arguments as
to why
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clai

ms of partial validity of the Law of Causality are beset with ontological and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 epis
temological paradoxes. Hence the unavoidable appearance of the general\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 izin
g or totalizing attitude in my arguments, in spite of the contrary realization
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rega
rding the achievable universality in arguments.
{\b \fs21 1.7.}{\b \fs21 Methodology}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21
Horizonal}{\b \fs21 Research }
The uninterruptedly past-existent causal influences pointing ever backward for
gnition of causal pervasiveness and beckoning consideration of causal pasts
achievement of rational adequacy with respect to the perceived causes
of
particular process - this I call the ontological givenness of the ca
usal ho\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rizo
n of anything whatever. All of the past causal influences are together never
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 full
y actually traceable back from a given point of time by human intellects and
ruments. All processes are in principle and in general ever better traceable
capable of being theoretically included in general ontological research. Such
retical traceability of causes is rejected by their probabilistically ontologica
l
usion by QM despite the very finite extension-motion distances between any
QM events and between a QM event and an arbitrarily chosen experimenter.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Due
to the principle of inner-universe conservation of matter-energy, these past
al influences - the causal horizon - as influences at any time trace
able to
future, are not annihilated into non-existence in the present. Therefore, they
their real significance from the past in the present of any process.
26 I propose therefore that a physical-ontologically and cosmologically tenable
al Horizonal Research (CHR) {\up006 \fs10 21} into inner-universe causali
ties traceable
retically to the indefinite past - even in case of existence of the
external
inary cause of all that is physical - can yield at least a more than vague and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 suff
iciently broad outlook at some problematic issues of causal reach in micro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phys
ics, cosmology, physical ontology and philosophy. That is, the status
and

nt of causal processes in the micro- and macro-universe, the relation of real
ality with the recognition-level or calculation-level probability, randomness,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 chao
s, catastrophe, etc. can be further elucidated and systematized by CHR. If
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 indi
vidual processes in the universe have had any measure of past causality active
their parts in any manner (wholly or allegedly partially), this demons
trates
{\fs16 21}{\fs16 For}{\fs16 detailed}{\fs16 reflections,}{\fs16 see}{\fs
16 Raphael}{\fs16 Neelamkavil,}{\fs16 "Causal}{\fs16 Horizonal}{\fs16
Research}{\fs16 in }
62 {\fs16 Cosmology"}{\fs16 (21-47),}{\fs16 Journal}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Dharma}
{\b \fs16 34}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 2}{\fs16 (April-June}{\fs16 2009). }
36 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 by definition the fact that any causal explanation of any process hints at
all the
esses (causal or allegedly non-causal) that are prior to a phenomenon
/
t / process, relative to the spatiotemporally connected posteriority of
the
g being explained and the priority of the causes being generalized upon. The
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 meas
ure of extension-motion already taken place is theoretically traceable.
26 Suppose a certain process's causal roots proper (or, at least what we call an
te\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cede
nts proper) are conceivable in principle as having been existent in the past.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Then
there is no reason why the experimentally and theoretically in-princi
ple
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 feas
ible extent of tracing it should obstruct us from taking at least a
theoreti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y general look at the ontological structure of past causal (antecedent) roots,
then still farther past roots, etc. Its ontological structure is, in general, th
e
nsion-motion antecedent-horizon that lies always in the past direction. The
to tracing causal roots is in simple terms the rational basis of the principle
procedure of CHR, granted that the antecedents proper, of all that is today,
we speak of, are in fact causes. To make sure in the present context that these
causes we wait till the end of the present work.
26 By positing causes as active in the past and relevantly dormant in the presen
t,
by reason of the principle of conservation as it is active towards the future in
past and present processes, the proposed ontological and cosmological meth\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 odol
ogy of CHR will be implemented here. We want to see the extent of causal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
where CHR takes us to, even when I do not mention its use in the following
ters. It will not take us to a meaningless infinite regress, since any infinite
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 regr
ess without the involvement of a Creator will still be with reference to causes
in the universe, and such an infinite regress will be physically meaningful.{\up
006 \fs10 22 }
stage for CHR in micro-cosmology will be set by the following chapte
rs,
e causation in QM will be discussed from various angles, along with making
need for our methodology further explicit.
{\b \fs21 1.8.}{\b \fs21 Our}{\b \fs21 Procedure}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Stu
dy}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Causality}{\b \fs21 in}{\b \fs21 QM }
Causation is not mathematically described in physics. Though non-mathemat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7592 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ical
, the treatment of causation in the present work tries to keep itself rationally
inct. Philosophical issues of the categories of Matter-Energy, Extension
on and Space-Time are not to be treated separately, but with that of Causality.
\par
}
22 In order to circumvent infinite regress, we do not posit an unmoved creator
as the
262 final past end of any causal horizon. It is beset with metaphysical paradoxe
s. We keep
262 the option of a continuously creating Divine open, but this is not needed fo
r our more
262 restricted methodology for physical research, namely, Causal Horizonal Resea
rch.
\fi6157 {\fs17 37 }\par

}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 From the angle of attaining a philosophical synthesis, a drawback of this
line of
ing on causality merely in QM is the unavailability of the macrocosmically
logical aspects of microcosmic generalizations on matter-energy, extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 moti
on and space-time along with causality. The macrocosmic aspect is more
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 appr
opriate to be dealt with in another work. The main attitude in the present
will be to ask after the meaningfulness or otherwise of all-pervasiveness of
ality in QM and to find out the extent of causality this would rationally yield.
26 From the point of view of Causal Horizonal Research, what is difficult to see
M is that even within inner-universe causality some physicists and philoso\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 pher
s find some areas where causality is somehow absent or is not representable.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Impo
rtant QM philosophical works by Heisenberg, Dirac, etc. are examples for
dilemma, and the quote a few pages above about Planck's attitude to alleging
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 noncausality and acausality in QM is entitlement enough for our inquiry in the
ction contrary to non-causality and acausality.
26 To state the basic causal attitude behind this work is to decide
between the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 foll
owing: The universe could only be either fully causal, or fully non-causal, or
both these together in some unknown proportion. If it is fully causal, we
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 must
show why some acausal and non-causal interpretations cannot hold. If it
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 is n
ot at all causal, we should show why non-causal processes come about and
they are in extension-motion. If the two hold in varying proportions in dif\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 fere
nt locations, we should show how they can meet, how the absolute or partial
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 abse
nce of causality in certain phenomena can be inserted into the partia
l or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 abso
lute causality in some others when they interact, and whether such mutual
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 inse
rtion has some ground.

26 QM has been working on some fundamental and some derived and perhaps
assumed concepts in physics, as is normal in all sciences with respect to
r elementary notion, axioms, quasi-axiomatic principles, further derivations,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 etc.
, some of the latter of which, in my opinion, are agents of assumption of acau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 sali
ty and non-causality in the theories of the micro- and macro-universe. The
ent work attempts to find a way of transcending this and attendant problems
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 by a
pplying Causal Horizonal Research.
26 Any treatment of the problem of ubiquity of causality in QM (and
in the
ries of relativity and in astrophysical cosmology) ought to be a direct way
clearly and definitively deciphering and unraveling the millennia-old ph
il\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 osop
hical and scientific question of the extent of causation present withi
n the
erse. The slightly new definition of Causality proposed must in the l
ong
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7263\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 run
be shown to stand the test of statistical, stochastic and other explanations of
ality, probability, chaos, randomness, etc. These explanations could be made
ial cases, for particular circumstances, of the more general outlook b
eing
38 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 proposed herein. We can only make some remarks on some of these problems
he present work. Modal ontological theories of possibility and necessity are
ted areas of inquiry. We do not discuss them here. If we succeed in showing
ubiquity of causation in QM as highly tenable, then the status of causation
ll sciences and philosophy will be ubiquity. The philosophical improvement
cted thereby will be to admit that we usually allow ourselves out of pragmatic
to make epistemologically immediately relevant theoretical adaptations of
ality for statistical reasoning in science.

26 Direct attempt will be made to ontologically clarify the normally e
pistemo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cally accepted meanings and limitations of QM's statistical explanations
of
ality, of distribution of effects of matter-energy, etc. This is requi
red be\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
e physics deals with the statistical explanations of quantum phenomena in
ophysics and of cosmologically vast thermodynamic phenomena in mac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 roph
ysics. All these have somehow presupposed the less-than-causal-horizonal
rstanding of causality. Without any recurrence of traditional rationalis
tic,
Newtonian mechanistic concepts of causation, and without much recourse
the philosophical history of the concept of causality, we can understa
nd
cosmological essence of concrescence ("growing together") of strains of
ality (determinations ontologically external to an entity) and novelty (self\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dete
rmination of entities which is particular-ontologically internal to an entity)
he universe, if we adapt the methodology of Causal Horizonal Research.
26 In the course of this work I shall make sure that the theme of causality is a
l\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ways
kept in focus. All along, I will try to follow the analytic-synthetic-systemic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 meth
od that keeps itself simultaneously open to specificity and togetherness in
universe, in order to discover the causal possibilities therein. The systemic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 comp
onent guarantees truth probability against synthesis into systems which
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 view
propositional truth within the context of ever better systems. Only
items
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nece
ssary for systemic succinctness will be taken up from QM and STR. It is not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pers
onally feasible, nor necessary, to use many mathematical formulae in such a
osophical work.
26 After the initial chapters I clarify the concepts of causality, non-causality
and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 acau
sality in basic QM experiments and show that a solution needs the ha
nd
Causal Horizonal Research. Then I analyze the possibility of superlumin
al
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 velo
cities in STR and show that this would finally make causal ubiquity
pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e from the STR and QM perspectives via superluminally maximal and local
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "cau
sal cones" in the luminal non-locality phenomenon of the entanglement
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 expe
riment. \par
}
9 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
}}\par}\sect\sectd\pard\plain
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 2. Recent Causal Realism
i1556 in Quantum Physics \par
}
\cf0 2.1. Way of Procedure of the Literature Review
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 base}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 short}{\b0 \fs
17 literature}{\b0 \fs17 review}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17
causalism}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 realism}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 t
he}{\b0 \fs17 most }
{\b0 \fs17 part}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 physicists}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
philosophers}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 physics}{\b0 \fs17 who}{\b0 \fs17 fa
vour}{\b0 \fs17 causalism}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM. }
{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 use}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 works}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 clarify}{\b0 \fs17 my}{\b0 \fs17 viewpoints}{\b0 \fs17 ab
out}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 status}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \f
s17 causality }
{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 studying}{\b0 \fs17 (1)}{\b0 \fs17 primarily}{\b0
\fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 views}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 r
ecent}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 physicists}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 phi}
{\b0 \fs17 losophers}{\b0 \fs17 like}{\b0 \fs17 Peter}{\b0 \fs17 J.}{\b0 \
fs17 Riggs,}{\b0 \fs17 Christopher}{\b0 \fs17 Norris}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0
\fs17 related}{\b0 \fs17 authors}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 following}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 sub-sections;}{\b0 \fs17 and}{
\b0 \fs17 (2)}{\b0 \fs17 secondarily,}{\b0 \fs17 within}{\b0 \fs17 those}{\b
0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 sub-}{\b0 \fs17 sections, }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 views}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Isaac}{\b0 \fs17
Newton,}{\b0 \fs17 Norman}{\b0 \fs17 Robert}{\b0 \fs17 Campbell,}{\b0 \f

s17 Carl}{\b0 \fs17 Hempel,}{\b0 \fs17 Mario }
{\b0 \fs17 Bunge,}{\b0 \fs17 Brian}{\b0 \fs17 Skyrms,}{\b0 \fs17 Roger}{\b0 \
fs17 Newton,}{\b0 \fs17 William}{\b0 \fs17 Wallace,}{\b0 \fs17 David}{\b0 \f
s17 Bohm,}{\b0 \fs17 Robert }
{\b0 \fs17 Wyatt,}{\b0 \fs17 David}{\b0 \fs17 Deutsch,}{\b0 \fs17 Bruce}{\
b0 \fs17 Colin,}{\b0 \fs17 Phil}{\b0 \fs17 Dow,}{\b0 \fs17 J.}{\b0 \fs17
S.}{\b0 \fs17 Bell,}{\b0 \fs17 Robert}{\b0 \fs17 Brandom, }
{\b0 \fs17 Hugh}{\b0 \fs17 Everett}{\b0 \fs17 III,}{\b0 \fs17 etc. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 First}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 introduce}{\b0 \fs17 under
}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 next}{\b0 \fs17 sub-section}{\b0 \fs17 argume
nts}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 first}{\b0 \fs17 few }
{\b0 \fs17 chapters}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Riggs'}{\b0 \fs17 2009}{\b0 \
fs17 work,}{\b0 \fs17 Quantum}{\b0 \fs17 Causality:}{\b0 \fs17 Conceptua
l}{\b0 \fs17 Issues}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 Causal}{\b0 \fs17 Theory}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Quantum}{\b0
\fs17 Mechanics}{\b0 \fs17 ,}{\b0 \fs17 interspersed}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0
\fs17 supportive}{\b0 \fs17 citations }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 discussions}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 related}{\b0
\fs17 authors,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 evaluate}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs
17 contribution}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 facili- }
{\b0 \fs17 tate}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 realistic}{\b0 \f
s17 vantage}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 gained}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b
0 \fs17 later}{\b0 \fs17 chapters}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 favour}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 ubiquity }
{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 all-pervasiveness}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal
ity}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM.}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 appropriate}{\b
0 \fs17 Riggs'}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 other}{\b0 \fs17 physi- }
{\b0 \fs17 cists'}{\b0 \fs17 understanding}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 interpre
tation}{\b0 \fs17 critically,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 make}
{\b0 \fs17 re-statements}{\b0 \fs17 or }
{\b0 \fs17 summaries. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 Then}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 move,}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 sub-section}{\b0 \fs17 thereafter,}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17
a}{\b0 \fs17 discussion}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 quantum}{\b0 \fs17 realism
}
{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 Christopher}{\b0 \fs17 Norris}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0
\fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 group}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 similar}{\b0 \fs17
thinkers.}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 introduce}{\b0 \fs17 his}{\b0 \fs17 Qu
an- }
{\b0 \fs17 tum}{\b0 \fs17 Theory}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Fl
ight}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 Realism}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0
\fs17 related}{\b0 \fs17 thinkers'}{\b0 \fs17 works}{\b0 \fs17 from }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 point}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 view}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 realism}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 underli
es}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 causalism.}{\b0 \fs17 Since}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b

0 \fs17 find}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 main}{\b0 \fs17 ideas}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Norris}{\b0 \fs17
agreeable}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 since}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 question
}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 realism}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs
17 be }
{\b0 \fs17 discussed}{\b0 \fs17 at}{\b0 \fs17 length}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 course}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 work,}{\b0
\fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs17 make}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 brief}{\
b0 \fs17 comments }
{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 his}{\b0 \fs17 contribution.}{\b0 \fs17 My}{\b0 \
fs17 view}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Norris}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 qua
ntum}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 very}{\b0 \fs17 posit
ive, }
{\b0 \fs17 because}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 find}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 h
is}{\b0 \fs17 realism}{\b0 \fs17 respects}{\b0 \fs17 causalism}{\b0 \fs17 an
d}{\b0 \fs17 he}{\b0 \fs17 argues}{\b0 \fs17 very}{\b0 \fs17 succinctly }
{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 keeping}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 mind}{\b0 \fs17
far-reaching}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 implications.}{\b0 \fs17
In}{\b0 \fs17 both}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 follow- }
{\b0 \fs17 ing}{\b0 \fs17 sections}{\b0 \fs17 my}{\b0 \fs17 presentation}{
\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 authors,}{\b0 \fs17 especially}{\
b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Riggs}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Norris,}{\b0 \fs1
7 is }
{\b0 \fs17 slightly}{\b0 \fs17 interpreted}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0
\fs17 direct;}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 other}{\b0 \fs17 words,}{\b0 \fs17
I}{\b0 \fs17 use}{\b0 \fs17 these}{\b0 \fs17 authors}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs1
7 push }
{\b0 \fs17 my}{\b0 \fs17 agenda. }\par
}
1 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs21 \cf0 2.2. Physicists and Ontologists on Orthodox and Causal QM
f0 {\b0 \fs17 As}{\b0 \fs17 Riggs}{\b0 \fs17 reinterprets}{\b0 \fs17 QM,}{\b0
\fs17 he}{\b0 \fs17 rightly}{\b0 \fs17 points}{\b0 \fs17 out}{\b0 \fs17 th
e}{\b0 \fs17 glaringly}{\b0 \fs17 fundamental}{\b0 \fs17 confu- }
\b0 \fs17 sions}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
some}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 non-causalisms}{\b0 \fs17 -}{\b0 \fs17 whether
}{\b0 \fs17 theoretically}{\b0 \fs17 presup- }
\b0 \fs17 posed}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 interpretationally}{\b0 \fs17 poster
ior}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 theory: }
f0 \fi226 {\f0\fs19 \bullet }{\b0 \fs15

}{\b0 \fs15
Identifying}{\b0
\fs15 probabilistic}{\b0 \fs15 outcomes}{\b0 \fs15 with}{\b0 \fs15 an}{\b0 \
fs15 absence}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 causality; }
fi226 {\f0\fs19 \bullet }{\b0 \fs15
}{\b0 \fs15
an}{\b0 \fs15 ontologica
l}{\b0 \fs15 interpretation}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 uncertai
nty}{\b0 \fs15 relations; }
fi226 {\f0\fs19 \bullet }{\b0 \fs15
}{\b0 \fs15
unconditionally}{\b0 \fs1
5 accepting}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 quantum}{\b0 \fs15 'no-go'}{\b0 \fs15
theorems}{\b0 \fs15 as}{\b0 \fs15 final}{\b0 \fs15 proof}{\b0 \fs15 that}{\
b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 more }
fi453 {\b0 \fs15 complete}{\b0 \fs15 description}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 qua
ntum}{\b0 \fs15 phenomena}{\b0 \fs15 cannot}{\b0 \fs15 be}{\b0 \fs15 given.
}
fi453 {\b0 \fs15 Together}{\b0 \fs15 with}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 conclusio
n}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 most}{\b0 \fs15 influential}{\b0 \
fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 founders}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 quantum
}
fi453 {\b0 \fs15 mechanics}{\b0 \fs15 about}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 impossi
bility}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 depicting}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 quantum}{\
b0 \fs15 ontology,}{\b0 \fs15 these}{\b0 \fs15 points }
fi453 {\b0 \fs15 led}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 abandonment}{\b0
\fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 set}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 concepts}{\b
0 \fs15 and}{\b0 \fs15 principles}{\b0 \fs15 that}{\b0 \fs15 were}{\b0 \fs15
strongly}{\b0 \fs15 held }
fi453 {\b0 \fs15 prior}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 advent}{\b0 \f
s15 of}{\b0 \fs15 quantum}{\b0 \fs15 mechanics.}{\b0 \fs15 (Riggs}{\b0 \fs15
1-2.)}{\b0\up006 \fs8 23 }
f0 {\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 add}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 list}
{\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 (here,}
{\b0 \fs17 interpretational)}{\b0 \fs17 stand,}{\b0 \fs17 based}{\b0 \fs17 o
n}{\b0 \fs17 an }
\b0 \fs17 eschewal}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 everything}{\b0 \fs17 ontological
:}{\b0 \fs17 (1)}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 many}{\b0 \fs17
(then}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 later)}{\b0 \fs17 "practical }
\b0 \fs17 successes"}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 QM,}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17
respect}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 experiments}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{
\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 world}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 its
}{\b0 \fs17 prin- }
\b0 \fs17 ciples}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 been}{\b0 \fs17 formulated,}{\b0
\fs17 show}{\b0 \fs17 uncompromisingly}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \
fs17 original}{\b0 \fs17 theoreti- }
\b0 \fs17 cal}{\b0 \fs17 framework}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17
traditional}{\b0 \fs17 non-causal}{\b0 \fs17 "scientific}{\b0 \fs17 explanati
on"}{\b0 \fs17 without}{\b0 \fs17 any }
\b0 \fs17 objectual}{\b0 \fs17 ontology}{\b0 \fs17 behind}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0
\fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 hold}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ontologi
cally}{\b0 \fs17 real}{\b0 \fs17 world}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 means}{\b0 \
fs17 of }
\b0 \fs17 "quantum}{\b0 \fs17 probabilities"}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 are}{
\b0 \fs17 (in}{\b0 \fs17 fact)}{\b0 \fs17 designed}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs1
7 to}{\b0 \fs17 hold}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 actual}{\b0 \fs17 meas- }
\b0 \fs17 ured}{\b0 \fs17 values}{\b0 \fs17 (as}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 hel
d}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 many),}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 (2)}{\b0 \fs17
that}{\b0 \fs17 everything}{\b0 \fs17 objectually}{\b0 \fs17 referable}{\b0 \
fs17 other }
\b0 \fs17 than}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 "results"}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
measurements}{\b0 \fs17 need}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 therefore}{\b0 \fs17
exist,}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 held}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17
some. }
fi226 {\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 traditional}{\b0 \fs17 concepts}{\b0 \fs17 ab
andoned}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 orthodox}{\b0 \fs17 QM,}{\b0 \fs17 accordin
g}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 Riggs,}{\b0 \fs17 in- }
\b0 \fs17 clude}{\b0 \fs17 "event-by-event}{\b0 \fs17 causality;}{\b0 \fs17 d
eterministic}{\b0 \fs17 evolution}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17
systems;}{\b0 \fs17 conti- }
\b0 \fs17 nuity}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 processes;}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
(occasionally)}{\b0 \fs17 energy}{\b0 \fs17 conservation".}{\b0 \fs17 (Rigg
s}{\b0 \fs17 2.)}{\b0 \fs17 He}{\b0 \fs17 makes }
\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 line}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 observations}{\b0 \fs
17 against}{\b0 \fs17 authors}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 rough
ly}{\b0 \fs17 Copenhagen}{\b0 \fs17 tradition}{\b0 \fs17 of }
\b0 \fs17 Orthodox}{\b0 \fs17 Quantum}{\b0 \fs17 Theory,}{\b0 \fs17 like}{
\b0 \fs17 Jammer,}{\b0 \fs17 Baggott,}{\b0 \fs17 Stapp,}{\b0 \fs17 Cushi
ng}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Beller. }
\b0 \fs17 Following}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 elements}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0
\fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 traditional}{\b0 \fs17 concept}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0
\fs17 causality,}{\b0 \fs17 Riggs}{\b0 \fs17 defines }
\b0 \fs17 his}{\b0 \fs17 particular-scientific}{\b0 \fs17 Principle}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality,}{\b0 \fs17 where}{\b0 \fs17 he}{\b0 \fs17 seems}{
\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 pay}{\b0 \fs17 insufficient }
\b0 \fs17 attention}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 why}{\b0 \fs17 th
e}{\b0 \fs17 above}{\b0 \fs17 points}{\b0 \fs17 were}{\b0 \fs17 abandoned}{\
b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 orthodox}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 what
}
\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 temporal}{\b0 \fs17 conditions}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \f
s17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 are:}{\b0 \fs17 "The}{\b0 \fs17 same}{\b0 \fs17 ca
use}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 set}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causes}{\b0 \fs17
always }
\b0 \fs17 produces}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 same}{\b0 \fs17 effect}{\b0 \fs1
7 or}{\b0 \fs17 effects}{\b0 \fs17 (other}{\b0 \fs17 things}{\b0 \fs17 bein
g}{\b0 \fs17 equal)}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 cause(s) }
\b0 \fs17 temporally}{\b0 \fs17 precedes,}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \f
s17 simultaneous}{\b0 \fs17 with,}{\b0 \fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 effect(s)."}{\b0
\fs17 (Riggs}{\b0 \fs17 6.) }\par

}
23 Peter J. Riggs, Quantum Causality: Conceptual Issues in the Causal Theory of
Quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9484\absw7222\absh1566 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 tum Mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23 (Dordrecht: S
pringer
262 Science+Business Media, 2009), 1-2. (Abbreviated in Chapter 2 alone as 'Rigg
s' fol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9484\absw7222\absh1566 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 lowed by page number, due to the numerous appearances of this work here in o
ne
262 sub-section.)
{\fs17 42 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 While viewing appreciatively his later clear-headed treatment
of the causal
oach to QM in its foundations and results, I spell out here a major point of
erence between Riggs' definition of causality and the one I have introduced in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Chap
ter 1 - which difference will point to the attitude that I will project regard\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
causality in the following chapters.
26 (1) Riggs presupposes a certain variety of what I call particular-scientific
con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
of 'causation', which exists in scientific practice in stark contrast to the re
al,
ersal, sense of the Universal Law of Causality. This does not try to theoreti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y explain a cause as that which exerts an influence within the effect at hand,
h has other related parts within a grosser object, which have been caused
ther respects by other causes in the past, in the more distant past, etc., to be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trac
ed ad libitum from the indefinite past. For many particular sciences the im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 medi
ate gross causes suffice, e.g., it is enough to say that the stone has caused th
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 appl
e to fall rather than accounting also for the causes behind the stone's throw
the causes behind the causal processes behind the throw, etc. The chain of
es can theoretically be summated over all the related actualities of the whole
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 past
, subsuming under one concept the theoretical implications of all and only
past causes of one process beyond a particular duration of time. This facili\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tate
s a better definition of the concept of causation than that in Riggs and also in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 many
others. This presupposes that there exist causes that have not directly been
overed in the causal horizon.
26 (2) Riggs' definition does not explicitly take proper cause and proper effec
t
the exact and causally given totality of participants proper of any p
articu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lar
causal process within the given measured spacetime limit of the extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on of a specific process. For this one has to exclude those parts within the
ty or process or group of processes concerned, which parts do not act at all
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so t
o produce the effect proper in the process in question. The theoretical need
ccurately exempt the parts of a gross object - which parts do not take part in
specific causal process at question in a given specific extension-motion - is
given in Riggs. This allows place for confusion.
26 The clause "the same cause {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}
the same effect" in Riggs' definition above,
h has to do with the repetitive and predictive possibilities with res
pect to
ation, is originally expressed in Newton's Principia, Part II: "{\field{\*\fldin
st SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the propor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of the causes remaining the same, the proportion of the effects will remain
same also; that is, the proportion of the motions and the periodic times."{\up00
6 \fs10 24 }\par
}
24 Isaac Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, tra
ns. Andrew
262 Motte (New York: Daniel Adee, 1846), 373-4.
\fi6157 {\fs17 43 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9

\cf0 Iwould accept the said clause as facilitating the notion of prope
r cause and
er effect and not merely predictive possibilities.
26 In addition to this statement from the Principia, Newton's Rule I for reasoni
ng
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in n
atural philosophy in Book III of the Principia may be considered as a pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 figu
ration and substantiation of the need for proper causes and proper effects:
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "We
are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and
icient to explain their appearances." {\up006 \fs10 25} Rule II is similar and
reminiscent of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prin
ciple of causal regularity in Nature. It reads: "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \
\f Symbol }} to the same natural effects
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we m
ust, as far as possible, assign the same causes." {\up006 \fs10 26} Though vagu
e, his following
ement too is related in meaning: "Therefore since both these forces, that is,
gravity of heavy bodies, and the centripetal force of the moons, respect the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cent
re of the earth, and are similar and equal between themselves, they will (by
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Rule
I and II) have one and the same cause."{\up006 \fs10 27 }
26 Though all these quotes show vaguely the place of proper cause and
effect,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ther
e remains much more to be considered desirable in Newton concerning the
ersal Law of Causality: that is, his concept of causality, and thereafter most
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 late
r definitions, have remained too gross mainly because he is not specific about
retically isolating (the chain of) proper causes and effects from the rest of
process or entity, which latter has / have different (chains of) causes and ef\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fect
s. The same grossness seems to have affected Riggs' definition badly insofar
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as i
t does not sufficiently provide for proper causes and effects.
26 In his definition of causality Riggs takes support from the following thinker
s,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 whos
e relevance to the concept of physical causality - when and to the
extent
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rele
vant - will also be discussed very briefly herewith:
26 1. Norman Robert Campbell, What Is Science?{\up006 \fs10
28,}
is
one of such works, the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 whol
e emphasis here being on experimental physics and not on the categori

al
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or o
ntological or meta-scientific foundations of physics or of causality in the sci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
s. This work is in fact a summary of Campbell's monumental two-volume
Foundations of Physics: The Philosophy of Theory and Experiment, where he
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 does
not discuss the possibility of achieving exactness of theoretical identifica\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of causes and effects, for which he could have introduced the conce
pt of
er causes and proper effects for sharpness of the notion; and he could have \par
}
25 Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 384.
Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 384.
Norman Robert Campbell, What Is Science? (New York: Dover, 1952, originally pub
262 lished in 1921).
{\fs17 44 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 broadened the notion of causality into something where its universality fo
r the
ical universe taken at once is emphasized.
26 2. Carl G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science, with meager menti
on of
ation - that too only as example for specific cases of etiology - i
s of old\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 time
fame. The lack of emphasis on the most general Law of Causality is clear as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Hemp
el stresses (which Riggs may have taken support from) general laws in his
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Phil
osophy of Natural Science{\up006 \fs10
29,}
but without reference to the
ubiquity of action
he Law of Causality. A clearer understanding of the fact that Hempel is more
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 preo
ccupied with the old-time state-of-the-art positivist scientific explanations
with causes may be had from the other works of Hempel.{\up006 \fs10 30 }

{\fs16 29}{\fs16 "SimilarcommentsapplytoSemmelweis'sexplanationthatchildhoodfe
verwascaused }
62 {\fs16 by}{\fs16 decomposed}{\fs16 animal}{\fs16 matter}{\fs16 introduced
}{\fs16 into}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 bloodstream}{\fs16 through}{\fs16 open}{\fs1
6 wound }
62 {\fs16 surfaces.}{\fs16 Thus}{\fs16 formulated,}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 explana
tion}{\fs16 makes}{\fs16 no}{\fs16 mention}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 general}{\fs16
laws;}{\fs16 but}{\fs16 it }
62 {\fs16 presupposes}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 such}{\fs16 contamination}{\fs16 of
}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 bloodstream}{\fs16 generally}{\fs16 leads}{\fs16 to}{\fs
16 blood}{\fs16 poi- }
62 {\fs16 soning}{\fs16 attended}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 characteristic}
{\fs16 symptoms}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 childbed}{\fs16 fever,}{\fs16 for}{\fs16
this}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 implied }
62 {\fs16 by}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 assertion}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 cont
amination}{\fs16 causes}{\fs16 puerperal}{\fs16 fever.}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 ge
neralization}{\fs16 was }
62 {\fs16 no}{\fs16 doubt}{\fs16 taken}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 granted}{\fs16 by}
{\fs16 Semmelweis,}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 whom}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 cause}{\fs16 of
}{\fs16 Kolletschka's}{\fs16 fatal }
62 {\fs16 illness}{\fs16 presented}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 etiological}{\fs16 probl
em:}{\fs16 given}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 infectious}{\fs16 matter}{\fs16 was}{\f
s16 introduced }
62 {\fs16 into}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 bloodstream,}{\fs16 blood}{\fs16 poisoning}
{\fs16 would}{\fs16 result.}{\fs16 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }
}}{\fs16 But}{\fs16 once}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 tacit}{\fs16 premiss}{\fs16 is
}
62 {\fs16 made}{\fs16 explicit,}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 explanation}{\fs16 is}{\fs
16 seen}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 involve}{\fs16 reference}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 general
}{\fs16 laws."}{\fs16 Carl}{\fs16 G. }
62 {\fs16 Hempel,}{\fs16 Philosophy}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Natural}{\fs16 Science}
{\fs16 (New}{\fs16 York:}{\fs16 Prentice-Hall,}{\fs16 1966),}{\fs16 53. }
16 30}{\fs16 Note}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 Hempel}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 committed
}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 causality}{\fs16 mostly}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16
context}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 deductive- }
62 {\fs16 nomological}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 probabilistic}{\fs16 explanations.
}{\fs16 Deductive-nomological}{\fs16 explanation}{\fs16 is, }
62 {\fs16 according}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 Hempel,}{\fs16 based}{\fs16 on}{\fs16
explanatory}{\fs16 facts}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 belong}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 two}{\f
s16 kinds:}{\fs16 (1)}{\fs16 par- }
62 {\fs16 ticular}{\fs16 facts}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 (2)}{\fs16 uniformities}{\f
s16 expressed}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 general}{\fs16 facts}{\fs16 resulting}{\fs16
in}{\fs16 conclusions. }
62 {\fs16 "The}{\fs16 conclusion}{\fs16 E}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 stateme
nt}{\fs16 describing}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 explanandum-event;}{\fs16 let}{\fs16

me}{\fs16 call}{\fs16 it}{\fs16 the }
62 {\fs16 explanandum-statement,}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 let}{\fs16 me}{\fs16 use}
{\fs16 the}{\fs16 word}{\fs16 "explanandum"}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 refer}{\fs16
to}{\fs16 either}{\fs16 E }
62 {\fs16 or}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 event}{\fs16 described}{\fs16 by}{
\fs16 it.}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 kind}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 explanation}{\fs16 thus}
{\fs16 characterized}{\fs16 it}{\fs16 will}{\fs16 call }
62 {\fs16 deductive-nomological}{\fs16 explanation}{\fs16 ;}{\fs16 for}{\fs16
it}{\fs16 amounts}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 deductive}{\fs16 subsumption}{
\fs16 of}{\fs16 the }
62 {\fs16 explanandum}{\fs16 under}{\fs16 principles}{\fs16 which}{\fs16 hav
e}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 character}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 general}{\fs16 laws:}{\fs16
it}{\fs16 answers }
62 {\fs16 the}{\fs16 question,}{\fs16 "}{\fs16 Why}{\fs16 did}{\fs16 the
}{\fs16 explanandum}{\fs16 event}{\fs16 occur?"{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 1
88 \\f Symbol }}."}{\fs16 Carl}{\fs16 G.}{\fs16 Hempel,}{\fs16 "Two }
62 {\fs16 Models}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Scientific}{\fs16 Explanation"}{\fs16 (4555),}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Yuri}{\fs16 Balashov}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Alex}{\fs16 R
osenberg,}{\fs16 Eds., }
62 {\fs16 Philosophy}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Science:}{\fs16 Contemporary}{\fs16
Readings}{\fs16 (London:}{\fs16 Routledge,}{\fs16 2002),}{\fs16 47.}{\
fs16 The }
62 {\fs16 second}{\fs16 kind}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 explanation}{\fs16 is}{\fs16
probabilistic,}{\fs16 which}{\fs16 does}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 need}{\fs16 a}{\f
s16 definition}{\fs16 here. }
93 {\fs16 After}{\fs16 having}{\fs16 supplied}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 background}{
\fs16 for}{\fs16 definition,}{\fs16 Hempel}{\fs16 further}{\fs16 defines}{\
fs16 cause }
26 {\fs16 as}{\fs16 follows:}{\fs16 "Accordingly,}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs1
6 context}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 explanation}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 cause}{\fs16 must}{
\fs16 be}{\fs16 allowed}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 con- }
26 {\fs16 sist}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 more}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 less}{\fs16
complex}{\fs16 set}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 particular}{\fs16 circumstances;}{\fs16
these}{\fs16 may}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 described}{\fs16 by }
26 {\fs16 a}{\fs16 set}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 sentences:}{\fs16 C1,}{\fs16 C2,}{\
fs16 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs16 Ck.}{\fs16 And}{\fs16
as}{\fs16 suggested}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 principle}{\fs16 "Same}{\
fs16 cause,}{\fs16 same }
26 {\fs16 effect,"}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 assertion}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 those}{\fs
16 circumstances}{\fs16 jointly}{\fs16 caused}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 given}{\fs16
event}{\fs16 -}{\fs16 described, }
26 {\fs16 let}{\fs16 us}{\fs16 say,}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 sentence
}{\fs16 E}{\fs16 -}{\fs16 implies}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 whenever}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 wherever}{\fs16 circumstances}{\fs16 of }
26 {\fs16 the}{\fs16 kind}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 question}{\fs16 occur,}{\fs16 an

}{\fs16 event}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 kind}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 be}{\fs16
explained}{\fs16 comes}{\fs16 out.}{\fs16 Hence,}{\fs16 the }
\fi6157 45 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Hempel almost explains off what we call physical-ontological causat
ion and
al explanations as less important than what he conceives to be a somewhat
erent concept of scientific explanations. These latter, in his thought,
have
to do with the cognitive aspect of understanding. He does "scientific ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh3167 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plan
ations" without extensive effort to reducing (anywhere in his works, as far
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh3167 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as I
know) all causation to explanation - without which he should not have gone
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh3167 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 blin
d about causal explanations. The cognitive game involved here is clear in his
usual) highly positivistic introduction to scientific explanations in the name
ntroducing what the tradition has called causal explanations.{\up006 \fs10 31 }
26 In the absence of realistic causal explanations with objectually ont
ological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh3167 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 comm
itment to things and processes as such in Hempel's works, it was impos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh3167 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e for him to think that a causal ontological commitment would epistemically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh3167 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 appe
rtain anything called causal processes outside of what he calls scien\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh3167 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tifi
c explanations. This is despite the fact that in general he and the
positivist \par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy4866\absw7369\absh5722 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi226 \f50 \fs1
6 \cf0 given causal explanation implicitly claims that there are general laws such as L1, L2,
226 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} LE, in schema (D) - by virtue of
which the occurrence of the causal antecedents
226 mentioned in C1, C2, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} Ck is a suf
ficient condition for the event to be explained.
226 Thus, the relation between causal factors and effect is reflected in schema
(D): causal
226 explanation is deductive in character. (However, the customary formulations
of causal

226 and other explanations often do not explicitly specify all the relevant laws
and particu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy4866\absw7369\absh5722 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
226 lar facts {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.)." Hempel, "Two Model
s of Scientific Explanation", 48.
"Consider first the explanatory use of what may be called general statements of
causal
262 connection: these are to the effect that an event of some kind A (e.g., moti
on of a mag\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy4866\absw7369\absh5722 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 net through a closed wire loop) causes an event of a certain other kind, B (
e.g., flow
262 of an electric current in the wire). Without entering into a more detailed a
nalysis, we
262 may say that in the simplest case a statement of this type affirms a law to
the effect that
262 whenever an event of kind A takes place then there occurs, at the same locat
ion or at
262 a specific different one, a corresponding even of kind B. {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} "To say that X causes Y is
262 to say that under proper conditions, an X will be followed by a Y," as Scriv
en puts it.
262 When this kind of causal locution is used, there usually is some understandi
ng of what
262 "proper" or "standard" background conditions are presupposed in the given co
ntext.
262 But to the extent that those conditions remain indeterminate, a general stat
ement of
262 causal connection amounts at best to the vague claim that there are certain
further
262 unspecified background conditions whose explicit mention in the give
n statement
262 would yield a truly general law connecting the "cause and the "effect" in qu
estion."
262 Carl G.Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Phil
osophy
262 of Science (New York: The Free Press, 1965), 348. The reference to M.Scriven
is to
262 his "Definitions, Explanations, and Theories" (99-195), H. M. Feigl, M.
Scriven
262 and G. Maxwell, Eds., Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science
, Volume II

262 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958), 185.
{\fs17 46 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 analyst school do not follow the Humean and partly Kantian schoo
l of 'the\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g-is-epistemologically-and-thus-almost-ontologically-in-the-mind-ism'
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as s
uch. Though Kant admits the possibility that noumena could exist, he does
consider them ontologically as conceived or conceivable. Hume goes coun\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ter
to all possible forms of causation as physical ontological. Though He
mpel
his school may not follow these thinkers explicitly, the effect of his scientifi
c
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 expl
anations is very much similar.
26 For these reasons, one can only hopelessly look for physical-ontolog
ically
itted definitions of physical process, cause, causation and causality i
n
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Hemp
el's thought, which otherwise deals with the sciences of the real world of
es and also with scientific explanations that human minds engender. Th
is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lack
of objectually ontological commitment to some real processes behind t
he
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noti
ons of causation and scientific explanation of processes is a feature he shares
common with most of the Vienna Circle and early analytic and linguist
ic
kers. This fact is reminiscent of their engagement with purely positiv
istic
linguistic analysis to solve the problems of all philosophy and science.
26 3. Mario Bunge, Causality and Modern Science{\up006 \fs10
32,}
i
s where Bunge discusses
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quan
tum causality extensively from a strongly causal-realistic standpoint. I
n
long discussions therein, I find very much that is suited to parallel with my
ments - except that there is no serious attempt to suggest proper causes and
er effects or the possibility of theoretical summation over all real causes in
backward temporal extension of the train of causes proper to any pro
cess
idered. As a result, access to the ontological backdrop for the most
gen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eral
(and in my opinion the only possible) sense of the Law of Causalit
y can\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 not
be had at every turn of judgments in science. Ontological commitment to
e being something behind and beyond the statistical explanations too i
s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vagu
ely present in Bunge. His work, Matter and Mind: A Philosophical Inquiry
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (Dor
drecht: Springer, 2010) cites various results and similes in QM in order to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7185\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 repu
diate philosophers along with the founders of QM and their protgs for
r ultra-phenomenalistic stand that the world is created by observation,
{\up006 \fs10 33 }\par
}
32 Mario Bunge, Causality and Modern Science (New York: Dover, 1979).
Citing as example "Schrdinger's Cat", he remarks that the essence of the QM ques
tion
262 of causality is fully different from what one sees there: "When analyzed, th
is theory is
262 seen not to refer at all to organisms, let alone to observers and their ment
al processes.
262 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} Of course, things are very diffe
rent in experiment, an intervention that alters the
262 object of study. But what causes such changes is the hand of the experimente
r or his
262 servomechanism, not his unaided mind. And presumably his initial me
ntal pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8824\absw7367\absh2160 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 cess (experimental design) and the final one (reading the dials) are brain p
rocesses.
\fi6157 {\fs17 47 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 or that thought moves matter. This refinement I find rare among
hardcore
icists-turned-philosophers.
26 I would qualify 'thought moves matter' in order not to alter its sense merely
to
thing like: 'the purely ideal / transcendental side of thought or the merely
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alle
ged pure freedom in thought - and not the thought process through th
eir
ical action - moves matter'. This qualification avoids misgivings to the tune
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of s
tandpoints where (1) the theoretically pure aspect of things conceptual would,
gedly, somehow effects causal changes on physical matter that is not also the
eptually physical aspect of thoughts, or (2) the physical stuff of thought pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es would allegedly be powerless to cause further physical processes.
26 4. Brian Skyrms, Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Lo
gic,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a t
hin volume in logic is another work Riggs uses. Here he defines caus
ation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alon
gside its sufficiency and necessity as logical conditions, and not causation
an ontological or physical-ontological relationship. His definition is w
orth
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
ioning:
\fi226 {\fs15 Definition}{\fs15 10:}{\fs15 A}{\fs15 property}{\fs15 F}{\fs15
is}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 sufficient}{\fs15 condition}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 a}{\fs15
property}{\fs15 G}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 when
- }
26 {\fs15 ever}{\fs15 F}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 present}{\fs15 G}{\fs15 is}{\fs15
present}{\fs15 . }
26 {\fs15 Definition}{\fs15 11:}{\fs15 A}{\fs15 property}{\fs15 H}{\fs15 is
}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 necessary}{\fs15 condition}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 pro
perty}{\fs15 I}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 when- }
26 {\fs15 ever}{\fs15 I}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 present}{\fs15 H}{\fs15 is}{\fs15
present}{\fs15 . }
26 {\fs15 Being}{\fs15 run}{\fs15 over}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 steamrolle
r}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 sufficient}{\fs15 condition}{\fs15 for}{\fs15
death,}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 neces- }
26 {\fs15 sary}{\fs15 condition.}{\up006 \fs8 34 }
Skyrms does not talk here of the presence or existence as such as something on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gically real and "over there". Perhaps he presumes it, but not evidently. Insofa
r

he logical conditions are fulfilled, will causation be a logical relationship or
a
ical-ontological one? If logical, do they have physical-conditional counter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 part
s? If they have physical-conditional counterparts, do they need to have their
fundamental ontological aspect too - namely, ontological commitment to
e being real physical causal elements outside of unaided consciousness? This
ct of thinking is not to be found in Skyrms' thin work mentioned, or in five
r works of his. Without it, we have no way of talking physical-ontologically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abou
t the causal horizon or proper causation or causality as a relation
in any
ible sense.
\fi262 {\fs16 So,}{\fs16 arguably,}{\fs16 all}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 links}{\fs16
in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 causal}{\fs16 chain}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 question}{\fs16
are}{\fs16 material,}{\fs16 though}{\fs16 only}{\fs16 the }
62 {\fs16 middle}{\fs16 ones}{\fs16 are}{\fs16 physical.}{\fs16 If}{\fs16 t
hought}{\fs16 could}{\fs16 move}{\fs16 matter}{\fs16 without}{\fs16 hands}{
\fs16 or}{\fs16 neural}{\fs16 pros- }
62 {\fs16 theses,}{\fs16 there}{\fs16 would}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 no}{\fs16 cons
ervation}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 energy."}{\fs16 Mario}{\fs16 Bunge,}{\fs16 Matter
}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Mind:}{\fs16 A }
62 {\fs16 Philosophical}{\fs16 Inquiry}{\fs16 (Dordrecht:}{\fs16 Springer,}{\
fs16 2010),}{\fs16 ix. }
16 34}{\fs16 Brian}{\fs16 Skyrms,}{\fs16 Choice}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Chance:}
{\fs16 An}{\fs16 Introduction}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 Inductive}{\fs16 Logic}{\fs1
6 (Belmont:}{\fs16 Wads- }
62 {\fs16 worth}{\fs16 Publishing,}{\fs16 1986,}{\fs16 2000}{\fs16 print),}{
\fs16 69. }
48 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 5. Roger G. Newton, Thinking about Physics, is an exceptionally cle
ar defense
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7303\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of '
causalism'. 'Causalism' is a very general term which the author himself - after
quantum physicists as a matter of fact, and even after many philosophers
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7303\absh9336 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 who
unquestioningly follow some of the nave terms of these quantum physicists
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7303\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - te
rms also as 'determinism'.{\up006 \fs10 35} The author calls it glaringly so, b
ut a good reading
ugh whole stretches of the book convinces one that what is meant by him
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7303\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is h
appily causation in general in the sense of the most general Causal Law, and
the epistemologically cloudy 'determinism'. (I will discuss this lack of clarity
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7303\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in C
hapter 4.)
26 I cite from Roger Newton's work an important discussion, in order to obtain
ality in QM from the point of view I have presented earlier. He makes QM
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7303\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 yiel
d the fine causal sense, by first pinpointing exactly where in QM probabili\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7303\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
appear and what the real sense of statistics in QM is. I find this supportive
my purpose of finding causation in QM where probabilism obstructs it.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7303\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 He s
ays:
\fi226 {\fs15 First}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 all,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 phrase}{\fs15 "
a}{\fs15 complete}{\fs15 set}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 dynamical}{\fs15 variables"}{
\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 system}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 differ- }
26 {\fs15 ent}{\fs15 meanings}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 classical}{\fs15 and}{\fs15
in}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanics.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 first}{\fs1
5 instance}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 denotes }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 set}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 quantities,}{\fs15 such}{\fs15
as}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 particles'}{\fs15 coordinates}{\fs15 and}{\fs15
momenta,}{\fs15 whose}{\fs15 values}{\fs15 at }
26 {\fs15 one}{\fs15 time}{\fs15 completely}{\fs15 determine}{\fs15 the}{\fs
15 state}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 system}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 hence}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 values}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 its}{\fs15 other}{\fs15 dynamic}{\fs15 variables.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15
quantum}{\fs15 mechanics,}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 phrase}{\fs15 denotes}{\fs15
a}{\fs15 set}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 com- }
26 {\fs15 muting}{\fs15 operators}{\fs15 whose}{\fs15 spectra}{\fs15 can}{\f
s15 be}{\fs15 used}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 unambiguous}{\fs15 labels}{\fs15 on}{\
fs15 a}{\fs15 basis}{\fs15 (either }
26 {\fs15 literally}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 extended}{\fs15 s
ense}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 generalized}{\fs15 Fourier}{\fs15 integrals)}{\fs15 o
f}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 Hilbert}{\fs15 space }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 system,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 implies}{\fs15 t
hat}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 simultaneous}{\fs15 eigenvalues}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 qu
asi-eigenvalues }
26 {\fs15 may}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 used}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 unique}{\fs15 (up}{\fs
15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 constant}{\fs15 factor)}{\fs15 identification}{\fs15
of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 vector.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15 a }
26 {\fs15 state}{\fs15 labeled}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 way,}{\fs15 the

}{\fs15 values}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 other}{\fs15 dynamic}{\fs15 variables}{\fs1
5 are}{\fs15 determined,}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 they }
26 {\fs15 are}{\fs15 determined}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 all,}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 as
}{\fs15 probability}{\fs15 distributions.}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 at}{\f
s15 this}{\fs15 point,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 due}{\fs15 to }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 lack}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 determinism,}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 pr
obabilities}{\fs15 enter}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanics}{\fs15 .}{\fs15 Cla
ssically,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 posi- }
26 {\fs15 tion}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 ideally
}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 precisely}{\fs15 determined}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 the}{\fs15
time}{\fs15 t}{\fs15 =}{\fs15 0;}{\fs15 practically}{\fs15 it }
26 {\fs15 cannot}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 pinned}{\fs15 down.}{\fs15 But}{\fs15 for
}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 free}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 position}{\fs15 er
ror}{\fs15 ({\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}x)}{\fs15 t}{\fs15 at}{\
fs15 time}{\fs15 t}{\fs15 ,}{\fs15 which }
26 {\fs15 grows}{\fs15 because}{\fs15 its}{\fs15 momentum}{\fs15 cannot}{\fs
15 practically}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 specified}{\fs15 precisely}{\fs15 either,}{
\fs15 can}{\fs15 be }
26 {\fs15 reduced}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 value}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 close}{\
fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 initial}{\fs15 ({\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f S
ymbol }}x)}{\fs15 o}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 ingenuity}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 experimenter }
26 {\fs15 and}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quality}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 equipme
nt}{\fs15 allow;}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanically,}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{
\fs15 other}{\fs15 hand,}{\fs15 the }
{\fs16 35}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 cite}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 purely}{\fs16 physical}{\fs
16 context}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 use}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 te
rm}{\fs16 'determinism':}{\fs16 "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{
\fs16 consider}{\fs16 physi- }
62 {\fs16 cal}{\fs16 systems}{\fs16 whose}{\fs16 time-dependence}{\fs16 is}{
\fs16 deterministic,}{\fs16 i.e.,}{\fs16 there}{\fs16 exists}{\fs16 a}{\fs1
6 prescription, }
62 {\fs16 either}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 terms}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 differential}{\fs16
or}{\fs16 difference}{\fs16 equations,}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 calculating}{\fs1
6 their}{\fs16 future}{\fs16 be- }
62 {\fs16 haviour}{\fs16 from}{\fs16 given}{\fs16 initial}{\fs16 conditions.
}{\fs16 One}{\fs16 could}{\fs16 assume}{\fs16 naively}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 d
eterministic }
62 {\fs16 motion}{\fs16 (which}{\fs16 is,}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 example,}{\f
s16 generated}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 continuous}{\fs16 differential}{\fs16 e
quations)}{\fs16 is }
62 {\fs16 rather}{\fs16 regular}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 far}{\fs16 from}{\fs16 be
ing}{\fs16 chaotic}{\fs16 because}{\fs16 successive}{\fs16 states}{\fs16 ev
olve}{\fs16 continu- }
62 {\fs16 ously}{\fs16 from}{\fs16 each}{\fs16 other."}{\fs16 Heinz}{\fs16
Georg}{\fs16 Schuster}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Wolfram}{\fs16 Just,}{\fs16 Determi

nistic}{\fs16 Chaos: }
62 {\fs16 An}{\fs16 Introduction}{\fs16 (Weinheim:}{\fs16 Wiley}{\fs16 VCH,}
{\fs16 2005),}{\fs16 1. }
\fi6157 49 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 spread of the error has an irreducible minimum determined by the fa
ct that, given the
26 initial accuracy, Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle sets a lower limit on
the initial
26 momentum error. The future position of a particle is therefore more uncertain
than it
26 was initially - the wave packet, though fully determined, spreads - and the p
article, in
26 contrast to the point in Hilbert space representing its state, cannot be desc
ribed as hav\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7240\absh7275 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ing a well-defined trajectory; this is so because of the nature of the quantu
m state of the
26 particle at one time, and not because quantum mechanics lacks determinism. Fu
rther\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7240\absh7275 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 more, the growing uncertainty of a particle's position takes place even for t
he simplest
26 system imaginable - a single free particle - and not only for relatively more
complicated
26 systems as in classical mechanics.{\up006 \fs8 36 }
{\fs17 Notice}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 Roger}{\fs17 Newton}{\fs17 means}{\fs17 by
}{\fs17 'determinism'}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 meant}{\fs17
by}{\fs17 causal- }
17 ism}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 specific}{\fs17 phy
sical}{\fs17 processes.}{\fs17 He}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 seem}{
\fs17 to}{\fs17 connote }
17 anything}{\fs17 much}{\fs17 epistemologically}{\fs17 limiting}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 thereby, }
17 i.e.,}{\fs17 epistemological}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 where}{\fs17 human
}{\fs17 intellect}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 supposed}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 cap
a- }
17 ble}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 principle}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 determining}{\fs17 the}{
\fs17 causes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 routes}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 processe
s. }
26 {\fs17 All}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 same,}{\fs17 he}{\fs17 nails}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 term}{\fs17 'probability'}{\fs17 precisely}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 its}{\fs17
meaning}{\fs17 without }
17 confusing}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM.}{\
fs17 To}{\fs17 give}{\fs17 another}{\fs17 example}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 his}{\
fs17 precise}{\fs17 nail- }
17 ing}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 'probability':}{\fs17 regarding}{\fs17 the}{\fs1
7 unstable}{\fs17 probabilistic}{\fs17 configurations,}{\fs17 which }
17 are}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 prototypes}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 early}{\fs1
7 and}{\fs17 even}{\fs17 present}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
unpredictability, }
17 Roger}{\fs17 Newton}{\fs17 holds:}{\fs17 "Even}{\fs17 though}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 time}{\fs17 development}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 is
}{\fs17 deter- }
17 ministic,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 later}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 such}{\f
s17 that}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 increasing}{\fs17 probabi
lity}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 rather}{\fs17 than }
17 a}{\fs17 definite}{\fs17 prediction}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 finding}{\
fs17 the}{\fs17 system}{\fs17 disintegrated}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 t
}{\fs17 ."}{\up006 \fs10 37}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 offers }
17 a}{\fs17 starting}{\fs17 point}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 Riggs}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
hint}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 possibility}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 there}{\fs17
being}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 in }
17 all}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 aspects}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs1
7 QM}{\fs17 world}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 where}{\fs17 he}{\fs17 uses}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 term}{\fs17 'deterministic' }
17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 purely}{\fs17 physical-ontologically}{\fs17 causal}{
\fs17 sense. }
26 {\fs17 Riggs}{\fs17 could}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 detected}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
epistemological}{\fs17 muddiness}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 term}{\fs17 'd
eter- }
17 minism'}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 physical-ontological}{\fs17 angle}{
\fs17 and}{\fs17 freely}{\fs17 let}{\fs17 Roger}{\fs17 Newton}{\fs17 alone
}
17 with}{\fs17 his}{\fs17 mixing}{\fs17 up}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 epi
stemological}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 t
he}{\fs17 physical- }
17 ontological}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 o
ntological}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 most}{\fs17
generally }
17 applicable}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 been,}{\fs
17 is,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 physically}{\fs17 processua
l. }
26 {\fs17 6.}{\fs17 William}{\fs17 A.}{\fs17 Wallace,}{\fs17 Causality}{\fs1

7 and}{\fs17 Scientific}{\fs17 Explanation}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17 Vol.}{\fs17 2,}{
\fs17 is}{\fs17 another }
17 work}{\fs17 Riggs}{\fs17 cites}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 context}{\fs1
7 of}{\fs17 his}{\fs17 definition}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation.}{\fs17 Walla
ce}{\fs17 takes}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 clear }
17 standpoint}{\fs17 concerning}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Vol.}{\fs1
7 1,}{\fs17 p.}{\fs17 6.}{\fs17 He}{\fs17 evaluates}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 importance }\par
}
36 Roger G. Newton, Thinking about Physics (Princeton: Princeton Univer
sity Press,
262 2000), 48-49.
This is called the Augur Effect for atoms and molecules, and for molecules alon
e it is
262 called Predissociation, both of which are similar to the process of internal
conversion
262 (in nuclear physics). Newton, Thinking About Physics, 49.
{\fs17 50 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 of causal explanation (not of causation) after the emergence of logical po
sitiv\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ism
characterized by their inability to overcome the empiricist arguments from
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Hume
to Kant and later thinkers. This he does only to later critically overcome
positivistic substitution of causation with causal explanation: He says that, as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a re
sult of this substitution, in "scientific activity {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188
\\f Symbol }} in the early twentieth cen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tury
, there is no way in which the scientist can penetrate beneath appearances to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dete
ct any ontological influence or causal influence. In place of causal explana\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
, therefore, he must seek logical connections or functional correlations as the
er goal of his science."{\up006 \fs10 38 }
26 Vol. 2 of this work bases science in "causation" a bit vaguely, and not furth
er
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 upon
the Universal Law of Causality. He opines at the same time that ma
ny
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 20 {

\up006 \fs10 th}century analytical ontological explications of causation "elimin
ate or severely
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 curt
ail the role of causes or causal explanations in modern science."{\up006 \fs10
39} The whole
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mate
rial of Vols. 1 and 2 are mostly an excellent exercise in connecting causation
scientific explanation, and of course not in establishing the extent of onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal independence of physical-ontological causes from theoretical analysis
,
ntific explanation, probabilistic explanation, etc.
26 Except Mario Bunge and Roger Newton and perhaps a few others, many of
authors mentioned by Riggs in the context of causality are explicitly not in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tere
sted in creating an ontological definition and explication of (1) Causality in
universal sense of the Law; and Bunge and Newton, and surely others, do not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 seem
to be committed to (2) the total causal horizon on the large scale, and to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (3)
proper causes and effects on the mini-scale. This fact, in addition to the posi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tivi
st and particularist attitudes of some of Riggs' other old and recent physical
philosophical references for the notion of causality, may be why his partial
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 depe
ndence on them for the concept of causality does not go into the above three
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 impo
rtant aspects of causal realism. And his dependence on Isaac Newton's defi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 niti
on, mentioned previously, has perhaps served to aggravate the lack of direc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
towards the most general meanings of the Law of Causality, causal horizons,
proper causes and effects.
26 Now we go to the positive aspects of Riggs. He cites QM results in terms of
demands of causality, studies various theories of QM causation{\up006 \fs10 40}
and admits:
{\fs16 38}{\fs16 William}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 Wallace,}{\fs16 Causality}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 Scientific}{\fs16 Explanation}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 Vol.}{\fs16 1}{\fs
16 (Ann}{\fs16 Arbor:}{\fs16 Univer- }
62 {\fs16 sity}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Michigan}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 1974),}{\fs16
6. }
16 39}{\fs16 William}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 Wallace,}{\fs16 Causality}{\fs16 and
}{\fs16 Scientific}{\fs16 Explanation}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 Vol.}{\fs16 2}{\fs16
(Ann}{\fs16 Arbor:}{\fs16 Univer- }
62 {\fs16 sity}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Michigan}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 1974,}{\fs16
8. }
16 40}{\fs16 For}{\fs16 example,}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 causal}{\fs16 theory}{\
fs16 in}{\fs16 Phil}{\fs16 Dow,}{\fs16 Physical}{\fs16 Causation}{\fs16 (C
ambridge:}{\fs16 Cam- }
62 {\fs16 bridge}{\fs16 University}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 2000). }
\fi6157 51 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 "However, these theories have yet to provide a complete explanatory accoun
t of
ation{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}." (Riggs 9.) Interestingly, he
cites in support of what I would call the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dime
nsion of ever more genuine QM causal realism the fact that experimental
ical apparatuses in the past twenty or more years have been able to
map
vidual atoms in much detail using apparatuses that should be understoo
d
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to i
mplicitly causally (though explicitly only probabilistically) detect particles.{
\up006 \fs10 41 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I su
ggest that this implicit nature of explicitly probabilistic detection is given i
n
very nature of all apparatuses and human epistemic activity, and presupposes
logical commitment to there existing the causal processes out there. Thus,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so I
hold, Riggs indirectly supports (or perhaps means) ontological-causal com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mitm
ent in an objectual sense.
26 He gives numerous examples where experiments could isolate, trap, ho
ld
manipulate most atomic and subatomic particles for long or short dura
s (in short, as objectually identifiable) - which were previously only statisti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y describable: He refers here to T. Hey and P. Walters. {\up006 \fs10
42} He cites from Hey
Walters (70-71) and also from S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond and argue
s
the causal-realistic implications of the high accuracy with which subatomic

icles are now being experimented with. {\up006 \fs10 43} Probabilistic causalis
m, I suggest,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 took
shape in an age when "statistical probability" meant something incompat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ible
with causal realism.
26 According to Q. Ho-Kim, N. Kumar and C. S. Lam, {\up006 \fs10 44}
when observations
the help of new techniques are made even on single particle systems
, it
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 demo
nstrates their observability, distinguishability, verifiability and also
exist\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
irrespective of our observing them. It is worth mentioning here that Robert
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Bran
dom and some of his critics are at least partially agreed that some sort of
observability and consequent reality of particles is achievable in physics in a
\par
}
41 Riggs discusses this citing Humphreys ("Electron Seen in Orbit", Nature 401,
2 Sep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7944\absw7222\absh2952 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 tember 1999, 21-22); Zuo et al. ("Direct Observation of d-orbital Holes and
Cu-Cu
262 Bonding in Cu2O", Nature 401, 2 September 1999, 49-52); Herz et al. ("Probin
g the
262 Shape of Atoms in Real Space", Physical Review B68 (2003): 42301-5308); and
Gericke
262 et al. ("High Resolution Imaging of Single Atoms in a Quantum Gas", arXiv:08
04.4788,
262 2008, the whole article). (Riggs 4.)
T. Hey and P. Walters, The New Quantum Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7944\absw7222\absh2952 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 sity Press, 2003), 79-87.
S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond, Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities and Photon
s
262 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 18.
Q. Ho-Kim, N. Kumar and C. S. Lam, Invitation to Contemporary Physics (New Jers
ey:
262 World Scientific, 2004), 81.
{\fs17 52 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 gradually higher or lower fashion, though they tend to present it in highl
y ana\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lyti
c and pragmatic terms.{\up006 \fs10 45 }
26 However high or low in probability their observability, distinguishability an
d
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 veri
fiability are, I believe, the physical, causal-ontological and objectual
aspect
ds sturdy there behind - or, so I argue in support of objectual ont
ological
itment behind experimental probabilism. All these, in the very least, point
nd the mere non-causal or acausal interpretation of the received view
of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM s
tatistic. (Riggs 4.) Thus, I conclude, according to Riggs the laws of physics
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 like
Causality can and probably must apply to QM and even smaller particles.
26 I surmise from here Riggs' opinion to be that at least theoretically we canno
t
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be t
oo statistical or phenomenalistic or instrumentalistic about atoms and suba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tomi
c particles in QM, except, practically, in experimental calculations that have
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to d
o with macroscopic and mesoscopic measurements of microscopic phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ena
with respect to our epistemic situation. That is, in human terms, st
atisti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
calculations are only the epistemic results of spatiotemporal measureme
nt
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prog
rammes for one layer with respect to another layer of observation systems
phenomena, not as such direct logical representations of the real events that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 happ
en at the extension-motion spot.
26 This yields the reality of such particles beyond what statistical marking sug
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gest
s. The statistical measure of a trajectory is a marking; the reality of the par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17
e's extension-motion is outside of the measurement-event; what
de
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17
omething objectual; and so the thing or process behind the observation
be ontologically committed to as being something real, however
\cf0 ticl
is outsi
\cf0 is s
has
\cf0 to
vague t
he
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 iden
tification is and however probabilistic the empirical results are. Note
that
can lead to reification of all sorts of theoretically posited physical entities
.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 It l
ies in the interest of the experimentalist to find ways of detecting the actual
erties causal-realistically - as the history of efforts and accomplishm
ents
new generation cyclotrons and chambers (in CERN and elsewhere) and of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7316\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mode
rn cluster telescopes demonstrates. This, I would say, is the reason why we
very general ontological commitment along and beyond instrumentalistic
oaches to mathematical calculations of probabilities.
26 I draw a conclusion from the foregoing discussion. The concept of grades of
rimental distinguishability of particles in QM, I suggest, can be generalized
{\fs16 45}{\fs16 Robert}{\fs16 B.}{\fs16 Brandom,}{\fs16 Making}{\fs16 It}
{\fs16 Explicit:}{\fs16 Reasoning,}{\fs16 Representing,}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 D
iscursive}{\fs16 Com- }
62 {\fs16 mitment}{\fs16 (Cambridge,}{\fs16 Mass.:}{\fs16 Harvard}{\fs16 Uni
versity}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 2001);}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 critique}{\f
s16 by}{\fs16 Jochen }
62 {\fs16 Apel,}{\fs16 et}{\fs16 al}{\fs16 .,}{\fs16 "Of}{\fs16 {\field{\*\f
ldinst SYMBOL 109 \\f Symbol }}-Mesons}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Oranges:}{\fs16 Scru
tinizing}{\fs16 Brandom's}{\fs16 Concept}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Observ- }
62 {\fs16 ability"}{\fs16 (59-68),}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Bernd}{\fs16 Prien}{\fs1
6 and}{\fs16 David}{\fs16 P.}{\fs16 Schweikard,}{\fs16 Robert}{\fs16 Brand
om:}{\fs16 Analytic }
62 {\fs16 Pragmatist}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 Mnster}{\fs16 Lectures}{\fs16 in}{\fs16
Philosophy,}{\fs16 Vol.}{\fs16 10}{\fs16 (Frankfurt:}{\fs16 Ontos}{\fs16 Ve
rlag,}{\fs16 2008). }
\fi6157 53 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 by use of causal approachability as a theoretically more reliable
criterion. Ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 proa
chability can further be reduced to causal processes in extension (who
se
ure is space) and motion / change (whose measure is time). When extension

change are mixed with causation, approachability means causal exchange\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abil
ity of impact-elements from the cause to the effect in an in-principle-finitely\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 meas
urable manner. In short, where matter-energy is involved, the general
teness of measured extension-motion alone suffices to characterize the
uremental spatiotemporal distinguishability of the otherwise statistically
ained causal processes between particles in their extension-motion location
he physical-ontological level.{\up006 \fs10 46} But why is causation not measur
able? Because
s a given total characteristic of processes, it is not a quantitatively divisibl
e or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 addi
tive characteristic like extension and motion. These comments of mine are
avour of the adequacy of causal arguments resulting from the experimentally
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alre
ady somewhat achievable distinguishability of particles.
26 In order to introduce his causal theory of QM, Riggs begins to di
stinguish
een causalism and determinism in a way partially different from how I do
he forthcoming chapters. {\up006 \fs10 47} His distinction between two allied n
otions is dif\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ficu
lt: 'Deterministic causality' and 'strict causality' are for him synonymous and,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 when
stated of something, imply that 'the laws of nature are deterministic'. Fur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ther
, 'statistical causality' and 'probabilistic determinism' refer to the
idea that
laws of nature are non-deterministic or 'indeterminate' in QM. (Riggs 10.)
26 Whereas, I would suggest, the problem with the first set of terms is that 'de
inism' should first be defined to show if it involves the epistemic aspect of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 our
determining things to be so and so, where there is reference to the
mind,
the determination of physical processes by antecedent physical processes
out reference to the mind. Determination only by physical processes makes
{\fs16 46}{\fs16 Here}{\fs16 we}{\fs16 may}{\fs16 also}{\fs16 invoke}{\fs1
6 the}{\fs16 natural}{\fs16 kinds}{\fs16 controversy}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 the
}{\fs16 need}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 finding}{\fs16 ways }

62 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 naming}{\fs16 subatomic}{\fs16 particles.}{\fs16 For
}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 full-fledged}{\fs16 contemporary}{\fs16 study,}{\fs16
see}{\fs16 Helen }
62 {\fs16 Beebee}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Nigel}{\fs16 Sabbarton-Leary,}{\fs16 "Int
roduction"}{\fs16 (1-24),}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Jessica}{\fs16 Wilson,}{\fs16 "
From }
62 {\fs16 Constitutional}{\fs16 Necessities}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 Causal}{\fs16 N
ecessities"}{\fs16 (192-211),}{\fs16 both}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Helen}{\fs16 Bee
bee}{\fs16 and }
62 {\fs16 Nigel}{\fs16 Sabbarton-Leary,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Semantics}{\fs16 a
nd}{\fs16 Metaphysics}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Natural}{\fs16 Kinds}{\fs16 (New}{\f
s16 York: }
62 {\fs16 Routledge,}{\fs16 2011). }
16 47}{\fs16 "A}{\fs16 physical}{\fs16 theory}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 determinist
ic}{\fs16 if}{\fs16 it}{\fs16 predicts}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 future}{\fs16 sta
te}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 system}{\fs16 uniquely }
62 {\fs16 from}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 specification}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16
system's}{\fs16 present}{\fs16 state.}{\fs16 In}{\fs16 other}{\fs16 words,}
{\fs16 if}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 equation }
62 {\fs16 governing}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 particular}{\fs16 phenomenon}{\fs16 toge
ther}{\fs16 with}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 relevant}{\fs16 boundary}{\fs16 conditio
ns }
62 {\fs16 provide}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 unique}{\fs16 solution,}{\fs16 then}{\fs16
the}{\fs16 description}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 phenomenon}{\fs16 is}{
\fs16 deterministic. }
62 {\fs16 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs16 It}{\fs16 does}{\
fs16 not}{\fs16 logically}{\fs16 follow}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 if}{\fs16 a}{\f
s16 phenomenon}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 describable}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 a}
{\fs16 completely }
62 {\fs16 deterministic}{\fs16 formalism}{\fs16 then}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 p
henomenon}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 itself}{\fs16 uncaused.}{\fs16 Indeed}{\fs16
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs16 even }
62 {\fs16 Newtonian}{\fs16 mechanics}{\fs16 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f
Symbol }}}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 deterministic}{\fs16 only}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 simpl
e}{\fs16 situations."}{\fs16 (Riggs}{\fs16 9.) }
54 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 deterministic causality strict and stark causality. The epistemic aspect c
ontrib\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 uted
by involvement of mind makes the thing liable to be real as empiri

cally
ured or determined in a specific experiment or experience for it to be deter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mini
stic. But the epistemic exercise need not be the reason why there is causation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or t
hat the subject is caused. The terms 'statistical causality' and 'probabilistic
de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 term
inism' require that the epistemological variety of determinism be detached
the ontological term 'determinism', so that the ontological aspect is
clear
ontological commitment to the existence of processes and their causes.
26 Riggs understands by 'Causal Theory of QM' an improved micro-realist
ic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vers
ion of causal formalisms (that possibilize that the laws and theories permit
retical advances and empirical predictions) and interpretations (accounts of
the postulated terms, results and theories mean) in De Broglie, Bohm, the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pilo
t wave theory, etc. (Riggs 10.) For tenability of the Causal Theory he suggests
following additional reasons (other than those mentioned in the above argu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
s from him): (1) the 50 years long maturity of the Causal Theory alongside
Orthodox Theory, (2) the thoroughgoing difference between the axioms of
two, (3) the radical distinctness between the conceptual structures po
stu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 late
d in the two, and (4) the possibility of predictions by the Causal Theory in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 area
s where the Orthodox Theory has yielded experimental predictions.
26 Event-by-event causality is absent in the Orthodox Theory since a quantum
icle according to it has no trajectory unless observed, or, does not exist until
ured. But not so in the Causal Theory where causation occurs in micr
o\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phen
omena or micro-entities with definite properties and physical processes in
e over time (according to our categorial improvements it is, ontologically, in
nsion-motion, and only epistemologically in spacetime or space and time).
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 That
is, the dynamics of the system and its interactions with its enviro
nment
rmine the future of the system. (Riggs, 10-11.) Ontologically definite
(but

not be epistemologically determined) properties and physical processes are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sign
s of causally active, always processually existent entities.
26 Again, the merits of the Causal Theory as against the Orthodox are
its
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (1)on
tology of spatiotemporal entities and processes (for us these are extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on processes), (2) absence of divide between classical and quantum realms,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (3)co
ntinuous dynamics, (4) absence of the measurement problem, i.e., as to
the wavefunction collapse occurs and how it can be observed and measured,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 if a
t all it can be, (5) absence of hypothetical mechanics to overcome conceptual
iculties, (6) absence of paradoxes, and (7) the ontological insignifica
nce of
probabilistic interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle. (Riggs, 11-12.)
26 The alleged challenges, inherent in the Causal Theory, which await contrary
anation, are also enumerated. They are myths for Riggs: (1) the alleg
ed
\fi6157 55 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 return to (the basic causal ontological assumptions behind the) classical
physics,
the presence of hidden variables, (3) the suggested disproof by impos
sibil\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
theorems, (4) refutation by experiments on Bell-inequalities, (5) parallelism
pure metaphysics, (6) possession of inconsistencies, (7) resistance to
for\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mali
zation by Relativity, and (8) absence of intrinsic angular momentum (spin).
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (Rig
gs, 11-12.) These remain to be countered well enough - I doubt wheth
er
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Rigg
s could ever reply to all these in an adequate manner in the purvie
w of a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sing
le monograph.
26 He insists that for sufficiency of any realistic interpretation of theories t
hey
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "hav

e features that 'mirror' aspects of an observer independent reality", and that
independent reality in QM is nothing but real "matter waves". (Riggs, 15.) It
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is t
hese matter waves which, at the beginnings of QM and later periods of for\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mali
zed teaching of QM, used at times to be taken to be no real causal things at
but instead as mere no-things or pure waves with no real matter-energy parts
without the consequent causal relevance, but still possessing some mysteri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ous
statistical relevance - reminding us of the clear involvement of mathematical
rumentalism in QM.
26 According to Riggs, the important motivation for the Causal Theory is that
Orthodox Theory does not concern itself with what the world is made of;
the alternative interpretations, which have tried to avoid the problem
s,
postulated bizarre entities like infinitely many parallel universes from one
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cosm
ic wavefunction solution, or engaged odd mechanisms like spontaneous
e vector reduction (wavefunction collapse) (Riggs 46-47), or, as I wou
ld
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hold
, created non-standard (fuzzy) logic with bizarre properties{\up006 \fs10 48} t
hat under\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 took
to explain QM. The preoccupation of the Causal Theory with the real and
{\fs16 48}{\fs16 To}{\fs16 support}{\fs16 this,}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 cite}{\fs1
6 J.}{\fs16 S.}{\fs16 Bell:}{\fs16 "Why}{\fs16 did}{\fs16 such}{\fs16 ser
ious}{\fs16 people}{\fs16 take}{\fs16 so}{\fs16 seriously}{\fs16 axi- }
67 {\fs16 oms}{\fs16 which}{\fs16 do}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 seem}{\fs16 so}{\fs1
6 arbitrary?}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 suspect}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 they}{\fs16 were}{
\fs16 misled}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 perni- }
67 {\fs16 cious}{\fs16 misuse}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 word}{\fs16
'measurement'}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 contemporary}{\fs16 theory.}{\fs16 This}{
\fs16 word}{\fs16 very }
67 {\fs16 strongly}{\fs16 suggests}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 ascertaining}{\fs16 of}
{\fs16 some}{\fs16 preexisting}{\fs16 property}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 some}{\fs16
thing,}{\fs16 any }
67 {\fs16 instrument}{\fs16 involved}{\fs16 playing}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 purely}{
\fs16 passive}{\fs16 role.}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 experiments}{\fs16 are}{\f
s16 just}{\fs16 not }
67 {\fs16 like}{\fs16 that,}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 we}{\fs16 learned}{\fs16 espec
ially}{\fs16 from}{\fs16 Bohr.}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 results}{\fs16 have}{\fs16
to}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 regarded}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 the }
67 {\fs16 joint}{\fs16 produce}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 'system'}{\fs16 and}{\fs16

'apparatus',}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 complete}{\fs16 experimental}{\fs16 set-up.}{
\fs16 But}{\fs16 the }
67 {\fs16 misuse}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 word}{\fs16 'measurement'}{\fs1
6 makes}{\fs16 it}{\fs16 easy}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 forget}{\fs16 this}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 then}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 expect}{\fs16 that }
67 {\fs16 the}{\fs16 'results}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 measurements'}{\fs16 should}{
\fs16 obey}{\fs16 some}{\fs16 simple}{\fs16 logic}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 which}{
\fs16 the}{\fs16 apparatus }
67 {\fs16 is}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 mentioned.}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 resulting}{\fs16
difficulties}{\fs16 soon}{\fs16 show}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 any}{\fs16 such}{
\fs16 logic}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 or- }
67 {\fs16 dinary}{\fs16 logic.}{\fs16 It}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 my}{\fs16 impress
ion}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 whole}{\fs16 vast}{\fs16 subject}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 'Quantum}{\fs16 Logic'}{\fs16 has }
67 {\fs16 arisen}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 this}{\fs16 way}{\fs16 from}{\fs16 the}{\
fs16 misuse}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 word.}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 am}{\fs16 con
vinced}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 word}{\fs16 'meas- }
67 {\fs16 urement'}{\fs16 has}{\fs16 now}{\fs16 been}{\fs16 so}{\fs16 abuse
d}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 field}{\fs16 would}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 signif
icantly}{\fs16 advanced}{\fs16 by }
67 {\fs16 banning}{\fs16 its}{\fs16 use}{\fs16 altogether,}{\fs16 in}{\fs16
favour}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 example}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 word}{\fs16
'experiment'."}{\fs16 J.}{\fs16 S.}{\fs16 Bell, }
56 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 actual world of objects and processes is in my opinion part of
the categorial
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 requ
irement of ontological commitment and safeguards the aims of the scien\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tifi
c enterprise.
26 The theoretical formalism and fundamental experiments of the Causal The\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ory
do not explicitly warrant the singular cosmic wavefunction solution, infinite
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 para
llel universes, spontaneous state vector reduction or wavefunction collapse,
he methodology of fuzzy logic sufficiently enough - in my opinion, for ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ampl
e, fuzzy logic is not necessarily presupposed by QM, and much common\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sens
e- and two-valued logic is still presupposed. According to Riggs, explaining
ical phenomena (the aim of science), making correct predictions, providing
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 solu

tions to paradoxes and outstanding problems, and so on could better be had
realist causal theory. This will retain all the requirements of formalism and
riments and without incurring non-causalism and by specifying the ontol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ogy
of objective existence and causation. This alone can justify the well-defined
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 traj
ectories {\up006 \fs10 49} of particles in detection chambers. (Riggs 46-47.)
26 Thus, for example, after David Bohm instituted the quantum trajector
y
od, this branch has picked up momentum from 1999, and today it can
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 boas
t of developing wave packets for non-stationary quantum states{\up006 \f
s10 50} and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7119\absh4292 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 obta
ining trajectories from the time-dependent Schrdinger equations without \par
}
6 \cf0 Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ
er\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6184\absw7222\absh4536 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
267 sity Press), 166.
Cf. also Edward R. Floyd, "Extended Version of "The Philosophy of Trajectory Re
p\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6184\absw7222\absh4536 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 resentation of Quantum Mechanics"", URL: http://www.arXiv:quant-ph/0009
070v1
262 17 Sep 2000 (Accessed on 20 September 2013). Cf. also Edward R. Floyd, "The
Phi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6184\absw7222\absh4536 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 losophy of Trajectory Representation of Quantum Mechanics" (401-408), in Ric
hard
262 L. Ambroso et al., Eds., Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius t
o the
262 Planck Scale: Proceedings of a Symposium in Honour of the 80{\up006 \fs9 th
} Birthday of Jean-Pierre
262 Vigier (New York: Kluwer Academic, 2003).
"A quantum state is the complete and maximal summary of the characteristics of
the
262 quantum system at a moment of time. The qualification has the same meaning a
s in
262 "in Newtonian mechanics, the equation of motion within an initial condition
gives
262 a complete and maximal description of the trajectory of a classica
l particle." They
262 apply within quantum mechanics, and do not imply any metaphysical completene
ss or
262 exhaustiveness, which has no place in a physical theory. The state descripti
on consists
262 of constant characteristics such as the mass and charge of the system, and v
ariable
262 characteristics that change in time. The collection of all states permissibl
e for a quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6184\absw7222\absh4536 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 tum system is theoretically represented by its state space, which is a compl
ex Hilbert
262 space." Sunny Y. Auyang, How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible? (New York: Ox
ford
262 University Press, 1995), 17.
\fi6157 {\fs17 57 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 approximation. {\up006 \fs10 51} This shows that it is possible to identi
fy particles and their tra\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ject
ories somewhat well and then also identify the causal connection betwe
en
such, which fact shows the reality and necessity of ubiquity of the
Law of
ality all over the micro-world.
{\b \fs21 2.3.}{\b \fs21 Quantum}{\b \fs21 Ontologists}{\b \fs21 on}{\b \fs2
1 Realist}{\b \fs21 Quantum}{\b \fs21 Causality }
Juxtaposed to what some quantum physicists and philosophers like Riggs have to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cont
ribute to a direct physics-based causalist interpretation of QM, Christopher
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Norr
is' Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism{\up006 \fs10 52} and numerous ot
hers dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cuss
rather the ontological realist foundations of QM. Along with Norris
and
-minded thinkers, I would bring in physicist-thinkers like David Deutsc
h
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 (par
allel universes interpretation of QM) who are in some form or others anti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 real
ists and, in my opinion, follow some unconvincing arguments.
26 Norris discusses wave-particle dualism, uncertainty of particle moment
um

location, observer-induced collapse of the wave packet, superluminal inter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 acti
on between entangled and separated particles, the anti-realist and ontological
tivist approach of the Copenhagen Interpretation, QM-related ideas of philos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ophe
rs like Michael Dummett, Thomas Kuhn and Willard v. O. Quine, the specu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 lati
ve solutions of QM theorists, their criticism of classical realism and
causal
anation, their ontological generosity about permitting all sorts of universes,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 anti
-determinists' contentment that QM makes free will possible, postmodernist
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7173\absh5567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 skep
ticism, Jean-Francois Lyotard's rejection of truth along with his substitution
ruth with uncertainty and undecidability, chaos, paralogical reasoning, limits
recise measurement, observer-dependence of physical reality, etc. \par
}
51 Robert E. Wyatt, Quantum Dynamics with Trajectories: Introduction to
Quantum
262 Hydrodynamics, with a contribution from Corey J. Trahan (New York:
Springer
262 Science+Business Media, 2005), v. According to Wyatt, a "compelling reason f
or run\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7504\absw7222\absh3348 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 ning quantum trajectories is that we may gain new insights into the dynamics
. Unlike
262 conventional computational methods, quantum trajectories provide detai
led infor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7504\absw7222\absh3348 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 mation about how the process takes place. These insights may lead to improve
d al\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7504\absw7222\absh3348 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 gorithms for treating systems of increasing complexity and dimensionality. T
his has
262 already started to happen, as evidenced by the number of studies being repor
ted each
262 year. It is hoped that the prejudice displayed by some against the use of tr
ajectories
262 in the analytic approach will not carry over to the synthetic approach!" [Wy
att 24,
262 instead of p. 4, cited mistakenly in Riggs 47].
Christopher Norris, Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism: Philosophical R
e\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7504\absw7222\absh3348 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 sponses to Quantum Mechanics (London: Routledge, 2000). (Abbreviated to 'Nor
ris'

262 followed by page number, in Chapter 2 only.)
{\fs18 58 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 An important realist thesis on which Norris' work rests is
the assertion by
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Davi
d Bohm (paraphrased and commented by Norris without citing the source):
\fi226 {\fs15 Where}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 [QM]}{\fs15 challenges}{\fs15 the}{\fs1
5 orthodox}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 Bohm's}{\fs15 realist}
{\fs15 premise}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 particle}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 precise}{\fs15 simultaneou
s}{\fs15 values}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 position}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 momentum,}{\fs1
5 and}{\fs15 further- }
26 {\fs15 more}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 these}{\fs15 pertain}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 its
}{\fs15 objective}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 given}{\fs15 ti
me,}{\fs15 whatever}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 restrictions }
26 {\fs15 imposed}{\fs15 upon}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 knowledge}{\fs15 by}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 limits}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 achievable}{\fs15 precision}{\fs15 in}{\
fs15 measurement. }
26 {\fs15 On}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 basis,}{\fs15 I}{\fs15 suggest,}{\fs15 one}
{\fs15 can}{\fs15 begin}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 sort}{\fs15 out}{\fs15 the}{\fs15
various}{\fs15 deep-laid}{\fs15 philosophic }
26 {\fs15 confusions}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 especially}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 betwe
en}{\fs15 ontological}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 epistemological}{\fs15 issues}{\
fs15 -}{\fs15 which }
26 {\fs15 characterize}{\fs15 Niels}{\fs15 Bohr's}{\fs15 writings}{\fs15 on}
{\fs15 the}{\fs15 topic,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 still}{
\fs15 be}{\fs15 seen}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 great }
26 {\fs15 many}{\fs15 present-day}{\fs15 treatments}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 QM}{\fs
15 theory.}{\fs15 (Norris}{\fs15 2-3.) }
On this basis I would argue that the yes-no scheme (with values 1-0) of statisti
cal
urement by an effect-apparatus (instrument){\up006 \fs10 53} can be a f
aulty indication
impossibility or possibility of existence of the wavicle based on the
alleged
ence or absence of an exact measurement of a particle system within the ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 proa
ch of any an apparatus-system. If so, arguments in favour of the possibility
xacter measurement, its ever higher need of relegation of the apodictic use
robabilism in QM, and the consequent causal realism, in the following chap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ters
, can be rationalized without too many questions. As is well-known, statis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tics
and probability theory do not demonstrate existence or non-existence of all
ible causes, but the ratio of perception and measurement of causes through
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 acce
ss to the details of the event.
26 By measurement is not only meant assigning numerical values to something.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 It
can also mean determining the presence or absence of some causes, or
de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 term
ining the most probable way of spin (up or down), as understood in
QM
riments. Humanly achievable measurement precision, however exact it is,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 can
only be partial within the limits of ever better achievable informati
on in
future, for any epistemology and ontology of physics and statistics. Whether
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we
apply probability theory (as in many micro-measurements) or not (as in
meso-measurements), the act of measuring is bound to be statistically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inex
act. Otherwise the same QM should have to show that the yes-no (1-0)
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sche
me represents exact results of measurement and absence of measurement
non-consummation of exact measurement in any given instance of need of
urement (not merely any given instance of measurement). In the theoreti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7261\absh7655 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
impossibility of such experimental results or such an epistemology from the \par
}
53 For the concept of the yes-no (with values 1-0) measurement, see Karl Kraus,
States,
262 Effects and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory, Lectures in M
ath\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9924\absw7271\absh1170 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 ematical Physics at the University of Texas at Austin (Berlin: Springer, 198
3), 3ff.
\fi6157 {\fs17 59 }\par
}

ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 side of the orthodox interpretation of QM, we can rightfully surmise that
even
urement of presence-absence is statistically inexact due to humanly normal
-worldly limitations.
26 Norris discusses also David Deutsch's solution to this QM problem through
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh7898 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Deut
sch's many-worlds QM claim which, admittedly, is counter-intuitive - so
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh7898 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Deut
sch claims - but solves paradoxes like wave-particle dualism, remote simul\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh7898 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tane
ous interaction, observer-induced wave-packet collapse, etc., by assuming
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh7898 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Orth
odox QM as the only viable theory and by hypothesizing realization of all
ible outcomes in every momentary collapse. (Norris 4.) Norris calls su
ch
ries 'far fetched'. (Norris 2.) We go to Deutsch's own explanation:
\fi226 {\fs15 Single-particle}{\fs15 interference}{\fs15 experiments}{\fs15 {
\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 show}{\fs15 us}{\fs15 that}
{\fs15 the}{\fs15 multiverse}{\fs15 exists}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 that }
26 {\fs15 it}{\fs15 contains}{\fs15 many}{\fs15 counterparts}{\fs15 of}{\fs1
5 each}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 tangible}{\fs15 univers
e.}{\fs15 To}{\fs15 reach}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 conclusion}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 multiverse}{\fs15 is}{\fs
15 roughly}{\fs15 partitioned}{\fs15 into}{\fs15 parallel}{\fs15 universes,
}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 must }
26 {\fs15 consider}{\fs15 interference}{\fs15 phenomena}{\fs15 involving}{\fs
15 more}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 tangible}{\fs15 particle.}{\fs15 The
}{\fs15 sim- }
26 {\fs15 plest}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 doing}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 is}{\f
s15 to}{\fs15 ask,}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 'though
t}{\fs15 experiment',}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 hap- }
26 {\fs15 pening}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 microscopic}{\fs15 level}{\fs15
when}{\fs15 shadow}{\fs15 photons}{\fs15 strike}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 opaque}{
\fs15 object.}{\fs15 They}{\fs15 are }
26 {\fs15 stopped,}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 course:}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 know}{\fs15 th
at}{\fs15 because}{\fs15 interference}{\fs15 ceases}{\fs15 when}{\fs15 an}{
\fs15 opaque}{\fs15 barrier}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 placed}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 paths}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 shadow}
{\fs15 photons.}{\fs15 But}{\fs15 why?}{\fs15 What}{\fs15 stops}{\fs15 the
m?}{\fs15 What}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 rule}{\fs15 out }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 straightforward}{\fs15 answer}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 that}{\fs
15 they}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 absorbed,}{\fs15 like}{\fs15 tangible}{\fs15 pho

tons}{\fs15 would}{\fs15 be,}{\fs15 by }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 tangible}{\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 barr
ier.}{\fs15 For}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 thing,}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 know}{\fs15 that
}{\fs15 shadow}{\fs15 photons}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 not }
26 {\fs15 interact}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 tangible}{\fs15 atoms.}{\fs15 For}{\fs
15 another,}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 verify}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 measuring}
{\fs15 the}{\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 barrier}{\fs15 (or}{\fs15 more}{\fs15 precisely,}{\fs15 by}{\fs15
replacing}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 barrier}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 detector)}{\
fs15 that}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 neither}{\fs15 ab- }
26 {\fs15 sorb}{\fs15 energy}{\fs15 nor}{\fs15 change}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 s
tate}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 unless}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 are}
{\fs15 struck}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 tangible}{\fs15 photons. }
26 {\fs15 Shadow}{\fs15 photons}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 effect. }
26 {\fs15 To}{\fs15 put}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 another}{\fs15 way,}{\fs15 shado
w}{\fs15 photons}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 tangible}{\fs15 photons}{\fs15 are}{\fs1
5 affected}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 identical }
26 {\fs15 ways}{\fs15 when}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 reach}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 given}{
\fs15 barrier,}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 barrier}{\fs15 itself}{\fs15 i
s}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 identically}{\fs15 affected}{\fs15 by }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 types}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 photon.}{\fs15 In}{\
fs15 fact,}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 far}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 tel
l,}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 affected}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 shadow}
{\fs15 photons }
26 {\fs15 at}{\fs15 all.}{\fs15 That}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 indeed}{\fs15 the}{\f
s15 defining}{\fs15 property}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 shadow}{\fs15 photons,}{\fs15
for}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 material}{\fs15 were}{\fs15 ob- }
26 {\fs15 servably}{\fs15 affected}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 them,}{\fs15 that}{\fs15
material}{\fs15 could}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 used}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 sh
adow-photon}{\fs15 detector}{\fs15 and }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 entire}{\fs15 phenomenon}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 shadows}{\fs1
5 and}{\fs15 interference}{\fs15 would}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 as}{\fs
15 I}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 described}{\fs15 it. }
26 {\fs15 Hence}{\fs15 there}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 some}{\fs15 sort}{\fs15 of}{\
fs15 shadow}{\fs15 barrier}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 same}{\fs15 locatio
n}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 tangible}{\fs15 barrier. }
26 {\fs15 It}{\fs15 takes}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 great}{\fs15 leap}{\fs15 of}{\fs
15 imagination}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 conclude}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 sh
adow}{\fs15 barrier}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 made}{\fs15 up}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 shadow}{\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 alrea
dy}{\fs15 know}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 present}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 count
erparts}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 tangible }
26 {\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 barrier.}{\up006 \fs8 54 }
Let us assume that these shadow photons exist physically and interact with our
d. If they do, they have to be something physical, however unlike "our physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh7898 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal"
they are. If this world contains counterparts as claimed, we need not speak \pa
r
}
54 David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes - an
d Its Impli\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10144\absw7338\absh972 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 cations (New York: Penguin, 1998), 46-47.
{\fs17 60 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 of other parallel universes of shadow atoms spatiotemporally completely is
olated
ours. Otherwise we cannot speak of our world containing shadow photons.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 In t
he very least, they are intermingled with ours, as claimed, however distant
each other they are.
26 Additionally, Deutsch posits some real QM barrier between photons an
d
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 shad
ow photons in measurement processes - this is due to the allegedly com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plet
ely mutually different natures of photons and shadow photons. If this
bar\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rier
is just being affected by both the particles differently, what can this barrier
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be m
ade of - of the one or another kind of matter-energy consisting of one or
other type of photons? If this barrier (of whatever extension-motion
kind
in possible measurement processes) exists and if the two sorts of pho
tons
to be completely different, the barrier must be absolutely differentiating. If
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so,
our photons and experiments with them have no way of capturing them. If
barrier is finite in its possible measure of content, the two sorts can interact
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by r
eason of their given physical nature, at least when shadow photons are pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sent
in our universe. In short, anyone can posit anything, but going overboard to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quee
r non-physical imaginations and positing them as physical merely to solve

doxes is not the way of physics. Instead, it is better to seek the meaning of
existing paradoxes, the extent of applicability of statistics to them
and to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 seek
physical solutions for the paradoxes, especially whether they could have any
temological or ontological source.
26 Having found the possibility of an abundance of paradoxes in David Deutsch's
tion (in a similar vein we can view also that of Colin Bruce{\up006
\fs10 55}), we turn to
of Hugh Everett, using only his The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Mech
anics, where he mentions the reason for his adopting the "many worlds
"
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7251\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (the
term owing to Bryce DeWitt) interpretation to be the non-uniqueness of a
le observer. {\up006 \fs10 56} He proposes five alternatives that he claims avo
id paradoxes,
then proposes the fifth to be the best: the "many worlds" or "relative state"
ulation of QM, which reads (terms 'Process 1' and 'Process 2' are defined
he footnote): \par
}
55 See Colin Bruce's popular science work, Schrdinger's Rabbits: The Many Worlds
of
262 Quantum (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2004).
He says, "it is now clear that the interpretation of quantum mechanics with whi
ch we
262 began is untenable if we are to consider a universe containing more than one
observer.
262 We must therefore seek a suitable modification of this scheme, or an entirel
y different
262 system of interpretation." Hugh Everett III, The Many Worlds Interpretation
of Quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9044\absw7222\absh1962 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 tum Mechanics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 6.
\fi6157 {\fs17 61 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 Alternative 1: To assume the universal validity of the quantum desc
ription, by the com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy860\absw6927\absh7000 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 plete abandonment of Process 1. The general validity of pure wave mechanics,
without
26 any statistical assertions, is assumed for all physical systems, including ob
servers and
26 measuring apparata. Observation processes are to be described completely by t
he state
26 function of the composite system which includes the observer and his object-s
ystem,
26 and which at all times obeys the wave function (Process 2){\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.
26 Alternative 2: To limit the applicability of quantum mechanics by a
sserting that the
26 quantum mechanical description fails when applied to observers, or to measuri
ng ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy860\absw6927\absh7000 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 paratus, or more generally to systems approaching macroscopic size{\field{\*\
fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.
26 Alternative 3: To admit the validity of the state function description, but t
o deny the pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy860\absw6927\absh7000 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 sibility that B could ever be in possession of the state function of A + S. T
hus one might
26 argue that a determination of the state of A would constitute such a drastic
intervention
26 that A would cease to function as an observer{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\
f Symbol }}.
26 Alternative 4: To abandon the position that the state function is a complete
description
26 of a system. The state function is to be regarded not as a description of a s
ingle system,
26 but an ensemble of systems, so that the probabilistist assertions arise natur
ally from the
26 incompleteness of the description{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.
26 Alternative 5: To assume the universality of the quantum description, by the
complete
26 abandonment of Process 1. The general validity of pure wave mechanics, withou
t any
26 statistical assertions, is assumed for all physical systems, including observ
ers and meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy860\absw6927\absh7000 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 uring apparata. Observation processes are to be described completely by the s

tate func\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy860\absw6927\absh7000 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tion of the composite system which includes the observer and his object-syste
m and
26 which at all times obeys the wave equation (Process 2){\field{\*\fldinst SYMB
OL 188 \\f Symbol }}.{\up006 \fs8 57 }
{\fs18 I}{\fs18 have}{\fs18 omitted}{\fs18 here}{\fs18 Everett's}{\fs18 arg
uments}{\fs18 for}{\fs18 inadequacy}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 first}{\fs1
8 four}{\fs18 alterna- }
18 tives.}{\fs18 He}{\fs18 justifies}{\fs18 Alternative}{\fs18 5}{\fs18 as}
{\fs18 follows: }
\fi226 It has the virtue of logical simplicity and it is complete in the sense t
hat it is applicable
26 to the entire universe. All processes are considered equally (there are no me
asurement
26 processes which play a preferred role), and the principle of psycho-physical
parallelism
26 is fully maintained. Since the universal validity of the state function descr
iption is as\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy860\absw6927\absh7000 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 serted, one can regard the state functions themselves as the fundamental enti
ties, and
26 one can even consider the state function of the whole universe. In this sense
this theory
26 can be called the theory of the "universal wave function," since all of physi
cs is presumed
26 to follow from this function alone. There remains, however, the question whet
her or not
26 such a theory can be put into correspondence with our experience.{\up006 \fs8
58 }\par
}
57 Everett III, The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, 6-8. Proce
sses 1
262 and 2 are defined as follows, in p. 3: "Process 1: The discontinuous change
brought
\fi262 about by the observation of a quantity with eigenstates {\f63 \u981\'3f}
{\dn006 \fs9 1}, {\f63 \u981\'3f}{\dn006 \fs9 2}, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 18
8 \\f Symbol }}, in which the state {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}
262 will be changed to the state {\f63 \u981\'3f} {\dn006 \fs9 j} with probabil
ity{\f20 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 244 \\f Symbol }}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
121 \\f Symbol }}, {\f63 \u981\'3f}{\dn006 \fs9 j}{\f20 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBO
L 244 \\f Symbol }}}{\up006 \fs9 2}. Process 2: The continuous,
262 deterministic change of state of the (isolated) system with time according t
o a wave
262 equation {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 182 \\f Symbol }}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBO
L 121 \\f Symbol }}{\b /}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 182 \\f Symbol }}t = U{\field
{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}, where U is a linear operator."
Hugh Everett III, The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, 8-9.
{\fs18 62 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 How exactly this amounts to the many worlds option of Alternative 5 is tec
hnical
M, but the meaning could only be that "there" actually "are" many (or infi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nite
?) real (or imaginary?) worlds with respect to many (or infinite?) number of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 obse
rvers for whom there are many (or infinite?) occasions of measure (in fact,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by d
etermining the presence or absence, or way of spin up or spin down) of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wave
function, with which each solution is a determination. Too many worlds
out reality-assurance may go against Occam's razor. The justification that it
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spar
es QM of paradoxes would have to be shown in the course of time. Other,
reasonable, ways may also be found that avoid paradoxes. I suggest in the
he following chapters a superluminally causal and thus superluminally local
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fram
ework, after showing that superluminal causal cones can exist if the
final
t of velocity is not that of light.
26 With all the justifications on the part of Everett, the fact still remains th
at the
worlds interpretation is in a way a causal one with respect to its not allow\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
just one observation but many (unknown) observations (causal interven\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s) making each outcome represent a possible or even real world and doing
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 away
with the wave-particle dualism that has created a non-causal vacuum
of
raction between them. (That it has caused such a vacuum will be clear in the
owing chapters.) Whether such many worlds suffice mathematically for QM
ation is a question we are not equipped to discuss. One thing is clear: the
worlds interpretation constitutes a serious framework to make introduc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of relativity based on gravitation into QM.{\up006 \fs10 59 }
26 I return to Norris from this vantage. He accuses the instrumentalist stand of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Orth
odox QM as holding an absence of reality behind or beyond the QM ap
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pear
ances and clearly suggests what the history of QM in the context of EPR (the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7212\absh7742 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Eins
tein-Podolsky-Rosen paper of 1935) lacked in terms of realism:
\fi226 {\fs15 In}{\fs15 more}{\fs15 general}{\fs15 terms,}{\fs15 my}{\fs15
book}{\fs15 makes}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 case}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 aleth
ic}{\fs15 (objective,}{\fs15 truth-based}{\fs15 and }
26 {\fs15 verification-transcendent)}{\fs15 conception}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 reali
sm,}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 opposed}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 epistemic}{\fs15
concep- }
26 {\fs15 tion}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 principle}{\fs15 denies}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 possibility}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 truths}{\fs15 beyond}{\fs15 reach}
{\fs15 of}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 present-best }
26 {\fs15 knowledge,}{\fs15 evidence,}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 powers}{\fs15 of}{\fs
15 observation.}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 latter}{\fs15 viewpoint}{\fs15 has}{\fs1
5 dominated }
26 {\fs15 much}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 debate}{\fs15 about}{\fs15 quant
um}{\fs15 mechanics,}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 among}{\fs15 orthodox}{\
fs15 theorists}{\fs15 but }
26 {\fs15 also}{\fs15 among}{\fs15 those}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 including,}{\fs15
arguably,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 EPR}{\fs15 authors}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 who}{\fs15
have}{\fs15 sought}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 defend }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 realist}{\fs15 interpretation.}{\fs15 Indeed,}{\fs15 it}{
\fs15 was}{\fs15 just}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 ambiguity}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\
fs15 EPR}{\fs15 paper}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 gave}{\fs15 a }
26 {\fs15 hold}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 apparently}{\fs15 decisive}{\fs1
5 counter-arguments}{\fs15 mounted}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 Bohr}{\fs15 and}{\fs15
his}{\fs15 followers. }
26 {\fs15 (Norris}{\fs15 4.) }\par
}
59 A short introduction to it is to be found in Hugh Everett III, "Relative Sta
te Formula\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9926\absw7179\absh1168 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 tion of Quantum Mechanics" (454-462), Review of Modern Physics, Vol. 29, No.
3, July
262 1957.
\fi6157 {\fs17 63 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Alethic verification-transcendent realism simply is, in my opinion, built
up not
he absence of anything specific being under investigation but in the presence
he factual status of things that, in general, there are something-s, that are ca
pa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ble
of being specific, in all ontological commitments behind the EPR experimen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tal
scenario that causes causal perplexity. Here one is not against verif
ication,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 but
presupposes something being there as the processually existent ontological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 coun
terpart of all explanation of a phenomenon, and it is transcendent to
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 actu
al verification or lack of verification.
26 Very clear in itself, the highly convincing passage in Norris is in
teresting for
similarity to the way I have argued previously in favour of realism {\up006 \fs1
0 60} and in the
ent work within the context of QM causal realism in the following chapters.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Iargu
e that ontological commitment is not devoid of verification, but its verifica\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
is not in finding what is perceived or described as the properties but finding
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alwa
ys "something" as the objectual counterpart of all that is epistemically posited
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as p
roperties, as causal or as whatever. This "ontology of something" that remains
ically unstintingly spatiotemporally processual (i.e., of the order of extension
on), I suggest, will help formulate the ontological commitment liable to be in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM e
xperiments and their statistical methods. Despite the strength of the cited
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pass
age, for Norris too (Norris 9) nonlocal superluminal communication is to be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deem
ed possible in the case of EPR realism; and, as will be argued in the following
ters, I hold that if superluminal velocities can be thought of as real in STR, s
u\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perl
uminal communication with respect to superluminal velocities is surely local.
26 Norris rightly shows why Bohr and others from their positivistic background
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7248\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reac
ted so sharply to Einstein's realism by honestly thinking that realism

can
be classical:
\fi226 {\fs15 Bohr's}{\fs15 philosophy}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 science}{\fs15 can}{
\fs15 be}{\fs15 seen}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 mixture}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 K
antian}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 pragmatist}{\fs15 themes, }
26 {\fs15 one}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 confines}{\fs15 knowledge}{\fs15 to}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 realm}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 phenomenal}{\fs15 appearances}{\fs15 whi
le}{\fs15 quantum }
26 {\fs15 'reality'}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 taken}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 belonging}{\fs15
to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 noumenal}{\fs15 realm}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 lies}{\fs15
beyond}{\fs15 reach}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 con- }
26 {\fs15 cepts}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 frame}{\fs15 concerning}{\fs15
it,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 thereby}{\fs15 justifies}{\fs15 the}{\fs
15 pragmatist}{\fs15 equation }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 truth}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 effectively}{\fs15
counts}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 practical}{\fs15
(predictive-observational) }
26 {\fs15 purposes.}{\fs15 (Norris}{\fs15 9.) }
Essentially, this is the ontological crux of the attitudes of Bohr and Heisenber
g
realism and probabilism; and Einstein himself was not free of this so
rt of
logical attitude in that he thought knowledge is nothing but fixing t
hings
hemselves for sure by the pragmatic means of science. Today we have a far \par
}
60 See Chapter 1, "Ontological Categorial Transcendent of Cosmology", in Neelam
kavil,
262 Physics without Metaphysics?
{\fs17 64 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 more integral realistic ontology of phenomena-noumena in most fields, exce
p\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7045\absh2042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s being postmodernism, Orthodox QM, etc. I propose in the present work
ry and counter this attitude in QM. Overcoming Kant's phenomenalism and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7045\absh2042 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phen
omena-noumena divide in an integral manner is a prerequisite for this,

h I have attempted at sufficient length elsewhere.{\up006 \fs10 61 }
26 The above discussion of the confluence of the two major trends of physical
ontological causalism and realism in QM will further be followed in the fol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7045\absh2042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lowi
ng chapters by my analysis of these and related themes in QM to a more than
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7045\absh2042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 aver
age probability of ubiquity of causation in the real universe. \par
}
61 See Sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 in Neelamkavil, Physics without Metaphysics? \p
ar
}
5 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 3. The Law of Causality: Hume, Quine
i1556 and Quantum Physics \par
}
\cf0 3.1. The "What" of Causality in QM
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 Our}{\b0 \fs17 procedure}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs
17 present}{\b0 \fs17 book}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 (1)}{\b
0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 introduce}{\b0 \fs17 (Chapters}{\b0 \fs17 3}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 6)}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 (that}{\b0 \fs17
all}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 through}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0
\fs17 through)}{\b0 \fs17 much}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 my}{\b0 \fs17 own}
{\b0 \fs17 way }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 show}{\b0 \fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 relev
ance}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 i
s}{\b0 \fs17 already}{\b0 \fs17 presupposed}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 most}{\
b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 physics }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 other}{\b0 \fs17 sciences,}{\b0 \fs17 (2)}{\b0 \fs1
7 then}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 background}{\b0 \fs17 to}
{\b0 \fs17 discuss}{\b0 \fs17 (Chapters}{\b0 \fs17 7}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs1
7 8) }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 traditional}{\b0 \fs17 problems}{\b0 \fs17 and}{
\b0 \fs17 issues}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \
fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 point}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 vie
w}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 making}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 scientific}{\b0 \fs17 realism}
{\b0 \fs17 possible}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 showing}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \f
s17 untenability}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 hav- }
{\b0 \fs17 ing}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 few}{\b0 \fs17 parts}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\
b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 universe}{\b0 \fs17 non-causal}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \
fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 others}{\b0 \fs17 causal,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 (3)
}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 argue }
{\b0 \fs17 (Chapters}{\b0 \fs17 9}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 12)}{\b0 \fs17 my
}{\b0 \fs17 way}{\b0 \fs17 out}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 of}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 paradoxes}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 irrationalitie
s}{\b0 \fs17 posed }
{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 few}{\b0 \fs17 somewhat}{\b0 \fs17
ill-defined,}{\b0 \fs17 unclear}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 unsubstantiated
}{\b0 \fs17 interpretations}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 traditional}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 recently}{\b0 \fs17 developed
}{\b0 \fs17 experiments}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs1
7 some}{\b0 \fs17 notions}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 STR, }
{\b0 \fs17 so}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 (4)}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17
may}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 found}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 reign}{\b0 \fs1
7 supreme}{\b0 \fs17 (Chapters}{\b0 \fs17 13}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 14)}{
\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 in }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 aspects}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 QM
}{\b0 \fs17 world}{\b0 \fs17 represented}{\b0 \fs17 often}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0
\fs17 weirdness}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 irrationality. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 study}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 moments}{\b0
\fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 existing}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 in
terpretations}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 occurrences}{\b0 \fs17 in }
{\b0 \fs17 various}{\b0 \fs17 thinkers.}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 suggest}{\b0
\fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 more}{\b0 \fs17 synthetic}{\b0 \fs17 view}{\b0 \fs17 of}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causation,}{\b0 \fs17
which }
{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 end}{\b0 \fs17 turns}{\b0 \fs17 out}
{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 fully}{\b0 \fs17 causal
}{\b0 \fs17 view}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 macro-}{\b0 \fs17
and}{\b0 \fs17 micro-universe. }
{\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 micro-universe's}{\b0 \fs17 QM-kind}{\b0 \fs17 caus
ation}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 merely}{\b0 \fs17 brought}{\b0 \fs17 forth}{\
b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 follow- }
{\b0 \fs17 ing}{\b0 \fs17 chapters}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 order}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 delve}{\b0 \fs17 into}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 existing}{\b0
\fs17 solutions}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 problem}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 causa- }
{\b0 \fs17 tion}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 For}{\b0 \fs17 brevity's}{\b0 \fs17 sake,}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b
0 \fs17 'micro'}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 generally}{\b0 \fs17 meant}{\b0 \fs
17 in}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 work}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \

fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 atomic, }
{\b0 \fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 sub-atomic}{\b0 \fs1
7 and}{\b0 \fs17 smaller}{\b0 \fs17 level}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0
\fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 world,}{\b0 \fs17 including}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
nano- }
{\b0 \fs17 world}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 further.}{\b0 \fs17 On}{\b0 \fs
17 the}{\b0 \fs17 way}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 fully}{\
b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 interpretation,}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 try}{
\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 show }
{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 any}{\b0 \fs17 form}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 prob
abilistic}{\b0 \fs17 causalism}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 attempts}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 go}{\b0 \fs17 counter}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 ontological }
{\b0 \fs17 ubiquity}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causation}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs
17 only}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 version}{\b0 \fs
17 of}{\b0 \fs17 our}{\b0 \fs17 statistical}{\b0 \fs17 appropri- }
{\b0 \fs17 ation}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 events}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 ca
usation.}{\b0 \fs17 It}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17
stated}{\b0 \fs17 at}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 outset}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0
\fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 interpretation }
{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 micro-world}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 ubiquity}{\
b0 \fs17 becomes}{\b0 \fs17 sufficiently}{\b0 \fs17 complete}{\b0 \fs17 only
}{\b0 \fs17 if}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 macro- }
{\b0 \fs17 cosmic}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 external}{\b0 \fs17 types}{\b0 \f
s17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 ubiquity}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 show
n}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 case}{\b0 \fs17 and
}{\b0 \fs17 thus}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 whole}{\b0 \fs17 system}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 w
orld}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 brought}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 consonance}{\
b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 question.}{\b0 \fs17 Since}{\b0 \fs
17 this }
{\b0 \fs17 work}{\b0 \fs17 concentrates}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \f
s17 the}{\b0 \fs17 microcosmic}{\b0 \fs17 aspect,}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17
can}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 rest}{\b0 \fs17 assured}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \f
s17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 end}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 microcosmic}{\b0 \fs17 ubiquity}{\b
0 \fs17 covers}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 aspects}{\b0 \fs1
7 in}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 macro-depths}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 universe}{\b0 \fs17 (except}{\b0 \fs17 at}{\b0 \fs1
7 cosmological}{\b0 \fs17 singularities,}{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b
0 \fs17 allied}{\b0 \fs17 topics}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 intend }
{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 treat}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 separat
e}{\b0 \fs17 volume}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 ubiquity}{\b0
\fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 cosmology). }
cf0 \fi6157 {\b0 \fs17 67 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 While attempting eventually to justify the possible ubiquity
of micro-world
ality, I presuppose until now no causal ubiquity in the universe. I presuppose
orarily only causation in general at least in some regions of the world, with\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 out
specifically claiming whether it is thorough or partial in the universe. To this
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 end
is the definition of causality meant, i.e., to allow for non-causality or acausa
l\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
in case some events are mere occurrences and are not due to causal impacts.
26 Traditionally established forms of QM, STR etc. are understood to instill in
r own theoretical foundations some acausal moments, which resist any fur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ther
ontologically acceptable applications admitting causation. These moments
the original causal lacunae I discuss. Our question is: Should we in
clude
e moments under "non-causal occurrences" or "ultimately causal occur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 renc
es" in CHR? Are these only epistemologically acausal elements capable
of
ding the test of reason, or are these only temporary theoretical / mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
arrangements to subsume statistical or other mathematical approximations?
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 If c
ausation is ubiquitous in the universe, what is the structure o their micro- and
o-cosmological "non-causal" parts that are nowadays taken as ontologically
upposed? That is, are they still extension-motion processes, or just o
ccur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 renc
es? Are the moments of non-causal occurrences, if any, just matter-energy
rrences without extension-motion dimensions? These questions preoccupy
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 us g
enerally in the course of this chapter and thereafter in the QM context. We
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh4967 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stud
y the metaphysical or ontological {\up006 \fs10 62} implication of causa
l ubiquity: causal
ism in micro-physics. \par
}
62 Strictly historically speaking, 'metaphysical' means in general what
pertains to the

262 study of beings as beings to cover the senses meant in older speculative sch
emes. It
262 has been a study of all that is, in terms of the ideal sense of unchangeabil
ity as To Be
262 and 'to be'. When I use 'metaphysics' in the contemporary sense, it becomes
ontology
262 generally in terms of what I call as the general 'ways of being' ("primary q
ualities" or
262 "universals", "qualia") of beings as processes, especially based on the Tran
scendental
262 "quality" of 'To Be' which is the highest "way of being in process" of Reali
ty-in-total
262 and exemplified in every possible reality-in-particular. Since the bias agai
nst the con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6846\absw7222\absh3940 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 cept of metaphysics is lessened even in 'analytical metaphysics' today, I us
e 'metaphys\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6846\absw7222\absh3940 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 ics' at times without any more differentiating it from ontology.
489 By 'ontological' I mean what pertains to speculative schemes that
study To Be
226 in terms of To Be plus Reality-in-total in terms of To Be (pure ontology or
general
226 ontology), and also the study of provinces of beings in terms of the 'To Be'
of Reality\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6846\absw7222\absh3940 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
226 in-total (local or particular ontologies like philosophical cosmology
, anthropology,
226 etc.) and not in terms of the 'to be' (exemplified in the various properties
or qualities)
226 of reality-in-particular, i.e., provinces of Reality (which studies
are the particular
226 sciences). In general ontology, To Be in its universally verbal sense (as pe
rtaining to
{\fs17 68 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 We may define spacetime in terms of extension-motion, i.e.,
as measure in
s of change in an extended-moving thing or process. Acausally or non-

ally speaking, this is just the occurrence of an event without mentio
n of
aspect of causation - and this is ontologically defective. After prel
iminary
ussions on causation, extension-motion, spacetime etc. in Chapters 1, we are
elled to define 'Causality' or the 'Law of Causation' more elaborately and
respect to the purely ontological extension-motion alone.
26 Into such a definition we cannot bring acausality or non-causality.
Thus, it
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 will
be endeavoured to show that Universal Causality is the state of relationships
rocesses of the whole universe and parts of it, in which every finite element
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - ho
wever close to infinitesimality its spatiotemporal extension is - influences
ome way many others in the measurementally spatiotemporal non-infinite
s of the universe and particularly the extension-motion vicinity of the event
question. Roughly, the influence into the future being the effect/s, a
nd in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 flue
nce from the past being the cause/s, both change in the process of
causal
ctivity.
26 The term 'influence' in the definition of Universal Causality does not denote
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "occ
urrence as such", "just occurrence", etc. in the non-causal sense, since this is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a de
finition of causality, as at least the major portion of physics accepts causalit
y,
as it can use only a term that denotes a physical impact. If one complains that
ct does already carry the sense of causation, then all definitions of causality
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 may
be termed circular. Therefore, in cases where we define Causality so as to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 incl
ude allegedly non-causal events, we can be satisfied with the term 'o
ccur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 renc
e' in general as not specific of causality but includes it. This we have done in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Chap
ter 1 cursorily.
\fi226 {\fs16 Reality-in-total)}{\fs16 guides}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 study}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 Reality-in-total.}{\fs16 In}{\fs16 particular}{\fs16 ontologies,}
{\fs16 To}{\fs16 Be }
26 {\fs16 guides}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 study}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 reality-in-particu
lar,}{\fs16 i.e.,}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 provinces}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Reality.}{\fs
16 These}{\fs16 are}{\fs16 distin- }
26 {\fs16 guished}{\fs16 clearly}{\fs16 from}{\fs16 particular}{\fs16 scienc
es}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 latter}{\fs16 do}{\fs16 not}{\f
s16 take}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 To}{\fs16 Be}{\fs16 point }
26 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 view.}{\fs16 Some}{\fs16 special}{\fs16 ontologies}{\fs1
6 (ontologies}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 God,}{\fs16 human,}{\fs16 cosmos,}{\fs16 et
c.)}{\fs16 still}{\fs16 may }
26 {\fs16 do}{\fs16 roughly}{\fs16 what}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 older}{\fs16 meta
physics}{\fs16 attempted}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 do}{\fs16 with}{\fs16 respect}{\f
s16 to}{\fs16 Reality}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 a }
26 {\fs16 limited}{\fs16 province}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Reality}{\fs16 in}{\fs16
a}{\fs16 limited}{\fs16 manner.}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 older}{\fs16 metaphysics
}{\fs16 did}{\fs16 it}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 terms}{\fs16 of }
26 {\fs16 the}{\fs16 ideal}{\fs16 sense}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 unchangeability}{\f
s16 as}{\fs16 To}{\fs16 Be}{\fs16 (which}{\fs16 one}{\fs16 took}{\fs16 to
}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 God)}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 'to}{\fs16 be'}{\fs16 (which }
26 {\fs16 were}{\fs16 conceived}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 essences}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 things)}{\fs16 . }
89 {\fs16 In}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 without}{\fs16 Metaphysics?}{\fs16 I}{\fs
16 have}{\fs16 called}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 pure}{\fs16 study}{\fs16 of}{\fs16
To}{\fs16 Be}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 terms}{\fs16 of }
26 {\fs16 the}{\fs16 To}{\fs16 Be}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 terms}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 Reality-in-total}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 pure}{\fs16 ontology,}{\fs16 a
nd}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 study}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Reality- }
26 {\fs16 in-total}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 terms}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 To}{\fs16 Be}{\f
s16 as}{\fs16 general}{\fs16 ontology}{\fs16 -}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 both}{\fs
16 together}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 Einaic}{\fs16 Ontology. }
89 {\fs16 The}{\fs16 main}{\fs16 exception}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 this}{\fs16 ter
minology}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 present}{\fs16 work}{\fs16 is}{\fs16
the}{\fs16 Quinean}{\fs16 use}{\fs16 of }
26 {\fs16 the}{\fs16 term}{\fs16 'ontology',}{\fs16 which}{\fs16 presupposes
}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 analytical}{\fs16 sense}{\fs16 without}{\fs16 the}{\fs16
overarching }
26 {\fs16 perspective}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 To}{\fs16 Be}{\fs16 of}{\
fs16 Reality-in-total. }
\fi6157 69 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 But it is classical in QM that we are not sure if all

influences or changes in
quantum world are causally induced by other events. It is in this c
ase that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a so
rt of occurrence or influence without causes (or without our being able to
ion the causes) as alleged by non-causalists in the domain of the ex
peri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
s, is mooted. The change of state or occurrence at the spot will then have to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be i
nterpreted as "not caused" by anything. For this reason I used 'influence' in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM t
o mean anything causal or neutral that takes place or occurs, i.e., 'a causally
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or n
on-causally happening change of state'; and I intend to show that both these
most probably really reducible to 'causal influence or impact'. For this reason
id not first define causality through impacts that are all causal, but through
could be causal or perchance interpretable differently as we perhaps have
he acausal and non-causal interpretations of QM.
26 ApresuppositionofthefollowingargumentsisthatMatter-Energy,Extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Moti
on (measured in spacetime), Causality and Space-Time must be understood
r partially mutual theoretical inclusion of each other and as partially differ\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 entl
y from each other, since the separate scientific categories of matter, energy,
nsion, motion, space, time and causation, must be mutually collusive (
not
as Matter-Energy, Extension-Motion, Causality and Space-Time, but these
urn as theoretically connected to each other) in their definitions if an onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal system has to be built up using them and if they have to be fundamental
ll sciences.
{\b \fs21 3.2.}{\b \fs21 Hume,}{\b \fs21 Russell}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Ca
rtwright}{\b \fs21 on}{\b \fs21 Causation }
The Humean dispute about causation is famous for its epistemological dismissal
xistence-assertion of processes and their causal nature. His epistemology re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mind
s us of the whole empiricist tradition of simple and complex ideas.
This
n fact based on his opposition to the rationalist assumption that at least the
basic ideas (convictions) of the mind (e.g., of our own existence)
are all
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7182\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unam

biguous. I quote Hume:
\fi226 {\fs15 There}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 ideas,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15
occur}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 metaphysics,}{\fs15 more}{\fs15 obscure}{\fs15 and}{
\fs15 uncertain,}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 those }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 power,}{\fs15 force,}{\fs15 energy}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 nec
essary}{\fs15 connexion,}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is}{\fs15
every}{\fs15 moment}{\fs15 necessary }
26 {\fs15 for}{\fs15 us}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 treat}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 all}{\fs15
our}{\fs15 disquisitions{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}. }
26 {\fs15 It}{\fs15 seems}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 proposition,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15
will}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 admit}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 much}{\fs15 dispute,}{\fs15
that}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 ideas}{\fs15 are }
26 {\fs15 nothing}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 copies}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 impr
essions,}{\fs15 or,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 other}{\fs15 words,}{\fs15 that}{\fs15
it}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 impossible}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 us}{\fs15 to }
26 {\fs15 think}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 anything,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 ha
ve}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 antecedently}{\fs15 felt,}{\fs15 either}{\fs15 by}{\fs
15 our}{\fs15 external}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 internal }
26 {\fs15 senses{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}. }
26 {\fs15 Complex}{\fs15 ideas,}{\fs15 may,}{\fs15 perhaps,}{\fs15 be}{\fs15
well}{\fs15 known}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 definition,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 is}{\f
s15 nothing}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 enu- }
26 {\fs15 meration}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 those}{\fs15 parts}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 sim
ple}{\fs15 ideas,}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 compose}{\fs15 them}{\fs15 {\field{\*\
fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 produce}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 impressions
}
26 {\fs15 or}{\fs15 original}{\fs15 sentiments,}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 which}{\f
s15 the}{\fs15 ideas}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 copied.}{\fs15 These}{\fs15 impress
ions}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 strong }
70 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 and sensible. They admit not of ambiguity. They are not only placed
in a full light them\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7291\absh7502 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 selves, but may throw light on their correspondent ideas, which lie in obscur
ity{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.
26 To be fully acquainted, therefore, with the idea of power or necessary connex
ion, let us
26 examine its impression; and in order to find the impression with greater cert
ainty, let

26 us search for it in all the sources, from which it may possibly be derived{\f
ield{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.{\up006 \fs8 63 }
{\fs17 Simple}{\fs17 ideas}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 copies}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 ou
r}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 impressions,}{\fs17 complex}{\fs17 ideas}{\fs17
as}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 com- }
17 pounds,}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 abstract}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17
being}{\fs17 reduced}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 simple}{\fs17 ideas}{\fs17 fr
om}{\fs17 sense }
17 impressions,}{\fs17 etc.}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 basic}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 Humean
}{\fs17 epistemology.}{\fs17 Given}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 above-said}{\fs17 aspe
ct }
17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 constitution}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Humean}{\fs17 epistem
ology,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 see}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 causa
l}{\fs17 ontol- }
17 ogy}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Hume,}{\fs17 since}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 ways}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 connection}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 events}{\fs1
7 or}{\fs17 things}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 no }
17 corresponding}{\fs17 individual}{\fs17 simple}{\fs17 idea}{\fs17 at}{\fs1
7 all: }
\fi226 When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operatio
n of causes,
26 we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary c
onnexion;
26 any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the
one an infallible
26 consequence of the other. We only find, that the one does actually, in fact,
follow the
26 other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second
. This is
26 the whole that appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or
inward
26 impression from this succession of objects: consequently, there is not, in an
y single,
26 particular instance of cause and effect, anything which can suggest the idea
of power or
26 necessary connexion.
26 From the first appearance of an object, we never can conjecture what effect w
ill result
26 from it. But were the power or energy of any cause discoverable by the mind,
we could
26 foresee the effect, even without experience; and might, at first, pronounce w
ith certainty
26 concerning it, by mere dint of thought and reasoning.
26 In reality, there is no part of matter, that does ever, by its sensible quali
ties, discover any
26 power or energy, or give us ground to imagine, that it could produce anything
, or be
26 followed by any other object, which we could denominate its effect. Solidity,
extension,
26 motion; these qualities are all complete in themselves, and never point out a
ny other
26 event which may result from them. The scenes of the universe are continually
shifting,
26 and one object follows another in an uninterrupted succession; but the power
of force,
26 which actuates the whole machine, is entirely concealed from us, and never di
scovers
26 itself in any of the sensible qualities of body. We know that, in fact, heat
is a constant
26 attendant of flame; but what is the connexion between them, we have no room s
o much
26 as to conjecture or imagine. It is impossible, therefore, that the idea of po
wer can be
26 derived from the contemplation of bodies, in single instances of their operat
ion; because
26 no bodies ever discover any power, which can be the original of this idea.{\u
p006 \fs8 64 }\par
}
63 David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, "VII: Of the
Idea of
262 Necessary Connection", Part I, CD-Library: Philosophy, Patrick Rogers
, Ed., 2003,
262 LibraryCD.com.
Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, LibraryCD.com.
\fi6157 {\fs17 71 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 The first glaring deficiency in this ontology is the forgetfulness of the
theoretical
ssity to posit the existence of external objects with their own internal parts,
parts and the whole as having to do with parts of their own internal constitu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
, with yet other external objects with parts, and with our simple and complex
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 idea
s. Whatever the major way of having to do is, it could have been called cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty, if the Cartesian doubt of existence of individual beings as defined could
been overcome in terms of the existence of something-s.
26 Ideas are for Hume something pure in mind, without origin in mutual causal
lvement of bio-physical forces of constitution. External objects, if they ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 iste
d, were just mechanistic objects taken in an epistemologically mechanis
tic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mann
er - i.e., if they were really existent, just what were conceptualize
d were
there were to the objects in all their relevant processes - and not, as for us
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 toda
y, as processes in the sense of deep-contiguity and deep-contour. The con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
'deep-contour' is evident, and 'deep-contiguity' will be mutual extens
ion\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on contiguity of deep-contoured processes. Hence, what we could call "real
essual contiguity between processes and deep-contours within" were forgot\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ten.
No sense impressions and the consequent simple ideas of processual conti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 guit
y and deep-contours of processes had causal origin, whatever their imagined
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ways
of being processual are.
26 These are clearly the case with the famous Humean example of billiard ball.
so-called separate or distinct appearances of intermittent motions or strikes
the billiard ball are in fact a sort of discrete group of counting
of moments
he movement of the billiard ball. These presupposedly distinct appearances
supposed by Hume to be absolutely separately recorded by the mind, for the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reas
on that the names given by the mind to appearances are distinct. Causality
not seem to possess such material appearances, hence causality is on
ly a
truct of the mind for Hume. Of course, he does not theoretically justify the
m that causality cannot have material appearances.

26 For us, if there really are physical processes, if their motions a
re deep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cont
iguous or in some way connected by reason of their spacetime measure
extension-motion, and if the so-called impressions and ideas from them
empirically at least vaguely perceive their legitimately corresp
onding
esses in the world, as possessing some properties - then we may think of
ality as real and not a mere mental construct. Hume ruled out knowledge
things and their connections, but accepted knowledge through sensation
out justifying the primacy given to sensation and ideas without there being
esses to sense and without there being any other way of explaining w
hat
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sens
ation is. If primacy is not given to sensations but to processes, the scenario
change.
72 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Thus, to critically summarize Hume's work on causation, the
dispute is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 larg
ely to be understood to have been an attempt to epistemologically avoid any
ible and really consequential contact between two physically perceivable
ts or processes that are (appear epistemically to be) consecutive. He bases
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 his
rejection of causality and ignorance of existence of things on the reason that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it
is difficult to establish from sensation (experience) and ideas (reason
) the
tence of causally contiguous processes between things outside the mind. He
not seek to theoretically derive the existence of things or the transpiring of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fact
s (even if not specifically qualified things or facts) from the fact of sensatio
n,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 too.
He speaks basically of separate things in various processes, not of processes
uch. He does not venture to conclude that things might most probably exist
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 if w
e speak seemingly consistently all the while. Hume's arguments proceed in

ways:
26 (1) On the one hand, by reason of his following two-valued logic that has onl
y
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'tru
e' and 'false' as values, he gives no reason for admitting truth pro
babilities
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of o
ntological proofs for there being anything processually existent. That is, he
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 give
s no possibilities beyond strict "absolute-yes and absolute-no derivabil
ity"
he portion of causes proper (the prior part in a minimal process) of an effect
er (the posterior part in a minimal process). Today we do not hold
that
gs just impinge or do not impinge their sense impressions on the mind with\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 out
causal processes. Processes have various degrees of impinging of sensation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (exp
erience) on the mind so that ideas (reason) can also produce values between
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 yes
and no.
26 (2) On the other hand, Hume moves by following first of all the mental pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 emin
ence of the concepts of space and time without in any way connecting them
the categorial extension- and motion-qualities of things, and secondly
the
ept of inexistence of sufficient ways for proving the spatiotemporally physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
interconnection between processes. If there are things, all their processes can
be due to causal transmission of effects (i.e., conceptually spatiote
mporal
ontologically extension-motion level changes, impacts, occurrences) within
ally mind-independent extension and motion of mind-independent matter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ener
gy. Today we do not strictly need to be staunch on two-valued logic or doubt
ontological precondition of there being things in process for discourse to be
ible.
26 Again, today, Einstein's and later physicists' procedure of mathemati
cally
iotemporal description of processes by use of geometrical formalism ena\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bles
one to somehow think causal description off the theoretical mechanism.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 One
then tends to say that spacetime description does away with Causal-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity.

This trend is forgetful of the fact that the Law of Causality does not deal
\fi6157 73 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 primarily with strict derivability of causes from effects or vice versa, b
ut of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 imme
rsion of causal links in the whole universal forward chain-nexus of pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es. Bertrand Russell's extrusion of the word 'cause' from the philosop
hi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
vocabulary, in his 1913 paper "On the Notion of Cause", has the phy
sical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 back
ground in the logical positivist conception that the notion of causati
on
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 was
inextricably bound up with misleading associations in physics. He means
the metaphysical overtones of the term 'cause'.{\up006 \fs10 65} Russell favou
red instru\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
alist science and philosophy of science, which excluded the concept 'cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sati
on' from the vocabulary and yet persist seeking what otherwise are called
es.
26 Today the logical positivistic, logical empiricistic and early linguistic ana
lytic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prej
udice against metaphysics or ontology has waned, let alone against the need
cience and philosophy for causality. Let us therefore forget the 'misleading
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 asso
ciations' and concentrate on showing the need to admit causation as more
a useful instrument of explanation as in instrumentalism, which deals only
empirical phenomena, where things as phenomena are experiment-laden
merely empirically obtained quantities without commitment to there being
thing actually and ontologically out there.
26 Instrumentalism is "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the view that
there is nothing but empirical phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ena,
experimental devices, and the use of physical theories for technologi
cal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 goal
s." {\up006 \fs10 66} If the instrumentalist strategy or attitude is applied in
its purity to sci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enti

fic practice without commitment to causality, physics is impossible; an
d if
in its purity, then the addition of the strategy is always somewhat
causal
realistic. Hence, any claim that mere instrumentalism suffices for scientific
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prac
tice is just inadequate. Hume and Russell may be countered in theory if we
theoretically resist pure instrumentalism. Nancy Cartwright argues that cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7211\absh7402 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sati
on is not merely useful, but also indispensable, because a mere strat
egy of
anation does not suffice:
\fi226 {\fs15 Chemotherapy,}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 example,}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 a}{\
fs15 fairly}{\fs15 effective}{\fs15 strategy}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 curing}{\fs1
5 childhood}{\fs15 leukemia. }
26 {\fs15 But}{\fs15 chemotherapy}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 unfortunate}{
\fs15 side}{\fs15 effect}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 making}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 patient
's}{\fs15 hair}{\fs15 fall}{\fs15 out.{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbo
l }} }
26 {\fs15 There}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 perfectly}{\fs15 good}{\fs15 law}
{\fs15 of}{\fs15 association}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 states}{\fs15 that}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 curing}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 leukemia}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 chil- }
26 {\fs15 dren}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 associated}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 baldness}{\fs1
5 -}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 enough?}{\fs15 Clearly,}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 answer}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 mere }
26 {\fs15 correlation}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 enough,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 right}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 relation}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 required.}
{\fs15 It}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 structure}{\fs15 of }\par
}
65 Bertrand Russell, "On the Notion of Cause," (1-26) Proceedings of the Aristo
telian So\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9484\absw7222\absh1566 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 ciety{\b 13} (1913), 1, cited in Richard Corry, "Causal Realism and the Law
s of Nature"
262 (261-76), Philosophy of Science{\b 73} (No. 1, Jan. 2006), 261-262.
Brigitte Falkenburg, Particle Metaphysics: A Critical Account of Subato
mic Reality
262 (Berlin: Springer, 2007), IX.
{\fs17 74 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 causal relations, not of statistical correlations, that accounts fo
r the difference between
26 effective and ineffective strategies.{\up006 \fs8 67 }
{\fs17 If}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 structure}{\fs17 ar
e}{\fs17 warranted}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 biology}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 t
han}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 statistical }
17 correlation,}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 so}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 in}{\fs
17 physics.}{\fs17 Thus,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 must}{\fs17 admit}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 dimension}{\fs17 of }
17 absoluteness}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 thi
ngs}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 laws}{\fs17 of}{\
fs17 nature.}{\fs17 Further, }
17 we}{\fs17 must}{\fs17 derive}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 probabilistic
}{\fs17 interpretations}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 science}{\fs17 results}{\fs17 beyo
nd }
17 yes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 concerning}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 facts}{\fs1
7 of}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
factuality}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causa- }
17 tion}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 bound}{\fs17 up}{\fs17 wi
th}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 extension-motion. }
26 {\fs17 What}{\fs17 Cartwright}{\fs17 calls}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 law}{\fs17 o
f}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 cannot}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 s
pecific}{\fs17 'theory }
17 of}{\fs17 causality'}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 applied}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 just}{\fs
17 a}{\fs17 certain}{\fs17 type}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 phenomena.}{\fs17 Causali
ty}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 onto- }
17 logical}{\fs17 Law}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 just}{\fs17 about}{\
fs17 a}{\fs17 thing's}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 event's}{\fs17 or}{
\fs17 a}{\fs17 process's}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 effect's }
17 being}{\fs17 caused}{\fs17 entirely}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 or}{\fs1
7 a}{\fs17 few}{\fs17 specific}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 non-specified}{\fs17 entit
ies}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 pro- }
17 cesses}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 respective}{\
fs17 antecedence.}{\fs17 For}{\fs17 practical}{\fs17 purposes,}{\fs17 we}{\
fs17 may }
17 attribute}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 origin}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 s
omething}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 few}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 them}{\fs17
in}{\fs17 (measuremental) }
17 space}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 (measuremental)}{\fs17 time.}{\fs17 But}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Law}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Causality}{\fs17 transcends}{\fs17
these}{\fs17 spe- }
17 cific}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 sciences}{\fs17 and}{
\fs17 points}{\fs17 toward}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 these
}{\fs17 causes,}{\fs17 their }

17 causes,}{\fs17 etc.,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 generalizes}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 itse
lf}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 universal}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 mathematical}{\fs
17 induction }
17 over}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 measuremental}{\fs17 spacetime
s}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 specific}{\fs17 links}{\fs17 in}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 whole }
17 chain}{\fs17 being}{\fs17 mere}{\fs17 partial}{\fs17 instantiations.}{\fs
17 We}{\fs17 may}{\fs17 expatiate}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 further}{\fs17 for}{\fs
17 QM,}{\fs17 so }
17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 argument}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 later}{\fs17 be}{\fs1
7 a}{\fs17 strong}{\fs17 support}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 methodology}{
\fs17 of}{\fs17 Causal }
17 Horizonal}{\fs17 Research,}{\fs17 giving}{\fs17 rise}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}
{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Reality-in-total}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 that}{\fs
17 which}{\fs17 is }
17 all}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 case}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 in
}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 process. }
{\b \fs21 3.3.}{\b \fs21 From}{\b \fs21 Particularist-}{\b \fs21 to}{\b \fs2
1 Universalist}{\b \fs21 Causation }
81 {\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Regularity }
{\fs17 Soon}{\fs17 after}{\fs17 acquiring}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 clarity}{\f
s17 on}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 principle}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 regularity}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 Nature}{\fs17 as }
17 against}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Humean,}{\fs17 Russellian}{\fs17 and}{\fs17
Cartwrightian}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causality,}{\fs17 I}{\f
s17 will }
17 formulate}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Law}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Causality.}{\fs17 Again
,}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 kept}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 mi
nd}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 Univer- }
17 sal}{\fs17 Causality}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 accepted}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 principle}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 regularity}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 accepted,}{\fs17
too.}{\fs17 Hence, }
17 I}{\fs17 am}{\fs17 trying}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 defi
ne}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 discuss}{\fs17 constancy}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 regularity}
{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Nature }
17 in}{\fs17 connection}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Law}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
Causality.}{\fs17 Strong}{\fs17 conclusions}{\fs17 therefrom}{\fs17 will}{\
fs17 be }
17 drawn}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 towards}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 end}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 book. }\par
}
67 Nancy Cartwright, "Causal Laws and Effective Strategies," Nos{\b 13}: (419-4
37), dis-

262 cussed in Richard Corry, "Causal Realism and the Laws of Nature" (261-276),
Philoso\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9920\absw7222\absh1174 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 phy of Science{\b 73} (No. 1, Jan. 2006): 261-263.
\fi6157 {\fs17 75 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 There can be many causal theories explaining certain phenomena of a
certain
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 obje
ct-region. They pertain discretely and specifically to the respective phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ena
or region. We can delineate certain causes A, B, as precisely of different sorts
,
certain effects a, b as precisely of different sorts and respectively as effects
of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 A an
d B. Then species difference of causes and effects and the conditions for the
al relation to hold between them can apply by relevance to their definition as
e or effect that pertain to each other in particular situations. This is how the
icular sciences define causes and effects, hence called particularist causation.
26 Suppose that any majuscule represents a token (an actual being / p
rocess)
he concept 'man', and that A is a certain token entity man, and B another. If
effect is representable as any minuscule a, then a represents a token effect,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to w
hich A is causally related, and b another token effect to which B is causally
ted. Here, 'A implies a causally' is not the same as 'B implies b causally'. The
y
specific causes and their respective effects. This does not necessarily mean or
ion that everything is causal - a problem that many scientific or analytical
logical definitions of causality unconsciously project. Such may at the most
ermed one form of particularist causal-theoretical definition. This definition
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 repr
esents a strict particularist token causation.
26 Secondly, instead of tokens, A, B, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }
} etc. can represent also types or natural
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 kind
s or any other particulars that have some generality within. Particularist pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibi
list causality of types, natural kinds, etc. may be formulated as: 'I
f A could
e a (ceteris paribus, i.e., all other things being equal, or, all other conditio
ns
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bein
g met), then A can or may cause a at least a few times, both A and a evolving
he process'. This definition instantiates possibilist causality, since we are no
t
sure if tokens under a type or natural kind A {\dn006 \fs10 1}, A {\dn006 \fs10
2} etc. will really cause tokens a {\dn006 \fs10 1},
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a {\
dn006 \fs10 2} etc. respectively always. This aspect of future expectation is i
mportant in pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-183 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibi
list causality, and is make possibilist because of its generality over types and
ral kinds. This is also particularist, because it does not range over all possib
le
esses in the past, present and future. Particularist possibilist causation may
lve counterfactual clauses like: If A were something (a type or natural kind)
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as c
ause, something as effect were a (a type or natural kind), too. But the pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibi
lism I bring forth in the foregoing definition need always have counterfactual
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clau
ses, which are at the same time not so specific as in token causation.
26 Thirdly, if only A could cause a and only a could be the effect of A, then it
ys and whenever has caused and will cause a. This represents strict particu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lari
st token causation. This is strict, since there is no option here for something
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 else
of a type or natural kind to be the cause of a or the effect of A. It is specif
ic
he causal status of A and effect status of a; and others like B, C, etc. could n
ot
ifiably be the cause of a. It is particularist because it is still not a stateme
nt
76 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 regarding all that exist. There may be other forms of causation with respe
ct to its
ure of motion and extension. But the most general form of causation is not
icular about the causal relation of one particular process with yet a
nother
icular one. It just states that all are causal, whichever the particular cause a
nd
ct are. This is the Universal Law of Causality we are talking about.
26 Put relationally, and in general for both strict and possible cases of causat
ion,
ation in this sort of understanding of scientific causality is the relation that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7246\absh6542 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is o
ntologically present between a cause and an effect, but always ceteris paribus
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7246\absh6542 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in v
arious degrees when treated of within particular-scientific contexts. Already
upposed in such particular-scientific causality is the principle of regularity
continuity of actual causal processes, but this sort of causal relation, which
udes the scientific concept of causality, presupposes the Law of Causality, i.e.
,
everything has a cause, and that in this sense Nature is regular. (This is no
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7246\absh6542 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 proo
f that QM is thoroughly causal, but a clarification that the Law of Causality
n fact supposed to be applicable everywhere - a pre-empirical state of affairs
remains to be argued indirectly into the QM practice.) Thus, in the general
ement of the Law of Causality of all that is, the ceteris paribus clause is not
rtant, since the universality of the formulation takes care of strains of "con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7246\absh6542 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 diti
ons contributed by other things" as further being causal. That is, all that are,
avowedly causal according to the Universal Law that applies to all. In short,
Universal Law of Causality does not need the ceteris paribus clause.{\up006 \fs1
0 68 }
26 The Law of Causation is the most important presupposition of particular in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7246\absh6542 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
ces of regularity and continuity of nature, since all that is in process is caus
al,
regularly and continuously so. That is, the principle of regularity of Nature is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7246\absh6542 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inti
mately connected to the Law of Causality. Causality is the most fundamental
of regularity of Nature. This continuity has nothing to do with Euclidean
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7246\absh6542 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 flat

geometrical continuity or arithmetical continuity of infinitesimals ove
r an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7246\absh6542 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 infi
nite stretch of space. Whatever there is, is in causal process. (Here
, again,
o only show the meaning of Causality and not show that QM processes or \par
}
68 About conditio ceteris paribus (CP) clauses, Wolfgang Spohn makes a similar
conclu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8604\absw7222\absh2358 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 sion in a different vein: "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}[T]hey
require a standard of comparison which is usually
262 left implicit. The default standard {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol
}} is given by the normal conditions. In this case,
262 other things being equal just means other things being normal. If, however,
the stand\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8604\absw7222\absh2358 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 ard of comparison is taken as variable, then the clause yields what Schurz {
\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} calls
262 comparative CP-laws, or it amounts to some such principle like "equal causes
, equal
262 effects" or "induction goes by suchnesses, not thisnesses" which might be ex
plicated
262 by symmetry principles {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}." Wolfgan
g Spohn, Causation, Coherence, and Concepts: A
262 Collection of Essays (Berlin: Springer, 2009), 150.
\fi6157 {\fs17 77 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 occurrences are irreducibly causal.) Whatever there is, does not fill the
Euclid\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ean
flat space for it to be absolutely continuous in that sense. And pr
ocess is
al process, since it is always a relation of one proceeding from or produced
nother by at least a transfer of somehow physically definable energy through
usively specific intervention in specific extension-motion regions.{\up006 \fs10
69 }
26 By regularity and continuity of actual processes in the universe is not meant
discreteness of flat-geometrical measuremental spatial and temporal mo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
s. Instead, it means the absence of 'absolutely Euclidean flat irregularity and
ontinuity' in the extension-motion dimensions of actual material processes
there are. So long as it is of discrete matter, it is discontinuous by Euclidea
n
ods of measurement. Otherwise, we would only have packed matter with
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nonmovement or absolute nothing in Euclidean space. The presence of matter
ifies some causal processes, which do not stop any time from being causal pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es. That is, all possible regularity and continuity together is presen
t at any
, but the total amount of matter-energy available at any extension-motion
on is finite, and it is always there as "some" regularity and continuity in fini
te
nsion-motion from the point of view of infinite Euclidean spacetime.
26 Itis some regularityandcontinuity,because,asalreadysaid,absoluteEuclidean\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 geom
etrical spatial regularity and continuity of material existence in Nature will
automatically yield the kind of partial change and partial permanence that
he case in all material processes. Such regularity and continuity cannot also
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 auto
matically obtain causation. The partial regularity and continuity in existent
er is, first of all, extensionally ("spatially", as measured) within t
he limited \par
}
69 In the special case of creative (originary) causation - if there is - from o
utside the uni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7066\absw7289\absh3742 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 verse, it has to be exclusively specific production of effects through exclu
sively infinite
262 intervention, of which each individual product is an instantiation of infini
te interven\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7066\absw7289\absh3742 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 tion, without any effective reduction of energy or power in the cause due to
its infinity
262 in activity (permanence in the state of infinite activity). 'Exclusively spe
cific produc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7066\absw7289\absh3742 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 tion {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} through exclusively infinit
e intervention' above means that the production of
262 a process transpires in a specific extension-motion region but is characteri
sed by the

262 co-production of an infinite number of them all along in each movement-durat
ion
262 considered. 'Exclusively infinite intervention' means it is specific in its
realisations in
262 the activity of originary production which is itself infinite despite its sp
ecific exempli\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7066\absw7289\absh3742 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 fication, and a specific instance produced is part of an infinite array of p
roductions.
262 Whereby the infinite reduction in transfer energy by the act of production o
f each
262 finite process of the infinity of them does not affect the infinite extensio
n-motion of
262 the originary cause, since infinity of infinity of {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
188 \\f Symbol }} such originary production processes
262 presuppose a commensurable power within the Source of it. We exclude this ar
ea of
262 possible existence of originary causation from our discussion of QM causalit
y.
{\fs17 78 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 regions of Euclidean space. Similarly, in "temporally" measured motion - a
gain
by Euclidean measures - matter-energy and their processes are always exist\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ent
even beyond the measured aspects or exactness.
26 Existence of matter-energy processes ensures some mutual extension-motion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (mea
surementally spatiotemporal) connection and continuity between the ante\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cede
nt and the consequent as parts of one relatively united but partially differ\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enti
ated process, always. Whatever this connection is, it is through and through
al if this causal connection exists beyond what is measured, and there is no
r processual connection that is more fundamental than the causal. That is,
Universal Law of Causation which is the primary form of expression of regu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lari
ty and continuity of Nature is not the same as extension-motion continuity in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Eucl
idean space and time.

26 In short, causality is formative (and originary, in the case of ex
ternal cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sati
on for the origination of the universe) extension-motion (measurementally
iotemporal) connection or relation of the consequent (the effect) and
the
cedent (the cause) parts of a process, both - taken minutely as the exact cause
effect, and not grossly as the entities in which the result and the cause are in
cur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rent
- undergoing further change within the process. Whatever this connect
ion,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it m
ay be formulated as applying not merely to particular processes - in which
ceteris paribus condition is a must. It applies universally to all that is - whe
re
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cete
ris paribus is already implicit, since even the other conditions are
nothing
instantiations of the causal nature of all that is. In that case, this relation
may
generally be called Causality, not with reference to just one or a few such
ections. This is not just a mental or epistemological matter, but ontological.
26 Thus, what I mean by the Law of Causation is a general fact about all onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal phenomena with a thing-based process-substratum, and is not merely a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "phe
nomenon about" epistemological "phenomena" or a mere epistemological
omenon. Against the background of our discussion of the principle of regular\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
of Nature, the Universal Law of Causality can be formulated as: 'Eve
rything
antecedent cause/s in extension-motion regularity'. This is unfortunatel
y
n many a time to be exhausted measurementally by spacetime description
measurement. The Law of Causation is ontologically most general, since
it
not have to bother in its generality as a Law about ceteris paribu
s condi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s - which latter, as further instances of the Universal Law of Causation, are
specifically causal. This general approach makes our definition of the Law of
ality more general than particular-scientific definitions of causation.
26 Different thinkers and scientists have defined causality variously. F

or the
-like skeptic, it is just a pattern of observation that merely episte
mically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7235\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 insp
ires what he has in effect considered to be merely post hoc ergo propter hoc
\fi6157 79 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 sort of causal arguments which allegedly proved only that some p
sychological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (epi
stemic) phenomena merely show some external events as direct consequents
effects of some antecedent events. The facility for post hoc ergo pro
pter hoc
ments is created when only the fact of their being psychological phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ena
is taken up. According to C. V. Salmon, without reference to the difference
een psychological phenomena and introspective phenomena, Hume should
have ventured to beat causation at all. {\up006 \fs10 70} Hume followed just th
e psychological
ospection, and not ontological introspection which would have been readier
cknowledge the existence of things and causal processes outside of the ob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 serv
ing mind.
26 The allegedly merely psychological (epistemic) phenomena, according to
, make one see dispositions falsely as actual events and allege causality to
misnamed, allegedly real, representatives of special psychological processes
are active between two consecutive dispositions or states of mind (n
ot of
nsion-motion processes outside of the mind). If the otherwise ontologically
al events of cause and effect are mistaken for misnomers of linguistic expres\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
s or epistemic dispositions or states of events in the mind, or as ontological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 name
s by the mind for such dispositions, one tends to discover between two ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tual
physical events only measured temporal and perhaps even measured spatial
ession in intermittence, and no ontological continuity of change or process
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - al

l because the names tend to compartmentalize the sensations. This facilitates
general fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc sort of epistemic substitution of
ation with spatial and temporal succession.
26 Now I formulate from Quine's critique of Hume an argument as to why there
causal processes over and above dispositions: the disposition is an abstrac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
, but the disposing or tending is a causal process that causes some effect, to
latter of which we can liken all that may be called processes.
26 First I ask why succession of events should be for pure Humeans a mere inevi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tabl
ementalrepresentationalphenomenon,ofwhichtheintrospectivelyacquired
logical character is forgotten and the introspectively acquired successi
on
etained with its psychological status. Succession is not what can directly be
t by causation. Let us look into the question of ontological or physical dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7369\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 posi
tions. The exact logical state of affairs for which post hoc ergo propter hoc is
ied is slightly different but arising from this substitution of causation with \
par
}
70 C. V. Salmon, The Central Problem of David Hume's Philosophy: An
Essay towards
262 a Phenomenological Interpretation of the First Book of the Treatise of Human
Nature
262 (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1929), 19.
{\fs17 80 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 succession of events. The disposition that ontologically permits t
he causation
nything is not to be taken as the same as causation, e.g., solubility of salt is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh8078
isposition, not the cause. The real cause is
ructural
ges (a process) that end in our concluding that the
\sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a d

certain real physical st
\sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 chan
thing has solubility. If we

entrate mainly on dispositions, we have no causation as such there, but only
rvation of succession of events and observation of the ontological disposi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
(e.g., solubility) prevalent in the processes, which are for Humeans philo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 soph
ically just alleged processes outside our mind. Quine explains clearly why a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dist
inction between causation and disposition should help us in our formulation
tenable definition of causation.
\fi226 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 [W]hy}{\fs15
is}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 troublesome?}{\fs15 Because}{\fs15 then,}{\fs15 if}{\
fs15 we}{\fs15 take}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 classes}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
events}{\fs15 such }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 each}{\fs15 event}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 one}{\f
s15 class}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 followed}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 event}{\fs1
5 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 other,}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 say}
{\fs15 that }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 events}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 class}{\
fs15 cause}{\fs15 those}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 other.}{\fs15 Thereupo
n}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 arbitrary}{\fs15 event}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 can }
26 {\fs15 be}{\fs15 said}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 caused}{\fs15 any}{\f
s15 succeeding}{\fs15 event}{\fs15 b}{\fs15 ;}{\fs15 for,}{\fs15 we}{\fs15
can}{\fs15 just}{\fs15 take}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 classes}{\fs15 a
s}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 unit}{\fs15 classes}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 b}{\fs15
.}{\fs15 We}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 caught}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 fallacy}
{\fs15 of}{\fs15 post}{\fs15 hoc}{\fs15 ergo}{\fs15 propter}{\fs15 hoc}{\f
s15 . }
26 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 If}{\fs15 there}{
\fs15 is}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 distinguishing}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 th
ing's}{\fs15 disposition}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 act}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 ce
rtain}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 in }
26 {\fs15 certain}{\fs15 circumstances}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 mere}{\f
s15 fact}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 its}{\fs15 so}{\fs15 acting}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 th
ose}{\fs15 circumstances,}{\fs15 then }
26 {\fs15 whatever}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 thing}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 can}
{\fs15 be}{\fs15 laid}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 disposition,}{\fs15 by}{\f
s15 defining}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 circumstances }
26 {\fs15 narrowly}{\fs15 enough.}{\up006 \fs8 71 }
Note that the disposition is not the process of causation in question to which i
t
elated, and that the said process is not identical to other processes happen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
during the time of disposition. The particular disposition at the time of the
ess is of that specific process. If we consider the tendency of the process or

g to act causally, then the tendency, taken abstractly, is no occurrence. But if
tending is taken as a process, it is already a sort of causal change within the
ess, and perhaps also with outward effects other than the effect of the causal
of the said token process. If the tending or making to tend is a causal process
/
t, then the effect-process to which it gives rise is also causal. There is conti
nu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
of exertion between the two, and so QM cannot say that in the entanglement
riment only the first exists and the second does not. That is, we must be able
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to s
peak of a causal event as such, without mixing it with other causal events that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pred
ispose or post-dispose the causal event in question.
26 Hence, it is important that our definition of causality theoretically delinea
tes
cause and effect as cause and effect proper - however conceptually limited
actual delineation in empirical experience of the real cases can be - so that
cause is at least theoretically not aligned with any other cause or
effect or \par
}
71 Willard van Orman Quine, The Roots of Reference (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court,
1973), 5.
\fi6157 {\fs17 81 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 mistaken for dispositions to cause something else. This latter sort of ali
gnment
only permit just the observation of succession of events to falsely conclude
cause or effect proper.
26 For a Kant-inspired critic, causality is (1) at the very least a c
ategory of the
ess of understanding based in consciousness, and, (2) at the most perhaps
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a k
nowledge-category with ontological foundation in things-in-themselves (if
gs-in-themselves are concludable at least as limiting cases). This is
so, be-

e causality at least happens to work epistemically as a category for the know\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
mind, of the ontological status of whose objects we are not epistemologically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sure
. Even here, we find the need for differentiating causality from epis
temic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ('ep
istemic' meaning 'what happens in the mind in the process of knowing'
)
ts and stressing the ontological status of causality, without which ph
ysics
be impossible. It is heartening to note that Kant has come to appreciate the
ct-based nature of all categorial deductions.{\up006 \fs10 72} Therefore,
we need to show
need of causation as based on ontological commitment to the existence of
gs as processes and processes as irreducibly causal.
{\b \fs21 3.4.}{\b \fs21 Causality}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Ontological}{\b \
fs21 Commitment:}{\b \fs21 Beyond}{\b \fs21 Quine }
For Quine, "[c]ausality is a relation of events, and all events, ment
al and so\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cial
ones included, are a matter ultimately of the action of physical forces upon
icles." {\up006 \fs10 73} As we defined causality in Chapter 1, we spoke of tra
nsfer of impact,
uence, energy, etc. Our concern here is ontological, not epistemological. As
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Quin
e says,
\fi226 {\fs15 My}{\fs15 concern}{\fs15 here}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 different}{\fs1
5 from}{\fs15 Hume's;}{\fs15 his}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs15
epistemological}{\fs15 basis}{\fs15 for }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 relation,}{\fs15 while}{\fs15 mine}{\fs15
is}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 ontological}{\fs15 nature}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 relation}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 an }
26 {\fs15 object}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 scientific}{\fs15 theory.}{\fs15 All}{\fs1
5 will}{\fs15 agree,}{\fs15 materialists}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 others,}{\fs15
that}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 efficacy }
26 {\fs15 within}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 material}{\fs15 world,}{\fs15 at}{\fs15
any}{\fs15 rate,}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 compounded}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 microphysical
}{\fs15 forces,}{\fs15 despite }
26 {\fs15 our}{\fs15 incapacity}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 single}{\fs15 out}{\fs15 a
ll}{\fs15 those}{\fs15 components}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 every}{\fs15 particular}
{\fs15 case.}{\up006 \fs8 74 }
Causation is an exertion of impact through a force, energy. Without exertion the
re

o relation, and if at any point in QM there is some cause, then the next inher\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 its
exertion, and then the next too, and so on ad libitum, though an experiment
not concern itself with the whole train of them. This calls into question all
{\fs16 72}{\fs16 Ekhart}{\fs16 Frster,}{\fs16 "Preface"}{\fs16 (i-x),}{\fs16
in}{\fs16 Ekhart}{\fs16 Frster,}{\fs16 Ed.,}{\fs16 Kant's}{\fs16 Transcend
ental}{\fs16 Deduc- }
62 {\fs16 tions:}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Three}{\fs16 Critiques}{\fs16 and}{\fs16
the}{\fs16 Opus}{\fs16 Posthumum,}{\fs16 (Stanford:}{\fs16 Stanford}{\fs16
University }
62 {\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 1989),}{\fs16 vii-x. }
16 73}{\fs16 Quine,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Roots}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Reference}{\f
s16 ,}{\fs16 6. }
16 74}{\fs16 Quine,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Roots}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Reference}{\f
s16 ,}{\fs16 6. }
82 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 non-causal interpretations of QM. We, but, will endeavour not to limit our
selves
the scientific theory of causality and go to the most fundamental ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
form of the concept of causality that makes all scientific causality possible.
26 It is the continuity of inheritance of exertion that is theoretical
ly broken in
QM processes by some interpretations of QM, say, the Copenhagen. Cause
ne sort of relation between and within processes, also in QM processes. If we
entitled to speak of relations within and between processes, we are entitled to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spea
k of causality at least as one of them. We do not exhaust enumeration of all
ible causes of an effect. Any mathematical description of physical processes
not subsume all that we can know of causal relations between and within
esses. One such exertion of energy is gravitation, a real form of causation,
al form of exertion of energy, of flow of energy - though their description
only in Einstein but also in Newton has remained just mathematical, which
d not be idiosyncratically "mathematically causal". The causal understanding

t is an addition to the mathematical description in Newton, and all the more
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so c
ould it be in Einstein too. If it has been attempted to fully mathematize pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es, there naturally cannot be talk of causation in mathematical description.
26 We can theoretically say that all the causes of an effect are enumerable, whi
ch
in fact many. These are the whole cause, to be differentiated from the notion
otal causes in the sense given by Quine. Total causes are expressed in Quine
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as f
ollows: "each of them intercepts all the energetic lines that lead into the ef\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fect
. These total causes differ from one another only in date or duration or in the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 capr
icious inclusion of superfluities." {\up006 \fs10 75} The superfluities are the
extra events and
esses that do not count as cause proper but are parts of any gross total object
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or p
rocess that includes the cause proper as a member with respect to one form
ausation that has nothing to do with the other causal processes taking place
in the gross object or process. The whole causal horizon of the temporally
ent world cannot be exhausted by 'the total cause' of any group of
entities
ugh its interception of all the energetic lines that lead into the effect. Quine
ks from the context of the impact-energy lines of causes of specific effects
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spok
en of in the sciences, and our question in the definition of the Law of Cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh8156 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sati
on is of the whole causal past that has gone into the formation of all effects.
26 Another variety of causes in Quine is contributory ones. Here, the total effe
ct
ot considered, as is caused by the total. Moreover:
\fi226 {\fs15 We}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 accommodate}{\fs15 contributory}{\fs15
causes}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 defining}{\fs15 them}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 interc
epting}{\fs15 merely }
26 {\fs15 some}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 energetic}{\fs15 lines}{\fs15 th
at}{\fs15 lead}{\fs15 into}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 effect.}{\fs15 But}{\fs15 one
's}{\fs15 interest}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 contributory }\par
}
75 Quine, The Roots of Reference, 7. \par
}
3 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 causes is conspicuously independent of the proportion of energy con
tributed{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}. All the
26 rest of the total cause may be uninteresting because already known; this one
contribu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7348\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tory part is all that was needed to complete our understanding of the case. O
r the rest of
26 the total cause may be uninteresting because it would be immaterial to some p
ractical
26 end, such as allocation of responsibility.{\up006 \fs8 76 }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 total}{\fs17 cause}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Quine}{\fs17 is}{\fs1
7 therefore}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 totality}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 energy}
{\fs17 lines}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 total }
17 process}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 entity}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 has}{\
fs17 the}{\fs17 whole}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 proper}{\fs17 caus
e}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 effect }
17 process,}{\fs17 namely,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ones}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 are}{\
fs17 most}{\fs17 visible,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 less}{\
fs17 perceivable}{\fs17 ones }
17 within}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 past.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 l
ess}{\fs17 directly}{\fs17 perceivable}{\fs17 ones}{\fs17 may}{\fs17 be}{\f
s17 said}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 in- }
17 cluded}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 contributory}{\fs17 ones.}{\fs17
That}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 Quine}{\fs17 prefers}{\fs17 contributory}{\fs17
cause}{\fs17 as }
17 either}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 distant}{\fs17 part}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
total}{\fs17 cause}{\fs17 proper}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 l
ess}{\fs17 perceivable}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 less }
17 important}{\fs17 cause/s}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 specific}{\fs17 causa
l}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 such.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 clear
}{\fs17 enough}{\fs17 for }
17 the}{\fs17 scientific}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation,}{\fs
17 but}{\fs17 still}{\fs17 ambiguous}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 La
w}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Causal- }
17 ity,}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Law}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 pertain}{\f
s17 to}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 process,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17
not}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 limited}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 the }
17 whole}{\fs17 history}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 process. }
26 {\fs17 That}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 Quine's}{\fs17 concepts}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 c
ontributory}{\fs17 cause}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 total}{\fs17 cause}{\fs17 suffic
e}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 sci- }

17 ence,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 suffice}{\fs17 for}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 definition}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Law}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Cau
sality,}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 can }
17 theoretically}{\fs17 go}{\fs17 back}{\fs17 further}{\fs17 and}{\fs17
generalize}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 totalize}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 over}
{\fs17 the }
17 whole}{\fs17 past}{\fs17 genealogy}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 causes}{\
fs17 proper}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 each}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 every}{\fs17 event.}{\
fs17 Any}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 de- }
17 limiting}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 thus}{\fs17 limiting}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concepts}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 contributory}{\fs17 and}{\fs17
total}{\fs17 cause/s, }
17 as}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 case}{\fs17 may}{\fs17 be,}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 resp
ect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 specific}{\fs17 cause.}{\fs17 T
his}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 proper}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 to }
17 provinces}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Reality}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 respec
tive}{\fs17 sciences.}{\fs17 Hence,}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 my}{\fs17 opinion,}{\f
s17 what}{\fs17 we }
17 need}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 fundamental}{\fs17 notion}{\f
s17 of}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Quine's}{
\fs17 total}{\fs17 causes, }
17 which}{\fs17 latter}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 notion}{\fs17 that}{\fs17
facilitates}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 total}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 past}
{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 particular}{\fs17 ef- }
17 fect;}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 contributory
}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 accessible}{\fs17 from}{\fs17
a}{\fs17 limited}{\fs17 region }
17 of}{\fs17 extension-motion.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 particularized}{\fs17 conce
pt}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 scien
tific }
17 discourse.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 Law}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Causality}{\fs17 is}{\
fs17 capable}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 going}{\fs17 simultaneously}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 causal }
17 roots}{\fs17 ad}{\fs17 libitum}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 that}{\fs17
are}{\fs17 processual.}{\fs17 Stating}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 general}{\fs17 caus
al}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 them}{\fs17 all }
17 is}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 did}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Chapter}{\fs17 1}{
\fs17 and}{\fs17 now}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Chapter}{\fs17 3}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 a
}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 comprehensive}{\fs17 sense. }
{\b \fs21 3.5.}{\b \fs21 Way}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Soluti
on}{\b \fs21 in}{\b \fs21 QM}{\b \fs21 Ontology }
{\fs17 I}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 presume}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 advance}
{\fs17 here}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 everything}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
micro-}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 macro- }

17 worlds}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 thoroughly}{\fs17 causal,}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 sugge
sted}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 definition}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 La
w}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Causal- }
17 ity.}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 already}{\fs17 put}{\fs17 forth}{\fs17
in}{\fs17 Chapter}{\fs17 1}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 understand}{\fs17
as}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the }
17 particular}{\fs17 sciences}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Universal}{\f
s17 Law}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Causality}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 ont
ological}{\fs17 of }
17 all}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 pertains}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a
ll}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 sciences}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 general.}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 wi
ll}{\fs17 argue}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 present }
{\fs16 76}{\fs16 Quine,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Roots}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Reference
}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 7. }
{\fs17 84 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 section against acausal and non-causal explanations in a general
fashion, and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sugg
est what is problematic in QM, (1) if some processes or parts of processes
the micro-universe are taken to be non-causal due to non-causal statis
tical
rpretations of QM, or (2) if they are taken to be acausal just to
keep the
ntific choice between causality and non-causality open, again due to s
ome
s of statistical interpretation. By 'acausal' is meant that the understanding of
process can perhaps be conceived to have everything or nothing apparently to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 do w
ith causation. Therefore, achieving clarity about these terms is the next step.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Ther
eafter I will study some concrete causal difficulties in QM and relate them
he problem of the Law of Causality in general.
26 Since admitting a spectrum of superluminal velocities would allow localized
al action in entangled particles with respect to any superluminal velo
city
n as criterial velocity, the way of approach of the present work to establish
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ubiq
uity of causality in the micro-world is to suggest the possibility and rational\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
of superluminal velocities as essential for the Law of Causality. This argument
be put in a gist as follows, and the reader is urged to read the chapters (9-12)
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 on E
PR and STR if he or she is eager to ask whether EPR can in any way suggest
al locality, and whether STR permits that.
26 The quantum entanglement experiment {\up006 \fs10 77} is an attempt to solve
the Einstein\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Podo
lsky-Rosen paradox. But it attempts by default also to show that an effect
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh5192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 on o
ne of two mutually interacting particles, which are separated at a combined
ance covering the speed of light,{\up006 \fs10 78} with respect to local measur
e of motion,
s possible an "instantaneous" effect on the other particle - or, so go many \par
}
77 Works like (1) D. Estve, J.-M. Raimond and J. Dalibard, Eds., Quantum Entangl
e\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7064\absw7222\absh3744 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 ment and Information Processing, Les Houches 2003, Session LXXIX, (Amsterdam
:
262 Elselvier, 2004) (see 22ff), (2) Gregg Jaeger, Entanglement, Information and
the Inter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7064\absw7222\absh3744 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 pretation of Quantum Mechanics (Berlin: Springer, 2009), and others are exam
ples for
262 finding the entanglement experiment as a way of taking access to the entangl
ed state
262 of particles to show that information transfer at that level on such routes
may be made
262 possible and that this has great technological applications. We discuss at l
ength the
262 problems of instantaneous information transfer (action-at-a-distance) in Cha
pter 9
262 and thereafter.
The postulate-nature of the speed of light was clear from the very beginning in
STR.
262 The later experimental "verification" of this is not a proof for its postula
te-nature, but
262 one based on its experimental postulate nature in that the whole mathematics
of STR
262 is run on the basis of comparison of other velocities to the velocity of lig
ht quanta.
262 Encyklopdie der mathematischen Wissenschaften mit Einschluss ihrer Anwendunge
n,
262 Fnfter Band in Drei Teilen: Physik, Zweiter Teil, A. Sommerfeld, Ed., s.v. "R
elativitt\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7064\absw7222\absh3744 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 stheorie" (543-775) by W. Pauli, 549ff.
\fi6157 {\fs17 85 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 presentations and interpretations of the scenario. These, then, yi
eld a vacuum
ur Law of Causality by bringing in the following dilemma: (1) either this is
antaneous (by which proofs?, by depending on c as the criterial veloc
ity?)
so causation is not the case, (2) or it does not warrant a causal explanation at
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 all,
simply for reason. Both of these are incapable of explaining anything and are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 agai
nst all reason - including the foundations of fuzzy logic that allegedly found
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM r
eason - or, so I suggest.
26 To suggest a solution by anticipating the discussions to follow later, any so
lu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
to the above dilemma, in my opinion, yields superluminal velocities as a real
ally localizing possibility, filling the causal vacuum created otherwise by all
r possible solutions. The solution is (1) positing superluminal communica\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
between the pair of EPR antiparticles when separated in their already entan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gled
state but at effectively superluminal distances from each other, and (2)hence
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 show
ing that the equations of STR that give an experimentally temporary privi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lege
d status to electromagnetic propagation with a limit velocity will hav
e to
theoretically only one special case of a spectrum of STRs that can p
ertain
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to v
arious criterial speed levels in the universe, thus enabling us to take a range
of
rluminal velocities as a spectrum of values of the criterial velocity for a rang

e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of S
TRs (of which the velocity of light happens to be the criterion in our STR).
26 If ontological supremacy over the category of spacetime is not given to the c
at\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 egor
y of extension-motion and to the finite and local nature of particular causal
uences with respect to the (any) respective criterial velocities, the
paradox
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is p
hilosophically deeper than the EPR paradox: the paradox of dichotomizing
ontological and the epistemological and substituting the earlier with the lat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ter
in some parts of the ontologically existing universe and Reality-in-total. The
of explaining the EPR paradox by saying that a certain aspect of reality is
al and the other is non-causal, or perhaps non-causal, will thus remain ra\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
ally contradictory and will lack the power of explanation as to why just one
is causal and the other is not. Further, explaining how the causal
and the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal elements are in contact with each other is a worse paradox - to be
ussed elaborately later. Therefore, I prefer from the middle to the end of this
to present detailed arguments to show ubiquity of causality as supreme in
QM world and take the so-called non-causal or acausal moments in QM as
g actually epistemologically less expressive of the otherwise causal universe.
{\b \fs21 3.6.}{\b \fs21 Determinism}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Causalism:}{\b
\fs21 General}{\b \fs21 Considerations }
We have set up in gist above what could be meant by particularist scientific cau
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7252\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty and the general Law of Causality in the physical ontological conte
xt of
86 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the QM world that is identical to macro-world that there exists.
The concept
ausal ontology that we need is a very general one, since it should pertain to
that exist. From a scientific point of view, ontology is the science that deals
rally with the fundamental conditions that make things possible as beings
processes, and makes all sciences possible as sciences of provinces o
f be\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ings
and of the totality of all beings. Whatever in general ontology underlies the
epts that sciences apply in the name of causality, we shall call in general as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'cau
sally ontological' and the discipline thereof as 'causal ontology'. We need to
y causal ontology in QM and see if it can be reasonable with respect to the
riments and their results in QM. In a work of this kind it is presumed that
reader is acquainted with the basics of QM theories. With this assumption,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I pu
t forth in the present chapter some questions at the interface between deter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mini
sm and causality in QM for clarification of the two.
26 The ontological context of application of causality is important for us to an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alys
e the concept of determinism from within the Law of Causality, which
of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cour
se includes the specific and immediately detectable (ontologically and/o
r
temologically determinable) causes that we cite for processes in the specific
ds or provinces dealt with by the particular sciences. Treated exclusi
vely
temologically, the condition of detectability yields many sorts of determin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ism,
which speaks only of our epistemic ability to detect causes: 'In pr
inciple,
or most or many causes are determinable or predictable'. Determinism need
always mean directly that processes should yield themselves always to
ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 peri
mental or numerical determination of properties, but what is determined is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a pr
operty of the process in question. That is, epistemological determinism is a
ry of the allegedly high theoretical dependability of epistemic determination
roperties of things and processes. Strong determinism holds the determinis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tic
constructs to be the reality. When a type of determinism holds that properties
more important than existence of the causal processes there behind, t
here
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 aris
e property determinism, epistemological determinism, scientific instrumen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tali
sm, etc.
26 The determinism that holds in its ontological counterpart that everything in
its parts is caused and that some of them are epistemologically speaking de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 term
inable or detectable (here the variety of ontology is open) is no real deter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mini
sm but causalism. This, in its purity, should adhere in fact to nothing but
Universal Law of Causality that presupposes that everything in all their parts
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is c
ausal in their respective mutual relation with their effects. The only practical
g here is that the scientist (and analytically or pragmatically or linguisticall
y
life-scientifically oriented philosopher) does not have to explicitly me
ntion
Law, or is not always aware of the full import of the ontological implications
\fi6157 87 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 of this Law in his pragmatically epistemological variety of causa
l conception,
calls it determinism with emphasis on the discovered or discoverable prop\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 erti
es - attributes which need not as such exist, as we imagine them to be in the
esses.
26 Determinism is meant epistemologically, but it can naturally have an ontolog\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ical
counterpart; and pure mechanistic determinism says only that whatever is
logically determined is in principle epistemologically determinable too. The
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pure
ly epistemological variety merely includes some or other form of ontological
rminism with admission of existence of processes; and this treatment does
include ontological causalism in its strictly epistemological sense, but only in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50
bordinate and optional manner for conceptual purposes.
26 To put them in gist: (1) The purely ontological understanding
\fs17 \cf0 a su
\fs17 \cf0 \fi2
of determin\fs17 \cf0 ism
is causalism, which says everything is determined (caused) by antecede

nt
es. This does not involve any epistemological condition other than bei
ng
retically connected to categorial conditions like the measuremental spat
i\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 otem
porality of matter-energy in extension-motion. It presupposes ontological
itment to there being things in causal process, and so, it is better to call it
ly ontological causalism. Hence, it is no more determinism for us. Ot
her\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wise
, determinism should mean that everything or some things that are causal in
re are only in some cases known, and in some unknowable or fully knowable
artially knowable. The knowledge-part is in order, but the causal-ontological
is not fixedly causal.
26 (2) The merely epistemological notion says not that everything is potentially
rminable but that whatever is determined is determined with properties by
mind by experiments and measurements, but this may also tacitly admit \par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 with
out commitment - that everything or mostly everything is ontologically
rmined (caused) by antecedent causes. This primarily epistemologically ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cent
ed property-determinism can have two ontological sub-kinds: (a) the one
does not hold for sure that everything is caused - i.e., is at least not clear
of
extension-motion locus of causality at least in some cases - and that some or
of them are epistemologically determinable by use of properties, and (b) the
nd that holds that every causal process is mechanistically so unwindable that
y such process is liable to be known by physical experience of properties.
26 Type (a) of epistemological determinism is non-committed to the ontological
us of its sort of claims. Type (b) is absolutely sure that everything is causall
y
rmined in a mechanistic manner, but it is also convinced that everyth
ing
logically determined is also in principle determinable by properties, which
taken to be proper and real. Pure causalism (i.e., (1) above), and variety (a)

epistemological determinism (i.e., of (2) above) do not have different
kinds
88 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 of causality but different conceptions of causality with either a conceptu
ally more
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or a
less ontological stance. Type (b) of epistemological determinism has onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cally pure mechanistic determinism with an epistemological positing of an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 allknowing mind. Sub-kind (a) is not pure epistemological determinism, but
logical causalism with respect to many processes mixed up with pure epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temo
logical determinism. Sub-kind (b) is pure mechanistic determinism, which
s that everything causal must in principle be knowable and potentially de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 term
inable in principle by mind, with its physically possible instruments, where
mind should badly be posited as potentially all-knowing. In this pure case,
ll-knowable kind of determinism is presupposed, only to represent the po\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tent
ially determinable nature of all and only causes which are all finite in number
each mechanistic process. Pure epistemological determinism does not seem
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to e
xist except perhaps in extremes like Hume's.
26 In the case of QM, sub-kind (a) above is represented when, e.g.,
one holds
the experimentally set property of highest velocity of light permits the dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tanc
e between two entangled (i.e., previously mutually interacted) anti-particles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to "
freely" and non-causally engender or effect some change in each other - and
, even though both were previously causally (within the purview of the lu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mina
l limit of communication velocity) entangled and might also later do
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 same
if brought together again. In the same example, only the one said kind and
similar kinds of action are supposed to be non-causal, i.e., engendered in
second particle, but not causally! Most other processes within each particle,
those between one particle and particles that do not belong to this pair, are
taken as causal, insofar as they transpire within the limits of luminal veloc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity.
Thus, the QM physicist of partially non-causalist persuasion normally calls
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 almo
st every part of his QM world determinist due to the epistemological claim
lved in the experimental work. Yet, he admits that the few regions containing
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (phy
sical?) processes, where uncertainty or entanglement comes into play, noth\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
is determined causally and nothing is (fully?) determinable by instruments
pparatuses of measurement (i.e., indirectly, by us, in terms of properties).
26 Yet another example for this sub-kind (a) is the claim that a process in some
set of parts of one human brain interacts with nature or with other mediate
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 brai
n parts within the same brain or with other individuals' brain parts,
with\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 out
any causal impact or communication, or with communication that does not
e any causal effect, and something happens in it without any cause o
ut of
blue!
26 Sub-kind (b) can be illustrated with the help of gross examples from everyday
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7179\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 life
like the working of a watch or machine, where everything belonging to the
m of working of it is considered to be knowable, though not actually so in all
\fi6157 89 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 its details at any given moment. In them too there are micro-levels where
sub\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 kind
(a) with less human surety of epistemic determination of causes seems to be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at w
ork, and these pertain to the QM world. But kind (1), i.e., the Universal Law
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of C
ausality, says that even these ever-more infinitesimal realms are causal. One
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 send
s this fact to oblivion: in QM's cases (a), when one adjudicates tha
t some
erty-unknowable realms exist that are not causal; and also in mechanistic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 case
s (b), where one judges merely upon the apparent peripheral property-based
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mach
ine work directly at hand. Moreover, in (b) too there is admission of on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical causation (at the coarse level), which makes it a mix of epistemologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
determinism about determined and determinable properties and ontological
alism about what is peripheral in the ontologically committed aspect of de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scri
ption. This latter is in my opinion the classical scientific case of determin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ism
exemplified in Newton, Laplace, Darwin, Marx, Freud etc., (and to provoke
, I would say, to some extent also in the Stephen Hawking whom we knew
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unti
l recently concerning the ultimate functions of physics, astrophysics a
nd
ology).
26 Sadly, exactly this mechanistic determinism is present in QM since
the pe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 riph
eral aspects of physical processes are taken in QM to be causal and the more
te forms of processes are taken to be statistically or probabilistically causal
some parts of them being evidently "non-causal". This fact makes me claim
QM has not let go of the Newtonian mechanistic variety of determinism. The
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clas
sical epistemological determinism's outlook, with some measure of onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal determinism included, is roughly that physical reality consists of causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 acti
vity in the presupposed clock-work mechanistic world. Though the QM un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ders
tanding is claimed to be non-classical, we should suspect that QM has not
y left this classical concept. This may be claimed, so long as the epistemologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
aspect of predictability as part of determinism is present in its probabilism,
out any reference to the ontological aspect of there being something
that
ically determines (causes) what is only probabilistically conceived to
be
ictable in the humanly less predictable near-infinitesimal aspects of R
eal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity.
Now read the following: "Predictability is rightly regarded as one of the key
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 attr
ibutes of classical dynamics. On the other hand, the defining feature of quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7211\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tum
mechanics is thought to be its probabilistic nature, which manifests itself in
urements."{\up006 \fs10 79} One forgets in QM that deterministic predictability

in QM is \par
}
79 J. P. Paz and W. H. Zurek, "Course 8. Environment-induced Decohere
nce and the
262 Transition from Quantum to Classical" (535-609), in Robin Kaiser, Chris West
brook
262 and Franois David, Eds., Coherent Atomic Matter Waves, Les Houches,
Session
{\fs17 90 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 bound up with probabilistic measurement, and so QM's determinism is proba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
stic predictability determinism. This attitude of some QM specialists automati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y tends to forget to make place for, or come to terms with, the Universal Law
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of C
ausality presupposed in case (1), which irreducibly is an ontological affair
lving ontological commitment.
26 To show that the predictability-part in determinism has an essential
ly epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temi
c content, it suffices to note that predictability everywhere involves
also
abilities, and probability has two parts: a percentage of probability of truth
statement and a percentage of uncertainty of truth of a statement, when we
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 go
by 1-0 (true-false) logic. Without mentioning the crux of the Uncertai
nty
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Prin
ciple of Heisenberg and the non-locality principle famously suggested b
y
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Eins
tein and others (for both, see the later chapters that discuss these issues), I
e here just the crux of their relationship with respect to measurement of un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cert
ainty. The Uncertainty Principle and non-locality principle have been taken
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so f
ar to be two distinct concepts, but,
\fi226 {\fs15 they}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 inextricably}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 quantita
tively}{\fs15 linked.}{\fs15 Quantum}{\fs15 mechanics}{\fs15 cannot}{\fs15
be}{\fs15 more }
26 {\fs15 non-local}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 measurements}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 respe

ct}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 uncertainty}{\fs15 principle.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15 fact,}{
\fs15 the}{\fs15 link}{\fs15 be- }
26 {\fs15 tween}{\fs15 uncertainty}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 non-locality}{\fs15 hol
ds}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 physical}{\fs15 theories.}{\fs15 More}{\fs1
5 specifically,}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 degree}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 non-locality}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 any}{\fs15
theory}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 determined}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 factors}{\fs
15 -}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 strength}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 uncertainty}{\fs15 principle,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 strengt
h}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 property}{\fs15 called}{\fs15 "steering",}{\fs1
5 which}{\fs15 determines }
26 {\fs15 which}{\fs15 states}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 one}{\f
s15 location}{\fs15 given}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 measurement}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 ano
ther.}{\up006 \fs8 80 }
The quantitative link between the two principles consists in that the probabil\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
yielded by steering in non-locality is quantitatively similar to the probability
is theoretically available in any uncertainty measure due to the Uncertainty
riment. Now, is steering causal or non-causal? Is any other process prior to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stee
ring causal or non-causal? And why does just the steering cause a non-causal
t therein? Is it not better to say that we do not yet know why steering acts
it does? Similarly, is it not reasonable to admit that the quantitati
ve uncer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7192\absh6812 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tain
ty in properties due to the Uncertainty Principle is in fact due to epistemic
ons? In both the uncertainties - due to the non-locality principle and due to \p
ar
}
6 \cf0 LXXII, NATO Advanced Study Institute Series (Les Ulis: EDP Scien
ces / Berlin:
262 Springer, 2001), 539.
See section A.2, "Steering to the Maximally Certain States" under the Supplemen
tary
262 Material in Jonathan Oppenheim and Stephanie Wehner, "The Uncertainty Princi
262 ple Determines the Non-locality of Quantum Mechanics", (19 Nov., 20
10), http://
262 www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/articles/urvsnl-arxiv.pdf (Accessed on 15 Febr
uary
262 2012).

\fi6157 {\fs17 91 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the Uncertainty Principle - the epistemic aspect of the available
certainty and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 avai
lable uncertainty are clearly present.
26 This is a clear indication that the whole issue of determinism in QM is very
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 much
an epistemological confusion of ontological determinationism or cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
sm with the results (properties) of our abilities to measure. Determination
s ontologically causal determination and epistemic determination i
n
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 acco
rdance with conceptually determined properties. QM plays within this
ework, by confusing the ontologically causal and epistemological causal
cts of determination in its statements, without attempting sufficiently
ontologically ask if the causes of the processes could exist at all
beyond
experimental-probabilistic variety of epistemic determinations, or if th
e
ical ontological parts within the experiments are merely an ontological
ly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncommitted "function" of the epistemological or epistemically determined
ct. The existence-factor in theory is here prohibited by the positivis
t
rumentalist mathematicism of its initiators like Bohr and Heisenberg.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Toda
y the philosophical tendencies of positivistic instrumentalism and math\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 emat
icism have no much value in physical ontology, but they persist in Q
M
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 due
to its mathematical crust that is almost impenetrable for the physically less
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trai
ned philosopher and commoner.
26 There have been pragmatic successes in QM using the many results that hap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pen
to be prescribed by theoretical and practical imagination and ascribed
to
rumentalistic probabilism, which, even otherwise, are physical results using

experimental stipulations. These need not be the successes of instrumen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tali
stic probabilism, but of the level of precision available via probability theory
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 whil
e mediating micro-phenomena to meso-world perception. Therefore, it is
rtant to mention here that the philosophical questions in QM are not
so
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 much
solved as accentuated by the successes of some physical results with which
rumentalism happens to be attached unconsciously. The successes need not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 obst
ruct our ontological inquiry into the validity of instrumentalistic pro
ba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
sm. Even mechanistic physics and cosmology had the same instrumentalism
determinism, and yet today they have been outlawed from their one-time
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fame
as Grand Unification Theories and reduced into highly successful aspects
hysics of the meso-world, especially meant for the world of engineering sci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
s. That is, technological successes need not adequately determine the extent
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7259\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of v
erity of statements based on technologically oriented conceptual definitions.
26 The crux of the question of determinism in QM turns around the questions
causality and realism, since the problem of causality urges a reconcil
iation
een the purely epistemological and purely physical-ontological aspects o
f
rmination. This has to do with the certainty-part of determinism in Q
M
92 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 probabilism. This is clarified only if the uncertainty-part due to (the qu
est after
es and reality in) the Uncertainty Principle and probability theory is taken
such a manner that uncertainty can be improved through future improved
s of measurement. It can be improved not merely by improvement of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 appa
ratuses and measuring-and-detecting methods, but also by theoretical re-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fine

ments. Improved theoretical input in the QM will boil down to nothing but
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clos
er approximations to the ontological state of affairs at instantiation
of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Law
of Causality in the actual world. Thus, we will know with at least a higher
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trut
h probability in the future that there are some ever more specifiable and de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tect
able causal agents behind the whole process in the actual state of affairs in
tion at any time, even when these may not be well detectable at any
time
ny hidden variables theory. 'Actual state of affairs' here denotes not merely
cted properties of one or a few processes at a time, but potentially more im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prov
ed and ever more deeply theoretically and experimentally detected proper\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
that demonstrate involvement of causal strains from ever broader expanses
hysical Reality-in-total in processes.
26 It is not assumed here that Reality as such is epistemologically definite (de
ined) and through this definiteness ontologically fully determinate (causal).
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 On t
he contrary, the assumption is that any higher and higher extension-motion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 brea
dths of Reality that appear in experiment and theory are in any case defi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nite
ly existent as something and epistemologically speaking not fully determina\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ble
as of exactly this or that quantitative or qualitative natures. Otherwise there
no reason for us to think of any minute but finite spatiotemporal ex
tent of
world to be in any way definite (this too need never be fully epis
temically
rminable). If nothing in the world is ontologically finite and causal, and epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temo
logically speaking at least partially epistemically determinable, physics has
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 no m
eaning. For this reason, though our assumption has been that at least some
s of physical reality are at least partially epistemologically determin
ate or
rminable, and perhaps partially or fully determinate (causal), yet we hope to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 visu
alise a fully causal world.
26 Insofar as QM is a part of physics, the basic principle of ontological finite
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness

of parts of the world and epistemologically partial determinateness o
f
s of the world are theoretically pass for it to deserve redundant mention.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 More
over, simply assuming that Reality is epistemologically determinat
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cann
ot be our way. We are yet ready to think that the micro-world has onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7183\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cally been shown to be fully causal. Therefore, we do not assume at
all
the whole Reality is definitely causal, but that it is definitely a
nd finitely
tent with some causally determinate but epistemically not-so-determinate
tities and qualities at every extension-motion locality. Hence, no danger of
\fi6157 93 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 assuming epistemological / epistemic determinateness of the whole of Reali
ty
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lurk
s behind here.
26 As a different possibility in theorization, measurement outcomes in QM may
be said to be epistemologically partially deterministic, i.e., difficu
lt to be
y and exactly determined by us by property-determinations. This can be con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ceiv
ed to be so merely because of the play of real physical ontological limits of
es of affairs at least in all that physically exists and the consequent epistemo
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal limitations of measurement processes. The question whether any other
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 play
or lack of play of anything in the world can be found to be the reason for lack
pistemological determinateness in QM will have to be answered in the nega\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
, since there is nothing other than ontological or epistemological limitations.
{\b \fs21 3.7.}{\b \fs21 Determinism}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Causalism}{\b \
fs21 in}{\b \fs21 QM:}{\b \fs21 Details }
On the way of epistemic determination of properties, QM assigns to phenomena,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by m

easurements, outcome values calculated by probabilities. But the problem
is much larger than these property assignments and their values. Tha
t is,
logical (physical-ontological) causality is mostly forgotten at probabili
stic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 valu
e-assignments; and one does not want to give a more than merely inst
ru\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
alistically epistemological interpretation to these properties (e.g., the QM
e functions, "states", etc.), and if at all, instead, an ill-justified ontologic
al sta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tus
to probabilities. The question is, What are these probabilities the probabilitie
s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of?
{\up006 \fs10 81} If we are not allowed by QM to ask this question, QM's only d
emonstration
why it is so would be that probabilities and mathematical instrumental
ism
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 do n
ot allow more than the probabilities. Why should they allow explicitly? The
ematics involved need not warrant it. But QM is physics and does already
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 admi
t the existence of things as processes. Therefore, the questions are whether
e is nothing existing behind the positive aspect of these probabilities whereby
has some recognition of real existence, and whether any mere lack of exist\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
of causes for probabilities between two existences can explain the connec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
between two existences and a lack of existence of causes. Lack of clarity is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thus
in the quantum probability, randomness, etc. - do they mean anything only
temologically or also ontologically? If yes, in what way?
26 With the help of a terminological preface I discuss how this quest
ion can
shown to be a causal question: In QM, (1) a state function is "{\fi
eld{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} coherent
rposition of basic (eigen)state vectors of a Hilbert space" (the conce
pts of
{\fs16 81}{\fs16 Mauricio}{\fs16 Surez,}{\fs16 Probabilities,}{\fs16 Causes}
{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Propensities}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 Syn
these}{\fs16 Library }
62 {\fs16 347}{\fs16 (Berlin:}{\fs16 Springer,}{\fs16 2011),}{\fs16 197. }
94 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 eingenstate, eigenvalue and eigenfunction being from Johann von Ne
umann),
a "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} state function represents d
irectly the physical system in the considered
e (instead of being viewed as a "catalogue of our knowledge of the system")",
(3) "the theoretical quantum quantities (the "observables" {\up006 \fs10 82}),
as they are cur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh6371 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rent
ly called, represent physical magnitudes, the dynamical variables, that
are
erties of the system", {\up006 \fs10 83} and (4) a superposition of states is a
composition of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh6371 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 seve
ral possible quantum states.
26 What is the connection between a QM quantity (an observable) and a system?
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh6371 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Von
Neumann's "eigenstate-eigenvalue link" can prove to be something in th
e
ction of an answer:
\fi226 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 se
mantic}{\fs15 rule}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 says}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 o
bservable}{\fs15 pertaining}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 given}{\fs15 system}{
\fs15 has}{\fs15 a }
26 {\fs15 value}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 the}{\fs1
5 system}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 corresponding}{\fs15 eigens
tate}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 observable.}{\fs15 If }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 so}{\fs15 then}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 only}{\fs1
5 do}{\fs15 incompatible}{\fs15 observables}{\fs15 never}{\fs15 have}{\fs15
simultaneous}{\fs15 values}{\fs15 - }
26 {\fs15 but}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 fact}{\fs15 most}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15
time}{\fs15 most}{\fs15 observables}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 definite
}{\fs15 value}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 all.}{\fs15 Accordingly, }
26 {\fs15 to}{\fs15 assure}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 least}{\fs15 the}{\
fs15 outcome}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 measurement}{\fs15 (and}{\fs15 the}
{\fs15 measured}{\fs15 observable}{\fs15 at }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 time)}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 definite}{\fs15 val
ue,}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 "collapse"}{\fs15 postulate}{\fs15 had}{\fs15 to}{\f
s15 be}{\fs15 added.}{\up006 \fs8 84 }
If most observables (quantum quantities) have no definite value most o
f the

, the epistemological status of the quantities as quantities experiment
ally
ured with respect to pre-set criteria is clearly that of pragmatic construction
d on a skeletal input. A skeleton is without flesh. It is just a framework of
ght regarding the whole real stuff as such of the body outside the property\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh6371 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dete
rminations. This need not be an ontologically adequate representation of the
ity there. Here one need not have to jump to conclude that such ontological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh6371 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stuf
f is all about the old substance metaphysics.
26 Historically, a state function may be
\fi226 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 defined}{\fs15
in}{\fs15 terms}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }
}}{\fs15 matrices}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol
}}}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 laws}{\fs15 regulating}{\fs15 these}{\fs15 states}{\fs
15 did}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 permit }
26 {\fs15 prediction}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 specific}{\fs15 values}{\fs15 of}{\fs1
5 all}{\fs15 observable}{\fs15 quantities{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Sy
mbol }}.}{\fs15 Very}{\fs15 soon}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Sym
bol }}}{\fs15 chiefly}{\fs15 through }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 work}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 Schrdinger}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 Dira
c,}{\fs15 functions}{\fs15 were}{\fs15 introduced}{\fs15 into}{\fs15 the}{\
fs15 formalism}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} }\par
}
82 For a very restricted definition and explanation, see Michael Redhead, "A Ph
ilosopher
262 Looks at Quantum Field Theory" (9-23), in Harvey R. Brown and Rom Harr, Eds.,
262 Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988,
2003
262 reprint), 15-16.
Michel Paty, "Physical Quantum States and the Meaning of Probability",
in Maria
262 Carla Galavotti, Patrick Suppes and Domenico Constantini, Eds., Stochastic C
ausality
262 (Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2001), 235-236.
BasC.vanFraassen,ReviewofJeffreyBub, Interpreting the Quantum World (Cambridge:
255 Cambridge University Press, 2007). URL: http://webware.princeton.edu/vanfraa
s/mss/
255 bubrev.htm (Accessed on 15 April 2012).

\fi6157 {\fs17 95 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 were called [so] because in the simplest instances whose initial pu
rpose was to facilitate
26 the calculation of matrices{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}. When
the state function describing the state of a system
26 (e.g., the hydrogen atom) is given, the distribution of all probability aggre
gates associated
26 with the system is fixed, though it is of course not possible to fix the outc
ome of every
26 single measurement (uncertainty relation). Furthermore, the state function sa
tisfies a
26 first-order differential equation which allows all its determination at every
instant when
26 its functional form is specified at any given time. If states are defined in
terms of this func\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7243\absh7961 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tion then quantum mechanics is a causal theory{\up006 \fs8
85. }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 value}{\fs17 fixed}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 experiment}
{\fs17 is}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 something}{\fs17 processu
al,}{\fs17 though}{\fs17 the }
17 value}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 exact}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 re
present}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 always.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 entitle
s}{\fs17 us}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 pro- }
17 ceed}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 through}{\fs17 realism}{\fs17 of}
{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 something}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 b
ehind}{\fs17 the }
17 eigenvalues}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 eigenstates}{\fs17 obtained}{\fs17 during}{
\fs17 experiments. }
26 {\fs17 Accordingly,}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 basic}{\fs
17 predisposing}{\fs17 arguments}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 present}
{\fs17 work }
17 towards}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 realism}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 now}{\fs17 b
e}{\fs17 introduced:}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 epistemological}{\fs17 status}{\f
s17 of }
17 observables}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 inc
apacitate}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 committing }
17 to}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 being}{\fs17 something}{\fs17 existing}{\fs17
behind}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 states}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 observables,}{\fs17
because }
17 here}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 ontology}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 are
}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 bothered}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 probabilistic }
17 measurements}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 condi
tions}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 reality}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 b
eing}{\fs17 quan- }
17 tum}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 spatiotemporal}{\fs17
measurements}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 properties.}{\fs17 As}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 have
}
17 seen,}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 realities}{\f
s17 behind}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 processes,}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 exte
nsion-motion }
17 physical-ontological}{\fs17 processes,}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 are}{\fs17
in}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 causal.}{\fs17 That}{\fs17 is
,}{\fs17 if }
17 quantum}{\fs17 states}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 existent}{\fs17 proc
esses,}{\fs17 then}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 in}{\fs17
every}{\fs17 part }
17 of}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 understand}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 possibility}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 being}{\fs17 stages}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 process. }
17 Whether}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 reasonably}
{\fs17 be}{\fs17 so}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 remains}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 b
e}{\fs17 seen}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 five }
17 or}{\fs17 six}{\fs17 final}{\fs17 chapters. }
26 {\fs17 As}{\fs17 already}{\fs17 discussed,}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 universal}{
\fs17 causality}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 identical}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 d
etermin- }
17 ism.}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 quote}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 following}{\fs17 about}{\fs
17 the}{\fs17 problem}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 order}
{\fs17 to}{\fs17 facilitate }
17 seeing}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 difficulty}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 differe
ntiating}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Q
M}{\fs17 is }
17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 inadequacy}{\fs17
in}{\fs17 connecting}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 probabilistic}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 ran}
17 dom}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 mechanistic}{\
fs17 determinism,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 transcending }
17 the}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 favour}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 adequ
ate}{\fs17 causal-ontological}{\fs17 description:}{\fs17 The }
\fi226 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} problem of transition from qu
antum determinism to classical definiteness is illus-

26 trated most vividly by the analysis of quantum measurements. An answer to a "
generic"
26 question about the state of a quantum system (and the outcome of a measuremen
t of
26 the corresponding observable) is deterministic. In the usual text book discus
sions, the
26 random element is blamed on the "collapse of the wavepacket" that is invoked
whenever \par
}
85 Henry Margenau, Physics and Philosophy: Selected Essays (Dordrecht:
D. Reidel,
262 1958), 108. Square brackets mine.
{\fs17 96 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 a quantum system comes into contact with a classical apparatus. In
a fully quantum dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7273\absh7421 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 cussion of this problem, this issue still arises, in spite (or rather because
) of the overall
26 deterministic quantum evolution of the state vector of the universe. Indeed,
as carefully
26 pointed out by von Neumann in his quantum analysis of measurements, there see
ms to
26 be no room for "real collapse" in purely unitary models of measurements.{\up0
06 \fs8 86 }
{\fs17 Note}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 "classical"}{\fs17 apparatus}{\f
s17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 through}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 through}{\fs17 me
rely}{\fs17 classical, }
17 but}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 description}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 function}{
\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 apparatus}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 made}{\fs17 classica
lly.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 state }
17 vector,}{\fs17 being}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 matter}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 measurement
}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 apparatuses,}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 evolve}{\fs17 only}{\fs17
inside}{\fs17 the }
17 mind,}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 'deterministic'}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 nothing}{\fs
17 to}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 absolutely}{\fs17 physical-ontologi
cal }
17 causation.}{\fs17 Thus,}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 merely}{\fs
17 epistemologically}{\fs17 (in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 knowing}{\fs17 mind's}{\f
s17 knowl- }
17 edge-oriented}{\fs17 relation}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 things}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 p
rocesses)}{\fs17 meant,}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 n
ot }
17 deserve}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 disputed}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 ontologi
cally,}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 ontological.}{\fs
17 We}{\fs17 need }
17 only}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 put}{\fs17 forth}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 demand}{\fs17
for}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 description}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 yiel
ds}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 epis- }
17 temic}{\fs17 act}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 knowing}{\fs17 properties}{\fs17 with}
{\fs17 values}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 own}{\fs17 weight. }
26 {\fs17 Even}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 probabilistic}{\fs17 description}
{\fs17 of}{\fs17 actual}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 allows}{\fs17 no
}{\fs17 classi- }
17 cal}{\fs17 definiteness}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 properties}{\
fs17 devoid}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 probabilities,}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 still}{\fs17
points}{\fs17 to }
17 a}{\fs17 sure}{\fs17 physical-ontological}{\fs17 definiteness.}{\fs17 The
}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 probabilistic}{\fs17 one,}{\fs17 too,}{\fs17 does }
17 have}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 ultimately}{\fs17 explained}{\fs17 causa
lly}{\fs17 (though}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 mechanistically}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 class
i- }
17 cally),}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 how}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 probability}{\
fs17 translates}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 processes,}{\fs17 because}{\fs
17 a}{\fs17 collapse }
17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 wave-packet}{\fs17 represented}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 a}{
\fs17 state}{\fs17 vector}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 collapse}{\fs17 of}{\f
s17 property}{\fs17 meas- }
17 urements}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17
state}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 just}{\fs17 measured}{\fs17
by}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 state }
17 vector}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 vec
tor.}{\fs17 "[T]he}{\fs17 collapse}{\fs17 postulate,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 need
}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 does }
17 not}{\fs17 disappear}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 relativistic}{\fs17 quantum}{\fs17
theories,}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 Lorentz-invariant}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 it
}{\fs17 speci- }
17 fies}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 instantaneous}{\fs17 collapse." }{\up006 \fs10 87}{
\fs17 If}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 physical-onto
logical}{\fs17 collapse}{\fs17 in }
17 terms}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 non-existence,}{\f
s17 or}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 non-causation}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17
then}{\fs17 the }
17 collapse}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 mathematical}{\fs17 affai

r}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 physical-ontological}{\fs17 correlates}{\fs17 in }
17 existence}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 causation.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 shows}{\fs17
that}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 dif
ficulty}{\fs17 lurk- }
17 ing}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 understanding}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 called}
{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 determinism,}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 determinism, }
17 QM}{\fs17 definiteness}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 definiteness}{\
fs17 in}{\fs17 relation}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 probabilism}{\fs17 with
}
17 respect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 human}{\fs17 measurement.}{\fs17 On}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 hand, }
\fi226 The discord between classical determinism and quantum randomness is often
blamed
26 for the difficulties with interpretation of quantum theory. Yet the fundament
al equa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7273\absh7421 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tions of either classical or quantum theory allow them - indeed, demand of th
em - to \par
}
86 Paz and Zurek, "Course 8. Environment-induced Decoherence and the T
ransition
262 from Quantum to Classical", 541.
Jeremy Butterfield and John Earman, Eds., Philosophy of Physics: Part A, Dov M.
Gab\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9486\absw7358\absh1564 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 bay, Paul Thagard and John Woods, Gen. Eds., Handbook of the Philosophy of S
cience
262 (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2007), 397.
\fi6157 {\fs17 97 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 be perfectly predictable: it is just that what can be predicted wit
h certainty, especially in
26 the quantum case, cannot often be accessed by measurements. And conversely, w
hat can
26 be accessed in an evolving quantum system cannot usually be predicted, except
in the
26 probabilistic sense.{\up006 \fs8 88 }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 problem}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 general}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 in}{\fs1
7 QM}{\fs17 probabilistic}{\fs17 randomness}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 th

e}{\fs17 possible }
17 expectations}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 mechanics}{\fs17 from}{\fs
17 the}{\fs17 later}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 may}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 consid
ered}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be }
17 the}{\fs17 contrast}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 possibility}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 talking}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 actual}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 in}{\fs17
every}{\fs17 minute }
17 part}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 aspect}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 processes}
{\fs17 and}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 predictability}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 all}{\f
s17 their}{\fs17 depths}{\fs17 in }
17 terms}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 measurements}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 impossible}{\fs17 to
}{\fs17 achieve}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 can}{\fs17
be}{\fs17 admitted}{\fs17 by }
17 any}{\fs17 reasonable}{\fs17 mind. }
26 {\fs17 The}{\fs17 instrumentalist}{\fs17 point}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 view}
{\fs17 of}{\fs17 description}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 and}{\f
s17 non- }
17 causation}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 ap
parently}{\fs17 (1)}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 whether}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 events}{\fs
17 and}{\fs17 processes }
17 as}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 quantum}{\fs17 micro-world}{\fs17 a
re}{\fs17 really}{\fs17 happening}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 causal}{\f
s17 way}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 not, }
17 (2)nor}{\fs17 whether}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 depths}{\fs17 of}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 micro-world}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 principle}{\
fs17 measurable }
17 or}{\fs17 not,}{\fs17 (3)}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 whether}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 measurements}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 determinations,}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17
episte- }
17 mologically}{\fs17 interpreted}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 use}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 pro
babilistic-random}{\fs17 principles,}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 work}{\fs17 in }
17 practical}{\fs17 contexts}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 produce}{\fs17 useful}{\fs17
technological}{\fs17 results.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 latter}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 an
}{\fs17 episte- }
17 mological}{\fs17 stance}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 non-concern}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 question}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
physical }
17 reality}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 where}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 take}{\fs17 probabil
ity}{\fs17 theory}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 active}{\fs17 in}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 specific}{\fs17 instance }
17 of}{\fs17 reality}{\fs17 under}{\fs17 investigation}{\fs17 -,}{\fs17 but
}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 question}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 somehow}{\f
s17 in- }
17 volves}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 physical-ontological

,}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 to}
{\fs17 admit }
17 (1)}{\fs17 either}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 ontological
ly}{\fs17 speaking,}{\fs17 nothing}{\fs17 active}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 for}{\
fs17 it}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be }
17 taken}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 anything}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 than}{\fs17
merely}{\fs17 probabilistic,}{\fs17 (2)}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 what
}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 active}{\fs17 is, }
17 epistemologically}{\fs17 speaking,}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 all}{\fs17
measurable}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 properties. }
26 {\fs17 When}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 say}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 physical-ontological}
{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 active,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 admit}{\fs17 th
at}{\fs17 the }
17 basic}{\fs17 problem}{\fs17 was}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 whether}{\f
s17 something}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 causally}{\fs17 active}{\fs17
or}{\fs17 not,}{\fs17 and }
17 that}{\fs17 finally}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 answer}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 causal}{\f
s17 processes}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 had}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 taken}{\f
s17 to}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 fully }
17 causal}{\fs17 internal}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 constitution.}{\fs17 But}{\
fs17 if}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 mean}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 epistemologic
ally, }
17 we}{\fs17 must,}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 reason,}{\fs17 either}{\fs17
deny}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 physics}{\fs17 or}{\
fs17 deny}{\fs17 causality }
17 just}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 instances}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 physic
al}{\fs17 processes.}{\fs17 All}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 same,}{\fs17 it}{\fs
17 is}{\fs17 important}{\fs17 that }
17 we}{\fs17 use}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 theory}{\fs17 in}{\fs
17 QM,}{\fs17 because}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 other}{\fs17
alternative.}{\fs17 This }
17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 mean}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 to
}{\fs17 adhere}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 every}{\fs17 probabi
listic}{\fs17 interpreta- }
17 tion}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causality.}{\fs17 In}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 circumstan
ce,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 answer}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 p
robability}{\fs17 in }
17 fact}{\fs17 means}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 -}{\fs17
when}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 exist}{\fs17 causally}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 when}{\fs1
7 they}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not }
17 exist}{\fs17 causally. }\par
}
88 Paz and Zurek, "Course 8. Environment-induced Decoherence and the T
ransition

262 from Quantum to Classical" (535-609), 539.
{\fs17 98 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 It would be better if we know the full import of probabi
lity as the mathe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cally epistemological tool in describing physical ontological causation
in
micro-world. About the history of application of the theory of probab
ility
M, Heisenberg has the following to say, which will pour enough light into
issue: "Meanwhile, mathematicians gained confidence in their cherished
uct, lost sight of its hypothetical nature and began to feel that ph
ysicists
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 had
really proved the probability calculus to be applicable to nature."{\up006 \fs10
89} Instead of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deal
ing with the question of relevance of the Law of Causality to QM determin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ism
directly, the tradition of QM has sought to solve the ontological (not based
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 on "
extension-motion"-aspect, but on the merely measuremental "spacetime"-)
ct of the problem by answering the classical definiteness- (determinedness-)
tion in the negative, which is, again, epistemically and thus epistemo
logi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y based on probability theory. The determinism-question and the definite\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness
-question are both dealt with epistemological here - whether it works - and
physical-ontologically.
26 But the question of particularist and universal causality is as to whether th
e
esses in the quantum world are really based on causally exerted impac
ts
ugh energy exchange by real particles or wavicles, or not at all. Th
is is an
logical question. That is, QM determinism is ontologically partial without
itment to ontological concerns and if it brings into the scene the question
ausation as belonging to epistemological determinism based on probabilistic

ality, because the latter in fact vouchsafes merely for complete epist
emo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal causality, or partially epistemological and partially physical-ontolo
gical
ality. What at all can be meant by such epistemological causality with some
itment to the physical-ontological? How shall the epistemological and the
logically differentiate themselves in QM processual contexts? With these
c but yet unanswered comments and questions regarding QM determinism
causality, we move to further clarifications regarding the partiality of (epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temo
logical) determinism in QM.
26 This incomplete concept of determinism is epistemologically and ontol
ogi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y partially defined and partially kept open to causality and non-causality. This
rstanding of determinism I take to be the core defect in QM probabilism. I
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 find
this as positing an essential interpretational problem in the QM concept of
rminism as held by some. The reason why measurement outcomes are thus
ially deterministic can clearly be taken as the incomparability and incompat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7152\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ibil
ity of (1) the very meso- or macro-level preparation stage of an experiment \par
}
89 Margenau, Physics and Philosophy, 21. \par
}
9 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 and also the act of measurement affecting (how? causally?) the results at
the level
xtension-motion, with (2) the systems involved in the process as the object
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (say
, electrons) and the medium of spatiotemporal measurement (photons),
h are mutually compatible micro-systems. That is, basically, the partial epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temo
logical determinability of the process within the context of the experiment
aturally (and unavoidably) due to our present incapacity to, and due to the
to, involve perceived or calculable probabilities at any observation-a
nd\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 meas
urement event (where the concept of observation is meant very broadly to
ude also yes-or-no determinations).
26 From here it follows that all this does not necessarily show that
essentially
e is no measurability or that there is only partial measurability in quantum
cts themselves. Measurability in objects is ontologically not cut off
from
r predictability. The first has its base not merely in things but also in acting
s, and the latter, as based on existence outside of minds, has its
founda\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
in physical processes, and, as based on our action, has its foundation in our
al processes too. The acts of measuring and predicting are ours, and they
ot be wholly from the point of all that Reality is and all that parts of it are
hemselves. What is at least partially measurable is ipso facto and necessarily
so (or even different from what is measured, if one so shows), but in any case
partially, and hence only partially predictable.
26 On the other hand, what we mean by causality in the QM context is, (1) first
of
that there is an irreducible ontological there-being of some or other causal pr
o\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
, however partially measurable and predictable it is, and (2) secondly, that eve
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ryth
ing in the micro-world, however minute or gross, is causal, since they are parts
hings that are already causal. This causality is not classical in that it does n
ot hold
the measured aspects of processes to be the only causal aspects of Nature. Some
pecialists tend to hold grossly that this epistemological helplessness of ours
s that the physical-ontological state behind a QM state is also the same "par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tial
unpredictability" that is allegedly yielded by the probabilistic interpretation
.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 But
this is an epistemological attitude based on the partial predictability derived

the various QM equations and naively adduced to or imposed on the physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
ontological situation. What is done in QM experiments is in general a minutely
ned exercise in recording or not recording the various hits in the process in
tion. Each hit could be assigned a yes-switch or a no-switch. This is a help
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at o
ur recording of processes, and not at direct conceptualisation of the results of
esses as such on measurement by property-assignment. How reality works in
of its processual parts is not the way of recording processes by yes or no.
26 The verity of the conclusion of this argument of mine is illustrat
ed in the
owing quote that aligns the nature of computational 1-or-0 algorithm to the
100 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 yes-or-no (measurementally, 1-or-0 but epistemologically yes-or-no) scheme
of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM m
easurement:
\fi226 {\fs15 Surprisingly,}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}
{\fs15 very}{\fs15 natural}{\fs15 decision}{\fs15 problems}{\fs15 in}{\fs15
quantum}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 be }
26 {\fs15 computationally}{\fs15 hard,}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 fact}{\fs
15 even}{\fs15 probably}{\fs15 undecidable}{\fs15 .}{\fs15 As}{\fs15 such,}
{\fs15 this}{\fs15 category}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 problems}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 same}{\fs15 catego
ry}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 halting}{\fs15 problem}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 w
as}{\fs15 famously}{\fs15 shown}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be }
26 {\fs15 undecidable}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 Alan}{\fs15 Turing's}{\fs15 work}{\fs
15 dating}{\fs15 back}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 1936.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 problem}{\f
s15 is}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 determine, }
26 {\fs15 given}{\fs15 some}{\fs15 program}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 inpu
t,}{\fs15 whether}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 program}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 eventually}
{\fs15 come}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 an }
26 {\fs15 end}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 input}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 so}{\fs1
5 will}{\fs15 "halt"}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 whether}{\fs15 the}{\fs15
program}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 come}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 running }
26 {\fs15 forever.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 key}{\fs15 insight}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 Al
an}{\fs15 Turing}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 recognize}{\fs15 that}{\fs15

there}{\fs15 cannot}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 single }
26 {\fs15 algorithm}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 able}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 corr
ectly}{\fs15 answer}{\fs15 every}{\fs15 instance}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 that}{\fs
15 problem.}{\fs15 Of}{\fs15 course,}{\fs15 one }
26 {\fs15 can}{\fs15 execute}{\fs15 every}{\fs15 algorithm}{\fs15 for}{\fs15
any}{\fs15 finite}{\fs15 time,}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 case}{\fs15 t
he}{\fs15 program}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 then}{\fs15 still }
26 {\fs15 not}{\fs15 halted,}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 cannot}{\fs15 judge}{\fs15 i
n}{\fs15 general}{\fs15 whether}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 will
}{\fs15 ever}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 so.}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 seminal }
26 {\fs15 insight}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 had}{\fs15 profound}{\fs15 implications}
{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 computing}{\fs15 and}{
\fs15 in}{\fs15 fact}{\fs15 even}{\fs15 to }
26 {\fs15 mathematics:}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 implies}{\fs15 Gdel's}{\fs15 first}{\
fs15 incompleteness}{\fs15 theorem}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 states}{\fs15 that}{
\fs15 a}{\fs15 consist- }
26 {\fs15 ent,}{\fs15 complete}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 sound}{\fs15 axiomatization
}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 statements}{\fs15 about}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 nat
ural}{\fs15 numbers }
26 {\fs15 cannot}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 achieved.}{\up006 \fs8 90 }
The translation of physical processes in the computer chips is successfully had
in
algorithmic manner. It is in the very nature of the artificial algorithmic rela\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of numbers (not in the nature of numbers) to natural processes in objects
any micro-level (not in the nature of natural objects), that 1-or-0 s
chemes
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or s
uch algorithms do not epistemically determine the nature of the concerned
ral objects or processes absolutely well, but only partially and pragmatically.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Prob
ability theory is just another example for this state of affairs in relating num
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bers
to things, since probabilistic predictions and measurements denote sta
tes
ffairs grossly, just as in algorithms the recordings are individually taken to
d for the real things in their grossness, but imperfectly so. This hints at the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 impe
rfect correlation between any algorithm and the real processes it attempts
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to r
epresent.
26 Any algorithm defined for somehow cognitively (using mathematical, physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
and other methods) measuring an end-state of physically qualified (or for that
er for computer-, biological-, economic-, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f
Symbol }}) states of affairs is not suited
etermine the ontological aspect of existence or not of all the processual re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es of the measured state of affairs as causes or effects. Ontological commit\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7205\absh7718 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
based on generalization unto all possible experimental efforts is the only
of causal existence-recognition - that too only theoretically, because
any \par
}
90 J. Eisert, M. P. Mller, and C. Gogolin, "Quantum Measurement Occurrence Is Un
262 decidable". URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3965v1.pdf, 16 Nov 2011 (Ac
cessed on
262 15February 2012).
\fi6061 {\fs17 101 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 experimental or experiential means presupposes recognition-algorithms
. The
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quot
e above and the discussion thereafter hints at how deeply epistemologically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bese
t with pragmatic property-assignment the meaning of QM predictions can
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be.
Turing has not meant in his scheme of algorithms anything ontological
ly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 debi
litating causation or halting the existence of causes in any physical system,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nor
has Gdel in his incompleteness- and other theorems. But the end-result of
direction of reflection shows we need in physical ontology induction unto
ical-ontological completeness over causal existence, which the language of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 algo
rithms cannot provide.
26 It is appropriate to conclude in the context of the foregoing disc
ussion that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM a
causalism and non-causalism stem from the above-said epistemologically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 orie
nted probabilistic interpretation {\up006 \fs10 91} of in-fact-causal-ontologic
al determinism
Law that everything is determined by causes in extension-motion), where

extent of ability of human experiments, logic and mathematics to pred
ict
thing physical absolutely accurately at any given time is to be clari
fied
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as l
imited.
26 The reader should not in such instances of assertion forget the "i
f-then"
ulaweareoperatingfrom: Ifthereiscausality inthemicro-world,itisphysical\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 onto
logical in essence, and only secondarily epistemological, because causal
ity
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pert
ainsto(atleast)physicallyontologicalprocesses,whereinthephysical-conscious
temic event of conceptualization of causation and the probabilistic interpre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tati
on of physical occurrences are part; and causality (if it is active)
is not of a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thir
d nature other than physical-ontological and epistemological. If there
is
extent of causality in the micro-world, then one can never show how all on
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a s
udden purely physical-ontological causality in the micro-world becomes a
ly epistemological one in some aspects of the QM world. Notice here
the
erence between 'ontological' and 'physical-ontological'. If causality is physica
l,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7365\absh6767 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it h
as a physical ontology. If not, it does not have. Therefore, physical causality
is
ical-ontological. Purely 'ontological' means the categorial conditional aspect
ll existence, inclusive of anything other than purely physical. \par
}
91 Encyklopdie der mathematischen Wissenschaften mit Einschluss ihrer Anwendunge
n,
262 Fnfter Band in Drei Teilen: A. Sommerfeld, Ed., Physik, Dritter Teil, s.v. "D
ie Ge\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9924\absw7222\absh1170 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 setzmssigkeitein in den Bandenspektren" (822-1214) by A. Kratzer (1136ff).
{\fs17 102 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 4. Ontological and Probabilistic
i1556 Causalisms \par
}
\cf0 4.1. Causalism, Non-causalism, Probabilism,
\fi481 Probabilistic Causalism
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 discussed}{\b0 \fs17 elaborately}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17
from}{\b0 \fs17 various}{\b0 \fs17 conceptual}{\b0 \fs17 back- }
{\b0 \fs17 ground-needs}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 various}{\b
0 \fs17 ranges}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 types}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 enti
ties}{\b0 \fs17 involved,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 tenta- }
{\b0 \fs17 tively}{\b0 \fs17 defined}{\b0 \fs17 many}{\b0 \fs17 related}{\b0
\fs17 terms}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 foregoing}{\b0 \fs17 ch
apters.}{\b0 \fs17 With}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 help}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \f
s17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 above}{\b0 \fs17 discussions,}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 now}{\b0 \f
s17 clarify}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 meanings}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 imp
ortant}{\b0 \fs17 terms}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 in- }
{\b0 \fs17 terconnections,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 clear}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\
b0 \fs17 probably}{\b0 \fs17 unconscious}{\b0 \fs17 misinterpretations}{\b0 \
fs17 regard- }
{\b0 \fs17 ing}{\b0 \fs17 them,}{\b0 \fs17 since}{\b0 \fs17 they}{\b0 \fs17
are}{\b0 \fs17 used}{\b0 \fs17 throughout}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 work}{\
b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 interconnectedness. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 'Causality'}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 state}{
\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 relationship}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 being}{\b0 \fs
17 causal,}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 exists}{\b0 \fs17 between}{\b0 \fs17
two }
{\b0 \fs17 epistemologically}{\b0 \fs17 mutually}{\b0 \fs17 isolable}{\b0 \f
s17 events}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\b0
\fs17 connected}{\b0 \fs17 by }
{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 finite}{\b0 \fs17 extension-motion,}{\b0 \fs17 na
mely,}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 proper}{\b0 \fs17 cause}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \f
s17 its}{\b0 \fs17 proper}{\b0 \fs17 effect.}{\b0 \fs17 The }
{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 t
he}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 law}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 reigns}{
\b0 \fs17 over}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 exists.}{\b0 \fs17
'Causation' }
{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 actual}{\b0 \fs17 (token)}{\b0 \fs17
activity}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 process}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 event}{\
b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 instantiation}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
Universal }
{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality.}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0
\fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 same}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \
fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 induction}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 apprehension}{\b0 \fs
17 by }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 conscious}{\b0 \fs17 mind.}{\b0 \fs17 It}{\b0 \f
s17 is}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 special}{\b0 \fs17 natural}{\b0 \fs17 l
aw}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 relation}{\b0 \fs17 b
etween }
{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 sets}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0 \fs17
that}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 partially}{\b0 \fs17
integrated}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 conceptually }
{\b0 \fs17 integrable}{\b0 \fs17 into}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 more}{\b0 \fs17
or}{\b0 \fs17 less}{\b0 \fs17 single}{\b0 \fs17 process}{\b0 \fs17 due}{\b
0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 ont
ological }
{\b0 \fs17 extension-motion}{\b0 \fs17 connection}{\b0 \fs17 between}{\b0 \fs1
7 the}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 sets}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 processes. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 'Probability'}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 conte
xt}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 induction}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs1
7 causal}{\b0 \fs17 aspect}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0 \fs17 im
- }
{\b0 \fs17 plies}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 mixture}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 ce
rtainty}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 uncertainty}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 induc
tion}{\b0 \fs17 or,}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 c
ontext}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 causation,}{\b0 \fs17 apprehension}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal
}{\b0 \fs17 relation}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 mind,}{\b0 \fs1
7 by}{\b0 \fs17 observation}{\b0 \fs17 through }
{\b0 \fs17 apparatus}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 reasoning,}{\b0 \fs17 where}{\
b0 \fs17 exact}{\b0 \fs17 causes}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 d
irectly}{\b0 \fs17 apprehended}{\b0 \fs17 but }
{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 high}{\b0 \fs17 measure}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 indirectness}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17
less}{\b0 \fs17 certain}{\b0 \fs17 measure}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 prop
er- }
{\b0 \fs17 ties}{\b0 \fs17 than}{\b0 \fs17 otherwise}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0
\fs17 respect}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 gross}{\b0 \fs17
details}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 causes}{\b0 \fs17 and}{
\b0 \fs17 effects }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 occurrence-frequency}{\b0 \fs17
in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 wider}{\b0 \fs17 process.}{\b0 \fs17 Proba
bilistic}{\b0 \fs17 causation }
{\b0 \fs17 (but}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 highest}{\b0 \fs1
7 Causal}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 pertains}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 exists)}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0
\fs17 thus}{\b0 \fs17 clearly }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 epistemologically}{\b0 \fs17 characterized}{\b0 \fs1
7 relation}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 less}{\b0 \fs17 than}{\b0 \fs17 enoug
h}{\b0 \fs17 certainty}{\b0 \fs17 of }

{\b0 \fs17 measure}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 properties}{\b0 \fs17 behind}{\b0
\fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 actual}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0
\fs17 stay}{\b0 \fs17 (and}{\b0 \fs17 may}{\b0 \fs17 not }
{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 acknowledged)}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs1
7 general}{\b0 \fs17 arrow}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 succession}{\b0 \fs17 o
f}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 motion}{\b0 \fs17 within}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 processes. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 In}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 case}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
QM}{\b0 \fs17 reality,}{\b0 \fs17 probabilistic}{\b0 \fs17 statements}{\b0 \
fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 epistemic}{\b0 \fs17 expres- }
{\b0 \fs17 sion}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 less}{\b0 \fs17 surety}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 existence}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 proper}{\b0 \fs17 ca
uses}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 proper}{\b0 \fs17 effects}{\b0 \fs17 from
}{\b0 \fs17 the }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 103 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 spatiotemporally probabilistically measured extension-motion quantiti
es re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gard
ing the proper causes and proper effects, which fact renders even the exist\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
of some proper causes and proper effects epistemically non-committable to.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 In Q
M reality, probabilistic causation is also the detection-frequency of occur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 renc
e of causes in the micro- and macro-physically instantiated but epistemically
ssed relation between a certain type of process and its experimental appa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ratu
s, where the process in question, and the apparatus as another process, can
mutual physical-ontological exertion of causation. I believe any physi
cist
call this mutual exertion as causation - in fact they do call it so when the
ratus, e.g., affects an electron with a photon. Here the apparatus in
cludes
the part of the whole experiment that actually does the measurement and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 calc
ulation. This process of interaction too could be determined or interpreted
abilistically, but yet one admits that this is real causation. Why then should
be "probabilistically" causal and reduce it to a new ontological status only
t the QM areas of difficulty in human access to the very QM process where

apparatus does not have any causal access?
26 Therefore, there is nothing wrong in saying that 'probabilistic caus
ation' in
purely QM (without influence of apparatus) object region is a piece of epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temo
logically wrongly and thus ontologically non-causally interpreted notion
pistemic inaccessibility of a physical causal process in the object region, of
ial determination or detection exercises aimed in fact at full detecti
on of
es and effects - to the extent epistemologically speaking available to experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
ation, within the limited experimental set-up and the physical process
in
tion. Any theory of probabilistic causality is thus, in my opinion, the epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temo
logical interpretation of the "proportionately epistemically less certain but
ally ontological" state of causal relation between two (theoretically and also
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 empi
rically partially) mutually isolable processes, wherein the proper cause
/s
effect/s are measurementally observed to a very limited extent of the specific
nsion-motion only - a fact justified also by our finite human status.
26 Further, 'probability of causation' is different from 'probabilistic
causation'.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Thes
e may at times be wrongly exchanged for each other. The partially episte\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gical and partially ontological character of 'probability of causation'
will
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 furt
her be clear from what follows. The 'probability of causation' in any
cannot, first of all, be the extent or percentage of probability that (or even
her) there is any amount of causal process in a wider ontological or physical\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 onto
logical process - because, first of all, there already is causation therein, for
ics is otherwise impossible, and secondly, experimental appropriation is not
y made possible by the process under search, the human mind and the appa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7223\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ratu
ses. Further, probability of causation cannot also be the extent of probability
104 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 that (or even whether) the cause-part and effect-part of the process are p
resent
in or outside the process at all. That is, what we mean is not "yes or no" con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cern
ing the existence of proper causation there, because there already is causa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
. In this case, it can only be the epistemic extent of probability of discoverin
g
actual cause/s and effect/s that we mean by 'probability of causation'.
26 In other words, the 'probability of causation' can only be the pro
bability of
extent to which one can discover a specific variety of cause and ef
fect of
within, or predict the totality of causes and effects of or within,
a physical
ess. This is nothing but the epistemological probability of discovering
or
icting causation - which fact statisticians of physics often fail to
spell out
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clea
rly, and cause the impression that 'probability of causation' can be the 'proba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
ty of causation being there in the process'. The reason for this could be a mere
osophical lack of care for the concept of causes and the Law of Causality. In
r words, the probability of causation in any process is the epistemic
(here,
rical and/or experimental) probability of finding the causal part, i.e., proper
e and proper effect. It is therefore not a sign that an ontological
choice is
how made possible between there being all the causes and effects, the
re
g no causes and effects, and there being only partial causes and effects, with
partial non-causes (and non-effects).
26 In conjunction with this conclusion it is also important to observe that in Q
M
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a st
ate is not taken purely to be the physical-ontological state of a system, but as

epistemologically (measurementally through experiments) contacted state
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 behi
nd what (the presupposedly ontological thing that) is described by the ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 peri
mental set-up and the mathematical tools together. In the sense of a possibly
iciently reasonably made causal-ontological explanation of the Uncertainty
ciple, the "random quantum fluctuations" of a quantum state are also not the
ct representation of fluctuations that really take place as such in the quanta.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Inst
ead, they are the measured spatiotemporal fluctuations (in their quanti
ty
pro-place, pro-moment expectancy of occurrence) associated with the real
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (not
as is measured) physical extension-motion fluctuations taking place in the
ical-ontological system at inquiry behind the property-imbued "quantum
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 syst
em" that is available in mathematical description. The measured fluctuation
thus a signpost to the givenness of actual, physical-ontological proces
ses of
ation there behind. If not, there are no real fluctuations, and then we do not
a measuring process, too. This means that any instrumentalistic discarding
he physical-ontological real stuff there behind is totally unwarranted.
26 Now, as against this meaning of the probability of causation, what does 'prob
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abil
istic causation' mean? I would say, we can conceive it only as a th
eory of
ation or a piece of interpretation of real physical-ontological causati
on in
\fi6061 105 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 which the probability of causation is taken to be the "physical-ontologica
l meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ure"
of actual causation, and I fail to understand what sort of a reduction of the
temic to the ontological this could be, however well I tried.
26 A statement that there have been or there are a few specific, discovered caus
es,
not ontologically permit the universalization of the specific discover
ed
es and effects as the only causes and effects. Nor does it allow the disjunc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
that either there have been (or there are) causes and effects, or there have
been (or there are not) causes and effects behind a process. Such disjunctive
ements are always partially the case in experiments, i.e., meaning that we do
discover every cause or effect by measuremental spatiotemporal quantities.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 When
one faultily says with respect to a process that there have not been causes
ffects, what is in fact meant is either that the causes or effects have not been
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 foun
d or identified, or that the causes or effects are not found directl
y within
process or in the immediate extension-motion (measured as spatiotemporal)
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vici
nity of the causal process. This means that probabilistic causation need not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be o
f lack of causes in just some aspects or parts of a process, but that our experi
al perception is beset with probability distributions in the area of percep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of proper causes and effects.
26 'Probability of causation' is thus the extent to which a cause or
effect is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 iden
tified or is identifiable at the given time, and does not possibilize a uni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vers
alized choice in favour of or against there being any specific cause or effect
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at a
ll in the case of whatever processes have been experimentally and statisti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y found "without" a cause or effect. Spatiotemporal measurements may
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 yiel
d a specific cause or effect, but this cause or effect is not unive
rsally the
e or effect everywhere in all such circumstances. We may still generalize
say only that there are causes and effects everywhere or that everyt
hing
ausal. Moreover, it is nonsensical to claim that one process has no effect as
and the other has, as in the case respectively of EPR entangled particles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 B an
d A. If it is a process, it has an effect; and the proper cause in this process
he cause; and so, everything processual is encompassed only of causes and

cts, and is as such fully causal - nothing merely ontologically non-causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hide
s within it.
26 For these reasons, 'probability of causation' is an epistemic situation with
re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spec
t to an ontological state of affairs, yielding some causes or effects in some
s of it and some lack of detection of causes or effects in other parts. It is no
t
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mere
ly subjective - meaning 'including anything that occurs in the imagina
or feeling or existential sense of life' - since it is not just constructed by
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7202\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 subj
ect but one finds oneself in this state of affairs objectively and r
eally. The
ct as such of this epistemic exercise of discovering (through experime
ntal
106 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 and mathematical tools) can only be the causes and effects that bespeak th
e on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical Law of the relation called Causality prevalent in all that is in any sort
rocess.
26 Thus, I have in mind making possible the ubiquity of causation meant also for
micro-physical world, which theoretically yields that there are always actual
es and effects and their chains in the micro-world, and that these need not
ys be discoverable. This is nothing but the Law of Causation that is the on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical context of the specific laws of causation, the seeking of which gives rise
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to C
ausal Horizonal Research in the sciences. Even in the sciences we deal with
ific forms of the Law of Causality that could, merely logically speaking, only
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eith
er (positively) thoroughly apply or (negatively) not at all apply in all physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
extents of all the elements and pores of Reality-in-total in extension-motion.
e presuppose the Universal Law of Causality. Absence of prevalence of one

specific causal law in a circumstance or region of objects should thus not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lead
to the conclusion of probability of causation or probabilistic causation. The
of Causality is therefore categorial to all sciences.
26 The positive categorial part of all particular-scientific causal principles m
ust
he purely ontological condition, namely, Causality, if we want to do QM, cos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gy and any positive science and their ontology together. If causality may be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rati
onally shown to apply all over Reality, or - what is equivalent - if we can show
the other-than-causal interpretations are all less than physical-ontolo
gical
rpretations - then we may take Reality-in-total as the whole object proper
ausal explanations. And we may understand specific causes and effects and
discourse of specific causes and effects in isolation from Reality as
being
permissive of theoretical circumscription of the Law of Causality of which
whole of Reality is the object. Reality is the ontological base and agent of all
al instantiations of the Law of Causality. Specific causes in isolation do not
k in general about the total context and meaning of Causality in respect of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Real
ity-in-total. Thus, we have set up the ontological context of the Causal Law to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be R
eality-in-total.
26 To elaborate on the particular-scientific cases of what we have dis
cussed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abov
e: There are causal theories explaining certain phenomena, e.g., in biology,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 econ
omics, history, etc. They are discretely specific of the respective phenomena,
out mention of their possible causal sources from behind whatever physical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rece
sses were in fact in the past of the actuality in question or the phenomena
ent. Now, if we can delineate certain causes A, B, precisely as different, and
ain effects a, b precisely as different, then species difference by relevance to
respective cause or effect will apply in their being named so, and accordingly
y also to their definitions. For example, if any majuscule A can represent the

\fi6061 107 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 cause 'human', then A can be the genus{\up006 \fs10 92} 'human', or a cer
tain species of 'human',
token entity, namely, one human and B another such. If the effect of A is rep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rese
ntable as any minuscule a, then a represents similarly a genus or a species or a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 toke
n, to which A is causally related, and b represents another to which B is caus\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
related. Here, 'A causally implies a' is not the same as 'B causally implies b'
.
statement of implication is an epistemological one. The ontological state\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
is that of admitting a state of affairs there behind, as processual-causally
tent: 'A as processual-causally existent is causally related to the ef
fect a as
essual-causally existent' and 'B as processual-causally existent is caus
ally
ted to the effect b as processual-causally existent'. These are two o
ntologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
claims distinct from each other, and the existence-statements are known as
tification. These are instances of ontological commitment.
26 At any given time, A and a are at finite extension-motion differen
ce from
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 each
other, even when spatiotemporally overlapping each other. If they were to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be a
t infinite extension-motion distance, they would have no mutual causal con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nect
ion, and they cannot be recognized or covered by any epistemic or episte\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gical or logical endeavour. The distinctness of causal events does not make
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a sp
ecific cause (or set of causes) and a specific effect (or set of effects) to be
at
nite distances (of any kind) from each other. This is an ontological fact, not
temological - but it can only be epistemically measured, and epistemologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y and logically formulated. That is, the physical-ontological phenomenon of
use or effect is never to be at infinite extension-motion (i.e., measuremen-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tall

y speaking, spatiotemporal) distance from the effect. Hence, they can
also
n mutual causal affectation at some future time if they can be parts of pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es, however distant in extension-motion (measurementally speaking, spa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tiot
emporally) they are from each other. Processual causation events are f
inite
irs. That is, we need to broaden particular-scientific causal principles under
purview of the ever-wider. In the "ever-wider" any two physical elements are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at f
inite distances, and hence at possible causally local distances. The ontological
ground entity of such broad-based Causality is Reality-in-total. Here i
t is
opriate to call to mind how fantastic it looks when EPR entanglement solu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7324\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s by some physicists declare that it is all non-local and naturally also of the
re of action-at-a-distance!
26 Particular-scientific causal logic thus remains to be converted into universa
l
al process logic, where the particular-scientific ceteris paribus condit
ions \par
}
92 I take it as admissible that what is considered a genus can be a species of
a more ge\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10146\absw7222\absh970 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
262 neric genus.
{\fs17 108 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 are unnecessary in universal causal-processual logical terms. Particular c
auses
effects are ontologically distinct, however physically composed A and
a,
B and b (majuscules causes, and minuscules effects) are. But in proc
es\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sual
ontological commitment with respect to reality-in-particular and without
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 refe
rence to the broader causal horizon with respect to Reality-in-total,
it is

ssible to talk without reifying the subject and object. Therefore, we
can
philosophize upon processual causation and ontological commitment at
object-range of Causal Horizonal Research (CHR), namely, at the range of
ity-in-total.
26 Moreover, the growing-together (called 'concrescence' in Whiteheadian
ter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mino
logy) of the two entities or processes in mutual affecting, or in a
state of
process affecting the other, permits the entity or process that includes the
e-part to possess the capacity to be affected by the entity or proce
ss that
udes the effect-part, given sufficient time into the future of the two entities
rocesses. This counter-process in future time is not the same as the specific
e-to-effect affectation process spoken of at first. One tends to forget this whe
n
heads toward making backward causation as a fantastic but possible affair and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 insi
sting that time travel is a simple thing to understand. A process that includes
effect-part affecting the process that includes the cause-part does no
t find
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 itse
lf, as sanctioned in the epistemological expression of the first specific act of
ation in question with respect to the latter act where the effect-part is in tur
n
ve. It is extraneous to the first cause-to-effect process, and has to be treated
consequent or later cause-to-effect process. This clarification is made so that
o not any more generalize the concept of a specific cause in a specific science
as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 repr
esenting the definition of cause-in-general. This suggests that any one cause- o
r
ct-element in two causal processes cannot at the same time be mixed up with
other to produce the concept of counter-causation as counter-direction
al in
orally measuremental motion-part of more than one process that will at the
time have to be adjacent in extension-motion.

26 This discussion of the finite extension-motion distance between any proper
e and proper effect in Reality-in-total is in view of our discussion of causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cone
s under the forthcoming chapters that deal with the problem of limit\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 velo
city of spatiotemporal interactions in STR and the finite causal cone
dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tanc
es permissible in any EPR solution. If there are ever higher velocities, then
two specific cause-effect distances will remain local with respect to at least
superluminal velocity - a desirable state of affairs indeed. Today, after the
esses of STR and GTR for our world, the only contrary argument we c
an
ose to the limit-velocity concept is the following: Due to the assumption of
speed of light as the highest possible velocity available, the limits of causal
\fi6061 109 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 influence imposed by light cones {\up006 \fs10 93} could be precisely tha
t of a specific light cone
if there really exist no higher velocities, using which any observat
ion of
al influence may be measured. The only experimental proof for such a possi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
ty has so far been that the speed of light is only the highest discovered veloci
ty
hence assumed to be the highest in STR equations. STR for that matter does
theoretically preclude higher velocities.
26 This latter claim would be borne out to some extent in the chapter on STR.
can be done in a satisfactory manner only if we work out the implications
he question of limit-velocity for cosmology - a matter that we are not able to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 purs
ue within the purview of our limited theme covering causality only in QM.
efore, I make here a mere allusion to what could be the case, that is, that the
luteness of achievable extent of light cones could be substituted by a causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cone
(extent of influence of cause in time), where the maximum limit of velocity

he causal cone for a universe is determined by the respective big hang in a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mult
iverse.
{\b \fs21 4.2.}{\b \fs21 Universal}{\b \fs21 Law}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Cau
sality}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Law }
81 {\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Regularity}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Nature }
With the above conceptual background for concepts of causal propagation (not
one on the highest possible velocity), the ontological variety of causal theory
be formulated a little more formally, with a caution against overly analyti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 calphilosophical tastes: When a formulation is given in the form of functions
aining to any special sort of entities or natural kinds, as in causation in the
icular sciences, it need not satisfy the widest possible object horizon of on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gy. It may satisfy only the rigour and "analytical clarity" that one seeks withi
n
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a li
mited breadth of a region of science without reference to the maximal causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hori
zon.
26 A formulation in a way suited for experimental and particular-scientific con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sump
tion need not be causal-horizonally satisfying, as it is not satisfying in the
owing formulation, since ceteris paribus conditions specific to a parti
cular
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prov
ince delimits the horizon to that province of processes: 'If A can c
ause a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7299\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (alw
ays ceteris paribus, "all other conditions met", in specific cases), then A has
ed a, both A and a evolving in the process', and 'If A has caused a (all other
{\fs16 93}{\fs16 Seiichi}{\fs16 Asano}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Shiro}{\fs16 Asano
,}{\fs16 A}{\fs16 Novel}{\fs16 Concept}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 Understanding}{\fs
16 the}{\fs16 Special}{\fs16 Theory }
62 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 Relativity:}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Space-Time}{\fs16 Circ
ular}{\fs16 Diagram}{\fs16 Method}{\fs16 (Tokyo:}{\fs16 Gakojutsu}{\fs16
Tosho, }
62 {\fs16 1994).}{\fs16 This}{\fs16 little}{\fs16 monograph}{\fs16 devises}{
\fs16 a}{\fs16 diagram}{\fs16 method}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 helps}{\fs16 the}{
\fs16 understanding }
62 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 STR,}{\fs16 especially}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 concept}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 light}{\fs16 cone,}{\fs16 very}{\fs16 well. }
110 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 conditions met), then A could cause a, both A and a evolving i
n the process'.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Here
, later stages of A can also be determined by a (and of course by other exist\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ent
processes), and, further on in measured motion (time), vice versa too
- a
er not mentioned in a statement of the first specific causal act. Only when
broad affiliates of analytical ontology accept the fully causal-horizonal defi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 niti
on of the Law of Causality would I dare to admit that they can for
mulate
al statements with the clarity proper to General Ontology - which is
the
osophical science of Reality-in-total with respect to its most general way of
g proper, namely, To Be, in unison with the vice versa sort of inquiry.{\up006 \
fs10 94 }
26 Expressed relationally, the concept of causation in the above notion
of spe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cifi
c, particular-scientific causation is the specific relation that is ont
ologically
ent between a proper cause and a proper effect, but it is always ceteris paribus
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in p
articular scientific circumstances. This is not the purely causal-horizonally
logical maximal case of the Law of Causality that applies to all that exists.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 We a
re entitled to include in the ceteris paribus condition also other already ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tuat
ed causes and effects, which are not at infinite extension-motion distances
the said causes and effects, but these are indirectly related to the causes in
ussion, which are the As above. With respect to the Law of Causality
, the
to set ceteris paribus clauses disappear, because the Law requires only that
of the other conditions is just the condition of their fully causal status mean
t
e defined in the Law. This is an ontological indication that the whole inex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 haus
tible causal horizon is called into action in the Causal Law that is instanti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ated
in the particular-scientific causal principles. The Law guarantees that any
every neighboring causal act is fully causal. This is mentioned here so that
s kept in vision that no infinite distances between a cause and effect is envi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
ed in causation even in the Law that pertains to the case of Reality-in-total,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 let
alone in particular-scientific causal principles that pertain to partic
ular re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gion
s of Reality.
26 The Law of Causality is a condition for the possibility of particular-scienti
fic
al principles, i.e., that everything has cause/s, which presupposes the
ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tens
ion-motion nature of Reality-in-total that is measurementally termed 'spa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tiot
emporality'. Rather than the fact of A and a causally evolving furthe
r, the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prov
ision of ceteris paribus conditions is important in particular-scientific con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clus
ions of immediate facts, since already the general causal evolution of the for\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7322\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mer
implies the causal production and consequent causal evolution of the latter. \pa
r
}
94 Both together, which I came to call before a more than decade as Einaic Onto
logy
262 based on the Einai, "To Be", of Reality. See my Physics without Metaphysics.
\fi6061 {\fs17 111 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 That is, further, in the ontological Law of Causality is already presuppos
ed in the
ciple of regularity and continuity of actual causal processes in Nature, which
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vouc
hsafes for the other relevant conditions in specific cases of causal processes.
26 The Law of Causation and the Principle of Regularity and Continuity of Na\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ture
together - theoretically, practically and formatively - presuppose the finite
nsion-motion nature of physical existence. As a result of the finitene
ss of
nsion-motion (the measuremental / particular-scientific finite 'spatiotem\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pora
lity') of all physical existence, we may say that extension and motion have
ffect the same sort of causal ontological implications in all extension-motion
ons (measuremental spacetimes): the Laws of Causality and Regularity of
re. The deeply related nature of the two Laws in all extension-motion
re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gion
s is definitely characteristic of any set of universal ontological laws. All oth
er
ications are specific and meant only physically (not causal-ontologically in
widest sense but in specific causal-scientific notions) in the specific circum\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
ces of the cases - and these are specified in the particular sciences and not in
ral causal ontology. Given the ontological primacy of Extension-Motion as
of scientific categories, Causation and the allied Regularity may be consid\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ered
as mutually co-extensive.
26 Thus, the ceteris paribus clause is not specifically to be included in the de
fini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of the Universal Law of Causation, and the latter takes care of conservation
causation. That is, the universality of the formulation takes care of
strains
"conditions contributed by other things", here again the causal nature
of all
ific processes. This Law, co-extensive with Regularity and Continuity,
im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plie
s the Principle of Conservation of Matter-Energy as a common implication
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of b
oth. Causation in specific instances has also conditions other than the actual
t of the causal evolution of the cause and the effect. These conditions are also
ly ontological ones like the existence of the world, their extension-motion
re, etc., and not ones immediately and directly relevant to the discussion of
al causation. It goes without saying, that these remarks are important for our
ussion of the ontological Law of Causality.
26 We must now define Causality within the context of regularity and continu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
in Nature, so that causality is understood well against the merely epistemic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perc
eption of probabilistic or random occurrences of causation as against
the
case in Nature (and not merely in our understanding). Regularity of Nature
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 guar
antees in the first place Causality as a part of the set of laws, and if no regu
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lari
ty, Causality can be shown to be not the case physical-ontologically. This is
ible in physics or ontology, as it is easy to see.
26 By regularity and continuity of processes in the micro-world is not meant jus
t
reteness of moments of extension and motion, but merely the absence o
f
112 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 absolute irregularity and discontinuity of processual existence (not irreg
ularity
conceptually measured), and presence of absolute regularity and continui
ty
regularity and continuity as conceptually measured) of causation, in things
such. This means that regularity and continuity of causation must be
con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ceiv
ed as present at any real extension-motion region in the micro-world,
but
in non-real Euclidean absolute space and time characterised by absence of
er-energy. This ensures some mutual connection between the antecedent
the consequent existents with respect to real extension and motion. W
ith
ect to real extension-motion, discreteness is from the point of view of full\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness
of mutual connection in whatever matter-energy there exists in extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on process. This is because matter-energy does not fill "spacetime" li
ke
y Euclidean spatial or temporal point and region are full everywhere, even
"absence" of matter-energy. The case of actual extension-motion of matt

er\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ener
gy as having some finite continuity of processual existence would sum
up
ome causal connection being always available between everything real with
ect to their real, given, extension-motion, however minute.
26 This does not mean any partial lack of causal connection between t
he re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spec
tive cause and effect parts. With respect to Euclidean spacetime defin
ed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by p
resence of spatiotemporality even without matter-energy, there is no really
-present connection - that is, there are causal discontinuities in Euclidean
etime for matter-energy. Thus, the Law of 'real and continuous connect
ion'
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - of
whatever kind and order - within the context of available sparse (i.e., never
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fill
ing Euclidean spacetime) matter-energy in Nature is the Universal Law of Cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty. Causation is ever-present in all pores of Reality.
26 This does not make Causality prior to Regularity or vice versa in thought. I
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 am o
f the opinion that they just mean different but mutually implying aspects
rocessual nature of all that exists. The priority of the scientific categories o
f
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Exte
nsion and Motion over Causality will be clear from what follows, so that we
supported in following in QM the concept of real extension-motion (as taken
granted) to investigate regions where no vacuous action or vacuous produc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of universes can in fact be made possible without real processes connected
ally and regularly in matter-energy.
26 Causality does not permit the cause to produce the effect without
exerting
ctation on actually existing matter-energy of the effect, and so, causality is
the order of extension-motion. Only wherever extension-motion nat
ure
defined by the presence of matter-energy do we need causality. That i
s, par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticu
lar cases of inner-universe causality in specific extension-motion regio
ns
some form of formative connection of the consequent and the antecedent

,
r conditions having been met. Whatever this connection, it may - with all
\fi6061 113 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the causal conditions in each particular case being met by the
very nature of
ality of other such instances - be most generally called the Law of Causal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
within every minute part of extension-motion region of the universe. This
ot with reference to just one or a few forms of connection in Nature in the
ous objects of regions of scientific inquiry, wherein specific conditions are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 supp
osed to apply.
26 The extension-motion nature of all that exist has it that everythin
g must be
al, since the Law of Causality is equivalent to the state or relation that tran\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spir
es in whatever is generated, and this becomes thus a general principle for the
lity of extension-motion processes. Therefore, we cannot bring in ad h
oc
nsions or conditions on par with the extension-motion processual nature
nything that exists, and argue that in these dimensions absence of causality
do well as an explanation. This is clearly so because all such dim
ensions
categorially inferior to extension-motion and are not fundamental enoug
h
support categorially the existence of matter-energy as processual. The
causal
ection ensures some form of continuity in the respective extension-motion
on in every case, and not in extra ad hoc dimensions or conditions, nor in
absolute dimension in "absolute spacetime", since absolute continuity of ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 iste
nce of matter-energy would mean that we have infinite amounts of matter in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a fi
nite absolute spacetime for the act of causation to be spatiotemporally thickly
inuous.
26 Thus, in the context of any discourse of the extension-motion universe, what
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we m
ean minimally by the Law of Causation is the general ontological expecta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
with respect to at least inner-universe cause-effect relations between
any
or more processes: that causation is categorially second only to the
exist\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
of matter-energy processes and the direct categorial successor of extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on. It is formulated according to extension-motion as: 'Everything has
cedent cause/s in real extension-motion'. This categorial Law is not a
bout
lute spacetime, nor about a special region of bodies, but generally a
bout
ything real in extension-motion, since there is no exempting from it
any\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g real and of the order of extension-motion.
26 It implies, by extension of its definition to specific practical ca
ses, also the
ries of causation of the particular sciences, and they are not identical in ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tens
iveness or range. Since the Law of Causality is ontologically more ge
neral
the theories of cause in the sciences, we can discuss cosmology as rationally
ossible if and only if it is discussed from the point of view of the ontological
ly
general Law of Causality. We emphasize that we need not presuppose here
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thor
oughgoing causation in the micro-cosmos before we conclude to it later as
most probable case.
114 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs18 \cf0 From the foregoing discussion on the difference of range between th
e Law of
ality and the particular-scientific principles of causality, the following concl
u\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 sion
s are in place: If some phenomenon from the point of view of a science is not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 demo
nstrable as causally based, it can be, as seen from the Causal Law, (1) because
technically (experimentally, spatiotemporally) unnoticed antecedent, from
thing wider in extension-motion or more minute than the phenomenon (of
special science) in question, has been at work in the process, and it has not
dealt with in this science or treatment; and (2) because this apparent absence
detection of causation shows that there is nothing absolutely non-causa
l in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 gres
sing into the phenomenon from somewhere or nowhere, due to the customary
tion of the ontological to the epistemologically expressed or expressible.
26 In case of our having to accept (1) without (2), one must first show that the
lutely non-causal element in (2) is also able to show up in any pos
sible
cts in the universe other than in the one at discussion, let alone in the spe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cifi
c phenomenon in question, because otherwise this non-causality spoken of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 in (
2)is ad hoc, limited to just one phenomenon and for no other, without any
ial reason to cite. This is impossible, as I shall attempt to show as reasonable
ossible in the case of QM experiments, since the totally non-causal does not,
t least need not, show itself in any physical relation limited to one province
e, and any physical relation is at the same time physical-ontologically causal,
so the non-causal is non-existent as a supposed part of the universe.
26 This vacuity of ontological reference of non-causality (and consequently of a
cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 sali
ty whichmerelysuspendsjudgmentswithcausalornon-causalstancewithexist\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ence
or non-existence) with physical existence of the process of which non-causality
redicated, shows that whatever exists as non-causal according to QM must be ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 plai
ned. In the absence of explanation it connotes theoretical vacuity of meaning.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 We n
eed to reasonably show that in QM such non-causality is unnecessary and that
ality is more reasonably present in QM. As is known, we have no absolutely
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 noncausal instances in the sciences other than the ones in QM, or the ones sup\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 pose
d to be in human freedom, or the one supported by the alleged mathematical

ularity at the geometrical origin-points of singularities in the universe. There
is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 no n
eed to bring them all in as illustrative examples for alleged non-causality, sin
ce
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 we c
oncentrate only on the alleged QM instances of non-causality. Human freedom
cosmological singularities lie outside of purview of our discussion here.
{\b \fs21 4.3.}{\b \fs21 Nature}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 the}{\b \fs21 Causal
}{\b \fs21 /}{\b \fs21 Non-causal}{\b \fs21 Disjunction }
Theoretically, if two elements of matter-energy, finitely distant in ex
tension,
had some physical interaction, then something causal and something
\fi6061 115 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 non-causal do not exist together in one and the same process or
sub-process,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 howe
ver minute, that involves the same elements. This truism is mentioned here
rder to facilitate the argument that QM needs to somehow cast away such
retical occasions. Even a catalyst's part in a chemical process is causal - the
difference is that at the end of the process the chemically or phy
sically
gnizable constitution of the initial catalyst is so to say "unchanged", or the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cata
lyst is again in the final stage causally restored to the original state. This i
s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alre
ady due to causation.
26 Either nothing is causal, or all are causal. It all depends on whether causal
ity
be rendered more desirable than non-causality in QM, or vice versa.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (1)Hi
storically, the attempt has been to find causes and effects, and in
some
ific regions where it has been extremely difficult to find them, non-causality
been the explanation by some, which has later been lapped up by many. This
variously due to the insufficiency of the theoretical and experimental
ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 para

tuses (i.e., due to general human incapacities and limitations) to ide
ntify
causal relation, or due to the minuteness of the causes to be identified by the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 curr
ent status of scientific achievements - usually due to both.
26 (2) If nothing is causal, then suppose that the causal is some element (matte
r
nergy) and the non-causal is some physical-ontological part of it. That is, if
elements in Nature are considered as purely causal and some real parts of
as totally non-causal, we have to define whether this aspect has any reality
terms of matter-energy and extension-motion, whether these two are mu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tual
ly connected by extension-motion, and, if connected, how. This is possible
if this second aspect or part too is something physical (in extension-motion
ess), i.e., existing in terms of processes of matter-energy which already act
ally in measured, or in-principle measurable, spacetime (however minute or
e) in accordance with basic physical principles.
26 Also, there is no reason in the statement: The causal element in the process
never affect the non-causal and vice versa. After all, the non-causa
l part
to be by presupposition something physically existent, or, generally, existent.
over, the extension-motion distance between the two is finite, and some of
causal elements will someday causally affect the existent element that one has
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
ed non-causal. Here, the non-causalist concerning some elements in the QM
d has to show the reasons for and modes of transpiring of the said causal
act between the causal and the allegedly non-causal elements at some com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mon
future of the two elements.
26 If the extension-motion distance and difference between the two (the causal
the non-causal) elements is taken to be somehow absolute and infinite, we
on the other side assert that, by reason of the actual extension-mo
tion
116 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 nature of existent reality, the above cannot be the case between
two existent
ical or existent elements. This is because there are no two things,
even in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 an i
nfinite universe, which are infinite in mutual distance or difference in exten\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
or motion or extension-motion of their specific natures. Then, if no more
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 new
matter comes into existence, the earlier matter-energy will have to someday
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 begi
n to interact causally.
26 These are arguments to which no example can normally be cited even from
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM,
except the supposedly non-causal QM instances of non-causation or the
cosmological one where an alleged singularity is the case at the centres of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "bla
ck holes" (the name by John Archibald Wheeler, 1967). Therefore, illustrat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
these discussions with examples is difficult, and I limit myself with theoreti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
arguments.
26 If there are both causality and non-causality "somehow active" in o
ne and
same actuality, i.e., between, say, two "things" or "events" or "processes" at a
tely extension-motion distance from each other, what would be the point of
nsion-motion contact between the causal and the non-causal elements and
discourse about the contact? The question looks simple, but is serious and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inso
luble from within any viewpoint that takes both causality and non-causality
be "active" in one and the same existent thing. We are thus to spea
k of the
ical-ontological Law of Causality, which alone is genuine causality for phys\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ics.
The epistemological version of non-commitment to it, namely, acausalit
y
ning a state of conception in which we do not deal with the causali
ty or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausality of a certain phenomenon or part of it), is in fact based
on the
ical-ontological concept of causality. The epistemological has to be so
me-

based on the physical-ontological.
26 Whatever exists as connected in extension-motion is also causally connected.
in consists the physical ontological absurdity of the claim that in QM the
ents or processes that are allegedly non-causal or acausal are still spatiotem\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pora
l - for QM still operates (or, so I claim) on the concepts of absolute space
time while dealing with causality, and manoeuvres therewith to explica
te
so-called non-causal or acausal elements which are ontologically of the or\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 der
of extension-motion and measurementally spatiotemporal. Only in absolute
etime can something be totally non-causal and still exist with zero spatiality
temporality. The solution to this cannot be to bring in macro-physically ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plic
able STR and GTR into QM's causally non-committed probabilism, but to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deve
lop STR and GTR for causal QM by infusing causation in STR and GTR.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7277\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Even
in the absence of such a QM, the non-causal arguments may remain, but
less validity. I believe that Grand Unification Theories (GUTs) could go this
in the future.
\fi6061 117 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs21 \cf0 4.4. Nature of Physical-Ontological Discourse
f0 {\b0 \fs17 We}{\b0 \fs17 must}{\b0 \fs17 show}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
absurdity}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 non-causal}{\b0 \fs17 interpretation
s}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 results}{\b0 \fs17 not }
\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 general}{\b0 \fs17 philosophical}{\b0
\fs17 arguments}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 until}{\b0 \fs17 now,}{\b0 \fs17
but}{\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 access}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
our }
\b0 \fs17 arguments}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 important}{\b0
\fs17 experiments}{\b0 \fs17 under}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 same}{\b0
\fs17 terminology}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM. }
\b0 \fs17 For}{\b0 \fs17 this,}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 discuss}{\b0 \fs17
micro-causality}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 following}{\b0
\fs17 chapters.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17
a }

\b0 \fs17 study}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17
spans}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 possible}{\b0 \fs17 minute}{\b0 \fs17 form
s}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 extension-motion}{\b0 \fs17 level }
\b0 \fs17 influence}{\b0 \fs17 upon}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 element}{\b0 \f
s17 or}{\b0 \fs17 process}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 another}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\
b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 micro-world}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 add }
\b0 \fs17 up}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 them}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 unto}
{\b0 \fs17 macro-causality.}{\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 physical-ontological}{\
b0 \fs17 issue}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 instan- }
\b0 \fs17 tiation}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}
{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 everywhere}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0
\fs17 universe}{\b0 \fs17 may}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 philosophi- }
\b0 \fs17 cally}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 physically}{\b0 \fs17 justified}{\b
0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 if}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 arguments}{\b0 \fs17 b
oth}{\b0 \fs17 cover}{\b0 \fs17 vital}{\b0 \fs17 experiments }
\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 microcosmic}{\b0 \fs17 aspects}{\b0 \f
s17 and}{\b0 \fs17 add}{\b0 \fs17 up}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs1
7 macrocosmic}{\b0 \fs17 aspect}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17
(and }
\b0 \fs17 non-causal)}{\b0 \fs17 discourse. }
fi226 {\b0 \fs17 Our}{\b0 \fs17 study}{\b0 \fs17 should}{\b0 \fs17 transcend}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 particularism}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \f
s17 sciences}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 ever}{\b0 \fs17 more }
\b0 \fs17 general}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 thinking,}{\b0 \fs17 sinc
e}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 attempts}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 give}{\b0 \fs17
a}{\b0 \fs17 flexibly}{\b0 \fs17 processual}{\b0 \fs17 onto- }
\b0 \fs17 logical}{\b0 \fs17 foundation}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b
0 \fs17 causality }{\b0\up006 \fs10 95}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b0
\fs17 base}{\b0 \fs17 itself}{\b0 \fs17 finally}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 th
e}{\b0 \fs17 Law }
\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 thinking}{\b0 \f
s17 will}{\b0 \fs17 array}{\b0 \fs17 up}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 near-infi
nitesimally}{\b0 \fs17 small}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 the }
\b0 \fs17 near-infinitely}{\b0 \fs17 big}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 vice}{\b0
\fs17 versa}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 respect}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 Cau
sality}{\b0 \fs17 beyond}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 general }
\b0 \fs17 conclusions}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 various}{\b0 \f
s17 provincially}{\b0 \fs17 isolated}{\b0 \fs17 concepts}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0
\fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 micro- }
\b0 \fs17 cosmic}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 macrocosmic}{\b0 \fs17 thinking}{\
b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 particular}{\b0 \fs17 sciences.}{\b0 \
fs17 Today}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 task}{\b0 \fs17 is }
\b0 \fs17 ridden}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 chasm}{\b0 \fs17
between}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 microcosmic}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 the}
{\b0 \fs17 macrocosmic}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 phys- }

\b0 \fs17 ics}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 astrophysics,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs
17 between}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 physical-ontological}{\b0 \fs17 conditi
ons}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal- }
\b0 \fs17 ity}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 purely}{\b0 \fs17 phy
sical}{\b0 \fs17 conditions. }
fi226 {\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 physicist}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 astrophys
icist}{\b0 \fs17 might}{\b0 \fs17 take}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 provinces}{
\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 micro-}{\b0 \fs17 and }
\b0 \fs17 macro-cosmic}{\b0 \fs17 exclusively}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 th
em}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 attend}{\b0 \fs17 to.}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs1
7 would}{\b0 \fs17 take}{\b0 \fs17 them}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 belon
g }
\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 epistemologically}{\b0 \fs
17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 philosopher}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
physically}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the }
\b0 \fs17 physicist}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 astrophysicist,}{\b0 \fs17 beca
use}{\b0 \fs17 there}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 foundational}{\b0 \fs17 ontol
ogical}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 epis- }
\b0 \fs17 temological}{\b0 \fs17 problems}{\b0 \fs17 implicit}{\b0 \fs17 in}{
\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 other}{\b0 \fs17
realms}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 micro-}{\b0 \fs17 and }
\b0 \fs17 macro-universe,}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 example}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\
b0 \fs17 problems:}{\b0 \fs17 how}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 mediate}{\b0 \fs1
7 the}{\b0 \fs17 general}{\b0 \fs17 physical }
\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0
\fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 particular}{\b0 \fs17 cases}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 sc
iences,}{\b0 \fs17 whether}{\b0 \fs17 there}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 any- }
\b0 \fs17 thing}{\b0 \fs17 non-causal}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \f
s17 universe,}{\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 physical-ontolog
ical}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 epistemo- }
\b0 \fs17 logical}{\b0 \fs17 conditions}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 speaking}{\
b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 terms}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 extension-motion}{\b0
\fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 spacetime}{\b0 \fs17 are, }
\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 meaning}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
conditions}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 measurement,}{\b0 \fs17 experiment,
}{\b0 \fs17 etc.}{\b0 \fs17 are,}{\b0 \fs17 what }
\b0 \fs17 chaotic}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 probabilistic}{\b0 \fs17 knowledg
e}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 do}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 rea
lity,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 so}{\b0 \fs17 on. }
1 \cf0 {\b0 \fs16 95}{\b0 \fs16 The}{\b0 \fs16 aspect}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs
16 ever}{\b0 \fs16 higher}{\b0 \fs16 foundational}{\b0 \fs16 adequacy}{\b0 \
fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 flexibility}{\b0 \fs16 for}{\b0 \fs16 general}{\b0 \fs16
ontologi- }
fi262 {\b0 \fs16 cal}{\b0 \fs16 categories,}{\b0 \fs16 in}{\b0 \fs16 answe
r}{\b0 \fs16 to}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 foundationalist,}{\b0 \fs16 an
ti-foundationalist}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 postmod- }

fi262 {\b0 \fs16 ernist}{\b0 \fs16 questions,}{\b0 \fs16 has}{\b0 \fs16 be
en}{\b0 \fs16 developed}{\b0 \fs16 in}{\b0 \fs16 my}{\b0 \fs16 Physics}{
\b0 \fs16 without}{\b0 \fs16 Metaphysics?}{\b0 \fs16 See}{\b0 \fs16 the
}
fi262 {\b0 \fs16 Bibliography. }
f0 {\b0 \fs17 118 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Another reason for this need is that the random jumble of
the concepts of
ality and non-causality that are heavily present in astrophysical and philo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh3617 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 soph
ical cosmology may be cleared to an extent by intervention of logically ten\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh3617 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 able
attempts that take into consideration the ontologically higher general
ities
rding the particular-scientific generalities of microphysics. Logically, it is a
b\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh3617 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 surd
to choose a mixture of causality and non-causality under the point of view
he whole of Reality in the frame of measure of motion proper to Reality. {\up006
\fs10 96} It
ot also enough - as in some researchers in the particular sciences and in phi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh3617 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loso
phy - just to formulate causality in a manner that works with respect to the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh3617 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 issu
es close at hand, without generic attention to what may lie beyond. This was
r as we discussed the methodology of Causal Horizonal Research. We need
viewpoint of our study to be as comprehensive and generic as possibl
e of
place of causality and non-causality in the universe and, if causality wins the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh3617 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 high
est place, we want it to argue that causality is also about all the inner recess
es
ausal possibilities in the micro- and macro-universe - and that ends the place
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh3617 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of n
on-causality in the universe. \par
}
\cf0 4.5. Involvement of Consciousness in Subjectivist QM
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 Non-causal}{\b0 \fs17 interpretations}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs1
7 QM}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 mostly}{\b0 \fs17 infected}{\b0 \fs17
on}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 hand}{\b0 \fs17 with }

{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 provincialist}{\b0 \fs17 resilience}{\b0 \fs17 in}
{\b0 \fs17 physics}{\b0 \fs17 (that}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \
fs17 do}{\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 experimentally }
{\b0 \fs17 does}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 bother}{\b0 \fs17 t
o}{\b0 \fs17 much}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 resultant}{\b0 \fs
17 subjectivism)}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 oth
er}{\b0 \fs17 had }
{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 spiritualist}{\b0 \fs17 buoyancy}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \
fs17 religiously}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 humanistically}{\b0 \fs17 oriented
}{\b0 \fs17 sciences}{\b0 \fs17 about }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 apparent}{\b0 \fs17 compatibility}{\b0 \fs17 with}{
\b0 \fs17 human}{\b0 \fs17 freedom}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 spirituality.}{
\b0 \fs17 Books}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 Frit- }
{\b0 \fs17 jof}{\b0 \fs17 Capra, }{\b0\up006 \fs10 97}{\b0 \fs17 Gary}{\b0 \f
s17 Zukav, }{\b0\up006 \fs10 98}{\b0 \fs17 Dean}{\b0 \fs17 Radin, }{\b0\up00
6 \fs10 99}{\b0 \fs17 Amit}{\b0 \fs17 Goswami }{\b0\up006 \fs10 100}{\b0 \fs
17 etc.,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 books,}{\b0 \fs17 talks }\par
}
\cf0 96 For an attempt to take QM and GTR to a universal theoretical framework
of unifica\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7946\absw7246\absh2950 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
352 tion beyond local concepts of temporal instants into a generalized global ti
me frame
352 by applying non-commutative algebra, see Michael Heller, "Time of the Univer
se"
352 (53-64), in George F. R. Ellis, Ed., The Far-Future Universe: Eschatology fr
om a Cos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7946\absw7246\absh2950 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
352 mic Perspective (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation, 2002).
90 97 Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics: An Explanation of the Parallels betwee
n Modern
352 Physics and Eastern Mysticism (London: Flamingo, 1991 reprint).
90 98 Gary Zukav, Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (New Yo
rk:
352 Bantam Books, 1980).
92 99 Dean Radin, Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantu
m Reality
366 (NewYork: Paraview Pocket Books, 2006).
Amit Goswami, Quantum Mechanics (Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press Inc., 1997).
\fi6061 {\fs17 119 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 and articles by Hans-Peter Drr{\up006 \fs10 101 }\par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw1478\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 W
olgang Pauli{\up006 \fs10 103 }\par
}
{\phpg\posx3827\pvpg\posy854\absw4068\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ar
e examples. Even Eugene P. Wigner{\up006 \fs10 102} and \par
}
{\phpg\posx2375\pvpg\posy1104\absw5422\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 h
ave thought seriously in that direction. The oft-repeated claim \par
}
that the subjective or the conscious is ontologically inextricably interwoven in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM
is an example for simplistic religious philosophy via QM. Claims like paral\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lel
ism between QM and the Vedas, the Ved{\f63 \u257\'3f}ntas, the Ved{\f63 \u257\'3
f}nta philosophies, the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Bud
dhist philosophies, or the philosophies of human freedom are also not rare
this region.
226 It is philosophically reasonable in QM to hold that consciousness
is inex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tri
cably interwoven with the experiment via execution of the experiment.
But
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thi
s shows at the most that somehow the experimental setup, the execution of
experiment and the whole theory that results from them are all inex
trica\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bly
theory-laden. Execution of experiment by human minds' execution of some
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 act
ions can affect causally the outcome (as yielded by the Uncertainty Principle)
not non-causally by way of some miraculous freedom. Theory is a pro
d\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 uct
of the human mind with foundation in Reality. Theories presupposed a
t
experimental verification of another theory have some conceptual ruck\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sac
k. But I do not find any way of inducting a direct involvement of the subjec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tiv
e mind's allegedly non-causal freedom in the quantum processes so that the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exp
eriments designed by consciousness may alter the results of the test merely
virtue of consciousness being involved in the formulation and executio
n of
experiment.
226 In this direction are the detailed arguments by Karl Popper in his Quantum
ory and the Schism in Physics significant, where he shows conclusively that
re is no difference between the mind's involvement in classical experiments
that in quantum experiments. He holds that it is the existing theor
y that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1354\absw7174\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sha
pes the experiment through consciousness.{\up006 \fs10 104} This point from Popp
er is fully \par
}
101 For example, Hans-Peter Drr, "Radically Quantum: Liberation and Puri
fication
349 from Classical Prejudice" (7-45), A. Elitzur, S. Dolev, N. Kolenda, Eds., Qu
o Vadis
349 Quantum Mechanics? (Berlin: Springer, 2005), 43.
Eugene P. Wigner, "Remarks on the Mind-Body Question" (171-184), in Eugene P.
349 Wigner, Ed., Symmetries and Reflections (Bloomington: Indiana Univers
ity Press,
349 1967).
Hans Primas, "Complementarity of Mind and Matter" (171-209), in H. A
tmans\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7946\absw7222\absh2950 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 pacher and H. Primas, Eds., Recasting Reality: Wolfgang Pauli's Philosophica
l Ideas
349 and Contemporary Science (Berlin: Springer, 2009).
Karl R. Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (London: Hutchinson,
349 1982), 41. Detailed discussion of the same will be made as we discuss the Co
penha\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7946\absw7222\absh2950 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 gen interpretation later.
{\fs17 120 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 acceptable to us here, since his theoretical foundation here is
not in mere dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh2267 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tinc
tions but in bringing out the real nature of the causal connections between
ry and experiment, mind and nature.

26 We need not be bothered about the purely "subjective" taking an extra non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh2267 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
al or acausal interest in the objectual as in QM tendencies, if we can show
non-causality has not been a serious solution in QM. This will advance to\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh2267 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ward
the end of this work the aim of justifying as most probable or acceptable
thoroughly causal explanation for the micro-objects of science that used to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh2267 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be p
erceived through an acausalist or non-causalist eye in some modes of inter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh2267 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pret
ation of QM. \par
}
21 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 5. Laplacean Causalism in
i1556 Quantum Physics \par
}
\cf0 5.1. Ontology and Epistemology of Laplacean Causalism
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 lack}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 clear}{\b0 \fs
17 distinction}{\b0 \fs17 and/or}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 prevalence}{\
b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 confusion}{\b0 \fs17 between}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 a
spects}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causation}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \
fs17 (and}{\b0 \fs17 Cosmology), }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 persistent}{\b0 \fs17 confusion}{\b0
\fs17 between}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 determinism}{\
b0 \fs17 (discussed}{\b0 \fs17 in }
{\b0 \fs17 passing}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 Chapter}{\b0 \fs17 4)}{\b0 \fs17
-}{\b0 \fs17 these}{\b0 \fs17 may}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 said}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 been}{\b0 \fs17 active}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs
17 and}{\b0 \fs17 inherited }
{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 Laplacean}{\b0 \fs17 deterministic}{\b0 \fs17 caus
alism.}{\b0 \fs17 Pierre}{\b0 \fs17 Simon}{\b0 \fs17 de}{\b0 \fs17 Laplace's
}{\b0 \fs17 variety}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 de- }
{\b0 \fs17 terminism,}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 presented}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b
0 \fs17 his}{\b0 \fs17 A}{\b0 \fs17 Philosophical}{\b0 \fs17 Essay}{\b0
\fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 Probabilities}{\b0 \fs17 (Ch.}{\b0 \fs17 II), }

{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 held}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 imag
inary}{\b0 \fs17 all-knowing}{\b0 \fs17 mind,}{\b0 \fs17 endowed}{\b0 \fs17
with}{\b0 \fs17 infinite}{\b0 \fs17 powers}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 calculation}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 understanding}{\b0 \fs17 of}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 present}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 (mechanical
)}{\b0 \fs17 dispositions }
{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 every}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 universe,}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 rationally}{\b0 \fs17 pre
dict}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 future}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 retrodict }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 past}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 parti
cles}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 combinations}{\b0 \fs17 in}{
\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 universe.}{\b0\up006 \fs10 105 }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 (1)}{\b0 \fs17 Here}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 idea}{\b0 \fs
17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 cognitively}{\b0 \fs17 all-powerful}{\b0 \fs
17 "determiner-being"}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 ques- }
{\b0 \fs17 tion}{\b0 \fs17 does}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 predispose}{\b0 \fs
17 one}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 religious}{\b0 \fs17 faith}{\b0 \fs17 becau
se,}{\b0 \fs17 "[b]elief}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 fully}{\b0 \f
s17 deter- }
{\b0 \fs17 mined}{\b0 \fs17 universe}{\b0 \fs17 was}{\b0 \fs17 {\field{\*\fld
inst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 faith}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\
b0 \fs17 being}{\b0 \fs17 naturalistic}{\b0 \fs17 rather}{\b0 \fs17 than}{\b
0 \fs17 religious."}{\b0\up006 \fs10 106}{\b0 \fs17 The }
{\b0 \fs17 fact}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 "determined}{\b0 \fs17 universe"}{
\b0 \fs17 here}{\b0 \fs17 means}{\b0 \fs17 'epistemologically}{\b0 \fs17 con
sidered,}{\b0 \fs17 epis- }
{\b0 \fs17 temically}{\b0 \fs17 finitely}{\b0 \fs17 determinable}{\b0 \fs17
mechanistically}{\b0 \fs17 running}{\b0 \fs17 universe'}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\
b0 \fs17 clear}{\b0 \fs17 from }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 use}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 te
rm}{\b0 \fs17 'determinism'}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 quot
e}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 follows}{\b0 \fs17 next.}{\b0 \fs17 Mechani
stic }
{\b0 \fs17 forces}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 finite}{\b0 \fs17 ch
unk}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 matter}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 finite}{\b0 \f
s17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 mechanistic}{\b0 \fs17 world}{\b0 \fs17 vi
ew,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 no }
{\b0 \fs17 mechanist}{\b0 \fs17 physicist}{\b0 \fs17 seems}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0
\fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 thought}{\b0 \fs17 very}{\b0 \fs17 much}{\b0 \fs17 i
nto}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 possibility}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 an }
{\b0 \fs17 infinite}{\b0 \fs17 universe.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 facilitat
es}{\b0 \fs17 epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 determination}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs
17 the}{\b0 \fs17 forces}{\b0 \fs17 and }
{\b0 \fs17 causes}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 mechanistic}{\b0 \f
s17 processes}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 finite}{\b0 \fs17 numbe
r}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 scientific}{\b0 \fs17 manoeuvres }

{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 each}{\b0 \fs17 case. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 (2)}{\b0 \fs17 Nor}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 such}{\b0 \f
s17 determinism}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 belief}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
unlimited}{\b0 \fs17 cognitive}{\b0 \fs17 capacity}{\b0 \fs17 in }
{\b0 \fs17 humans.}{\b0 \fs17 Gillispie}{\b0 \fs17 clarifies}{\b0 \fs17 furth
er}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 same}{\b0 \fs17 place}{\b0 \fs17
in}{\b0 \fs17 his}{\b0 \fs17 book: }
cf0 \fi226 {\b0 \fs15 A}{\b0 \fs15 grand}{\b0 \fs15 faith}{\b0 \fs15 {\field{
\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\b0 \fs15 determinism}{\b0 \fs15 formed}{
\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 expectations}{\b0 \fs15 held}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs
15 the}{\b0 \fs15 exact}{\b0 \fs15 science}{\b0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \fs15 the }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 century}{\b0 \fs15 and}{\b0 \fs15 more}{\b0 \fs15 following
}{\b0 \fs15 Laplace's}{\b0 \fs15 death.}{\b0 \fs15 It}{\b0 \fs15 carried}{\b
0 \fs15 forward}{\b0 \fs15 into}{\b0 \fs15 Einstein's}{\b0 \fs15 great}{\b0
\fs15 vision }
cf0 {\b0 \fs16 105}{\b0 \fs16 For}{\b0 \fs16 Laplace's}{\b0 \fs16 own}{\b0
\fs16 argument}{\b0 \fs16 about}{\b0 \fs16 causality}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b
0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 hypothetical}{\b0 \fs16 ideal}{\b0 \fs16 mind,}{\
b0 \fs16 see }
\fi349 {\b0 \fs16 Pierre}{\b0 \fs16 Simone}{\b0 \fs16 de}{\b0 \fs16 Laplace,}
{\b0 \fs16 A}{\b0 \fs16 Philosophical}{\b0 \fs16 Essay}{\b0 \fs16 on}{\b0 \f
s16 Probabilities}{\b0 \fs16 ,}{\b0 \fs16 in}{\b0 \fs16 Stephen}{\b0 \fs16 H
awk- }
\fi349 {\b0 \fs16 ing,}{\b0 \fs16 Ed.,}{\b0 \fs16 God}{\b0 \fs16 Created}{\b0
\fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 Integers}{\b0 \fs16 (London:}{\b0 \fs16 Penguin,}{\b0
\fs16 2005),}{\b0 \fs16 390-391. }
{\b0 \fs16 106}{\b0 \fs16 Charles}{\b0 \fs16 Coulston}{\b0 \fs16 Gillispie,}
{\b0 \fs16 Pierre-Simone}{\b0 \fs16 Laplace}{\b0 \fs16 (Princeton:}{\b0 \fs16
Princeton}{\b0 \fs16 University }
\fi349 {\b0 \fs16 Press,}{\b0 \fs16 1997),}{\b0 \fs16 271. }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 123 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 of an underlying order in nature. Such an outlook on the world is n
onetheless magnifi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7357\absh7914 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 cent for proving unattainable and is not to be demeaned by facile skepticism
about the
26 capacity of the human mind to attain rationality in any guise at all, scienti
fic or other.{\up006 \fs8 107 }
{\fs17 In}{\fs17 short,}{\fs17 unlimited}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 each}{\fs17
time}{\fs17 finite}{\fs17 knowing}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 grand}{\f

s17 aim}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 humanity }
17 as}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 science}{\fs17 as}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 instrument}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 intellectual,}{\fs17 technol
ogical}{\fs17 and }
17 cultural}{\fs17 attainments.}{\fs17 At}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 are}
{\fs17 humans}{\fs17 supposed}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 actually}{\fs17 attain}{\fs1
7 every }
17 possible}{\fs17 item}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 knowledge.}{\fs17 Yet,}{\fs17
Laplacean}{\fs17 causalism}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 unique}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 i
ts}{\fs17 positing }
17 an}{\fs17 all-knowing}{\fs17 mind}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 sake
}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 constructing}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 perennial}{\fs17 episte
mology}{\fs17 of }
17 causalism.}{\fs17 Not}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 Einstein,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17
even}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 physicists}{\fs17 worked}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 point }
17 of}{\fs17 view}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 predicting}{\fs17 everything.}{\fs17 Som
e}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 latter}{\fs17 ended}{\fs17 up}{\fs17 in}{\fs
17 a}{\fs17 probabilistic }
17 interpretation}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 imperfect}{\fs17 predictions
,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 never}{\fs17 overcame}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 epistemo- }
17 logical}{\fs17 variety}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 mechanistic}{\fs17 determinism}{\
fs17 and}{\fs17 began}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 take}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 unclear}{\f
s17 prob- }
17 abilistic-causal}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 part}{\fs17 of}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 nature}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 univers
e}{\fs17 .}{\fs17 We }
17 find}{\fs17 practically}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 clear}{\fs17 understanding}{\fs1
7 as}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs1
7 meaning }
17 of}{\fs17 probabilistic}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 such
}{\fs17 physicists. }
26 {\fs17 I}{\fs17 work}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 common}{\fs17 n
otions}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 mechanistic}{\fs17 physics}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 c
osmology. }
17 These}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 applicable}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 Laplace,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 general}{\fs17 for}{\fs
17 all}{\fs17 mechanistic }
17 thinkers.}{\fs17 Therefore,}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 choose}{\fs17 not}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 depend}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 too}{\fs17 much}{\fs17 on}{\fs17
Laplace}{\fs17 alone. }
17 For}{\fs17 Laplace,}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 proces
ses,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 acts}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 mind}{
\fs17 and}{\fs17 will,}{\fs17 and }

17 surely}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 biological}{\fs17 processes,}{\f
s17 are}{\fs17 causally}{\fs17 determined}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 antecedents }
17 -}{\fs17 although,}{\fs17 according}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 him,}{\fs17 we}{\fs
17 may}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 directly}{\fs17 fathom}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 series}{
\fs17 of}{\fs17 physical }
17 events}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 brain}{\fs
17 that}{\fs17 go}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 form}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 generate}{\fs17
what}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 call}{\fs17 feeling, }
17 thought,}{\fs17 wilful}{\fs17 decision}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 action.}{\fs17
Hence,}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 Laplace}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 ontologi- }
17 cal}{\fs17 presupposition,}{\fs17 perceivable}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 all}{\
fs17 their}{\fs17 instantiations}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 allegedly}
{\fs17 all- }
17 knowing}{\fs17 mind,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 absolutely}{\fs17 well}{\fs17 con
catenated}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Principle}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Sufficient
}
17 Reason}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 effects}{\fs17 in}
{\fs17 their}{\fs17 whole}{\fs17 history;}{\up006 \fs10 108}{\fs17 and}{\fs1
7 human}{\fs17 rational }
17 functioning,}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 final}{\fs17 analysis,}{\fs17 c
an}{\fs17 express}{\fs17 itself}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 probabilistic}
{\fs17 reflec- }
17 tion}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 mind-brain}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 intellectual}{\fs17 manne
r}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the }
17 aid}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 apparatuses}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 theoretical}{\fs17 in
struments,}{\fs17 because}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 minds}{\fs17 cannot}{\fs17 know
}
17 everything,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 everything}{\fs17 expressed}{\fs17 intellec
tually}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 emotionally}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 pragmati- }
17 cally}{\fs17 theory-laden}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 symbol-laden}{\fs17 from}{\fs
17 all}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 aspects}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 life-wor
ld. }
26 {\fs17 Judea}{\fs17 Pearl,}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 philosopher}{\fs17 of}{\fs
17 "probabilistic}{\fs17 causality"}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 "probability }
17 theory",}{\fs17 prefers}{\fs17 Laplace's}{\fs17 determinism}{\fs17 very}{
\fs17 much}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 begin}{\fs17 with.}{\fs17 Pearl}{\fs17 says}{\
fs17 that }
17 the}{\fs17 essential}{\fs17 difference}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 causality}{\
fs17 and}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 according}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 Laplace }
17 is}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 following: }\par
}
107 Gillispie, Pierre-Simone Laplace, 271.

Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, 391.
{\fs17 124 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 Causal relationships are expressed in the form of deterministic, fu
nctional equations,
26 and probabilities are introduced through the assumption that certain variable
s in the
26 equations are unobserved. This reflects Laplace's (1814) conception of natura
l phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7253\absh7860 \sl-219 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ena, according to which nature's laws are deterministic and randomness surfac
es owing
26 merely to our ignorance of the underlying boundary conditions.{\up006 \fs8 10
9 }
{\fs17 This}{\fs17 analysis}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 Pearl}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 brought
}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 show}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 understandi
ng}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 probability }
17 and}{\fs17 randomness,}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 having}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 ign
orance-ingredient}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 reason}{\fs17 for}{\fs17
formula- }
17 tion,}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 applicable}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 interpreting}{\fs17 n
ot}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 Laplace}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 probability}{
\fs17 as}{\fs17 such. }
26 {\fs17 For}{\fs17 Laplace,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 guarantor}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
determinism}{\fs17 (in}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 meaning)}{\fs17
under }
17 the}{\fs17 hypothetical}{\fs17 vantage}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 absolute}{\fs17
causal}{\fs17 reasoning}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 human}{\fs17
mind}{\fs17 but }
17 a}{\fs17 hypothetical}{\fs17 all-knowing}{\fs17 mind}{\fs17 which}{\fs17
can}{\fs17 know}{\fs17 everything.}{\fs17 Our}{\fs17 reason,}{\fs17 but, }
17 is}{\fs17 basically}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 statistical}{\fs17 fixing}{\fs17 o
f}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 epistemologically}{\fs17 most}{\fs17 acceptable}{\fs17
ratio}{\fs17 of }
17 understanding}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ways}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causal}{
\fs17 processes}{\fs17 within}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 universe.}{\fs17 These}{\fs
17 causal }
17 processes}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 the}{\
fs17 universe.}{\fs17 Moreover,}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 of
}{\fs17 happening }
17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 event}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 that}{\fs17
we}{\fs17 predict}{\fs17 probabilistically,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 abl
e}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 perceive}{\fs17 it }
17 only}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 use}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 appropriate}{\fs17 apparatuse
s}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 measure}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 perfect
ly}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 pos- }
17 sible}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 within}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 reaches}{\fs17 of}{\fs
17 the}{\fs17 science}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 e
ra}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 issue. }
26 {\fs17 In}{\fs17 his}{\fs17 determinism,}{\fs17 Laplace}{\fs17 holds}
{\fs17 a}{\fs17 purely}{\fs17 mechanistic-ontological}{\fs17 causal- }
17 ism}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 Nature}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 epistemologic
al}{\fs17 probabilism}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 human}{\fs17 mind}{\fs17 that }
17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 Laplace's}{\fs17 mechanistic}{\fs17 o
ntological}{\fs17 causalism}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 verity,}{\fs17 sin
ce}{\fs17 for }
17 him}{\fs17 mind}{\fs17 (and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 all-knowing}{\fs17 mi
nd)}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 grasp}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 through}{\fs17 experi
ments }
17 with}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 clarity}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 transpire,}
{\fs17 and}{\fs17 whether}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causa
lity}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 purely }
17 mechanistic}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 otherwise}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 aff
ect}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 human}{\fs17 capacity.}{\fs17 That}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17
Laplace's }
17 "mechanistic}{\fs17 philosophy"}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 is}{\fs17
dispensable}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 his}{\fs17 probabilism.}{\fs17 Still}{\fs17
we }
17 need}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 clarity}{\fs17 about}
{\fs17 causes.}{\fs17 Hence,}{\fs17 probabilism}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 essen
tially}{\fs17 about }
17 epistemological}{\fs17 prediction}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 retrodiction,}{\fs1
7 i.e.,}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 epistemological}{\fs17 as- }
17 pect}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 physical-ontological}{\fs17 determination}{\fs17 in
}{\fs17 general}{\fs17 (namely,}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 with- }
17 out}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 attachment}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 philosophical}{\fs1
7 mechanism).}{\fs17 Probabilism}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 simply }
17 about}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 form}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 immediate}{\fs17 and}{\fs1
7 exact}{\fs17 perception}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 conclusion}{\fs17 fr
om}{\fs17 the }
17 presently}{\fs17 experimentally}{\fs17 available}{\fs17 extent}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 actual}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 effects.}{\fs17 Phil
o- }

17 sophically}{\fs17 variegated}{\fs17 meanings}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation}{
\fs17 present}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 probabilistic}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 n
ot }
17 represented}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Laplace. }
26 {\fs17 For}{\fs17 Laplace,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 partial}{\fs17 errors}{\fs17
included}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 predictions}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 retrod
ictions }
17 amounting}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 probabilities}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17
exhaust}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 case}{\fs17 in }
17 nature,}{\fs17 since,}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 general,}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 approx
imations}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 made}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 idea
l}{\fs17 limit}{\fs17 value, }\par
}
109 Judea Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference (Cambridge:
Cambridge
\fi6061 {\fs17 125 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 beyond which or below which the probability does not go at a given instanc
e.{\up006 \fs10 110 }
is, for him there exists no ascribing the epistemological probabilistic nature
nowledge onto the universe and making the universe causally probabilistic. In
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 shor
t, any shortcoming due to human epistemological limits is ideally coverable
by the presupposition of an ideal mind and ideal apparatuses, if we accept
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Lapl
ace's mechanistic ontological-causal determinism for our notion of theory,
ratuses, experiments and empirical quantities. This allows us to understand
empirical aspect of probabilism as epistemological.
26 On the other hand, consider the view inherent in Laplacean determin
ism,
h, in his days, accepted also the mechanistic ontology that ultimately
in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 divi
sible but finite-sized and consequently ideally observable particles built the
erse. Today physics does not hold the view where anything finite-sized
is

visible, though the current limit seems to be quarks, sub-quarks and energy
ta of various energies, which may be modified with future findings. W
e
very well exclude the atomistic-mechanistic ontology and roughly accept the
ral epistemological attitude behind the remaining ontological determinism
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in L
aplace: that probabilism presupposes mainly that no theory and experiment
in themselves omniscient.
26 The world was for an elementary mechanistic ontology a mix of a f
inite
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 numb
er of indivisible particles that mechanistic-deterministically collided (and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hook
ed) with many others in their vicinity and their collisions were paradigm
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exam
ples of cause and effect for Laplace. All that occurred in this worl
d was
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 expr
essible in terms of this basic statement. His determinism, mixed with
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 atom
istic-mechanistic ontology of the day, was a theory of ontological cau
sal
uity of collision of the finite (or perhaps even infinite) number of indivis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ible
but finite-sized atoms of finite mass in the world. This was founded on an
lutisation of the then-available limits of search for the physically m
inut\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 est
(or perhaps even considered infinitesimal) point-object. I call such e
piste\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7247\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gically absolutistic (but unconscious) insistence on the status quo of
any
dview or perspective to be perfect for the present and future physics
, as
pectival absolutism{\up006 \fs10
111. }\par
}
110 Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, 432-433.
Some quick-minded blogs that appear regularly about cosmological news
items,
349 and blogspots like www.newscientist.com on Stephen Hawking's claiming
that by
349 the year 2000 the final "theory of everything" will be in view, his believin
g for dec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9044\absw7274\absh1962 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 ades in absolute no-escape of information from black holes, thereafter his s
uddenly
349 going back on this claim (2010) into possible escape of information from bla
ck holes,
349 and his 2010 allegiance to M-theory as capable of giving all the answers due
to its
{\fs17 126 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Such intellectual insistence was an unconscious arrest of p
ossible future
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 achi
evements of reason, because two realities were brushed aside from the realm
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of f
uture access in terms of higher truth probabilities: (1) the inner-atomic, actu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
never fully exhaustible but validly consequential extent or chain of
infini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tesi
mal causal strains of objects, and (2) the theoretical and experimental access
future science can have into reality in all its near-infinitesimal parts and as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a wh
ole. By these achievable future higher truth probabilities I mean those that
physically and physical-ontologically to be anticipated as really possible and
rinciple available from insight into the realm of the past causes and effects of
reality, which have not fully been available to human scientific thought. In
case, these are better available to physical and ontological thought as general
s based on the Law of Causality at any given moment in history thro
ugh
intervention of the sciences, than directly available to those science
s that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ostr
acize physical ontology (which latter begins categorially with the existence
hings, of causes, etc.).
26 The way in which perspectival absolutism concludes to the alleged absolute\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness
of a truth or of a limit of scientific reach is very much like the absolutisa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of the probabilism of mesoscopic vantage of observation of micro-physical
ities prevalent in QM in the 20{\up006 \fs10 th} century and after. T

his is directly com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 para
ble to Laplace's deterministic arrest of the possibility of future acc
ess to
er truth probabilities, which arrest thereby veils the mediate, finite
and
ially exhaustible experimental recognition of causation in the future b
y
veil of a finite number of mechanical processes near-sightedly imaginable
humans. I hold that QM has not yet left these shackles of Laplacean proba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
sm. This goes against the very fact and need of progress in human cogni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
. Though human cognition is highly limited, it participates and intervenes
a huge world in an ever better manner. Perspectival absolutism arrests
n scientific progress.
{\b \fs21 5.2.}{\b \fs21 Kernel}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Laplacean}{\b \fs21
Determinism}{\b \fs21 Present}{\b \fs21 in}{\b \fs21 QM }
Implicit in the above-said kind of arrest of the concept of possible future reas
on
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by u
se of the notion of absolutistic, atomistic-mechanistic causation, there lurk
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7276\absh7695 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at l
east the following three sub-claims: \par
}
mysterious production of one universe from another, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 18
8 \\f Symbol }} etc., are in the very least par\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy9926\absw6890\absh1168 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 tia
l examples for cosmological news about attitudes that we could call "perspectiva
l
\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy9926\absw6890\absh1168 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 abs
olutism".
\fi5712 {\fs17 127 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 (1) Even within the mechanistically allowable finite number of atom
s (posited
John Dalton{\up006 \fs10 112} and others) there needs to be only a fin
ite extent (or num\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ber)
of causal processes in any entity, since atoms are indivisible and an infinite
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dept
hs of causation need not be covered. This is the reason why the effectively
and present states of everything in the universe may be taken to have been
logically already thoroughly causally determined by past processes.
26 (2) Since the atomic bodies were understood as unchangeable, no infinite ar\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ray
of infinitesimal causation, like in the direction of the ever-more infinitesimal
he number line, was involved, and this is why all the effects that were active
he bodies were already circumscribed within the bodies.
26 (3) Therefore, everything in the world was absolutely determinable f
rom
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 know
ledge of its finite number of causal processes in an ideally epistemological
er, i.e., it was possible for a hypothetically ideal mind - as sophisticated and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thor
ough as to understand the epistemic occurrence of the epistemologically ad\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 miss
ible ratio (reason) that allowed a conclusion regarding the underlying finite
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 numb
er of causal processes - to ideally understand every causal process i
n a
te number of manoeuvres.
26 I think the first two sub-claims were considered to be the only possible onto
cal backdrop that facilitates the third sub-claim, i.e., that everything in the
d is absolutely determinable in its causal processes in an ideally epistemic
er. This was so because everyone took for granted that the finite-siz
ed
was still atomos, "indivisible" and unaffectable, thus barring the possibility
nner-atomic causal activity. Laplace had thus an atomistic-mechanistic causal
ion of the probability of attainment of truth; and we are not sure as yet if QM
al probabilism as such is entitled to ascribe a causal or non-causal or acausal
re to reality.
26 In the present work I use certain QM results to try and show (1)
that the
abilistic causalism in QM has been able to disprove only the third i
deal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prem
ise of Laplace that we have derived, (2) that it presupposes the invalidity of
second (except for its atomism), and (3) that it has not disproved, from its
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so-c
alled non-mechanistic perspective, the second part of the ontological-causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 subclaim (1), which is general-ontological in nature and may be said to be the
ursor of the Universal Law of Causality. This second part of the sub-claim
implies a theory of causal ubiquity in infinitely divisible subatomic physical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7270\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 leve
ls. I hold that this aspect, minus the apparent atomistic mechanism and its \par
}
112 John Dalton, A New System of Chemical Philosophy, Part I (London: Henderson
and
349 Spalding, 1808).
{\fs17 128 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 attendant finite causalism, seems not to have been disproved by QM. This i
s the
l form of the ontological Law of Causality (minus atomistic mechanism)
.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 When
accepted with respect to the current view of physical reality, this Law can
aken to be presupposed everywhere in the sciences - although the present
does not presuppose it for its arguments.
26 The reason why we should forget the atomistic-mechanistic part of his deter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mini
sm and concentrate on his view of causal ubiquity may be expressed as fol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lows
. Evidently, atomistic mechanism is outdated today. As regards mechanism,
ns cannot get conceptually best or in the most ideal manner at all the past
es or future effects of a process. But what the ideal mind can intuit (this too
ally) as being causally real in the constitution of a process is the totality of
all
have causally gone into the formation of it as an incontrovertible fact. These
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 are,
from the point of view of human capacities, determinable or circumscribable
statistically or probabilistically, even in terms of the philosophy of classica
l
ics. This is an epistemological state of affairs delimiting humans by reason
of the nature of inscrutability of any finite causal process at any given time.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Any
epistemology and ontology of mathematics or statistics or physics woul
d
t this.
26 If this were not the case, and if any mechanistic philosophy or a
ny form of
ematics were to be absolutely true in all the senses and definitions of the
'true', humans could also have known all the limited number of mechanical
es by use of mathematical and experimental methods much before today, or
d know it all at a fixed future moment. If this is not happening, we should
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 seve
r Laplace's atomistic mechanism from the universal-causal determinism or
uity implied in the Law of Causality. Thus, we can term any causal occur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 renc
e as a forever partially inscrutable process.
26 Causal ontological determinism is not merely epistemological, it is
an on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical one with reference to epistemological limits in the epistemic ac
t of
ing but without insistence that everything is cognitively fully accessi
ble
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or d
eterminable. Physics needs to always on the way to unearthing all possible
es and effects, and this is because it is sure that all is causal. But unearthin
g
causal ontology of all that exists from within the current level of understand\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
of physics is the work of general ontology with its ever-better self-defining
ever more flexible systemic categories, and not with respect to the highest
all scientific categories. This is accomplished by discussing the micro
- and
o-cosmic aspects of causality.
26 Any version of Laplace's first implicit sub-claim is crude for our reason, wi
th
mechanistic causal ontology of epistemically (intellectually) exhaustible de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7136\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 term
inations of finite-sized, indivisible and unaffected particle motions in
all
\fi6061 129 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 their causes and effects. I do not subscribe here to the epistemic-rationa
listic and
istic-mechanistic and substance-as-defined sort of ontological interpreta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of causal determinedness of the universe as a whole. This discarded theory
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is b
ased merely on its parts-as-perceived view (1) demanded by epistemological
pectival absolutism regarding the limitedness of cognition and (2) justified
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by t
he alleged indivisibility of atoms and the alleged causal unaffectedness or ab\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 senc
e of internal processes in atoms. Nor is the Leibnizian monads a solution for
problem, since monads too are problem-ridden with at least (1) the rational
ssibility of action-at-a-distance communication within and from without
windowless monads, (2) the irrationality of real physical-causal consti
tu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of the windowless monads, and (3) the incompatibility between causation
the absolute mutual freedom involved in the constitution of the windowless
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mona
ds.
26 I opine that the probabilistic-causal and partially non-causalist int
erpreta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s of QM still harbour within them the Laplacean ascription, in his d
eter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mini
sm, of an ontological nature to our epistemically achieved probabilism or
abilistic causalism, as if probabilistic causalism were some real way of mix\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
causation and non-causation in processes. This in QM must be recognised
e unacceptable, too.
26 Now, ontologically there remains only one acceptable implication of
this
e of affairs. Suppose that Reality is made of unfathomably and near-infini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tesi
mally divisible matter-energy, and suppose further that we follow the Uni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vers
al Law of Causality as we have defined in a definitionally open mann
er.
the causal-probabilistic understanding of Reality in QM would be the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 comb

ined but defective epistemological superposition of (1) the unfathomable
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dept
hs of innumerable number of near-infinitesimal causal effects within the
ocosmically ever smaller and macrocosmically ever larger parts of the uni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vers
e, thus positing a large spectrum of values of causal effects around particle\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fiel
ds of all descriptions in extension-motion, and (2) the meso-world sta
tus
our apparatuses and direct and indirect observation-statements. But QM
lutizes this epistemological state of affairs into the ontological natu
re of all
ical processes.
26 I would militate in this work against this ontologically impossible
and un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 acce
ptable, but tacitly and uncritically produced, QM-absolutisation of the
temology of perspectival absolutism, which is a reduction of the epistemo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal-probabilistic result, from the meso-world status of our observations with
ect to apparatuses and observation-statements of quantum states, into a state
affairs of the ontological givenness of the micro-cosmos. Thus, e.g.,
we can
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7233\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 very
well agree with R. R. Sharma, that
130 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 Quantum Theory (QT) as a mathematical scheme was formulated to circ
umvent vis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7222\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ualization of wave-quantum unity. It describes mathematically the wave-or-qua
ntum
26 'duality', NOT the wave-quantum 'unity', of radiation and matter but
introduces the
26 unrealistic violations of the inviolable conservation laws. For QT, both radi
ation and
26 matter are some unvisualizable single entities, their duality arising from th
e limitations
26 of language.{\up006 \fs8 113 }
{\fs17 We}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 stress}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ability

}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 humans}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 think}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17
ideally}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the }
17 whole}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Reality}{\fs17 even}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
most}{\fs17 general}{\fs17 point}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 view}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 To}{\fs17 Be}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Reality- }
17 in-total.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 kind}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 thinking}{\fs17 we}{\
fs17 do,}{\fs17 though}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 too}{\fs17 takes}{\fs17 place}{\
fs17 from}{\fs17 within}{\fs17 our }
17 human}{\fs17 limitedness.}{\fs17 To}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 stressed}{\fs17 is}
{\fs17 also}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 ability}{\fs17 to}{\f
s17 generalize}{\fs17 be- }
17 yond}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 parts-as-perceived}{\fs17 view}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 L
aplace}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 later}{\fs17 mechanistic}{\fs17 physicists}{\fs17
and }
17 beyond}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 epistemological}{\fs17 non-causalism}{\fs17 or}{
\fs17 acausalism}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs17 to
}
17 a}{\fs17 few}{\fs17 select}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Nature. }
26 {\fs17 By}{\fs17 ideal}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 thinking}{\fs17 is}{
\fs17 meant}{\fs17 human}{\fs17 thinking}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 constantly
}{\fs17 in- }
17 volves}{\fs17 conceptual}{\fs17 ideals}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 as}{\fs17
generalised}{\fs17 concepts}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 terms.}{\fs17 Conceptual
}
17 ideals}{\fs17 circumscribe,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 rende
r}{\fs17 everything}{\fs17 into}{\fs17 language}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 exists}{\f
s17 proces- }
17 sually}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Nature.}{\fs17 Yet}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 attempt}{\fs
17 to}{\fs17 speak}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 ideally,}{\fs17 using}{\fs17
conceptually }
17 ideal}{\fs17 notions,}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 things}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 close}
{\fs17 as}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 really}
{\fs17 are.}{\fs17 Such}{\fs17 ideals }
17 (concepts}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 terms)}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 constantly}{\fs17 u
sed}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 particular}{\fs17 events}{
\fs17 but }
17 also}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 Reality-in-total,}{\fs17
as}{\fs17 when}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 say}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 Reality}{\fs17 is
}{\fs17 causal,}{\fs17 that }
17 Reality}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 finite}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 parts,}{\fs1
7 that}{\fs17 Reality}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 acausal}{\fs17 or}{\fs17
non-causal}{\fs17 aspect,}{\fs17 etc. }
17 If}{\fs17 so,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 relativ
ely}{\fs17 high}{\fs17 stake}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 determining}{\fs17 if}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 causal-realistic }

17 way}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 speaking}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 tenable}{\fs1
7 than}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 many}{\fs17 causal-probabilistic}{\fs17 others. }
26 {\fs17 The}{\fs17 acceptability}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 non-acceptability}{\fs
17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 alleged}{\fs17 "non-causation"}{\fs17 or }
17 "acausation"}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 superiority}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 realism}{\fs17 over}{\fs1
7 causal }
17 probabilism}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 clear}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 toward
s}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 end}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 work.}{\fs17 I}{\fs17
have}{\fs17 already}{\fs17 tried }
17 to}{\fs17 show}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 a
re}{\fs17 epistemological}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 devoid}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 real}{\
fs17 ontological }
17 sense.}{\fs17 To}{\fs17 take}{\fs17 up}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 case}{\fs1
7 of}{\fs17 knowledge}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 o
f}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 alleged}{\fs17 "non- }
17 causation"}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 "acausation",}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 have}{\fs17
only}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 options.}{\fs17 Reality}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 all}{\fs17
its}{\fs17 parts}{\fs17 and }
17 thus}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 totality}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 b
e}{\fs17 either}{\fs17 thoroughly}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 thoroughly
}{\fs17 non-causal. }
17 There}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 via}{\fs17 media,}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 s
uspends}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 parts}{\fs17 of}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 universe}{\fs17 and }
17 explanation}{\fs17 goes}{\fs17 via}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 epistemological}{\f
s17 acausalism}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 professes}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 kn
ow }
17 if}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 non-causalit
y}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 universe.}{\fs17 We}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 to}{\
fs17 choose}{\fs17 between }
17 the}{\fs17 two;}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 express}{\fs17 s
eemingly}{\fs17 acausal}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 univer
se}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 causal }
17 or}{\fs17 non-causal.}{\fs17 For}{\fs17 this,}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 detailed}{
\fs17 analysis}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 paradoxical}{\fs17 place}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 Laplacean }
17 causalism}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 he
lp. }
{\fs16 113}{\fs16 R.}{\fs16 R.}{\fs16 Sharma,}{\fs16 Realistic}{\fs16 Foun
dations}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Cosmology}{\fs16 (The}{\
fs16 Beginning}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Real- }
49 {\fs16 istic}{\fs16 Science)}{\fs16 (Chandigarh:}{\fs16 Abhishek}{\fs16 P
ublications,}{\fs16 2002),}{\fs16 173. }

\fi6061 {\fs17 131 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs21 \cf0 5.3. Paradoxes of Laplacean Determinism in QM
f0 {\b0 \fs18 In}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 following}{\b0 \fs18 chapters}{\b0
\fs18 I}{\b0 \fs18 attempt}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 bear}{\b0 \fs18 out}{\
b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 above}{\b0 \fs18 conclusions}{\b0 \fs18 by}{\b0 \fs1
8 tak- }
\b0 \fs18 ing}{\b0 \fs18 access}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 results}{\b0 \fs1
8 in}{\b0 \fs18 QM.}{\b0 \fs18 To}{\b0 \fs18 state}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0
\fs18 case}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Laplacean}{\b0 \fs18 causalism}{\b0
\fs18 with }
\b0 \fs18 respect}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 QM,}{\b0 \fs18 we}{\b0 \fs18 may}
{\b0 \fs18 put}{\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 gist}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 Unce
rtainty}{\b0 \fs18 Principle,}{\b0 \fs18 one}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\
b0 \fs18 foun- }
\b0 \fs18 dations}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 QM:}{\b0 \fs18 "There}{\b0 \fs18
are}{\b0 \fs18 pairs}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 parameters,}{\b0 \fs18 known}{
\b0 \fs18 as}{\b0 \fs18 conjugate}{\b0 \fs18 variables, }
\b0 \fs18 for}{\b0 \fs18 which}{\b0 \fs18 it}{\b0 \fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 imposs
ible}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 have}{\b0 \fs18 a}{\b0 \fs18 precisely}{\b0 \f
s18 determined}{\b0 \fs18 value}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 each}{\b0 \fs18 me
m- }
\b0 \fs18 ber}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 pair}{\b0 \fs18 at
}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 same}{\b0 \fs18 time."}{\b0\up006 \fs10 114}{\b
0 \fs18 Notice}{\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 this}{\b0 \fs18 definition}{\b0
\fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 Laplacean }
\b0 \fs18 expectation}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 term}{\b0 \fs18 'precisely}{\
b0 \fs18 determine',}{\b0 \fs18 on}{\b0 \fs18 which}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs1
8 classical}{\b0 \fs18 concept}{\b0 \fs18 of }
\b0 \fs18 causality}{\b0 \fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 based. }
fi226 {\b0 \fs18 Why}{\b0 \fs18 should}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 lack}{\b0 \f
s18 of}{\b0 \fs18 precise}{\b0 \fs18 measurement}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 t
he}{\b0 \fs18 parameters}{\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 uncer- }
\b0 \fs18 tainty}{\b0 \fs18 relation}{\b0 \fs18 indicate}{\b0 \fs18 lack}{\b0
\fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 causation?}{\b0 \fs18 Outside}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18
our}{\b0 \fs18 measuring}{\b0 \fs18 there}{\b0 \fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 no }
\b0 \fs18 measurement,}{\b0 \fs18 but}{\b0 \fs18 only}{\b0 \fs18 processes}{\
b0 \fs18 as}{\b0 \fs18 they}{\b0 \fs18 are.}{\b0 \fs18 We}{\b0 \fs18 with}{
\b0 \fs18 our}{\b0 \fs18 apparatuses}{\b0 \fs18 are}{\b0 \fs18 not }
\b0 \fs18 able}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 determine}{\b0 \fs18 simultaneously}{
\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 two}{\b0 \fs18 quantities}{\b0 \fs18 that}{\b0 \fs1
8 pertain}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 micro- }
\b0 \fs18 world}{\b0 \fs18 at}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 level}{\b0 \fs18 tha
t}{\b0 \fs18 QM}{\b0 \fs18 deals}{\b0 \fs18 with.}{\b0 \fs18 That}{\b0 \fs18
is,}{\b0 \fs18 this}{\b0 \fs18 impossibility}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 dete
rmination }
\b0 \fs18 may}{\b0 \fs18 be}{\b0 \fs18 for}{\b0 \fs18 classical}{\b0 \fs18 Q
M}{\b0 \fs18 specialists}{\b0 \fs18 so}{\b0 \fs18 "in}{\b0 \fs18 principle".
}{\b0 \fs18 But,}{\b0 \fs18 from}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 possibility}{\b0
\fs18 that }
\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 determination}{\b0 \fs18 process}{\b0 \fs18 could}{\
b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 future}{\b0 \fs18 belong}{\b0 \fs18 t
o}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 ever}{\b0 \fs18 more}{\b0 \fs18 micro-, }
\b0 \fs18 nano-,}{\b0 \fs18 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\b0 \f
s18 and}{\b0 \fs18 other}{\b0 \fs18 orders}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 minuten
ess}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 physical,}{\b0 \fs18 I}{\b0 \fs1
8 take}{\b0 \fs18 'determination' }
\b0 \fs18 here}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 be}{\b0 \fs18 just}{\b0 \fs18 "epist
emically}{\b0 \fs18 practical",}{\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 each}{\b0 \fs18 and
}{\b0 \fs18 every}{\b0 \fs18 one}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 these}{\b0 \fs18
orders}{\b0 \fs18 of }
\b0 \fs18 minuteness}{\b0 \fs18 -}{\b0 \fs18 not}{\b0 \fs18 as}{\b0 \fs18 an
}{\b0 \fs18 absolute}{\b0 \fs18 lack}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 determinacy,}{
\b0 \fs18 but}{\b0 \fs18 as}{\b0 \fs18 partial.}{\b0 \fs18 For}{\b0 \fs18 t
his,}{\b0 \fs18 the }
\b0 \fs18 following}{\b0 \fs18 discussion}{\b0 \fs18 by}{\b0 \fs18 Wheeler}{\
b0 \fs18 may}{\b0 \fs18 be}{\b0 \fs18 cited}{\b0 \fs18 as}{\b0 \fs18 attest
ation: }
f0 \fi226 {\b0 \fs15 One}{\b0 \fs15 can}{\b0 \fs15 substitute}{\b0 \fs15 for}
{\b0 \fs15 Heisenberg's}{\b0 \fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 103 \\f Symbol }}
}{\b0 \fs15 -ray}{\b0 \fs15 microscope}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 measurement}
{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 position}{\b0 \fs15 by }
f0 \fi226 {\b0 \fs15 means}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 light}{\b0 \
fs15 quantum}{\b0 \fs15 sent}{\b0 \fs15 out}{\b0 \fs15 toward}{\b0 \fs15 th
e}{\b0 \fs15 object}{\b0 \fs15 at}{\b0 \fs15 time}{\b0 \fs15 t }{\b0\dn006 \
fs8 1}{\b0 \fs15 ,}{\b0 \fs15 reflected}{\b0 \fs15 by}{\b0 \fs15 it,}{\b0 \f
s15 and}{\b0 \fs15 re- }
fi226 {\b0 \fs15 ceived}{\b0 \fs15 at}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 position}{\b0
\fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 emission}{\b0 \fs15 at}{\b0 \fs15 time}
{\b0 \fs15 t }{\b0\dn006 \fs8 2}{\b0 \fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f S
ymbol }}.}{\b0 \fs15 The}{\b0 \fs15 collision}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{
\b0 \fs15 light}{\b0 \fs15 quantum}{\b0 \fs15 with }\par
}
the object occurred at time
t{\dn006 \fs8 collision} = ({\dn006 \fs8
1t} + t {\dn006 \fs8 2})
the object's position at that time was
x{\dn006 \fs8 collision} = c ({\dn006 \fs8

2t} - t {\dn006 \fs8 1}) \par
}
{\phpg\posx6944\pvpg\posy7103\absw205\absh206 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 (1
) \par
}
) \par
}
However, the times t {\dn006 \fs8 1} and t {\dn006 \fs8 2} cannot be measured
exactly because the light quantum's field
\par}{\phpg\posx1247\pvpg\posy8101\absw6145\absh1396 \sl-163 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 had
to have a finite extension, to be denoted by {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f S
ymbol }}x. Its frequency, hence, is indeterminate
the extent c / {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}x, its energy had an un
certainty hc / {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}x, and its momentum h/{\f
ield{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}x. It
\par}{\phpg\posx1247\pvpg\posy8101\absw6145\absh1396 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 imp
arted twice its momentum to the particle; thus even if the momentum of this was
\par}{\phpg\posx1247\pvpg\posy8101\absw6145\absh1396 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 acc
urately known before the measurement, after the measurement it was uncertain to
\par}{\phpg\posx1247\pvpg\posy8101\absw6145\absh1396 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 abo
ut {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}p{\f20 =} 2hc / {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}x. Hence the measurement described permitted the determi
nation
the position only with an accuracy of the order {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f
Symbol }}x {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 187 \\f Symbol }} hc / {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}p - the conclusion arrived \par
}
114 John Gribbin, Q Is for Quantum: Particle Physics from A to Z (Hyderabad: Un
iversi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10144\absw7063\absh972 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 ties Press, 1998), s.v. "Uncertainty."
{\fs18 132 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 at by Heisenberg. The point is that the measurement described could
be made accurate
26 only if one had a light wave of sharply defined frequency which was at the sa
me time
26 accurately localized in space. The two determinations cannot be met simultane
ously.{\up006 \fs8 115 }
{\fs17 Wheeler}{\fs17 says}{\fs17 further:}{\fs17 "The}{\fs17 conclusion}{\f
s17 we}{\fs17 obtained}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 statistical}{\f
s17 nature:}{\fs17 There }
17 is}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 system}{\fs17
such}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 results}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 measurements}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 x}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 p }

17 would}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 predictable}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 greater}{\fs17 acc
uracies}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 x}{\fs17 and}
{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 p}{\fs17 ."}{\up006 \f
s10 116}{\fs17 As}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 clear}{\fs17 now,}{\fs17 the }
17 level}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 measurement}{\fs17 accuracy}{\fs17 tends}{\fs17 u
s}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 statistical}{\fs17 explanation,}{\fs17 and}{\fs
17 the}{\fs17 con- }
17 cept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 precision}{\fs17 (attempted}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 not}
{\fs17 achieved)}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 absolute}{\fs17 measurements}{\fs17 and}{
\fs17 the }
17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 based}{\fs17 on}{\f
s17 the}{\fs17 old}{\fs17 concepts}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 absolute}{\fs17 place}
{\fs17 and}{\fs17 absolute }
17 time,}{\fs17 present}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 mechanistic}{\fs17 phil
osophies}{\fs17 inclusive}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Laplacean}{\fs17 causalism. }
26 {\fs17 Yet}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 question,}{\fs17 Why}{\fs17 exactly}{\fs17
so}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 fully}{\fs17 (accurately)}{\fs17 determinable?,}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 usually }
17 sought}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 solved}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 within}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 Uncertainty}{\fs17 Principle}{\fs17 epistemologically,}{\fs17
thus}{\fs17 : }
17 The}{\fs17 Uncertainty}{\fs17 Principle}{\fs17 implies}{\fs17 that}{\fs17
(classically)}{\fs17 simultaneous}{\fs17 measurements }
17 of}{\fs17 (differences}{\fs17 in)}{\fs17 pairs}{\fs17 like}{\fs17 p
osition}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 momentum}{\fs17 (along}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 coord
inate), }
17 and}{\fs17 energy}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 time,}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 taken}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 yield}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 real}{
\fs17 extension}{\fs17 and }
17 motion}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 wavicles}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 uncertain
}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 measurement}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 epistemological
}
17 forms}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 space}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 time.}{\fs17 Here}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 categorial}{\fs17 mistake:}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ontologica
l}{\fs17 measure}{\fs17 of }
17 whatever}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 phenomenon}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 taken}
{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 epistemological}{\fs17 measurement }
17 and}{\fs17 attempted}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 solved}{\fs17 there
with}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 representing}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs1
7 real. }
17 Accuracy}{\fs17 belongs}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 (epistemic)}{\fs17 measurements,
}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 (ontological)}{\fs17 re
al }
17 extension}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 motion}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 wavicles.}{\fs17 The

se}{\fs17 measurements}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 expressed,}{\fs17 respec- }
17 tively,}{\fs17 thus:}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs
17 x}{\fs17 }{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 p}{\fs17
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 179 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 {\f63 \u295\'3f}}{\fs17 ,}{
\fs17 and}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 E}{\fs17 }{
\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 t}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fl
dinst SYMBOL 179 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 {\f63 \u295\'3f}}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17 where}{
\fs17 {\f63 \u295\'3f}}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 Planck's}{\fs17 constant}{\fs17 h}{
\fs17 divided }
17 by}{\fs17 2{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 112 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 (to}{\fs17 e
xpress}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 value}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 angular}{\fs17 momentum),}{
\fs17 and}{\fs17 h}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 187 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17
6.63}{\fs17 }{\fs17 10}{\up006 \fs10 -34}{\fs17 J.s,}{\fs17 or }
17 4.10}{\fs17 }{\fs17 10}{\up006 \fs10 -15}{\fs17 eV.s. }
26 {\fs17 Here}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 experimental}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 physicist}{\f
s17 and}{\fs17 probabilistic-causalist}{\fs17 philosopher }
17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 perhaps}{\fs17 forget}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\
fs17 obtained}{\fs17 accuracy}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 lack}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
it}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 epis- }
17 temic}{\fs17 indices}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 amount}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 expected}{\fs17 correspondence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 measu
rement }
17 with}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 reality}{\fs17 really}{\fs17 is,
}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 least}{\fs17 this
}{\fs17 because}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 only }
17 work}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 science}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 terms}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 t
he}{\fs17 measure}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 correspondence,}{\fs17 howev
er}{\fs17 bad }
17 the}{\fs17 crass}{\fs17 expressions}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 correspo
ndence}{\fs17 theory}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 knowing}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 truth}{\fs17
is.}{\fs17 The }
17 obtained}{\fs17 accuracy}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 lack}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 it}{\fs
17 need}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 statements}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 what}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 stuff}{\fs17 as }
17 such}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 alle
gedly}{\fs17 non-causal}{\fs17 expressions.}{\fs17 They}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 j
ust}{\fs17 measures }
17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 fixed}{\fs17 measures.
}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 say}{\fs17 thereby}{\fs17 that}{\fs1
7 measurement}{\fs17 is }
17 useless}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 grasp}{\fs17 anything}{\fs17 real.}{\fs17 Inste
ad,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 claim}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 lack}{
\fs17 of}{\fs17 accuracy}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not }\par
}
115 John Archibald Wheeler and Wojciech Hubert Zurek, Eds., Quantum Theory and

349 Measurement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 263-264.
Wheeler and Zurek, Eds., Quantum Theory and Measurement, 267.
\fi6061 {\fs17 133 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 to be alleged to be the way the measured processes really are, but only as
the way
measurements are. This discussion entitles us to conclude that probabilistic\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
alist QM's derailment of the Universal Law of Causality is the result
of a
gory mistake.
26 Within the orthodox version of the Uncertainty Principle, the solution would
nd only on the results of statistical measurements, and not on the extent of
icability of the ontology of statistical physical statements to the QM objects
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (wav
icles) and their causality. The orthodox version is epistemological in
that
deals with the statistical predictability of the microphysical event; a
nd it is
ontologically founded enough, since it cannot explain the state of affairs in
s of the reality of physical causal processes in extension-motion. We know,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we h
ave no other way but statistical measurement. But why should for that rea\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 son
the question be solved solely epistemologically from the Uncertainty Princi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ple,
and not from the causal ontology of it all, without which (i.e., the latter) we
permanent difficulties about the existence of any amount of causation
in
ics? The epistemological concept of precision can be physical-ontologically
ified, whereas the physical-ontological concept of precision can be justified
ly epistemologically only if it is done without the presupposition of
the
ally existent nature of any processes in extension-motion between any two
al-physical processes.
26 The theoretical problem we face in the Uncertainty Principle is that an elec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tron
is actually statistically "perceived" with a definite momentum to be neither
tly here (with respect to a relative position) nor there (which too is measured
respect to a relative scale), nor to be with a definite energy at a specific ti
me
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (bot
h relative to scales). The moment we measure one "quantity" which occurs
in objects in extension-motion, it is already qualified by the addit
ional
titative contribution of energy from the medium of observation projected
he instrument, namely, by the photon ejected onto the to-be-observed parti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cle
in motion, thus making it quantitatively different in energy and in whatever
ted quantities.
26 But could not humanity one day develop microphysical instruments tha
t
also measure (at least statistically) these simultaneous causal contributions
d on a large number of inputs and give necessary allowances for the
in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7286\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exac
tness of the measurement of the momentum (in the case cited), and th
us
rmine that the processes therein are more probably causal throughout, and
non-causal? The accuracies in subatomic physics today are hundreds or even
sands of times higher than before a century - an indication that thi
s can
her improve. This is stated by Hameka in the specific case of the Schrdinger
tion thus: "Today highly accurate solutions of the Schrdinger equation for
134 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 relatively large molecules can be obtained. This is due to the concerted e
ffort of
scientists and also to the introduction of high-speed computers. We may
lude that the majority of the problems involving the application of quantum
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mech
anics to atomic and molecular structure calculations have been solved."{\up006 \

fs10 117 }
26 From a general viewpoint, it can be either (1) that reality in itself and its
parts
always merely statistical, irrespective of our involvement using a medium of
rvention, or (2) that we are not able as of now to measure these values due to
of adequate microphysical apparatuses and sufficiently broad and inclusive
ries, or (3) that we shall never be able to measure these values wi
th abso\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lute
exactness but only ever better approximate onto any actual (real) values of
on of particles.
26 The reason for these could be that there always are ever more minute and ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tens
ive causal influences on a certain object or event or process and, additionally,
ourse, we will not have absolutely adequate apparatuses at any point in his\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tory
. None of these three need to exclude each other in an adequate solution for
ality in QM. We do not have to insist on eternal human inability to at least
out that in spite of the causal interaction (disturbance) and the resultant lac
k
xactness in measurement there are some real causal processes going on there,
not mere "statistical" processes. This is the crux of the human ability to gen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eral
ize and the obligation still to be unsure of the definitions and formulations
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of g
eneralizations. Could there be anything merely statistical and simultaneously
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal therein, which prohibits us from generalizing in this manner?
26 In fact, what happens with respect to any attempted solution for the causalis
t/
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausalist impasse in QM is that one maintains position (1) above on
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 feeb
le foundation of (2). (One cannot go against position (3), since such a move
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 beli
es the very history and aim of science.) Or, one argues partially in accord\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ance
with position (3): that there occurs a major (in fact, causal) alteration of th
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 elec
tron that is hit, mainly due to the mutual comparability of energy of the pho\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ton
that hits the electron, with the energy of the electron that is hit by it - whic
h
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alte

ration facilitates the apparatus's detection of only the altered momentum of
electron at the determined position.
26 It is to be remarked here that this claim does not follow the full potential
of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 posi
tion (3). That is, it does not determine whether the situation is due to unde\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tect
ed causal influences, or due to inadequacy in apparatuses (i.e., their not being
iciently compatible to the micro-world), or due to both or due to any other
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7318\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fanc
y thing. If anyone maintains that the apparatuses are perfect as of now, then \p
ar
}
117 Hameka, Quantum Mechanics, 22. \par
}
35 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 it belies the history of perfection of apparatuses in QM experiments, whic
h to\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 day
are able to detect the motion of individual particles (whereas the older ones
d not). So I maintain: orthodox QM does not look into the causal question
he face.
26 The altered momentum was anyway a causal effect since the photon has hit
electron and transferred the energy. This is doubtless by the very t
heory,
ods, axioms and the resultant experiments of physics. From the very first
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stag
e of the experiment, the transition now from the causal to the non-causal re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 main
s causally (or in any other manner) unexplained. The requirement that the
sition is to be explained is, to my knowledge, never mentioned in any trea\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tise
. The protagonists of the non-causal or acausal interpretation have conveni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 entl
y forgotten this region of doubts. The statistical interpretation of things that
ld be conceived as causal in QM is thus the conveniently combined result
ne of the first two positions above, or a mixture of both of them, or, if the

rpretation does not vouch for a full-fledged causal interpretation as of now,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a mi
xture of both with possible causal interpretation of the last (forgotten) stage.
26 Instead of physical-ontologically accounting for this lacuna of physicists' i
n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abil
ity to explain what is less causal there, it is maintained by adherents of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal and acausal interpretations that the uncertainty that plays between
tion and momentum at a given time is due to the dual nature of the
elec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tron
.{\up006 \fs10 118} It is also maintained that we, with our statistical readings
(which are epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temi
c acts) of actual hit-recordings (which are of minute but individual causal
esses) of the events (due to micro-inadequacy in apparatuses), can only get
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 near
the parameter {\f63 \u295\'3f} by multiplying the uncertainties in position and
momen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tum.
If the two stages after the causal intervention by a photon cannot be caus\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
explained, then the problem here is again causal, since the cause of the next
stages solves the problem. The causal solution is not against statistical de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scri
ptions and readings. Instead, we are against the non-causalist positivism and
rumentalism regarding statistical reading and statistics as such.
26 What if we can only get too distantly close to the proper causes (and effects
)
to the mesoscopic or macroscopic nature of our measuring rods? Addition\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
, what if the statistical approach does not in any way substitute for admitting
real causation that can only necessarily be active in all possible infinitesimal
ents in the process in question (and thus in the cosmos)? Does it all mean
more than that, ontologically and epistemologically speaking, in physic
s
gs subatomic are expressible by our measuring rods merely statistically and \par
}
118 John Gribbin, Q Is for Quantum, s.v. "Uncertainty."
{\fs17 136 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 not causally? Is this to be so even when we hypothetically attain to a sta
te of sci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
in which we have apparatuses comparable to the micro-world processes,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 say,
at the nano-scale?
26 Even if we admit that we can do it only statistically in both th
e cases, does
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it a
utomatically imply that some acausality or non-causality enters from some\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wher
e after the causal hit on the particle?{\up006 \fs10 119} Ontologically, are we
and the world
ted in allowing knowledge of all the inner depths of causal processes in the
d and in consciousness? Should this obstruct us from holding that eve
ry
ess is causal, if non-causality cannot be a process in any manner? In the face
this question there is no reason why the Descartes-Hume-Kant-Positivism\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM a
lliance stands. This basic standpoint is still relevant today, if the physically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tena
ble ontological core of Laplace's causalism yields this in end-effect.
26 The discussion in the previous paragraphs was not so much an argum
ent
causal all-pervasiveness in physics, but a suggestion as to why the projected
sality could be explained only by taking into account and explaining what
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sort
of (and how) non-causal physical processes, if at all, could transpi
re after
initial action of causation upon a micro-particle or -wavicle. The po
ssible
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 crit
ique that here my concept of particles is of old metaphysics cannot stay, since
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I br
ing in just the opposite of it, i.e., a processual concept of all that exists (a
s is
r in all the foregoing passages). The question is not whether the pa
rticles
waves are one or two, but whether they physically exist and cause c
ausal
esses always and whenever. The latter part of the causal process of photonal

rvention is also a physical state, with respect to which QM tries to measure
quantities of position, momentum, etc. \par
}
119 Similar meso- and macro-world causal problems to be mentioned are those tha
t have
349 to do with human freedom of action, the development of consciousness, social
and
349 legal decisions and developments, catastrophic natural or social development
s, the
349 black hole- and cosmological singularities, etc. Since physics in general ad
mits cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7506\absw7222\absh3346 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 sality and some orthodox QM representatives do not admit it in a few regions
of
349 physics, I investigate here why. As regards Hume's, Kant's and other philoso
phers'
349 epistemological and anti-metaphysical calling to question of "causality as a
nything
349 beyond ways of doing or categories of sensing and understanding", I have dis
cussed
349 the question here in short. The basic ontological problem in them is discuss
ed in my
349 Physics without Metaphysics? There I have tried to show that what we need fo
r causal
349 ontology, against the epistemological stands of Hume and Kant, is ontologica
l com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7506\absw7222\absh3346 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 mitment to there existing something or other - not just this or that thing as the
349 essential presupposition in all language, thought and life. This "something"
infuses
349 the phenomenal into the noumenal.
\fi6061 {\fs17 137 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 I have been attempting to show, from within the relatively
high verity of
ain results of QM, that any physical state is yielded by causal action and so
al ubiquity will have to be the case in the QM world. By this the "partially
al" and/or "partially non-causal / acausal" interpretations of QM shoul
d
me physical-ontologically less fundamental and hence superfluous for the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 purp
oses of the ontology of physics and cosmology and the philosophy of
the
ical and mathematical sciences. This position, that I would like to advocate,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is f
ound seminally but in elementary shape in Laplacean causalism minus atom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 isti
c mechanism, as discussed in the pages above.
26 Within the present chapter it suffices to point out that it is difficult for
science,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as o
f now, to experimentally conceive of matter in any of its near-infinitesimal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (i.e
., not yet infinitesimal) parts simultaneously, (1) as acausal or non-causal wit
h
ect to their finitely near-infinitesimal effects - in case there is partial non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
ality or acausality in Nature - since there can always be further more infini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tesi
mal levels of states of and causal access to matter-energy -, and (2) as causal
ly with respect to their finitely near-infinitesimal effects from beyond the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM-l
evel of access - here (also) because there can always be more minute levels
ccess, measurement and effect in the near-infinitesimal direction. At a more
te than the presently admitted quark- or sub-quark level it is very difficult
f now to demonstrate causal connections experimentally. But that is insuffi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cien
t justification to say that the resultant statistical state of affairs of our kn
owl\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 edge
is the ontological non-causal nature of the micro-world.
26 Further, any argument of the alleged "indeterminateness of matter" i
n the
sense cannot affect the ultimate need for ontological commitment to
tence of causal processual somethings in every pore of matter-energy.
The
rminateness-question I posit is of the definitely existent causally pro
ces\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sual
matter-energy behind the causal-ontological determinateness or quantum\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mech
anistically
insufficiently
reasoned
probabilistic
indeterminateness
of
er-energy. This shows only that the statistical indeterminateness in QM is
temologically the need dictated by the statistics that happens to be applied to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 read
ings from the micro-world in QM. This is an epistemic state of affairs, and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 no o
ntological lack of determinateness / causation.
26 I do not argue that this epistemological variety of indeterminateness should
occur in QM - instead, that this does not mean that Nature has to be statisti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y epistemologically indeterminate as stuff (i.e., as whatever it is). The allege
d
terminateness of matter-energy must not in any way be taken as ontological,
e matter primarily exists with its causal-processual nature. How it ca
n be
logically of indeterminate status is totally unknown. The causal-processual
re is not the same as the statistically epistemological limit-situation in natur
e
138 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 and in human knowledge, which delimits our capacity to fathom (to determin
e)
the unlimited depths of processes in any part of Nature and the capacity of
re to mediate itself to the cognizing mind. The causal-processual concept
atter-energy is therefore no mechanistic or classical concept of matter, but a
ept that is acceptable and relevant today.
26 The first argument, (1) above, is Laplacean probabilism, from within
QM;
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (2)is
Laplacean mechanistic causalism couched in the statistical terminology
perspectival absolutism, i.e., saying that the present perspective of s
cience
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perm
itted by the current state of physical information is the absolutely
per\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fect
explanation of the phenomena in question. That argument is perspectiv
al
lutism, as it is implied from within non-causalist QM due to the unavoidable

here to see partial causality realized somewhere at the start of the process
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (due
to the electronal or photonal intervention) and the purported causal igno\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ranc
e about the second stage of the process, especially regarding the continuity
the initial, temporally more past, causes coming from the past of the
very
al chain (and perhaps contributed to by other causal chains) over the non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
al stage into a later stage where there is causation again. From the second
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal stage of the process it is clear that the initial cause is detached in no
n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
alist QM insofar as the intervention is acknowledged and thereafter comes
istical non-causality from nowhere. Here is a failure of rational connection.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Ihave
questioned here just this lack.
26 Therefore, the challenge in the very idea of QM causality is that
of some\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 how
explaining what seems to be non-causal or acausal, especially from within
current layers of access of theory and experiment, in terms of an adequate
retical concept subsuming the possible initial chains of causation, if needed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a t
horoughly clarified and renewed one. This would serve to save the cau
sal /
sal / non-causal dilemma in contemporary science. In the absence of such
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7215\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 an e
xplanation, one incurs perspectival absolutism. \par
}
39 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 6. Ontological Commitment
i1464 in Quantum Physics \par
}
\cf0 6.1. Objectual-ness, Ontological Commitment,

\fi481 Subjectivity, Objectivity
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 Later}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 present}{\b0
\fs17 work}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 deal}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 wha
t}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 termed}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs1
7 analysis}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 place}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 strains}{\b0 \fs1
7 in}{\b0 \fs17 various}{\b0 \fs17 fundamental}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 the
ories.}{\b0 \fs17 In}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 present}{\b0 \fs17 sec- }
{\b0 \fs17 tion}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 discuss}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
basic}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 precondition}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0
\fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 strain}{\b0 \fs17 analysis}{\b0 \f
s17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0 \fs17 -}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 they}{\b0 \fs17
micro}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 macro}{\b0 \fs17 -}{\b0 \fs17 namely,}
{\b0 \fs17 objectual-ness}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 ontological }
{\b0 \fs17 commitment.}{\b0 \fs17 Here}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \f
s17 not}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 taken}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b
0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 purely}{\b0 \fs17 epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 term}{
\b0 \fs17 like }
{\b0 \fs17 'objective'.}{\b0 \fs17 'Objectual-ness'}{\b0 \fs17 means}{\b0 \fs1
7 what}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 presupposed}{\b0 \f
s17 behind}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 constructs,}{\b0 \fs17 i.e.,}{\b0 \fs1
7 behind}{\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 at}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\
b0 \fs17 realm}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 knowing.}{\b0 \fs17 And }
{\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 epistemologically}{\b0 \fs17 take}{\
b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 objectual}{\b0
\fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 result}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 an }
{\b0 \fs17 ontologico-epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 act}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \f
s17 a}{\b0 \fs17 purely}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 result,}{\b0 \
fs17 namely,}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 act}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 commitment. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 So}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 everything}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0
\fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 (and}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 discourse}{\b0 \fs17 in}
{\b0 \fs17 general)}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 kept}{\b0 \fs17 more}{\b0 \fs17
realistic }
{\b0 \fs17 than}{\b0 \fs17 imaginary,}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 need}{\b0 \
fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 objectual}{\b0 \fs17
counterpart}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 sta
tes }
{\b0 \fs17 discussed}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM,}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 w
hich}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 whole}{\b0 \fs17 discourse}{\b0 \fs17 is.}{\b
0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 states}{\b0 \fs17 behind }
{\b0 \fs17 these}{\b0 \fs17 so-called}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 states}{\b0 \f
s17 (even}{\b0 \fs17 before}{\b0 \fs17 incurring}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 o
ur}{\b0 \fs17 part}{\b0 \fs17 any}{\b0 \fs17 judgment}{\b0 \fs17 that }

{\b0 \fs17 they}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 real}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 imag
inary}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 statistically}{\b0 \fs17 epistemological)}{\b0
\fs17 require}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 ontological }
{\b0 \fs17 commitment}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 there}{\b0 \fs17 being}{\b0
\fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0 \fs17 behind}{\b0 \fs17 them,}{\
b0 \fs17 namely,}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 onto- }
{\b0 \fs17 logical}{\b0 \fs17 states}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
micro-world}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 QM.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 resists
}{\b0 \fs17 satisfaction}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 purely }
{\b0 \fs17 empirical}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 detriment}{\b0 \
fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 presupposition. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 Objectual-ness}{\b0 \fs17 requires}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
all}{\b0 \fs17 true}{\b0 \fs17 epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 facts}{\b0 \fs17
some}{\b0 \fs17 purely}{\b0 \fs17 ontologi- }
{\b0 \fs17 cal}{\b0 \fs17 presupposition.}{\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 objectual
-ness}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 thing}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
theory}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 pure, }
{\b0 \fs17 because}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 epistemic}{\b0 \fs17 activity}{\
b0 \fs17 behind}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 ontol
ogical}{\b0 \fs17 presupposition,}{\b0 \fs17 i.e., }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 commitment}{\b0 \fs17 presup
poses}{\b0 \fs17 behind}{\b0 \fs17 our}{\b0 \fs17 very}{\b0 \fs17 concept}{\
b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 thing's }
{\b0 \fs17 being}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 process}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 su
ch}{\b0 \fs17 whatever,}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 merely}{\b0 \fs17 behind}{
\b0 \fs17 our}{\b0 \fs17 perception}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 under- }
{\b0 \fs17 standing}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 under}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 surveillance}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 (broad)
}{\b0 \fs17 categories.}{\b0 \fs17 Objectual-}{\b0 \fs17 ness }
{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 r
eason}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 commitment}{\b0 \fs17
in}{\b0 \fs17 concepts}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 proposi- }
{\b0 \fs17 tions,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 merely}{\b0 \fs17
vice}{\b0 \fs17 versa.}{\b0 \fs17 Hence,}{\b0 \fs17 let}{\b0 \fs17 us}{\b0
\fs17 call}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 basis}{\b0 \fs1
7 named }
{\b0 \fs17 objectual-ness}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ontologi
cal}{\b0 \fs17 condition}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 talk}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\
b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 object}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 process. }
{\b0 \fs17 Objectual-ness}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \
fs17 being's}{\b0 \fs17 being}{\b0 \fs17 such}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
such,}{\b0 \fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 being}{\b0 \fs17 someth
ing}{\b0 \fs17 , }
{\b0 \fs17 something}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 process,}{\b0
\fs17 just}{\b0 \fs17 that,}{\b0 \fs17 just}{\b0 \fs17 so,}{\b0 \fs17 just
}{\b0 \fs17 such,}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 they}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 i
ndependently }
{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 thinking}{\b0 \fs17 mind.}{\b0 \fs
17 We}{\b0 \fs17 do}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 need}{\b0 \fs17 another}
{\b0 \fs17 post-Cartesian,}{\b0 \fs17 post-Humean, }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 141 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 post-Kantian, post-Husserlian, or post-Wittgensteinian argument to show th
is.
he sense of its purely ontological status with respect to things or processes
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - se
cond only to that of the To Be of Reality - a being is something in general,
thing in physical process, and hence causal too - due to its objectual-ness.
26 Ontological commitment is thus the oriented nature of propositions a
nd con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
s to something concretely ('concrete' does not mean 'in complete mechanistic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 isol
ation') existent in the state of there being processes within and without, under
r objectual-ness. Ontological commitment and the quality of the some-thing
bjectual together imply the extension-motion nature and the epistemological
uremental-spatiotemporality of all that is ontologically committable to. The
ctual-realistic kernel of all discourse is based most generally on the objectual
rality yielded by ontological commitment.
26 The cropping up of the issues of causation and probabilistic subjec
tivity in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM i
s to some extent due to lack of philosophical clarity about the terms 'causa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
', 'determination', 'determinism', 'objectivity', 'subjectivity' and 'free
dom'. We
defined and explained the first three elsewhere, and do not elaborate on the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rema
ining terms directly here, but clarify them wherever we use them majorly
he course of elaborate explanations on the respective terms. The concept of
dom is not to be touched upon in the present work.
26 As is clear from our considerations on ontological commitment, the

term
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'sub
jectivity' can be understood only with the givenness of objectivity of percep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s, statements and discourse of the token / process at objectual consideration,
ver vague. Subjectivity may be defined as the cumulatively "qualitative
"
eptual result of (vaguely or clearly) conscious activity in which (vag
ue or
r) universals and notions arise in the process of feeling, attitude, cognition
conceptualisation. In subjectivity are present additionally the ingredients of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 feel
ing, attitude, etc., which play in the formation of perception, cognition and
eptualisation.{\up006 \fs10 120 }\par
}
120 I hold that perception, cognition, conceptualisation, feeling, attitude etc
. qualify each
349 other and qualify the resultant act, and does not simply take place in short
pulses of
349 acts of absolute freedom from causation. "Qualification" is causal accentuat
ion or
349 diminution or differentiation of quantitative intensity, which increases or
decreases
349 self-causation in particular conscious or less conscious acts of the subject
. The phi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8386\absw7288\absh2554 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 losophy of consciousness / soul taking shape from here will take, in my opin
ion, the
349 route (1) of integral understanding and reconciliation of general causation
with the
349 extent of freedom in humans, living beings and the cosmos, and (2) of adequa
tely
349 processual understanding of the ever more sublime formation or enha
ncement
349 of self-determination or self-causation that is called freedom withi
n unbounded
{\fs17 142 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 What can this quality be but what is based on objectually real proc
esses and
t objectual processes based in turn on ontological commitment (the ori
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enta
tion of all perceptions and statements to somethings)? A subject is also pri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mari
ly an object by reason of the presupposed (and more general) ontological
itment, i.e., by the very objectual-ness of the subject given in the ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
commitment of the subject's self-perception. Otherwise we would have to say
there are no subjects that exist as objects at all. For this reaso
n whatever
ens in the subject has to be really of the order of extension-motion or ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plai
ned in terms of extension-motion. It is not a merely quality without reference
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to p
hysical extension-motion. This explains things subjective and qualitative to
esses of the order of extension-motion. Therefore the question of distinction
een objectual-ness, objectivity and subjectivity should be settled by reduc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of all subject-based non-causalism and acausalism to causalism based
on
nsion-motion, which shares in the objectual nature of Nature - every pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
in it including of the object called subject and its quality called freedom.
26 This much is briefly mentioned in order to distinguish objectual-nes
s from
epistemologically qualified objectivity of statements and include the subject
the world of objects of the order of extension-motion. Within the sub
ject's
ciousness is the epistemic (ideational, cognitive or sensible) event ta
king
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plac
e, yielding objectivity to statements. Objectual-ness pertains to the o
bject
its nature as "something", which is at the orientational terminus of
ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
commitment. The epistemological is what is given theoretically in the epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temi
c activity pertaining conceptually to the objectual-ness of the terminu
s of
logical commitment. And the ontological is what is generally given in
the
ctual-ness of the orientation (of ontological commitment) of perception
and
ements (and discourse in general) within the backdrop of all that is - other\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wise
the ontological will be of isolated things / processes without theoretical con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7199\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nexi
ty to other things / processes. Thus, objectual-ness of individual processes \pa
r
}
universal causation which is instantiated in individual processes. The
subjectivist
\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy8386\absw6983\absh2554 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 cla
im that epistemic or conceptual appropriation of the causes of all that are "fre
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy8386\absw6983\absh2554 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 dec
isions or actions" is impossible does not suspend ontological commitment to the
\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy8386\absw6983\absh2554 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 who
le causal horizon of it. This will explain all perception, cognition and concept
u\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy8386\absw6983\absh2554 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 ali
sation within the universal causal framework whereof self-causation forms part.
whole meaning of freedom, of its relation to universal causation and of materia
l\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy8386\absw6983\absh2554 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 ist
determinationism in the philosophy of consciousness / soul can become holistic,
\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy8386\absw6983\absh2554 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 whe
n a physics-and-philosophy-compatible cosmology and a passable concept of an
\par}{\phpg\posx1369\pvpg\posy8386\absw6983\absh2554 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 inf
initely active Divine are brought in. Such a reconciliation of universal causati
on
individual freedom is postponed as the theme for a detailed volume.
\fi5712 {\fs17 143 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 in their something-ness is the terminus of ontological commitment within t
he
drop of discourse of all that is, since discourse itself can be of Reality-in-to
tal
should have an objectual background yielding ontological commitment
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (ori
entation) to perceptions and statements.
26 If we follow the essential reasons for the reality of the quanton{\up006 \fs1
0 121} (quantum
icle) through any possible forms of logic with some content of realis
m in

logic, and if we succeed in theoretically making the physical existen
ce of
wavicle or quanton in whatever manner possible - then we are enabled, by
logical commitment to there being something real behind the orientation,
conclude that we need to find an interpretation other than the acausa
l and
non-causal for the QM world, because process is only measurementally spa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tiot
emporal but in reality it is of the order of extension-motion, and thus most
ably causal.
26 Ontological commitment commits (or, is oriented) (1) to only the "g
eneral
reteness of existence" as such, as something real, and (2) not to the "meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ured
form of exactness of material existence" as such (as in measuremental spa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ceti
me description), i.e., ontological commitment commits (is oriented) not to
the reality of the process is described by specific measurements of the theo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reti
cally concluded entities spoken of in scientific, empirical terms.
26 Reference is always characterized by ontological commitment-orientation to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 toke
n entities; and also to types or natural kinds which have directly individu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ated
objectual, processual instantiations in tokens. That is, ontological commit\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
does not guarantee that its terms refer to actuals with all the minute details
he same descriptions as we may give in statistical and other measurements in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 orde
r to have exactly corresponding homologues in the world. These actuals are
vidual processes as they actually transpire.
26 Anything described of them does not exist as such as given in practical de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scri
ption or theory, because all that is said is theory-laden and at each instance
nature just epistemic circumscriptions - here 'theory' meaning all that
the
tical life, culture and language predispose our terms with their symbols and
ings in discourse. This discussion shows that quanta in general should be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 type
s if they exist in process, and individual quanta are the token processes whose
uremental, empirical and statistical descriptions need never be the whole
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7151\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 insc
rutable reality as such of the quanta. In short, the empirical-instrumentalist \
par
}
121 The central referents of the electromagnetic entities are named by Mario Bu
nge as
349 "quantons". Mario Bunge, Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Volume 7, Part I: For
mal and
349 Physical Sciences (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985), 171.
{\fs17 144 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 discussion whether quanta exist is about whether the objectuals of the con
cepts
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of q
uanta exist as and how they are measured and described by physicists. And
question of their existence has to do with their existence as somethings with\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 out
reference to the qualitative and quantitative ascriptions that theory assigns
hem.
{\b \fs21 6.2.}{\b \fs21 Objectual-ness}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Quinean}{\b
\fs21 Quantification }
Perhaps a certain theoretically concluded entity is a fiction, or a theoreticall
y and
rimentally produced term refers to something fictitious. We may determine
some entity is materially existent in some way, that has caused our produc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of the term.{\up006 \fs10 122} This is because, as Quine says, direct reference
is secondary
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to o
ntological commitment, and takes place "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol
}} via the impingement of energy
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 on s
ensory surfaces as this is encapsulated in observation sentences and obser\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vati
on categoricals formed out of them."{\up006 \fs10 123} That is, before any theor
etical term
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (lik
e 'electron') is referred to tokens by existence (i.e., with rather high stake t
o
measuremental spacetime quantities ascribed to them), we already have had
logical commitment to something-s. Such ontological commitment presup\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pose
s the objectual-ness of the thing or process behind the reference, and it has
perceptual background however far-fetched. That means, ontological com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mitm
ent in a true judgment is the predisposition for genuine reference.
26 We are not engaged in a theory of truth out of ontological commitment and
rence, and only in stating the truth of ontological commitment as an ontolog\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7284\absh5342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ical
presupposition of existence of what is objectually behind what is considered \p
ar
}
122 YinZhengkun,"TruthandFictioninScientificTheory"(266-267),inRobertS.Cohen,
342 Risto Hilpinen and Qiu Renzong, Eds., Realism and Anti-realism in the Philos
ophy of
342 Science, Beijing International Conference 1992 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic P
ublish\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7286\absw7308\absh3544 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
342 ers, 1996), 267.
Peter Hylton, "Quine on Reference and Ontology" (115-150), in Roger F. Gibson,
352 Jr., The Cambridge Companion to Quine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
,
352 2004), 118. In Kant, categorical judgments are affirmative judgments "compri
sing
352 two concepts related by a copula, typically an attribute (predicate) asserte
d of a sub\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7286\absw7308\absh3544 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
352 stance or thing (subject)." Dictionary of Philosophy, 1982 edition, s.v. "Ca
tegorical
352 (Judgment)." Observation categoricals are categorical judgments about actual
indi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7286\absw7308\absh3544 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
352 vidual tokens (not types). Quine also insists that there is nothing "more af
oot than
352 meets the eye" in ontological commitment. Willard van Orman Quine,
Theories
352 and Things (Cambridge, MA.: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Pres
s,
352 1981), 175. That is, in Quine, reference is not the basic connection languag
e has to
352 the world.
\fi6061 {\fs17 145 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 existent. This means that theoretical statements are not prior to ontologi
cal com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7090\absh4955 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mitm
ent in ontological importance, but they are prior in epistemological a
nd
cal importance. Now see how Quine makes too much of the epistemological
logical importance of ontological commitment.
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 fact}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 reference}{\fs15 is}{\fs15
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 fundamental}{\f
s15 shows}{\fs15 itself}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 fact}{\fs15 that}{\fs1
5 we}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 begin }
26 {\fs15 with}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 set}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 true}{\fs15 sentences,}
{\fs15 a}{\fs15 body}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 is}{\fs15
true,}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 rate}{\fs15 accepted}{\fs15 a
s}{\fs15 true. }
26 {\fs15 Only}{\fs15 when}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 truths}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 in}{\
fs15 place}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 raise}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 question}{\
fs15 of}{\fs15 existence.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 sense, }
26 {\fs15 acceptance}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 sentences}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 prior}{\fs1
5 to}{\fs15 reference,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 truth}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 prior}{\fs
15 to}{\fs15 existence.}{\fs15 Those}{\fs15 ob- }
26 {\fs15 jects}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 given}{\fs15 body}{\fs15 of}{\f
s15 theory}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 about}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 presumably}{\fs15 the}
{\fs15 ones}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 exist}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 that }
26 {\fs15 body}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15
true.}{\fs15 They}{\fs15 are,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 Quine's}{\fs15 words,}{\fs
15 the}{\fs15 ontological}{\fs15 commitment}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 body}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 theory.}{\fs15 How}{\fs15 are}{
\fs15 we}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 understand}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 idea?}{\fs15 For}{
\fs15 Quine,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 answer}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 quan- }
26 {\fs15 tification}{\fs15 theory,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 first-ord
er}{\fs15 logic}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 its}{\fs15 heart.}{\up006 \fs8 124 }
Universals are names of qualities (which I call 'ways of being of beings') that
ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7090\absh4955 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ply
to the many than are types and natural kinds. Types and natural kinds are
ies that instantiate into tokens - e.g., a type of theories, a type of qualities
,
are more towards types and a type of lions is more towards natural kinds.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7090\absh4955 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 To m
ake ontological commitment to real objects / processes (tokens), which are
rete and free of universals in their existence as such, we need to apply the
od of quantification. This is when we follow the truth of objectual processes

okens in statements via logic and perception, and not when we consider ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7090\absh4955 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 iste
nce as such as prior to knowing. I believe Quine does not stress this fact much
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7090\absh4955 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in h
is discussion. \par
}
124 Hylton, "Quine on Reference and Ontology", 122. It is important to note tha
t Frege
349 too has acknowledged the truth-boundedness of reference (Bedeutung).
To quote
349 Wolfgang Carl summarizing Frege's concept of reference: "The truth value of
a sen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6846\absw7222\absh3940 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 tence, as one of the components of his former notion of a judgeable content,
was con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6846\absw7222\absh3940 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 sidered to be its reference. Frege claims: 'The reference is thus shown at e
very point
349 to be the essential thing for science {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symb
ol }} It is by engaging in the quest for truth that
349 we adopt the 'attitude of scientific investigation' [Footnote in the origina
l: Gottlob
349 Frege, Posthumous Writings] {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} and
the quest for truth leads us to an interest in the
349 reference of our expressions. As we shall see, the connections pointed out b
y Frege
349 between reference, judgment and knowledge suggest the view that the referenc
e of
349 sentences constitutes the kernel of his theory of reference and provides the
general
349 framework for the account of the reference of various other kinds of express
ions.
349 The reference to expressions other than sentences will have to be explained
in terms
349 of the contribution these expressions make to the reference of the sentences
within
349 which they occur." Wolfgang Carl, Frege's Theory of Sense and Reference: Its
Origins
349 and Scope (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 116. Square bracket
s give
349 the footnote in the spot.
{\fs17 146 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Without much discussing the above clear citation from Peter Hylton,
I suggest
mprovement to it: Truth, which has to do with statements, cannot be prior
xistence. The truth of existence is posterior to existence, and hence truth of
kind can only be posterior to the corresponding existence. Objects / tokens,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of w
hich a body of theory is, are the ones that must exist if that body of theory
be true. If so, existence is prior to the body of theory and thus also to the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 true
statements pertaining to the existent objects.
26 Quine and perhaps Hylton and others take ontological commitment in gen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eral
as apparent, when a theory is cast in the notation of first-order logic, becaus
e
e the statements are existentially quantified. And in first-order logic, by the
same reason, no further quantified sub-clauses exist in any one quantified
ement. As a result - by reason of first-order quantification - the theory con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tain
s orientation to or implies an elementary object (token) of which the
cor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 resp
onding sentence is true. This object - an argument for the ontologica
lly
itted variable - must exist, if the theory about it is to be true. This does
mean that whatever first-order quantified logic tends to conclude from as\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sump
tion of truth of statements must be true. Instead, it means that if the state\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
s are true the ontological commitment to something specific is also present.
over, since no differences of grades of quantification are admitted, we are at
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a lo
ss as to what the grades ontological commitment granted by layers or grades
erification are, if we are not able to state with direct correspondence-truth (a
s
he case of meso-objects) that an electron truly exists. In logic this is impos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e to think of, but in ontology it must be granted.
26 A universally quantified open sentence implies the existential quantification
he same open sentence. Our focus on existential quantification here is for the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 purp
ose of clarity with respect to ontological commitment. The above discu
s\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
gives a necessary and sufficient condition for the truth (I would say, for the
er truth probability) of a theory: ontological commitment. Quine holds also
ontological quantification in statements and theories is the only way for a
ry to be committed in whatever manner, if it is true. This is clear in his slo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gan,
"To be, I have persistently held, is to be the value of a variable",{\up006 \fs
10 125} which he
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7162\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 defe
nds ably against his critics but from the angle of a characteristically logical
analytical-ontological particularism. This is elucidated by Hylton:
\fi226 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 slogan}{\fs15
'To}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 value}{\fs1
5 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 variable'.}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Sym
bol }}}{\fs15 More}{\fs15 accurately,}{\fs15 'a}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 is}{\f
s15 commit- }
26 {\fs15 ted}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 those}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 those}{\
fs15 entities}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 bound}{\fs15 variab
les}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 be }\par
}
125 W. V. Quine, "Ontology and Ideology Revisited" (499-502), The Journal of Ph
iloso\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10144\absw7249\absh972 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 phy, Vol. LXXX, No. 9, September 1983, 499.
\fi6061 {\fs17 147 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 capable of referring in order that the affirmations made in the the
ory be true. Quine also
26 accepts idioms equivalent to quantification theory as indicating the same com
mitment,
26 even if those idioms do not use variables{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Sy
mbol }}.{\up006 \fs8 126 }
{\fs17 Thus,}{\fs17 names}{\fs17 (which}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 universal-laden}{\
fs17 because}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 theory-laden),}{\fs17 as}{\fs17
the }
17 linguistic}{\fs17 carriers}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 commit
ment,}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 par}{\fs17 with}{\fs17
quantified }

17 variables}{\fs17 (a}{\fs17 quantified}{\fs17 variable}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a
lso}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 particular}{\fs17 /}{\fs17 reality-in-particular)}{\fs17
given }
17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 theoretically}{\fs17 accepted}{\fs17 truth-statement}{
\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 form}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 term}{\fs17 tha
t}{\fs17 refers}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 to }
17 a}{\fs17 token}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 particular}{\fs17 (
which}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 species}{\fs17 in}{\
fs17 older}{\fs17 terminology).}{\fs17 The }
17 special}{\fs17 character}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 commitment}{
\fs17 in}{\fs17 Quine}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 suited}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 quantificat
ion }
17 if}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 denoted}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 affairs}{\fs1
7 or}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 true. }
26 {\fs17 The}{\fs17 status}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 statements}{\fs17 about}{\fs17
particular}{\fs17 entities}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 "tr
ue"}{\fs17 must }
17 now}{\fs17 undergo}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 change:}{\fs17 existential}{\fs17
statements}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 particular}{\fs17 entities,}{\fs17 even }
17 if}{\fs17 fully}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 committed}{\fs17 to,}{\fs
17 are}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 theory-laden}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 those}{\fs17
about }
17 Reality-}{\fs17 in-total.}{\fs17 What}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 truer}{\fs17 is}{\
fs17 thus}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Reality-in-total}{\f
s17 as}{\fs17 whatever }
17 it}{\fs17 is.}{\fs17 We}{\fs17 should,}{\fs17 therefore,}{\fs17 argue}{\
fs17 that}{\fs17 Reality-in-total}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 pr
iori}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 reality- }
17 in-particular}{\fs17 (the}{\fs17 latter}{\fs17 represented}{\fs17 by}
{\fs17 quantified}{\fs17 variables)}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 surely}{\fs17 mu
ch }
17 more}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 token}{\fs17 entities.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 g
uarantees}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 importance}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 who
le}{\fs17 causal }
17 horizon}{\fs17 within}{\fs17 Reality-in-total}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 sets
}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 token}{\fs17 entity}{\fs17 (represented}{\fs17 by}{\f
s17 token }
17 terms)}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 process.}{\fs17 Such}{\fs17 ontolo
gizing}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 possibilize}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 presup- }
17 posed}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 something}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 in}
{\fs17 process}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 order}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 extensio
n-}{\fs17 motion, }
17 over}{\fs17 against}{\fs17 theoretical}{\fs17 terms}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the
}{\fs17 micro-world,}{\fs17 so}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17

horizon}{\fs17 can }
17 work}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 effects}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 processes.}{\fs17 For
}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 specific
}{\fs17 ideal}{\fs17 exist- }
17 ence}{\fs17 (and}{\fs17 ideal}{\fs17 categories).}{\fs17 We}{\fs17 argue
}{\fs17 therefore}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 following}{\fs17 manner. }
26 {\fs17 Not}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 tokens,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 univ
ersals}{\fs17 (ways}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 being}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 beings)}{\fs17
and}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 types }
17 and}{\fs17 natural}{\fs17 kinds}{\fs17 (arrays}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 species}
{\fs17 of}{\fs17 tokens)}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 part}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 existent }
17 objects}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 theo
retical}{\fs17 edifice.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 thing}{\fs17 is}
{\fs17 that}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 must }
17 reductively}{\fs17 understand}{\fs17 them}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs
17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 most}{\fs17 basic}{\fs17 token}{\fs17 processes}{\
fs17 in }
17 their}{\fs17 entirety}{\fs17 (Reality-in-total).}{\fs17 In}{\fs17 their}{
\fs17 entirety,}{\fs17 because}{\fs17 universals}{\fs17 pertain}{\fs17 not
}
17 to}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 few}{\fs17 tokens}{\fs17 but}{\
fs17 to}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 type;}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 ther
e}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 universals}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 apply}{\fs17 to }
17 all}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 are.}{\fs17 It}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 effect}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 reduction}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 classes}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 attributes}{\fs17 /}{\fs17 properties/ }
17 qualia}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 universals.}{\
fs17 This}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 straightforward,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 wou
ld}{\fs17 presup- }
17 pose}{\fs17 reduction}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 universals}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
various}{\fs17 levels}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 w
ays}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 being }
17 of}{\fs17 beings}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 represented}{\fs17 b
y}{\fs17 substantive}{\fs17 terms}{\fs17 representing}{\fs17 classes,}{\
fs17 types }
17 and}{\fs17 tokens}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 definition,}{\fs17 always}
{\fs17 within}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 horizonal}{\fs17 background}{
\fs17 of }
17 Reality-in-total.}{\fs17 One}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 objections}{\fs1
7 to}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 commitment}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 cognate}{\fs17
to }
17 this.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 objection}{\fs17 is: }\par
}

126 Hylton, "Quine on Reference and Ontology", 124.
{\fs17 148 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the predicate of a true
sentence must correspond to some entity - a property, or a
26 "universal," as it is often called. Thus it is held that one who asserts that
the rose is red
26 is committed not only to the existence of the rose but also to there being a
property,
26 redness. The word 'existence' is not always used here; some held that univers
als have a
26 different sort of ontological status from that of objects and mark it with a
different word,
26 such as 'being' or 'subsistence'.{\up006 \fs8 127 }
{\fs17 To}{\fs17 take}{\fs17 care}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 side}{\
fs17 of}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 commitment}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 argue}{\f
s17 as}{\fs17 follows:}{\fs17 By}{\fs17 the }
17 process}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 commitment}{\fs17 is}{\fs17
meant}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 presupposition}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 seeing-that }
17 of}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 relatively}{\fs17 high
ly}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 less}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 priori}{\fs17 abstract}{\fs17 obj
ect}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 universal, }
17 and}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 admixture}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs1
7 most}{\fs17 corresponding}{\fs17 concrete}{\fs17 object/s}{\fs17 (pr
ocess/es) }
17 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 corresponding}{\fs17 abstract}{\fs17 object/s,
}{\fs17 occurring}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 consciousness}{\fs17 and
}
17 epistemic}{\fs17 activity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 perception}{\fs17 and}{\fs17
statement.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 admixture}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 presupposed }
17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 perceptual}{\fs17 and
}{\fs17 conceptual}{\fs17 grasping}{\fs17 and/or}{\fs17 propositional}{\
fs17 ex- }
17 pression}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 anything}{\fs17 empirical}{\fs17 involving}{\fs
17 token}{\fs17 entities}{\fs17 (process/es).}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 seeing- }
17 that}{\fs17 results}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 acceptance}{\fs17 of}{\f
s17 the}{\fs17 abstract}{\fs17 object/s}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 existing}{\fs17 i
n}{\fs17 connection }

17 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concrete}{\fs17 object/s}{\fs17 (process/es).}{\fs
17 In}{\fs17 short,}{\fs17 ontological}{\fs17 commitment}{\fs17 itself }
17 is}{\fs17 through}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 admixture}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
concrete}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 abstract. }
26 {\fs17 The}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 empirical}{\fs1
7 may}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 expressed}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 follows,}{\fs17 wh
ich}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not }
17 require}{\fs17 much}{\fs17 elaboration}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 explanation}{\fs1
7 in}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 context: }
\fi226 The subject matter of physical theories counts as empirical as
far as its concepts
26 are experience-based. Here, the meaning of 'empirical' and 'experience-based'
may be
26 understood in a strict sense or in a more liberal way. Either the contents of
an acceptable
26 physical theory are considered to be grounded in sensory perception and logic
alone, as
26 logical empiricism assumed, or alternatively one has to admit that the interp
lay of the\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7224\absh7398 \sl-219 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ory and experiment gives rise to empirical knowledge in a generalised sense,
which is on
26 an equal footing with sensory perception.{\up006 \fs8 128 }
{\fs17 I}{\fs17 understand}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 empirical}{\fs17 here,}{\fs17
more}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 accordance}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 second}{\fs1
7 position }
17 above,}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 epistemic}{\fs17 interplay}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 token}{\fs17 processes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 abstract}{\fs17 entities,}{\
fs17 where }
17 theory}{\fs17 remains}{\fs17 always}{\fs17 universal-laden.}{\fs17 It}{\f
s17 is}{\fs17 clear}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 concrete}{\fs17 token}{\fs
17 object}{\fs17 is }
17 also}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 presupposition}{\fs17 -}{\
fs17 and}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 abstract}{\fs17 entity}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 by}{\fs
17 all}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 forms }
17 of}{\fs17 interpretation,}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 way}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 being}{\u
p006 \fs10 129}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 process.}{\fs17 And}{\fs17 abstrac
t}{\fs17 entities}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 "ex- }
17 ist"}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 token}{\fs17 processes,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 conceptual}
{\fs17 interplay}{\fs17 in }
17 concept}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 language}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 token}{\fs17 entit
ies}{\fs17 over}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 concrete}{\fs17 token-names.}{\fs17 Tha
t }\par
}
127 Hylton, "Quine on Reference and Ontology", 126.
Falkenburg, Particle Metaphysics, 7.
See the various pages (numbers obtainable from the Index) where I have discuss
ed
349 the concept of qualia as ways of being of beings / processes, in Physics wit
hout Meta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9486\absw7313\absh1564 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 physics. See also the two references given in p. xxv.
\fi6061 {\fs17 149 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 is, there are abstract and concrete terms, e.g., electron is concrete but
universal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7281\absh7907 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lade
n; and a universal is an abstract qualium with respect to electrons, a quality
it; but a universal is, as a way of being of processes, related to
the concrete
ty that the electron is, in its commonality with all electrons.
26 Quine distinguishes between the ontological commitment behind abstract
concrete terms as follows:
\fi226 {\fs15 For}{\fs15 I}{\fs15 deplore}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 facile}{\fs15
line}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 thought}{\fs15 according}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 which}{\fs1
5 we}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 freely}{\fs15 use}{\fs15 abstract }
26 {\fs15 terms,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 ways}{\fs15 terms}{
\fs15 are}{\fs15 used,}{\fs15 without}{\fs15 thereby}{\fs15 acknowledging}{
\fs15 the}{\fs15 existence}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 any}{\fs15 abstract}{\fs15 objects.}{\fs15 According}{\fs15 to}{\f
s15 this}{\fs15 counsel,}{\fs15 abstract}{\fs15 terms}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 phr
ases}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 mere}{\fs15 lin- }
26 {\fs15 guistic}{\fs15 usage}{\fs15 innocent}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 metaphysical
}{\fs15 commitment}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 peculiar}{\fs15 realm}{\fs15
of}{\fs15 entities.}{\fs15 For }
26 {\fs15 anyone}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 scruples}{\fs15 about}{\fs15 what}{\fs15
objects}{\fs15 he}{\fs15 assumes,}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 counsel}{\fs15 shoul
d}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 less }
26 {\fs15 unsettling}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 reassuring;}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 it}{\f
s15 drops}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 distinction}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 irresponsible
}{\fs15 reification }
26 {\fs15 and}{\fs15 its}{\fs15 opposite.}{\up006 \fs8 130 }
If we speak of abstract objects as a separate world on par with con
crete token
cts, we are doomed to Platonism. Quine does not favour this. We need
to
inguish between concreta and the abstracta which are built on concreta
in
r generality in statements, in discourse. I suggest that the responsib
le way
an imagine of the humanly possible form of "reification" of abstract entities
o consider them as ways of being of concrete (token) beings, i.e., of (token)
esses. That is, as ontologically acceptable (but linguistically expressed) ways
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7281\absh7907 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or r
elations or courses between parts of concrete beings (of various extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7281\absh7907 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on conglomerations) which are processes in themselves and with others,
r the aegis of Reality-in-total, which is the broadest possible base of univer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7281\absh7907 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sals
. This base is processual in extension-motion, and thus universally ca
usal.
in is based a vast chunk of concreta-based abstracta. Any other means
of
eiving abstract objects would falter, in any case, without philosophical and
ical justification.
26 This allows us to hold that concrete entities, which are irreducibly and alwa
ys
esses, are imbued with ontologically abstract but processually relevant enti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7281\absh7907 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
, i.e., with ways of being of these processes. These are so, but with their on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7281\absh7907 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical, logical and epistemological basis primarily in concrete processes, and
thereafter in cognizing minds. If so, we cannot speak of an entity as what
spatiotemporally a bare quantity or mechanism devoid of ontological com
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7281\absh7907 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mitm
ent to actual token existence as some process with own ways of being that
always causally related to the ways of being of many others. And, we cannot \par
}
130 Willard van Orman Quine, Word and Object (Cambridge, MA.: The MIT
Press,
349 1960), 119-120.

{\fs17 150 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 imagine of a state of affairs where the causal ways of being (causal unive
rsals)
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 disa
ppear at some moment and then reappear without continuity of causation
in the token. A token is bound up with ontological universals (ways of be\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ings
), even in its particular expressions - of whatever level these are. Causation,
no non-causation, can be part of these processual ways, since non-causation
ot evoke any qualium to bind processes together.
26 The universal-laden nature of processes is exactly that of bringing
together
heir processual nature; and the linguistic and physical expressions of them
the results of the empirical-linguistic generalisations and empirical-physical
urements that we have in all language and science.
{\b \fs21 6.3.}{\b \fs21 Ontological}{\b \fs21 Commitment}{\b \fs21 vs.}{\b
\fs21 the}{\b \fs21 Quantum}{\b \fs21 Concept }
Ontological commitment in QM is based inextricably on the ways of bei
ng of
ta. This is possible only on two conditions:
26 (1) Ontological commitment is a must and is possible, if any wavic
le and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 anyt
hing that interacts with it are actually of some extension and motion, by
on of which they are always composed. This is despite the fact that
class
s like quanton, electron, etc. are not physical entities but only abs
tract
ties common for sorts of tokens, and these abstract entities are phys
ical\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 epis
temically present in human consciousness. This presence is under the uni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vers
al-ladenness of pre-linguistic feelings and thereafter linguistic expressions
ontological ways of being of the token member-processes called quanton,

tron, etc.
26 (2) Ontological commitment is a must and is possible, even if the region of
nsion-motion - which is involved in the consideration of a particle as wave\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 shap
ed in motion or of a wave as particle-shaped in motion, or both is ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trem
ely minute. It must be so even if the region is so minute that we
humans
to revise the very concept of a wavicle projected onto bigger scales of ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tens
ion-motion, if the epistemic projection of meso- and macro-scopic scale
s
bigger scales is feasible for human thought. This special ontological com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mitm
ent is posited humanly speaking probabilistically, in terms of averages
of
rimental wavicle-hits based on wavicle-actions in extremely small durations
xtension-motion, for the sake of facilitation of imagination with respect to
common experiences.
26 These two conditions are two rules of transportation of understanding from
level of the one to that of the other. (Further modalities of it c
an be dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cuss
ed only when long-drawn.) They yield continuity of causal explanation
the wavicle of longer extension-motion durations in terms of inner-wavi
cle
\fi6061 151 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 causal processes and externally causal influences. For a description of su
ch con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tinu
ity in the quantum world, the only available but highly imperfect tool even
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 toda
y is probability theory. It is highly imperfect because it is adequate to direct
uence-to-influence transformations in the description of the micro-world.
is, whatever be the inner extent of extension-motion minuteness of a token
ess, we still have some concrete need for ontological commitment in a

ll
ses of processes in QM.
26 Therefore, we are compelled to somehow understand causation in QM i
n
s of the presence of such ontological commitment within probabilistic in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 terp
retation. In the statistical measurement and probabilistic interpretation one
compelled to treat the wave and particle separately, since there is n
o other
of treating the two mathematically and measurementally. If ontological
itment yields just one process in extension-motion with perhaps sub\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 proc
esses in an electron or photon, and not two or many processes at the same
nsion-motion region proper to one real electron, then we need to revi
se
way of looking at the real wavicle as real wave and real particle
in mutual
lementarity,{\up006 \fs10 131} where the so-called separate entities are conceiv
ed as sepa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rate
and unrealistically being one. If the entities are one - of course with possibl
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 subprocesses, and not as a simultaneous ideal of mere mathematical representa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of part-processes which somehow non-ideally complete each other at identi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
Euclidean extension-motion region - we can speak of causation upon and by
one wavicle electron.
26 This makes it possible for us to follow a reasonable realism of physical part
i\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cles
and waves together as wavicles in QM. This is a realism of an array of pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
y ever more minute particles and waves described in geometrically perf
ect
icle and wave shapes, where the actually complementary particle and wave
QM are should not be the same as the perfectly geometrically shaped
par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
e and wave of classical mechanics but the real wavicles which are pa
rtially
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 anal
ogous to the perfect particle and the perfect wave that are descripti
ons of
ity using elementary geometry. This fact, that the perfectly shaped particles
waves belong to classical mechanics, tells how mistaken quantum physicists
be, if they do also interpret complementarity based on these perfect but un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 real
shapes. This may resolve the distinct and mathematically pure concepts of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7238\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'par
ticle' and 'wave' for physical consumption, if ontological commitment always
mpanies. \par
}
131 The concept of complementarity is discussed in Chapter 8 under Section 8.3,
'Co\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10146\absw7277\absh970 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 penhagen Complementarity Interpretation'.
{\fs17 152 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Thus we have the combined concept of a real, physically extension-m
otion\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7305\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 base
d process of a wavicle, represented ideally as interaction between the
ide\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7305\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
constituent mathematically pure parts. The resultant real wavicles are
, at
order of extension-motion and at the physically spatiotemporal order, more
istic than when the pure geometric proportions of a wave and a particle are
ged to be the partial (and thus complementary) entities of the actual case of a
ical wavicle of measured spacetime distances and durations. The difference
een the purely mathematical and the actual physical seems to be sidelined
he QM practice due to the need to use mathematical equations that involve
l cases of waves and particles. Ontological commitment will be of help here
upply reality to discourse.
26 Real physical wavicles are composed - and not pure and spatially absolutely
inuous as obtained in QM in the classical manner: the classical way of alleg\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7305\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
the purely spatial (measuremental) mathematical qualities of waves and the
urementally purely non-extended "quantities" of particles to the physically
wavicle of QM. I hold that this part of mathematical application in
QM is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7305\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sadl
y classical. This makes QM base itself still on classical imagination of perfect
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7305\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 shap
es and argue that this is not to be had in QM probabilism, still n
ot see\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7305\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
the interpretational insufficiency caused by such (unavoidable) Euclidea
n
ication.
26 If a wavicle is physical, it must be composed: i.e., physically ex
tended and
motion-duration. If it is composed, there should exist sub-quantal causal
uences or motions or changes within the wavicle-natured quanton - some
hich might also be from an entangled member of the pair of the quanton.
there should exist causal influences from the edges of the micro-slits (in the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7305\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 doub
le slit experiment) or of the nano-level slits (in case of similar future experi
s). These will permit us to reasonably well recognize that the non-causality
causality alleged to QM processes are in fact due also to the mathematical
iculties caused by the purity (i.e., the non-extended, non-motion nature) of
geometrical wave- and particle-shapes or entities{\up006 \fs10 132} applied to p
hysics. The
ematical purity of geometrical shapes insulates the representations of
the
waves and particles from being connected to each other.
26 This way of thinking will also permit the claim that no weird pro
babil\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7305\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 isti
c non-causality or acausality has surged up from nowhere to render th
e
{\fs16 132}{\fs16 By}{\fs16 'purity}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 geomet
rical}{\fs16 wave-}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 particle-shapes}{\fs16 or}{\fs16
concepts'}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 mean}{\fs16 the }
49 {\fs16 abstract}{\fs16 nature}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 such}{\fs16 mathematic
al}{\fs16 entities.}{\fs16 They}{\fs16 may}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 may}{\fs16
not}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 based}{\fs16 on }
49 {\fs16 physical}{\fs16 entities}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 processes}{\fs16 -}{\fs1
6 which}{\fs16 aspect}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 do}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 discuss}{\fs16
here.}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 hold}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 abstract }
49 {\fs16 nature}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 mathematical}{\fs16 entities}{\fs16 and}{\

fs16 structures}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 universally}{\fs16 accepted. }
\fi6061 153 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 classical explanation of the QM situation as simple simultaneity (without
any
iotemporal difference) of one wavicle entering through the two slits.
De
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Brog
lie attempted to explain this scenario in terms of his 'theory of the double
tion' or the 'wave- and particle solution', which is clear in its on
tological
artmentalization of reality: "One solution would be a continuous wave\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 solu
tion, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f Symbol }}, and the other would be a singu
lar solution which would represent
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a p
hysical "particle". This singular solution would be localized and incor
po\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rate
d within the extended wave phenomena."{\up006 \fs10 133} This is a problem to be
looked
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at f
rom various angles - which too we do step by step in the following chapters.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 To
put it here in short, the simultaneity of the particle- and wave-natu
res in
real physical wavicle is most probably not experienced when the exper
i\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
separately but artificially detects the purely mathematical natures of
icle and wave.
26 A similar situation in Quantum-chromo-dynamics that deals with quarks{\up006
\fs10 134 }
be brought to attention here, especially the fact that these strong
inter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 acti
ons become weaker and weaker in accordance with decreasing distances.
is in order to show that, in QM, quarks too are considered each d
iffer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ent
from others, although it is close to impossible to separate them from their
est-distance confine in hadrons (protons and neutrons) due to the gluons

stick quarks together with extremely minute measured time intervals o
f
al separation.
26 There exist technologies that bring them for a very short time apart for obse
r\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vati
on, by way of deep-inelastic-scattering, using high energy (enormously ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cele
rated) electrons to probe protons.{\up006 \fs10 135} Yet we do not find them in
the probably
gedly close-to-classical physical theories as anything other than minute sol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh6092 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ids.
We know thus that even quarks offer the same sort of probabilistic dilemmas
d on lack of simultaneity of processes within two adjacent quarks. For this \par
}
133 Basil James Hiley, "Pilot Waves" (476-478), in Daniel Greenberger, Klaus He
ntschel
349 and Friedel Weinert, Eds., Compendium of Quantum Physics: Concepts, Experime
nts,
349 History and Philosophy (Berlin: Springer, 2009), 476.
For a simplified description and charts of the quarks and other elementary par
ticles,
344 see URL: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/quark.html (Ac
cessed
344 on 4 May 2011).
Niels Tuning, Proton Structure Functions at HERA, Doctoral Thesis (Amsterdam:
Het
349 Nationaal Instituut voor Kernfysica en Hoge-Energie Fysica (NIKHEF),
Fakulteit
349 der Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica, Universiteit van Amsterdam
,
349 2001), 1-2. A detailed theoretical and experimental description of the metho
ds of
349 quark probes is to be found in this work.
{\fs17 154 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 reason, but, one should not say that quarks are not real, or that they are
mixed up
the experimenting mind (with which of the minds among the experiment\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ers,
and if with many or all, to what extent?), or that they are only a statistical
ir devoid of mind-independent existence of physical causality - for causality
hysical and of the order of extension-motion.
26 Therefore, some sort of mind-independent extension-motion reality in pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
ual existence is a must in all sorts of wavicles ("quantons", "waves"), quarks,
The concept of reality here is not of anything that conceptually merely works
heories, like just a concept in absolute isolation from matters of fact. A con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
of something real posits something in process, and is posited due to the ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 iste
nce of something real in process. It is ontologically committed to there being
thing (however different from measurementally spatiotemporal descrip\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s offered), and it also takes for granted that it has actual effects in a nexus
ther such realities or processes called similarly by names (which, again, is so
ver different they are from the description offered for the actual physical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deno
tables of the names).
26 Ontological commitment is made in the very process of all kinds of apprehen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
(including probabilistic QM apprehension of subatomic processes) and i
s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 expr
essed clearly enough when statements are formed. The basic correspond\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
-element of all epistemological and ontological exercise in human cognitive
esses and linguistic processes even about QM is this: ontological commit\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
grants some extra-mental, processual and token reality to the actual physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
counterpart (correspondence-element) of a statement (in QM, the wavicle,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quar
k, etc.) as being something. When brought into tests of veracity within the
ext of existing theories and experiments, it results in formulation of the cor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rect
ness or sufficient correctness or less correctness or falsity of the statements
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we f
ormulate based on them.
26 If so, we should make an attempt to understand the probabilistic data in the
le slit experiment causally and realistically, i.e., under ontological
com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mitm
ent. We should thus know that probabilism about causality as such is fully
lmost fully meaningless if probabilism permits making the interpretation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal or acausal. The Copenhagen interpretation and the instrumental\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 isti
c-empiricistic philosophies of physics (e.g., Baas van Fraassen{\up006 \f
s10 136}) seem to
that admitting something objectual is not essential for QM to work
in
{\fs16 136}{\fs16 For}{\fs16 example,}{\fs16 Bas}{\fs16 C.}{\fs16 Van}{\fs
16 Fraassen,}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics:}{\fs16 An}{\fs16 Empiricist}{
\fs16 View}{\fs16 (Oxford: }
49 {\fs16 Clarendon}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 1991);}{\fs16 Paul}{\fs16 M.}{\fs16
Churchland}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Clifford}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 Hooker,}{\fs16 Eds
.,}{\fs16 Images }
49 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 Science:}{\fs16 Essays}{\fs16 on}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 Empiricism,}{\fs16 with}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 Reply}{\fs16 from}{\fs16
Bas}{\fs16 C.}{\fs16 Van}{\fs16 Fraassen }
49 {\fs16 (Chicago:}{\fs16 University}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Chicago}{\fs16 Press,
}{\fs16 1985);}{\fs16 etc. }
\fi6061 155 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 actual practice. I do not think this is rationally defensible in the long
run, since
tting objectual-ness of something as processual in the counterpart aspect
the causal research that ensues does not only aid further scientific
and
osophical practice, but also renders reasonableness to the physical theories
crop up. \par
}
56 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 7. Causality in Some Quantum
i1556 Experiments \par
}

\cf0 7.1. Starting Point of Causal Arguments in QM
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 To}{\b0 \fs17 begin}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 more}{\b0 \f
s17 pointed}{\b0 \fs17 discussions}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM,}{\b0 \fs
17 I}{\b0 \fs17 present}{\b0 \fs17 here}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 fundam
ental }
{\b0 \fs17 first-step}{\b0 \fs17 argument}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 support}{\
b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 claim}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 ubiqui
ty}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causation}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs1
7 micro- }
{\b0 \fs17 world.}{\b0 \fs17 Even}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 non-causalist}{\b
0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 acausalist}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM,}{\b0 \fs17 b
efore}{\b0 \fs17 claiming}{\b0 \fs17 authenticity }
{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 version}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
non-causality}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 acausality,}{\b0 \fs17 begins}{\b0 \f
s17 with}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 admission}{\b0 \fs17 that }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 initial}{\b0 \fs17 intervention}{\b0 \fs17 (basical
ly}{\b0 \fs17 causal,}{\b0 \fs17 however}{\b0 \fs17 otherwise}{\b0 \fs17 it}
{\b0 \fs17 may}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 termed) }
{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 photon}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\
b0 \fs17 path}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 electron}{\b0 \fs17 or
}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 another}{\b0 \fs17 photon}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 first}{\b0 \fs17 (causal) }
{\b0 \fs17 action.}{\b0 \fs17 After}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \f
s17 begins}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 imagine}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17
something}{\b0 \fs17 inexplicable}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 hap- }
{\b0 \fs17 pened}{\b0 \fs17 just}{\b0 \fs17 after}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17
and}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 "lack"}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \f
s17 absolute}{\b0 \fs17 (classical)}{\b0 \fs17 determinacy}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b
0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 specific}{\b0 \fs17 measurement}{\b0 \fs17 process}{\b0 \fs17 (con
tinuous}{\b0 \fs17 upon}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 initial}{\b0 \fs17 interve
ntion)}{\b0 \fs17 yields }
{\b0 \fs17 now}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 full-fledged}{\b0 \fs17 non-causality}
{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 acausality}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 inherent}{\b0 \
fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 very}{\b0 \fs17 meaning}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Uncertainty}{\b0 \fs17 Principle}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\
b0 \fs17 respect}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 very}{\b0 \fs17 ne
xt}{\b0 \fs17 moment}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 milli-second }
{\b0 \fs17 after}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 interaction. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 For}{\b0 \fs17 example,}{\b0 \fs17 note}{\b0 \fs17 how}{\b0
\fs17 non-causality}{\b0 \fs17 (the}{\b0 \fs17 opposite}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0
\fs17 causality)}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 acausality }
{\b0 \fs17 (non-commitment}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 causality)}{\b0 \fs17 can
not}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 rebuilt}{\b0 \fs17 into}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs
17 moment}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 inception }

{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 experiment}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17
gives}{\b0 \fs17 rise}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Uncertainty}
{\b0 \fs17 Principle}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 merely}{\b0 \fs17 misinter- }
{\b0 \fs17 preting}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 lack}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a
bsolutely}{\b0 \fs17 exact}{\b0 \fs17 knowledge}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{
\b0 \fs17 system}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 somehow}{\b0 \fs17 implying }
{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 absolute}{\b0 \fs17 lack}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 e
xact}{\b0 \fs17 knowledge: }
cf0 \fi226 {\b0 \fs15 Heisenberg}{\b0 \fs15 was}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 fir
st}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 question}{\b0 \fs15 this}{\b0 \fs15 basic}{\b0 \
fs15 assumption}{\b0 \fs15 [of}{\b0 \fs15 exact}{\b0 \fs15 knowledge}{\b0 \f
s15 and}{\b0 \fs15 ex- }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 act}{\b0 \fs15 observation]}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 classi
cal}{\b0 \fs15 physics.}{\b0 \fs15 He}{\b0 \fs15 published}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0
\fs15 paper}{\b0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \fs15 1927}{\b0 \fs15 where}{\b0 \fs15 he}{
\b0 \fs15 presented }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 detailed}{\b0 \fs15 new}{\b0 \fs15 analysis}{\
b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 nature}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 exper
imentation.}{\b0 \fs15 The}{\b0 \fs15 most}{\b0 \fs15 important}{\b0 \fs15 f
eature }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 his}{\b0 \fs15 paper}{\b0 \fs15 was}{\b0 \fs1
5 the}{\b0 \fs15 observation}{\b0 \fs15 that}{\b0 \fs15 it}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\
b0 \fs15 not}{\b0 \fs15 possible}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 obtain}{\b0 \fs15
information}{\b0 \fs15 about}{\b0 \fs15 the }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 nature}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 system}{\b0 \f
s15 without}{\b0 \fs15 causing}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 change}{\b0 \fs15 in
}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 system.}{\b0 \fs15 In}{\b0 \fs15 other}{\b0 \fs15
words,}{\b0 \fs15 it}{\b0 \fs15 may}{\b0 \fs15 be }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 possible}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 obtain}{\b0 \fs15 detaile
d}{\b0 \fs15 information}{\b0 \fs15 about}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 system}{\b
0 \fs15 through}{\b0 \fs15 experimentation,}{\b0 \fs15 but }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 as}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 result}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15
this}{\b0 \fs15 experimentation,}{\b0 \fs15 it}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 no}
{\b0 \fs15 longer}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 same}{\b0 \fs15 system}{\b0 \fs1
5 and}{\b0 \fs15 our}{\b0 \fs15 information }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 does}{\b0 \fs15 not}{\b0 \fs15 apply}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs
15 the}{\b0 \fs15 original}{\b0 \fs15 system.}{\b0\up006 \fs8 137 }\par
}
137 Hendrik F. Hameka, Quantum Mechanics: A Conceptual Approach (Hoboke
n, NJ:
349 Wiley-Interscience, 2004), 13. Square brackets mine. Note that the spatiotem
poral
349 difference between the earlier and the latter "systems" is not much, and so,
the infor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9484\absw7283\absh1566 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 mation-difference is not about causality and non-causality but about some pa
ram\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9484\absw7283\absh1566 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi

349 eters in the systems.
\fi6061 {\fs17 157 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 This is simple enough to imagine. Where, therefore, the causal (here, the
inter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vent
ion) ends and the acausal or non-causal begins is unknowable in the acausal
on-causal interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle in QM. Whatever be
theory-laden nature of the concept of causality with respect to the
experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
at hand, it is causation of whatever kind that acts in the specifi
c case of
intervention of an electron by a photon. That means, causation is categori\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
more fundamental than ordinary notions, like the Plank constant, gravita\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
al constant, etc. which are not categories of all physical thinking. Thus, the
s of all particularist forms of causation is the ontological category, the Law o
f
ality. If there is causality at least at the initial moment of the experimental
ication of Uncertainty, the at least at the roots of QM lies causality for sure.
rest depends on how we interpret our meso-world point of view of human
rvention (causal or non-causal?) by meso-world objects and apparatuses
micro-world.
26 The seeming acausality or non-causality, which in my opinion is due
\cf0 The
\cf0 inte
in
\cf0 the
\cf0 \fi2
to exper-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 imen

tal and theoretical inadequacies, has somehow to be interpreted in terms of
alism - in general because of its beginning in experimental causal interven\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
and in particular for the following reasons: (1) The spatiotemporal distance
difference between the photonal intervention and the sudden incidence of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausality or acausality is finite, i.e., any event between any two finitely mu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tual
ly distant parts of one and the same process cannot take place without causal
raction. (2) The processes between the act of causal intervention and
the
ged non-causality will naturally have to be either causal or non-causal, and,
he case of being non-causal, we cannot conceptually connect or understand
initial causal event and relation with the alleged non-causal event and rela\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
within the experiment of the Uncertainty Principle; and for that we need a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wide
r theory that involves the whole causal possible horizon of it. The present
deals with this question and its ramifications from various points of view.
26 It is thus imaginable that some physicists' and philosophers' accept
ance of
sality or non-causality in QM as state of the art is because they take acausal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
or non-causality to be an equivalent of statistical interpretation. In the case
ausality (e.g., that incurred by intervention of an electron by a photon and
eafter) being interpreted statistically as due to human epistemological limita\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s, we have no quarrels with it - except with any haphazard terminology that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 migh
t allege ontological limitations as the only reason for epistemological ones.
if causation and statistical interpretation are taken to be different, and yet i
f
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausality and acausality are interwoven into statistical interpretation,
and
her if causal probability or probabilistic causality is taken to be the ontologi
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
state of affairs in Nature, then we need to show that statistical interpretation
158 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 is just an epistemological way of taking the human epistemological limit s
itua\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
that delimits our delving into all possible causes given in the "total causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hori
zon" (to be dealt with later) of a given event or process.
{\b \fs21 7.2.}{\b \fs21 Black}{\b \fs21 Body}{\b \fs21 Radiation}{\b \fs21
and}{\b \fs21 Meaning}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 'Quantum' }
In the foregoing chapters the treatment was very much independent of

direct
ion of results in QM. There I developed in various steps a very general and
ersally instantiating concept of the Law of Causality without much detailed
rence to QM; I offered various contexts and adaptations of this Law in defini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s. The present chapter premises itself upon the initial history and results of
n view of obtaining a clear picture of how and to what extent the concept of
ality (the Universal Law of Causality and the particular adaptations of it in
sciences) came to be applied in its initial stages and thereafter. Some funda\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
al information is brought in to facilitate the discussion in the forthcoming
ters.
26 The question of black body radiation{\up006 \fs10 138} had puzzled physicists
for long. The
ept of a black body in physics is that of a hypothetical ideal object that ab\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sorb
s all electromagnetic radiation that falls on it and reflects none of it (i.e.,
it
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is a
bsolutely black in colour) and is invisible. Its properties depend only on its
erature. Its graph is a "black body curve" - a mystery to classical (Maxwell's)
tromagnetism till Planck's formulation of QM. As the temperature increases,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it r
eflects only at the lower level of the spectrum, and so, again, it is not visibl
e. It
no longer be black if the temperature (energy) increases, since the radiation
decreasing wavelengths will be visible too.
26 In Maxwell's theory, radiation was continuous, which assuredly and p
oint\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 edly
tells us of the allusion of a purely mathematical-wave character to it. The
ematical-wave nature of physical energy particles is not directly a question
athematics; but the form of physical waves presented therein happens una\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 void
ably to be the pure geometrical wave form. The physical wave is the actual
to which the perfect geometrical wave shape is attributed for the sake of
eptualisation and measurement. Such conceptualisation is a human theo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reti
cal need.
26 It must be noticed here that, though the real issue in the problem of waves

QM was not of pure mathematics, QM continued to keep this purely
ematical concept of waves - which, as we shall see later, is part o
f the \par
}
138 John Gribbin, Q Is for Quantum, s.v. "Black Body Radiation." \par
}
59 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 cause of the complex mathematical and physical problem of reconciling wave
icle duality and complementarity. This problem is in fact a physical prob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 lem
in which the nature and applicability of the mathematical entities involved
not been clarified. I do not hold here that the exact way in which math\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 emat
ics can be applied to physics can ever be discovered. But I suggest
that
ts of the ways in which we apply purely mathematical or geometrical con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cept
s to the physical situation must be settled ever better. In light of this sug\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 gest
ion, I would hold also that in the application of the concept of wave-nature
that of particle-nature (to form quantons) in QM, this has not been
done
iciently well.
26 Suppose the emission of energy is associated with an electron jump
from a
ertoalowerenergylevel,andabsorptionisassociatedwithjumpfromalower
higher energy level - the concept of "levels" being a conceptual tool to repre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 sent
a highly variegated state of energy fluctuations. Then the amount of energy
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 woul
d have to be quanta of variable frequencies, where the concept of "quanta" is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 a si
milarly conceptual tool to represent a highly variegated state of fluctuations.
success of physics here consists in that the concepts of energy leve
ls and
ta work. This shows that there exist ratios even within the world of prob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 abil
ities, which ratios are derivable as the real case of actual quanta,
however
iotemporally minute their extensions and motions are. It was later concluded
the energy (E) is given by Planck's constant of proportionality (h) times the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 freq
uency (f). Not all atoms of the body will have the ability to radiate in higher
uencies.
26 Black body radiation was understood technically as follows:
\fi226 {\fs15 For}{\fs15 very}{\fs15 high}{\fs15 frequencies}{\fs15 {\field{
\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 energy}{\fs15 needed}{\
fs15 to}{\fs15 emit}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 energy}{\fs
15 (}{\fs15 E}{\fs15 )}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 very}{\fs15 large,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 few}{\f
s15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 black}{\fs15 b
ody}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 much}{\fs15 energy }
26 {\fs15 available,}{\fs15 so}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 few}{\fs15 highfrequency}{\fs15 quanta}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 radiated.}{\fs15 At}{\fs15 very}{
\fs15 low}{\fs15 frequencies,}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 easy}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 emit}{\fs15 low-ene
rgy}{\fs15 quanta,}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 each}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 s
o}{\fs15 little}{\fs15 energy}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 even }
26 {\fs15 added}{\fs15 together}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 amo
unt}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 much.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}
{\fs15 extremes,}{\fs15 however, }
26 {\fs15 there}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 many}{\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 eac
h}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 enough}{\fs15 energy}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 emit}{\fs15 mod
erate-sized}{\fs15 quanta }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 radiation,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 add}{\fs15 up}{\fs15 to}
{\fs15 produce}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 peak}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 black}{\
fs15 body}{\fs15 curve.}{\fs15 And}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 peak }
26 {\fs15 shifts}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 higher}{\fs15 frequencies}{\fs15 for}{\fs1
5 hotter}{\fs15 bodies,}{\fs15 because}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 hotter}{\fs15 bodi
es}{\fs15 there}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 more }
26 {\fs15 individual}{\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 greater}{\fs15 amounts}
{\fs15 of}{\fs15 energy.}{\up006 \fs8 139 }
In classical electromagnetism, light waves could have any energy value.
But
could not rationalize the spectrum of black body radiation by using s
tatis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8078 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 tica
l mechanics. Lord Rayleigh (who was to some extent opposed to QM and
\par
}
139 John Gribbin, Q Is for Quantum, s.v. "Black Body Radiation."

{\fs18 160 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Relativity) used statistical physics to study the exclusive temper
ature-depend\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
of the equilibrium state of a black body with the spectrum of the radiation
emits. This was done in the special case of the interior radiation o
f an oven
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 buil
t for experiment.
26 In Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect, the energy content of
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ligh
t beam that disturbs the electron is determined not by the intensity
of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 beam
, as was thought by the classical theory. This happens in a metal, where a
of light ejects an electron from its orbit - the metal having higher valency
to the meagre number of electrons in their outer "shells". The photon beam
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is e
nergetic enough to supply sufficient energy to the electron to free itself from
attraction of the nucleus. Below a certain frequency, any high intensity beam
ot eject an electron; and above a certain frequency, even a low inte
nsity
does it. Beam intensity determines only the number of electrons ejected
the energy-pelting. This gave way to Einstein's introducing the concept
of
tum.
26 In Rayleigh's study of the graph of the temperature-dependence, the graph
the "black body curve," a mystery to Maxwell's classical electromagneti
sm
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unti
l Planck's formulation of QM based on Einstein's quantum concept. To fol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 low
Rayleigh in this respect would mean that, if electromagnetic waves were
e treated like other waves, the radiation would be directly proportional to
frequency. From Rayleigh's application of statistical physics to the p
rob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lem,
this meant an unreasonably large sum of radiation in the ultraviolet fre-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quen

cy of the black body radiation spectrum. If the visible and infrared parts
the spectrum represented a finite amount of energy, then the ultraviol
et
would have to represent the highest imaginable frequencies. This was so
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 beca
use, depending on the temperature, each degree of freedom (wavelength
e) would receive the same energy; and the higher the frequency the higher
the number of modes of oscillation, giving rise arithmetically to infi
nite
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ener
gy.
26 Planck's treatment of radiation as quanta did away with this 'ultra
violet ca\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7131\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tast
rophe'. The essential history and the basic idea are well-crystallized
in the
owing quote from Harry Paul:
\fi226 {\fs15 Actually}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 attempts}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 deduce}{\
fs15 a}{\fs15 satisfactory}{\fs15 radiation}{\fs15 law}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 th
e}{\fs15 framework}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 classical }
26 {\fs15 theory}{\fs15 were}{\fs15 doomed}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 fail.}{\fs15 Ev
en}{\fs15 Wien's}{\fs15 semi-empirical}{\fs15 law}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 avoid
ed}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 'ultra- }
26 {\fs15 violet}{\fs15 catastrophe',}{\fs15 eventually}{\fs15 turned}{\fs15
out}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 distinctly}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 variance}{\fs15
with}{\fs15 measurements }
26 {\fs15 at}{\fs15 very}{\fs15 long}{\fs15 wavelengths}{\fs15 (at}{\fs15 1
0}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 109 \\f Symbol }}m).}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 di
lemma}{\fs15 led}{\fs15 Planck,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 he}{\fs15 cal
led}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 'act }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 despair',}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 resort}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\
fs15 quantization}{\fs15 hypothesis}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 allowed}{\fs15 him}{
\fs15 to}{\fs15 improve}{\fs15 Wien's }
26 {\fs15 law}{\fs15 properly.}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 late
r}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 revolutionary}{\fs15 character}{\fs15 of}{\
fs15 Planck's}{\fs15 work}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 rec- }
26 {\fs15 ognized}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 date}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 his}{\
fs15 report}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 'Berliner}{\fs15 Colloquium'}{\fs15
of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 Physical}{\fs15 Society, }
\fi6061 161 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 14December 1900, was celebrated as the birth hour of quantum theory.
It should not be
26 forgotten that, actually, very accurate macroscopic measurements had enforced
this new
26 kind of physical thinking.{\up006 \fs8 140 }
{\fs17 In}{\fs17 Maxwell's}{\fs17 theory,}{\fs17 radiation}{\fs17 was}{\fs17
continuous}{\fs17 after}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17
man- }
17 ner}{\fs17 (i.e.,}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 manner}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a
ny}{\fs17 mechanics}{\fs17 based}{\fs17 mainly}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 Euclidean}{
\fs17 geometry), }
17 which}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 ascribes}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 mathematically}{\fs
17 continuous}{\fs17 wave-character}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 physical
}
17 phenomenon.}{\fs17 But}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 actually}{\fs17 discontinuous}{\f
s17 matter}{\fs17 distribution}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Nature,}{\fs17 abso- }
17 lutely}{\fs17 continuous}{\fs17 paths}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 impossible}{\fs17
because}{\fs17 absolute}{\fs17 continuity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 measured }
17 space}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 spacetime}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 members}{\f
s17 should}{\fs17 make}{\fs17 local}{\fs17 non-homogeneity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
pres- }
17 ence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 amount}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 matter}{\f
s17 impossible}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Nature,}{\fs17 however}{\fs17 small}{\
fs17 or}{\fs17 big}{\fs17 the }
17 locality}{\fs17 is. }
26 {\fs17 According}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 Planck,}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 em
ission}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 energy}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 associated}{\fs17 with}{\fs
17 an}{\fs17 electron }
17 jump}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 higher}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 lower
}{\fs17 energy}{\fs17 level;}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 absorption}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 associated}{\fs17 with }
17 a}{\fs17 jump}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 lower}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}{\fs
17 higher}{\fs17 energy}{\fs17 level,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 amounts}{\fs17 of}
{\fs17 energy}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 have }
17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 quanta}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 variable}{\fs17 frequencies.
}{\fs17 Energy}{\fs17 waves}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 therefore}{\fs17 measurable}{
\fs17 as }
17 quanta}{\fs17 (which}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 call}{\fs17 partic
les}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 wave-form}{\fs17 motion}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 wavicl
es).}{\fs17 As }
17 Mehra}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 Rechenberg}{\fs17 quote}{\fs17 Sommerfeld}{\fs17
from}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 writings}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Eucken, }

\fi226 The universal property of all molecules (atoms), which is expressed in ra
diation, does
26 not consist in the fact that certain characteristic energy quanta occur, but
in the fact that
26 the time sequence of the energy exchange is governed in a universal manner. T
o state it
26 in complete generality, a large amount of energy is absorbed and emitted by m
atter in
26 a short time interval, a smaller amount in longer time, such that the product
of energy
26 and time, or the time-integral of the energy (which has to be defined more pr
ecisely), is
26 determined by the quantity h{\up006 \fs8
141. }
{\fs17 This}{\fs17 fundamental}{\fs17 assumption}{\fs17 was}{\fs17 then}{\fs
17 formulated}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 Sommerfeld}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 equa
- }
17 tion}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 found}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 integral,}{\fs17 calcula
ted}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 values}{\fs17 0}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 116 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 (the}{\fs17 duration}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the }
17 quantum}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 was}{\fs17 connected}{\fs17 w
ith}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 exchange}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 energy),}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 t
he}{\fs17 La- }
17 grangian}{\fs17 function}{\fs17 L}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 syste
m}{\fs17 under}{\fs17 investigation}{\fs17 (i.e.,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ki
netic}{\fs17 energy }
17 minus}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 potential}{\fs17 energy),}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 eq
uals}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 Planck's}{\fs17 constant}{\fs17 {\f63 \u295\'3f}}{\up0
06 \fs10
142. }\par
}
140 Harry Paul, Introduction to Quantum Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge Un
iversity
348 Press, 2008), 145. Wien's Law says: "Hotter objects emit most of their radia
tion at
348 shorter wavelengths; hence they will appear to be bluer. Cooler objects emit
most
348 of their radiation at longer wavelengths; hence they will appear to be redde
r." URL:
348 http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/wiens_law.htm (Acces
sed
348 on 7 February 2014).
Jagdish Mehra and Helmut Rechenberg, The Historical Development of Qu
antum
349 Theory, Vol. 1, Part 1 (NewYork: Springer-Verlag, 1982), 133.
Mehra and Rechenberg, The Historical Development of Quantum Theory, 133.
{\fs17 162 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 The concept of a quantum was thus introduced successfully. A quantu
m is the
tity of energy associated with the excitation of a wave or field and has fun\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dame
ntal properties like energy, mass, angular momentum, etc. We know that
quantum nature comes at loggerheads with both the mathematically pure
- and particle natures of energy, if the two natures do not find compatibility
experimental results. Both the wave- and particle natures have well-known
rimental evidences. Young's double slit experiment is an evidence of t
he
nature, and the Compton effect shows the particle nature of light.
{\b \fs21 7.3.}{\b \fs21 Wave-Particle}{\b \fs21 Complementarity}{\b \fs21 a
nd}{\b \fs21 Causality }
The issue that boggles us is, Which one of the varied experimental evidences for
wave nature and the quantum nature may we settle for, as the "most genu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ine"
case or as "the only genuine" case and, if both are still to be favoured, how
a satisfactory synthetic explanation be brought out for the "duality" and/or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "com
plementarity" of the two natures? Stating that complementarity is a form of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dual
ity and that complementarity presupposes duality does not yield any clarity
nderstanding. The problem is: If they are dual, are they fully dual or partially
?
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Are
they fully dual at times and partially dual at other times? In each case, how
complementarity work, if complementarity essentially connotes partial\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
in the duality? What do partial duality and partial complementarity m
ean,
in the minute spatiotemporal measures involved? How does duality transfer
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0

lf into complementarity? Do we not need then to investigate the mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0
/ geometrical meaning of the wave- and particle concepts?
26 The one important thing regarding the actual physical propagation, to be
itse
cal
\fi2
kept

mind here, is that David Bohm's hidden variable solution goes a long
way
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to u
nderstand such problems. It can be expressed in the words of Christopher
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7140\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Norr
is: The hidden variables theory of David Bohm
\fi226 {\fs15 agreed}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 Einstein}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 orthodox
}{\fs15 QM}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 'incomplete'}{\fs15 since}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 fa
iled}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 deliver}{\fs15 an }
26 {\fs15 adequate}{\fs15 ontology}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 keeping}{\fs15 with}{\fs
15 the}{\fs15 principles}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 scientific}{\fs15 realism.}{\fs15
More}{\fs15 specifically, }
26 {\fs15 it}{\fs15 failed}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 explain}{\fs15 just}{\fs15 how}
{\fs15 and}{\fs15 why}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 wavefunction}{\fs15 'collapsed',}{\
fs15 i.e.}{\fs15 underwent}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 crucial}{\fs15 change}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 wave-like}{\fs15
distribution}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 probabilities}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 Hilbert}{\fs1
5 space}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 deter- }
26 {\fs15 minate}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 form}{\fs15 a
s}{\fs15 required}{\fs15 (or}{\fs15 perhaps}{\fs15 brought}{\fs15 about)}{\
fs15 by}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 localised}{\fs15 act }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 observation-measurement.}{\fs15 Hence}{\fs15 all}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 well-known}{\fs15 conceptual}{\fs15 problems}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 mos
t }
26 {\fs15 graphically}{\fs15 figured}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 'superposed
'}{\fs15 alive-and-dead}{\fs15 predicament}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 Schrdinger's}{\fs
15 cat }
26 {\fs15 -}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 arose}{\fs15 when}{\fs15 physicists}{\fs15 t
ried}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 explain}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 point}{\fs15 th
at}{\fs15 transition}{\fs15 occurred,}{\fs15 and }
26 {\fs15 whether}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 involved}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 conscious}{\fs
15 intervention}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 human}{\fs15 (or}{\fs15 maybe}{\
fs15 feline)}{\fs15 observer.}{\up006 \fs8 143 }\par
}
143 Norris, Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism, 14-15. \par
}
63 \par
}

ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Therefore, if we need to have anything existing at all, either
all the wavefunc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s should exist as real, i.e., "some-things" should be ontologically committed
as existing, which are statistically expressed as wavefunctions. If wav
efunc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s are mere mathematical functions without ontological commitment, there
ts nothing physical in the world, for everything would then be reducible to
functions in general. The reified "waves" and "particles", as separate entities,
ot exist, since they are reified mathematical objects attempting to ex
press
pure form of the real physical entities. The real entity that exists
in exten\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
-motion process is the wavicle: particle in wave-motion. Hence, everything
ematical should in meaning be so contrived or so interpreted to support the
al nature of the physical thing there. This interpretation is part of the work
hysicist and of philosophers of physics too.
26 If the entity being treated in the statistical calculations in QM could be co
n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 side
red as the actual physical wavicle-entity or process and not as the ideal one,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 then
these mathematically ideal shapes must in the physical case be made
to
at least some partial connection in their extension-motion process. This is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in g
eneral the only possible way of adapting the mathematical entities to physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
actuality. The physical case is where the real thing is the physical
union of
and particle into a wavicle- or wave-form particle motion. Thus they would
ther exist as a causally processual wavicle - and not exist as a se
parate or
ially separate wave at one time and particle at another time and then some\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 how
come together into one complementary stuff at a third moment or at
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so-c
alled collapse. This process can only be causal, since everything processual
xtension-motion has to be causal.

26 Against the background of the discussions above and in the previous chap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ters
, the so-called wave-particle complementarity and the projected impossibil\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
of a fully causal interpretation here (except the probabilistic causality that i
s
osed by some to be the solution) can be seen as interpretations base
d on
epistemic absorption of data without ontological commitment to anything
al-processual as inevitably existing between the two mesoscopically clea
r
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 poin
ts of immediate past and future causal elements of whatever micro-cosmic
ess is at issue. In order to support my claims that complementarity
does
consider the ontological presuppositions of ontological commitment and the
of Causality at all, that the concept of complementarity is a near-sightedly
temologically based claim over probabilistic causalism, and that therefo
re
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ascr
iption of a probabilistic ontological nature to the universe is based
on our
abilistic epistemic capacities, I cite the following passages from Willem M.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 de
Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist Approach and
discuss further:
164 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 It is certain, however, that for Bohr 'complementarity' is
a fundamental property of
26 human cognitive faculties, and that for him its significance exceeded by far
the domain
26 of quantum mechanics, or even of physics. Evidence for this judgment can be f
ound in
26 the essays {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} in which Bohr has trie
d to generalize the epistemological problems he
26 met in quantum mechanics to, for instance, 'human knowledge' and 'the problem
of
26 life'. In doing so his guiding principle was the restricted applicability of

the concepts by
26 which our experiences are described, a restriction caused by the impossibilit
y of drawing
26 a sharp distinction between subject and object. This was the key issue in his
notion of
26 'complementarity'.{\up006 \fs8 144 }
{\fs18 Further, }
\fi226 In the Copenhagen interpretation the projection postulate describes the c
hange of the
26 state vector realized by a measurement. Thus, weak projection {\field{\*\fldi
nst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} may be considered
26 as describing the process in which a quantum mechanical observable gets defin
ed, the
26 precise value remaining unknown as long as the actual measurement r
esult has not
26 been observed. Strong projection is associated with this latter act. Compleme
ntarity is
26 explained on the basis of the idea that in measurements of incompatible obser
vables
26 projections are realized onto distinct state vectors. Non-existence of joint
eigenvectors
26 prevents simultaneous measurement of incompatible observables.{\up006 \fs8 14
5 }
{\fs18 And}{\fs18 again, }
\fi226 The language of projection strongly suggests the activity of "creating ph
ysical attributes
26 to atomic objects by measurements" Bohr is warning against{\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}. By itself the projection
26 postulate need not be in disagreement with Bohr's epistemological philosophy,
since
26 weak projection may be viewed upon as analogous to choosing a different coord
inate
26 frame (an orthonormal basis in Hilbert space), and, hence, need not
have an ontic
\fi226 meaning. The width of the probability distribution \{{\f20 {\field{\*\fld
inst SYMBOL 244 \\f Symbol }}}{\dn006 \fs8
rnc }{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 2
44 \\f Symbol }}{\f20 }{\up006 \fs8 2}\} in the contextual state {\field{\*\f
ldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}{\dn006 \fs8 A }
26 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} is interpretable as the latitude
observable A is defined with in the context of a meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7164\absh7674 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 urement of A. In an instrumentalist interpretation of the state vector no phy
sical cause
26 need be given for the discontinuous change the state vector experiences durin
g a strong
26 projection: knowledge can change discontinuously.{\up006 \fs8 146 }
{\fs18 Now}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 questions}{\fs18 before}{\fs18 us}{\fs18
are:}{\fs18 Wave-particle}{\fs18 complementarity}{\fs18 presupposes }
18 duality,}{\fs18 and}{\fs18 why?}{\fs18 What}{\fs18 unifies}{\fs18 t
hem,}{\fs18 if}{\fs18 they}{\fs18 are}{\fs18 physically}{\fs18 and}{\f
s18 ontologically }
18 already}{\fs18 one}{\fs18 and}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 same?}{\fs18 What}{\fs18
exactly}{\fs18 are}{\fs18 being}{\fs18 unified}{\fs18 here?}{\fs18 These}
{\fs18 I}{\fs18 attempt }
18 to}{\fs18 answer}{\fs18 in}{\fs18 my}{\fs18 own}{\fs18 way. }
26 {\fs18 Let}{\fs18 me}{\fs18 begin}{\fs18 here}{\fs18 with}{\fs18 a}
{\fs18 statement}{\fs18 from}{\fs18 R.}{\fs18 R.}{\fs18 Sharma,}{\fs18
already}{\fs18 cited}{\fs18 else- }
18 where:}{\fs18 "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs18 both}{\
fs18 radiation}{\fs18 and}{\fs18 matter}{\fs18 are}{\fs18 some}{\fs18
unvisualizable}{\fs18 single}{\fs18 entities, }\par
}
44 de Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 198.
de Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 221.
de Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 221. \par
}
65 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 their duality arising from the limitations of language."{\up006 \fs10 147 }
\par
}
{\phpg\posx5625\pvpg\posy854\absw1860\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 No
te that 'unvisualiz- \par
}
able' in the quote means 'in no way visualizable', and not 'at the present momen
t
visualizable'. I would argue that the 'duality' in QM is purported
to be an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abs
olute duality of the two mathematically separately described entities (

wave
particle), described in ordinary language from the concepts in mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
language - not of the actual wave and the actual particle. In the mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
ly separate entities it is no more possible to speak of any extensio
n-motion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lev
el (but only measurementally spatiotemporal) connections between these two
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ide
al realities attributed to the actual physical propagation. The more than two
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tho
usand years old substitution of extension-motion by measuremental space\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tim
e has caused also the non-recognition and de-recognition of the absence of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ext
ension-motion level unity in mathematical waves and particles.
226 This points the finger at the implicit causal difficulties (I would say, err
ors)
the statistical interpretation of QM. (What these errors could be, will be dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cus
sed later.) For this reason, the non-visualizability of the two ideal mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
entities (waves and particles) is only due to the ideality of these mathematica
l
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ent
ities. Some protagonists of causal-probabilistic QM fight causation at
some
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 poi
nts in the course of QM processes, by use of the ideal-mathematical entities,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nam
ely, waves and particles. These entities are comparable in ontological impor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tan
ce to the ideal atoms of Laplace. The real physical entities are different in bo
th
cases. The following chapters take up this issue and show how any solution to
will make causality a must for the micro-world.
226 Our ability to epistemically make generalizations which cognitively
objec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tif
y unto the whole cosmos, unto the totality of the otherwise unfathomable in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fin
itesimal causal effects within the spatiotemporal depths of any given
entity
event, etc., is sure to be a rational generalization of a certain circumference
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wit
hin Reality. This is all that is within our capacity at any given time. The diff
er\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enc
e here is that generalisation is not merely about the here-and-now using the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 her
e-and-now for instant analysis, but instead seeks wider causes, reasons and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exp
lanations. This ontological search for the deeper causes and effects a
t work
the ever more infinitesimally minute parts of an entity or event or process, I
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thi
nk, can bring out the genuineness of the viewpoint in QM from infra-quantal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inf
initesimal causal ubiquity, which is slightly different from what is had at pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sen
t in the causal, non-causal and acausal versions of QM. (See Chapter
1 for
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 det
ailed references to the causal, non-causal and acausal interpretations of QM,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7194\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 whi
ch allow me such a distinction in QM in my arguments.) \par
}
147 Sharma, Realistic Foundations of Physics and Cosmology, 173.
{\fs17 166 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs18 \cf0 According to Falkenburg, the complementarity of wave and par
ticle means
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh692 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 the f
ollowing: "Complementarity means that these pictures mutually exclude and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh692 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 compl
ement each other. However, the complementarity of causality and space\par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1604\absw3279\absh467 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 t
ime coordination derives from this."{\up006 \fs10 148 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1604\absw3279\absh467 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ing
of complementarity as follows: \par
}
{\phpg\posx4145\pvpg\posy1604\absw3610\absh242 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 F
alkenburg gives the summarized mean- \par
}
5 \cf0 Hence, Bohr interprets wave-particle duality as dual properties of indivi
dual particles.
226 In his view, these dual properties are as well expressed by the relations E
= h{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\f Symbol }} and{\b p} = {\f63 \u1115\'3f}{\b
k }
226 as by Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. Due to them a position measurement
changes
226 the momentum to an unknown extent and vice versa. In this way, they give ris
e to the
226 complementarity of spacetime coordination and causality.{\up006 \fs8 149 }

{\fs18 Here}{\fs18 belongs}{\fs18 Bohr's}{\fs18 concept}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 c
omplementarity}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 spacetime}{\fs18 and}{\fs18 causality.}{\fs1
8 The }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2217\absw7309\absh6071 \sl-250 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 {\f
s18 spacetime}{\fs18 concept}{\fs18 should}{\fs18 categorially}{\fs18 and}{\
fs18 ontologically}{\fs18 have}{\fs18 been}{\fs18 conceived}{\fs18 as }
s18 extension-motion,}{\fs18 which}{\fs18 is}{\fs18 a}{\fs18 basic}{\fs18 o
ntological}{\fs18 nature}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 matter-energy.}{\fs18 He}{\fs18 a
t- }
s18 tributes}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 need}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 complementarity}{\fs18
to}{\fs18 classical}{\fs18 theories.}{\fs18 But}{\fs18 classical}{\fs18 th
eories }
s18 took}{\fs18 extension-motion}{\fs18 as}{\fs18 spacetime,}{\fs18 too.}{\f
s18 QM}{\fs18 followed}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 classical}{\fs18 spacetime- }
s18 exclusion}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 causality}{\fs18 from}{\fs18 some}{\fs18
moments}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 micro-world}{\fs18 processes,}{\fs18 for}{\fs
18 the }
s18 projected}{\fs18 reason}{\fs18 that}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 application}{\fs18
of}{\fs18 statistics}{\fs18 to}{\fs18 phenomena}{\fs18 did}{\fs18 away}{\
fs18 with }
s18 universal}{\fs18 causality}{\fs18 and}{\fs18 accepted}{\fs18 partial}{\f
s18 causality.}{\fs18 As}{\fs18 a}{\fs18 result,}{\fs18 not}{\fs18 only}{\
fs18 classical }
s18 physics,}{\fs18 but}{\fs18 even}{\fs18 QM}{\fs18 forgot}{\fs18 the}{\fs
18 categorial}{\fs18 fundamentality}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 Law}{\fs18
of}{\fs18 Causal- }
s18 ity,}{\fs18 which}{\fs18 is}{\fs18 implied}{\fs18 categorially}{\fs18 b
y}{\fs18 matter-energy}{\fs18 and}{\fs18 extension-motion.}{\fs18 From }
s18 the}{\fs18 Como}{\fs18 lecture}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 Bohr:}{\fs18 "The}{\fs1
8 very}{\fs18 nature}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 quantum}{\fs18 theory}{\f
s18 thus}{\fs18 forces }
s18 us}{\fs18 to}{\fs18 regard}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 spacetime}{\fs18 coordinat
ion}{\fs18 and}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 claim}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 causality,}{\fs18
the}{\fs18 union}{\fs18 of }
s18 which}{\fs18 characterizes}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 classical}{\fs18 theories,}
{\fs18 as}{\fs18 complementary}{\fs18 but}{\fs18 exclusive}{\fs18 fea- }
s18 tures}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 description{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 18
8 \\f Symbol }}."}{\up006 \fs10 150}{\fs18 In}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 light}{\fs18
of}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 above}{\fs18 discussion,}{\fs18 the}{\fs18 comple- }
s18 mentarity}{\fs18 he}{\fs18 speaks}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 between}{\fs18 space
time}{\fs18 and}{\fs18 causality}{\fs18 will}{\fs18 have}{\fs18 to}{\fs18
be}{\fs18 taken}{\fs18 as }
s18 substitution}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 causality}{\fs18 by}{\fs18 spacetime}{\fs1
8 probabilism}{\fs18 in}{\fs18 certain}{\fs18 moments}{\fs18 of}{\fs18 phy
s- }
s18 ics.}{\fs18 Due}{\fs18 to}{\fs18 mere}{\fs18 spacetime}{\fs18 measureme
ntal}{\fs18 description,}{\fs18 it}{\fs18 is}{\fs18 no}{\fs18 more}{\fs18
possible}{\fs18 in }
s18 QM}{\fs18 to}{\fs18 discover}{\fs18 causal}{\fs18 continuity}{\fs18 in}
{\fs18 the}{\fs18 micro-world. }
226 {\fs18 Further, }
\fi226 In these formulae the two notions of light and also of matter enter in s
harp contrast.
226 While energy and momentum are associated with the concept of particle, and h
ence
226 may be characterized according to the classical point of view by
definite spacetime \par
}
148 Falkenburg, Particle Metaphysics, 272.
Falkenburg, Particle Metaphysics, 275. The equations link the quantities E,{\b
p} of the
349 classical particle picture and the quantities v,{\b k} of the classical wav
e picture.
Niels Bohr, "The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic The\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9484\absw7200\absh1566 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 ory", Nature 121, 580-590, cited in Falkenburg, Particle Metaphysics, 273.
\fi6061 {\fs18 167 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 co-ordinates, the period of vibration and wavelength refer to a pla
ne harmonic wave
26 train of unlimited extent in space and time.{\up006 \fs8 151 }
{\fs17 It}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 good}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 keep}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 min
d}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 how}{\fs17 else}{\fs17 Bohr}{\fs17 describes}{\fs17 d
uality}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 complemen- }
17 tarity}{\fs17 together: }
\fi226 This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumst
ance that we are
26 presented with a choice of either tracing the path of a particle or observing
interference
26 effects, which allows us to escape from the paradoxical necessity of concludi
ng that the

26 behaviour of an electron or a photon should depend on the presence of a slit
in the
26 diaphragm through which it could be proved not to pass. We have here to do wi
th a
26 typical example of how the complementary phenomena appear under mutually excl
u\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7330\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 sive experimental arrangements and are just faced with the impossibility, in
the analysis
26 of quantum effects, of drawing any sharp independence between behaviour of at
omic
26 objects and their interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to d
efine the
26 conditions under which the phenomena occur.{\up006 \fs8
152 }
{\fs17 Alisa}{\fs17 Bokulich}{\fs17 discusses}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 conceptual}{
\fs17 difficulties}{\fs17 involved:}{\fs17 "There}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 consid}
17 erable}{\fs17 confusion}{\fs17 over}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 meant}{
\fs17 by}{\fs17 "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 the}{\fs1
7 Copenhagen}{\fs17 interpretation;}{\fs17 on }
17 the}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 hand}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 used}{\fs17
quite}{\fs17 rightly}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 describe}{\fs17 Bohr's}{\fs17 o
wn}{\fs17 complementarity }
17 interpretation;}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 hand}{\fs17
it}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 mistakenly}{\fs17 been}{\fs17 used}{\fs17 to}{\
fs17 describe}{\fs17 the }
17 standard}{\fs17 physics}{\fs17 textbook}{\fs17 collapse}{\fs17 interp
retation.}{\fs17 Nowhere}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Bohr's}{\fs17 writings }
17 does}{\fs17 he}{\fs17 ever}{\fs17 appeal}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 co
llapse}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 wavefunction."}{\up006 \fs10 153 }
26 {\fs17 I}{\fs17 propose}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 understand}{\fs17 complementarit
y}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 realistic}{\fs17 way.}{\fs17 This}
{\fs17 will}{\fs17 be }
17 a}{\fs17 simple}{\fs17 exercise}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 settling}{\fs17 between
}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 realism}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 non-reali
sm }
17 or}{\fs17 relativism,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 consequently}{\fs17 also}{\fs17
between}{\fs17 causalism,}{\fs17 partial}{\fs17 causalism,}{\fs17 non- }
17 causalism}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 acausalism}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM.}{\fs17 Here}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concepts}{\fs17 'duality'}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 'complementa}
17 rity'}{\fs17 resist}{\fs17 unification}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 foll
owing}{\fs17 reasons: }

26 {\fs17 (1)}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 mathematically}{\fs17 ordained}{\fs17 wave-}
{\fs17 and}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 natures}{\fs17 (based}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 m
eas- }
17 ured}{\fs17 spatiotemporal}{\fs17 quantities}{\fs17 pertaining}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 each)}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 mutually}{\fs17 exclusive}{\fs17 if
}
{\fs16 151}{\fs16 Niels}{\fs16 Bohr,}{\fs16 "The}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Pos
tulate}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Recent}{\fs16 Development}{\fs16 of}{\f
s16 Atomic}{\fs16 The- }
49 {\fs16 ory",}{\fs16 cited}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Falkenburg,}{\fs16 Particle}{\
fs16 Metaphysics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 273. }
16 152}{\fs16 Niels}{\fs16 Bohr,}{\fs16 "Discussions}{\fs16 with}{\fs16
Einstein}{\fs16 on}{\fs16 Epistemological}{\fs16 Problems}{\fs16 in}{\
fs16 Atomic }
49 {\fs16 Physics",}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 P.}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 Schilpp,}{\fs16 Ed
.,}{\fs16 Albert}{\fs16 Einstein:}{\fs16 Philosopher}{\fs16 Scientist}{\fs16
,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Library}{\fs16 of }
49 {\fs16 Living}{\fs16 Philosophers}{\fs16 (Evanston,}{\fs16 IL:}{\fs16 194
9),}{\fs16 (page}{\fs16 number}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 given),}{\fs16 cited}{\fs1
6 in}{\fs16 {\f63 \u268\'3f}aslav }
49 {\fs16 Brunker}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Anton}{\fs16 Zeilinger,}{\fs16 "Quan
tum}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 Science}{\fs16 of}{\fs16
Information" }
49 {\fs16 (47-62),}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 A.Elitzur,}{\fs16 S.}{\fs16 Dolev}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 N.}{\fs16 Kolenda,}{\fs16 Eds.,}{\fs16 Quo}{\fs16 Vadis}{\fs16
Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics? }
49 {\fs16 (Berlin:}{\fs16 Springer,}{\fs16 2005),}{\fs16 48. }
16 153}{\fs16 See}{\fs16 footnote}{\fs16 5}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 reference}{\f
s16 to}{\fs16 Howard}{\fs16 (2004)}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Alisa}{\fs16 Bokulich,
}{\fs16 Reexamining}{\fs16 the }
49 {\fs16 Quantum-Classical}{\fs16 Relation:}{\fs16 Beyond}{\fs16 Reductionis
m}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Pluralism}{\fs16 (Cambridge:}{\fs16 Cam- }
49 {\fs16 bridge}{\fs16 University}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 2008),}{\fs16 30
.}{\fs16 More}{\fs16 clarity}{\fs16 will}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 had}{\fs16
when}{\fs16 we}{\fs16 discuss}{\fs16 the }
49 {\fs16 double-slit}{\fs16 experiment}{\fs16 later. }
{\fs17 168 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 considered in their mathematical ideality. These ideals cannot be causally
con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nect

ed together as such into one phenomenon or simply into one reality in the
owing manner: geometrical ideals are ideals, and cannot be conceived t
o\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 geth
er as the real wavicle without dropping their ideality and without somehow
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 maki
ng them real, i.e., the real physical wavicle has to be considered as partially
lving the ideal natures.
26 (2) In case one insists on existence of separate evidences for the
wave- and
icle natures to be separately real, there will be either only causality, or only
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausality in the mutual relations of waves and particles in nature. The rea\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sons
for this are the following: Partial causality will show the remaining portion
e non-causality, in which case we need to ask what the reason is for a pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
ual part that was causal previously to instantly turn non-causal. If
the one
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 port
ion has always been non-causal, the form of existence of things non-causal
ld be known at least partially. Acausality is epistemological non-committal
causality or non-causality. This need not mean anything but temporary sus\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pens
ion of judgment.
26 To add an important point to these arguments, the dual are dual and are at th
e
time complementary only when they are together brought down from their
etrical ideality to reality. I hold that their ideality is the reason why the tw
o
ot be compatible.
26 Now we move to discuss some theoretical problems in what has been done in
regard and go into the reasons for some of my basic differences with these
anations - which will be by drawing up a perspective of infinitesimally and
nitely causal ubiquity as the only possible rational foundation for a genuine
anation of the microcosmic reality.
{\b \fs21 7.4.}{\b \fs21 Elements}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Causation}{\b \fs21
in}{\b \fs21 QM}{\b \fs21 Probabilism }
QM took origin as a result of attempts to find solutions to problems
in late
sical mechanical ways of description of micro- and the allied meso-lev
el
omena. Three points to be noted about classical physics as we differe
nti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ate
between the classical and the quantum are as follows. In classical p
hysics,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (1) g
eometrically speaking, matter particles were treated as point instances,
h in fact was an arrangement between geometry and physics for the sake of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 simp
licity of treatment of particle motion, (2) energy radiation was initially taken
e propagating in straight lines and later even as waves - both of the shapes
g attested by experimental "evidences" that followed the two separate ideal
s of motion guided by the geometry, and (3) as to whether energy propa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7168\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gate
s instantaneously or with time not much thought was given, but perhap
s
\fi6061 169 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 it was taken to propagate instantly, for otherwise there were no
solid reasons
differentiate energy from matter. Matter obeyed time. Energy is suppose
dly
agated continuously and in Euclidean straight lines, which might indicate
it was supposed in earlier classical physics to be instantaneous pro
paga\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7874 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
. But at the same time, both matter and energy were still taken to be spatial.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7874 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 How
could something spatial in motion be non-temporal in motion? Perhaps
mood swung later to considering matter and energy as propagating in time,
the swing must have taken time.
26 Though initially energy propagation was taken by some to be instantaneous,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7874 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Newt
on held the particle theory of energy propagation, which meant that i
ts
agation speed is always finite. Somehow, it was thought to be feasibl

e to
y time-independence to radiation theory, but the exact ways of justification
he same were not worked out - e.g., that anything in measurement spatial
to be temporal too. A few citations for clarification from Newton ar
e in
e here.
\fi226 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is}
{\fs15 now}{\fs15 certain}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 phenomena}{\fs15 o
f}{\fs15 Jupiter's}{\fs15 satellites,}{\fs15 confirmed}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the
}{\fs15 obser- }
26 {\fs15 vations}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 different}{\fs15 astronomers,}{\fs15 that
}{\fs15 light}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 propagated}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 succession,}{\fs
15 and}{\fs15 requires }
26 {\fs15 about}{\fs15 seven}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 eight}{\fs15 minutes}{\fs15 t
o}{\fs15 travel}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 sun}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\f
s15 earth.}{\fs15 Moreover,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 rays }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 light}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 our}{\fs1
5 air}{\fs15 (as}{\fs15 lately}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 discovered}{\fs15 by}{\fs
15 Grimaldus}{\fs15 ,}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 admission}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 light}{\fs15 into}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 dark}{\fs15 room}{\fs15 through
}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 small}{\fs15 hole,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 I}{\fs15 have}{\fs
15 also}{\fs15 tried)}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 passage }
26 {\fs15 near}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 angles}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 bodies}{\fs15 {\fi
eld{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 bent}{\fs15 or}{\fs
15 inflected}{\fs15 round}{\fs15 those}{\fs15 bodies}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 if}{
\fs15 they}{\fs15 were }
26 {\fs15 attracted}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 them.}{\up006 \fs8 154 }
Again,
\fi226 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 quantities}{\f
s15 of}{\fs15 forces,}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 may,}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 brevity's}{\
fs15 sake,}{\fs15 call}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 names}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
motive,}{\fs15 accelera- }
26 {\fs15 tive,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 absolute}{\fs15 forces;}{\fs15 and,}{\fs15
for}{\fs15 distinction's}{\fs15 sake,}{\fs15 consider}{\fs15 them,}{\fs15
with}{\fs15 respect}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 bodies}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 tend}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 centre
;}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 places}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 bodies;}{
\fs15 and}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 centre}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 force }
26 {\fs15 towards}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 tend;}{\fs15 that}{\fs15
is}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 say,}{\fs15 I}{\fs15 refer}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 motive}{\
fs15 force}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 body}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 en
deav- }
26 {\fs15 our}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 propensity}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 whol

e}{\fs15 towards}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 centre,}{\fs15 arising}{\fs15 from}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 propensities}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 several}{\fs15 parts}{\fs15 taken}{\fs15 together;}{\fs15 the}{\fs
15 accelerative}{\fs15 force}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 place}{\fs15 of}{
\fs15 the}{\fs15 body,}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 certain }
26 {\fs15 power}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 energy}{\fs15 diffused}{\fs15 from}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 centre}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 places}{\fs15 around}{\fs15
to}{\fs15 move}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 bodies}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 are }
26 {\fs15 in}{\fs15 them;}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 absolute}{\fs15 forc
e}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 centre,}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 endued}{\fs15 with}
{\fs15 some}{\fs15 cause,}{\fs15 without}{\fs15 which }
26 {\fs15 those}{\fs15 motive}{\fs15 forces}{\fs15 would}{\fs15 not}{\fs15
be}{\fs15 propagated}{\fs15 through}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 spaces}{\fs15 round}{
\fs15 about;}{\fs15 whether }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 cause}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 some}{\fs15 central}{\fs15 bod
y}{\fs15 (such}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 load-stone,}{\fs15 in
}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 centre}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 magnetic }
26 {\fs15 force,}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 earth}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\f
s15 centre}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 gravitating}{\fs15 force),}{\fs15 o
r}{\fs15 anything}{\fs15 else}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 not }
26 {\fs15 yet}{\fs15 appear.}{\fs15 For}{\fs15 I}{\fs15 here}{\fs15 design}
{\fs15 only}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 give}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 mathematical}{\fs15 noti
on}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 those}{\fs15 forces,}{\fs15 without }
26 {\fs15 considering}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 physical}{\fs15 causes}{\fs15 and}
{\fs15 seats.}{\up006 \fs8 155 }\par
}
154 Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 246.
{\fs17 170 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 All the same, Newton and his followers kept themselves relatively free of
the need
ake energy propagation as time-dependent, perhaps because such physical cases
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 did
not arise much, except in astronomical ones. From the beginning of the QM era,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 blac
k body radiation, photoelectric effect etc. could be explained only when radia\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
was taken also as particle motion, though the fact that diffraction is a charac
ter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 isti
c of waves was known even centuries ago. The difficulties began when Louis de
lie hypothesized that matter in the form of electrons has plane wave properties.
26 This was confirmed by the 1927 Davisson-Germer experiment of electro
n
raction, which later showed also that diffraction patterns are characteristic of
wave-nature. This experiment consisted of passing an electron beam through
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a r
egular lattice, a crystal. The diffraction patterns that appeared showe
d that
e electrons are waves. Clearly, this confirmed the theoretical predictions that
a mono-energetic electron beam can be described by a plane wave and (2) the
vector{\b k} of the wave should be related to the momentum{\b p} of an indivi
dual
tron by the relation:{\b p} = {\f63 \u295\'3f}{\b k}. As the particle propagate
s, it is associated with a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trav
eling wave pattern. Its direction of propagation is that of the particle, and th
e
593 {\fs10 i}{\fs10 (kx}{\fs10 -}{\fs10 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 119 \\f
Symbol }}t) } , where {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 119 \\f Symbol }} is the
ular frequency of the wave.
26 Additionally, we may assume that the Planck-Einstein relation E = {\f63 \u295
\'3f}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 119 \\f Symbol }} for the
gy of a photon and the frequency of the corresponding wave applies to ma\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 teri
al particles described by {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}{\up006 \fs
10
156.}
Now, the velocity of the traveling plane wave is
same as that of the plane of constant phase (kx - {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 119
\\f Symbol }}t = c), namely, v {\dn006 \fs10 {\f63 \u1092\'3f}} = {\field{\*\fl
dinst SYMBOL 119 \\f Symbol }}/k.
is different from the classical velocity v. Let us omit the questio
n of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Schrd
inger equation for total energy of the system (called Hamiltonian func\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
) for a non-free particle, and state generally the case of several particles. In
case of several particles, the wave function {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f S
ymbol }} is a function of coordinates x{\dn006 \fs10 1},
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 x ,2
{\dn006 \fs10 x} {\dn006 \fs10 3}, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}
x {\dn006 \fs10 N} of the particles and the time t{\up006 \fs10
157. }
26 Now to connect this to probability predictions: QM is compelled to speak of

icles at least at the end-result of observational predictions. No variety of QM
ontologically say that at observation there were particles and before that it
all pure probability waves that were absolutely no (at least partial) particles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or w
avicles at all. Timothy V. Reeves discusses the said compulsion in the field
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of r
andom motion to speak of particle, as he explains how he has to venture into
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 assu
ming probability waves as actual physical waves: \par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy4854\absw4852\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 w
ave function of the free particle is written as {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\
f Symbol }}(x, t) = e \par
}
156 Bernard d'Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Menlo Park
,
349 CA.: W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1971), 4.
d'Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 4-8.
\fi6061 {\fs17 171 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 Conventional random walk deals with discrete particular lumps of ma
tter, and yet mathe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7307\absh7869 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 matically the subject is developed using the spatially extended curves of tha
t mysterious
26 quasi-objective quality we call probability. Usually, these curves re
present human
26 information about the position of a particle rather than an actual property o
f the space
26 they fill. The nearest these imaginary curves come to being realized as a phy
sical reality
26 occurs with large numbers of randomly moving particles, as we see, for exampl
e, in fluid
26 diffusion. But in spite of this, it is clear that an ultimately lumpy particu
late diffusion can
26 never emulate quantum waves. I had to radically modify the notion of diffusio
n and this
26 required at least two fundamental changes. In order to get ordinary diffusion
to look

26 more quantum mechanical, my first meditation was, I suppose, fairly simple, o
bvious and
26 nave: I took those smooth envelopes of probability to be literal physical real
ities and thus,
26 the diffusion equation is imagined to represent a physical property, or field
of probability,
26 not unlike that of the complex wave fields of a single quantum particle.{\up0
06 \fs8 158 }
{\fs17 This}{\fs17 piece}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 quote}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 a}{\fs17
physicist}{\fs17 shows}{\fs17 how}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 general}{\fs
17 tends}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 equate }
17 probability}{\fs17 waves}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 individual}{\fs17 quantum}{
\fs17 wavicles}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 groups}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 th
em.}{\fs17 The }
17 original}{\fs17 purpose}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Reeves}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 was}
{\fs17 to}{\fs17 draw}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 viable}{\fs17 parallel}{\fs17 betwee
n}{\fs17 gravita- }
17 tion}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 waves. }
26 {\fs17 The}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 reasonable}{\fs17 understanding}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 the}{\fs17 unavoidable}{\fs17 statistical-probabilis- }
17 tic}{\fs17 interpretation}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 been}{\fs17 t
hat,}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 observation}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 causally}{\fs17 infuse}{
\fs17 into}{\fs17 the }
17 observed}{\fs17 reality}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 new}{\fs17 particles}{\fs17 (
radiation),}{\fs17 which,}{\fs17 exposed}{\fs17 over}{\fs17 many}{\fs17 hit
s, }
17 yields}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 average}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 results.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 wave}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 probab
ility}{\fs17 (identi- }
17 fied}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 "probability}{\fs17 waves")}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not
}{\fs17 permit}{\fs17 us}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 clearly}{\fs17 identify}{\fs17 t
he}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 of }
17 the}{\fs17 particular}{\fs17 measuremental}{\fs17 spacetime}{\fs17 choice
}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 each}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 extensi
on- }
17 motion}{\fs17 level}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 able}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 identify}{\fs17 (measure)}{\fs17 clearly}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 the
}{\fs17 gross}{\fs17 space }
17 and}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 ordinary}{\fs17 objects}{\fs17 and}{\fs
17 using}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 apparatuses}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 spac
e}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 time }
17 of}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 minute}{\fs17 ones.}{\fs17 If}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 m
easured}{\fs17 space}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 obj
ects}{\fs17 (whatever }
17 these}{\fs17 objects}{\fs17 are,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 they}{\fs17
do}{\fs17 exist)}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 identi
fied}{\fs17 easily,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 cannot }
17 also}{\fs17 identify}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 wave}{\fs17
nature}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 huge}{\fs17 collections}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 th
em}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the }
17 wave}{\fs17 nature}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 actual}{\fs17 wave}{\fs17 forms}{\fs
17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 wavicle}{\fs17 objects}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 as}{\fs17
indicating}{\fs17 their }
17 wave}{\fs17 nature. }
26 {\fs17 Clearly,}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 argues}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 al
l}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 objects}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 ontologi
cally}{\fs17 non-causal. }
17 The}{\fs17 difficulties}{\fs17 enter}{\fs17 into}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 pictu
re}{\fs17 when}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 deal}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 experim
ental}{\fs17 (epis- }
17 temic)}{\fs17 reception}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 waves,}{\fs17 at}{
\fs17 least}{\fs17 epistemologically,}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 acausal}{\fs17 and}{
\fs17 say}{\fs17 that }
17 the}{\fs17 world}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 made}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 probability}{\fs
17 waves,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 objects}{\fs17 (of}{\fs17
whatever}{\fs17 kind}{\fs17 and }
17 extension-motion}{\fs17 mutual}{\fs17 connexity)}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 process
}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 obey}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 cause-effect}{\fs17 law. }
17 When}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 means}{\fs17 introduction}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
non-causality}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 sort}{\fs17 of}{\
fs17 acausality, }\par
}
158 Timothy V. Reeves, Gravity and Quantum Non-linearity: Gravity as Evidence o
f Non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10144\absw7050\absh972 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 linearity in Quantum Mechanics (Hertford: AuthorsOnline, 2004), 2.
{\fs17 172 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 questions remain unanswered. Acausality is a concept with the epistemologi
cal
re of probability-propositions and does not commit itself to there being any
e or not. Therefore is thereby not meant identifying causes and effects. The
sal notion is not interested in causality or non-causality within a process, but

in the probabilistic description of the occurrence.
26 The problem to be faced now is the following: Granted that the mo
tion of
particle in wave motion is somehow caused by a specific action on it in the
riment - and thereafter there is some sort of non-causality or merely episte\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gical acausality surging up from somewhere into its motion. One does not
understand the physical connection between the causality behind QM and
non-causality or acausality that one concludes to; and one is unable to dif\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fere
ntiate between the epistemological acausality and a possible non-causality. If
sality is just an expression for our inability to decide between causality and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausality, it is not acceptable in the long run, too. Hence, the probabilistic
s considered by QM are to be interpreted as causal effects of many wavicles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 outthere.
26 In short, the fact is not that probability waves are real physical wavicles o
r ob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ject
s; but these are, understandably, only termed so by a certain methodological
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 laye
r of inquiry which gives us only the probabilities of prediction in the gross,
t a multitude of hits of actual wavicles on on detection terminals (as in the
le slit experiment). If one objects to this interpretation, one forgets thereby
our probabilistic wave prediction of a group of hits as such is ontologically
the real wavicle outside of our mind. Moreover, only actual wavicles
can
up the objects and processes of this world - which surely can be
causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 too.
This is because everything is reducible to energy, and physical proc
esses
we ourselves will otherwise have to be probability waves without an iota of
ation involved. This shows clearly to any human thought that even in
the
abilism of QM there are inherent causal strains, the fact of which i
s con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 veni
ently forgotten - though we may not discover them clearly. I attempt in this
ter to delve deeper into that world of causalities in QM. This will enable us
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to g
o one step further toward finally admitting that the micro-world is through
through causal.
{\b \fs21 7.5.}{\b \fs21 Traditional}{\b \fs21 Double}{\b \fs21 Slit}{\b \fs
21 Experiment}{\b \fs21 vs.}{\b \fs21 Causality }
QM was developed by abstracting from the two basic principles of wave
me\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 chan
ics, namely, from the superposition principle and its corollary the linearity
he equation of motion. These have been guides in the development of QM.
superposition principle may be borne out from numerous experiments like
\fi6061 173 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the double slit experiment (originated at some time in the first five year
s of the
s) of Thomas Young or the experiment of electron diffraction or the
like,
h attempted to prove without doubt that light consisted of waves. Physicists
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7100\absh5417 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (e.g
., Richard Feynman{\up006 \fs10 159}) explain Young's experiment so well that t
he essentials
QM can be grasped by an exploration of the implications of the doubl
e slit
riment. The so-called interference is clear at its best if monochromatic light
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7100\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (wav
es of the same energy) from two coherent sources is allowed to inter
fere.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7100\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (For
the two-point source interference patterns see Thomas Young's experiment
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7100\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of 1
801. {\up006 \fs10 160})
26 In the double slit experiment{\up006 \fs10 161} a beam of particles
is shot at a screen, i.e.,
xtremely weak source S is made to emit exactly one particle at a given time
a barrier with two narrow slits is placed between the source of the particles
their target. One knows here for sure that it is exactly one particle (however
iotemporally mutually aligned) at a time that is caused to emit - whether in
classical framework or not.

26 The beam supposedly goes through two slits in screen A (according to some
rpretations) and falls on screen B, each particle leaving one and onl
y one
anent mark on B. If one slit is closed, the particles go through th
e other
form a line on the target. This is how particles should act. (Note that in this
ement we take the particle nature in isolation from its wave nature and that
wave nature should make the particle capable of spirally wave movemen
t
articles.) If both the slits are open, the result provides evidence for a wave:
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7100\absh5417 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 i.e.
, instead of there being two lines (due to the two slits) formed on the target,
see a whole pattern of bright and dark lines called an interference
pattern. \par
}
159 "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} [T]he phenomenon of two-slit e
lectron interference contains the only mystery of
349 quantum mechanics{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}", paraphrased f
rom The Feynman Lectures, in Mark P. Silver\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7286\absw7360\absh3544 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 man, Quantum Superposition: Counterintuitive Consequences of Coherence, Enta
n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7286\absw7360\absh3544 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 glement and Interference (Berlin: Springer, 2008), viii. See also p. 2 for S
ilverman's
349 positive admission of his later realisation of the importance of the experim
ent.
For a graph of the interference pattern, see: URL: http://www.physics
classroom.
349 com/Class/light/U12L3b.cfm (Accessed on 14 Jan. 2011) By interference is mea
nt
349 the appearance, when splitting a beam of light into two, of a series of ligh
t and dark
349 bands on the screen, produced by overlapping waves, instead of two bright re
gions
349 expected from two streams of light particles hitting the screen. Alfred B. B
ortz, Phys\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7286\absw7360\absh3544 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 ics Decade by Decade (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2007), xiii.
The following video tutorial gives a fair idea of the fundamentals
of QM, e.g.,
350 the double slit experiment. URL: http://www.bestdamntutoring.com/introductio

n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7286\absw7360\absh3544 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
350 to-quantum-mechanics-part-2.html?gclid=COic4JPO7akCFUG9zAodvz8_ZA
350 (Accessed on 6July2011).
{\fs17 174 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 In the records of wavicles coming in through both the slits, "[t]here are
places
e the total wave energy is much greater than the sum from the two slits, and
r places where the energy is zero. Such a distribution is called an interference
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 patt
ern."{\up006 \fs10 162 }
26 The density distribution {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} (z) of t
hese marks after time T is commonly taken
how an interference pattern as caused by waves.{\up006 \fs10 163} This indicates
that these
icles have also the propagation qualities attributed to waves. If we absolutely
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fix
ourselves to the path the electron takes using a which-way detector, we do not
any interference. That is, only when the second slit is also open do we have
interference, not when only one slit exists. As a result of this experiment, the
owing may be concluded: The relative number of particles in the neighbour\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hood
of point z on screen B (i.e., number of particles in that neighbou
rhood
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 divi
ded by total number of particles) shows a diffraction pattern as a function of
location z of that point on the screen. This is characteristic of waves.
26 For example, assume as follows: (1) In the first stage of the two
-slit experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-316 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
, slit 2 is shut and a density repartition {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Sym
bol }} {\dn006 \fs10 1}(z) on screen B is measured. (2) In
second stage, slit 1 is shut and the density repartition {\field{\*\fldinst SYMB
OL 114 \\f Symbol }} {\dn006 \fs10 2}(z) on B is measured.
In the third stage both the slits are opened and the density {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} {\dn006 \fs10 3}(z) on B is meas-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ured

. The experimental densities (densities of presence) {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 1
14 \\f Symbol }} {\dn006 \fs10 1}, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}
{\dn006 \fs10 2}, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} {\dn006 \fs10 3}
then showed (1)
that {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}{\dn006 \fs10 3}(z) {\field{\*\
fldinst SYMBOL 185 \\f Symbol }} {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} {\d
n006 \fs10 2}(z) + {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} {\dn006 \fs10 1
}(z), and (2) that two (complex) functions {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Sym
bol }} {\dn006 \fs10 1}(z), {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}{\dn006
\fs10 2}(z) exist,
that {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} (z) ={\f20 {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 244 \\f Symbol }}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }} (z){\f20 {
\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 244 \\f Symbol }}}{\up006 \fs10 2}, {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} (z) ={\f20 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 244 \\f Symbol }
}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }} (z){\f20 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
244 \\f Symbol }}}{\up006 \fs10 2}, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }
} (z) ={\f20 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 244 \\f Symbol }}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYM
BOL 121 \\f Symbol }} (z) + {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }} (z){\f20
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 244 \\f Symbol }}}{\up006 \fs10 2}, which are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 modu
li squared. This shows, classically speaking, that the source S emitted clas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sica
l waves (not classical particles), where a wave's intensity (or energy content)
roportional to the square of the amplitude.{\up006 \fs10 164 }
26 Another fact shows itself here, which makes these waves different from clas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7159\absh7598 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sica
l waves. If the duration of the experiment in the third stage is kept constant
the intensity of the source is sufficiently lowered, the result is different fro
m
is classically predicted.
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 law}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }
}}{\fs15 (z)}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 distribution}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 obs
erved}{\fs15 intensity}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 is,}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 bl
ackening}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 emulsion}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 screen}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 gets}
{\fs15 appreciably}{\fs15 altered}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 whi
ch}{\fs15 a)}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 reproducible }
26 {\fs15 (it}{\fs15 varies}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 experiment}{\fs15
to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 next)}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 b)}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 such}{\f
s15 that}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 corresponds}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 impact}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 zero}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 integer}{
\fs15 number}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 particles}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 given}
{\fs15 small}{\fs15 area.}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 shows }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 assumption}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 S}{\fs15 emi
ts}{\fs15 just}{\fs15 classical}{\fs15 waves}{\fs15 instead}{\fs15 of}{\fs1
5 particles,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 observed}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 screen}{\fs15 B}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 simply
}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 local}{\fs15 effect}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 these}{\fs15 waves

,}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 certainly}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 correct }\par
}
{\phpg\posx1886\pvpg\posy6003\absw55\absh141 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 1 \
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
162 "The Feynman Double Slit", URL: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Har
rison/
349 DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html (Accessed on 12 April 2012)
\fi6061 {\fs17 175 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 hypothesis; although, if the time of exposure is now increased so a
s to allow for large
26 numbers of impacts in most areas of screen B, the cumulative density of impac
ts {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} (z)
\fi226 again takes, within the usual approximation of statistics, the form {\fie
ld{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} {\dn006 \fs8 3} (z) predicted by the
26 wave picture.{\up006 \fs8 165 }
{\fs17 According}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 d'Espagnat,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 simple}{\fs1
7 and}{\fs17 direct}{\fs17 "conclusions"}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 fa
ct}{\fs17 are }
17 the}{\fs17 following}{\fs17 principles,}{\fs17 however}{\fs17 much}{\fs17
or}{\fs17 less}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 adheres}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 them:}{\fs17 (
i)}{\fs17 These }

17 micro-structures}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 elementary}{\fs17 quanta}{\fs17 th
at}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 split}{\fs17 in
definitely. }
17 These}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 integral}{\fs17 wholes}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 particle
s}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 exist}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 experiment.}{\fs17
(ii)}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 wave }
17 function}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}(x)}{\fs17 may
}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 associated}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 "particle
s"}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 fashion}{\fs17 that }
17 the}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 finding}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 particle
}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 sufficiently}{\fs17 small}{\fs17 region}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 volume}{\fs17 dv }
17 around}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 point}{\fs17 x}{\fs17 (say,}{\fs17 around}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 nucleus)}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 definite}{\fs17 value}{\fs17
P(x)dv,}{\fs17 where}{\fs17 the }
17 summation}{\fs17 extends}{\fs17 over}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 space.}{\fs17 (ii
i)}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 principle}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 superposition}{\fs17 or}{\f
s17 static }
{\fs17 linearity:}{\fs17 "If}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }
} }{\dn006 \fs10 1}{\fs17 (x)}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121
\\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs10 2}{\fs17 (x)}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 poss
ible}{\fs17 wave}{\fs17 functions}{\fs17 (i.e.,}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 they}{\fs1
7 are}{\fs17 func- }
17 tions}{\fs17 associated}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 particles}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 po
ssible}{\fs17 settings}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 apparatus),}{\fs17 then}
{\fs17 any}{\fs17 lin- }
{\fs17 ear}{\fs17 combination}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121
\\f Symbol }}}{\dn006 \fs10 1}{\fs17 (x)}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}}{\dn006 \fs10 2}{\fs17 (x)}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 in}{\fs
17 general}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 wave}{\fs17 functio
n."}{\up006 \fs10 166 }
26 {\fs17 What}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 most}{\fs17 important}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
note}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 d'Espagnat}{\fs17 forew
arns}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 "de- }
17 terministic"}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 interpretation}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 these}{\fs17 principles}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 stage,}{\fs
17 which}{\fs17 is }
17 exactly}{\fs17 where}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 find}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 many}{\fs1
7 quantum}{\fs17 physicists}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 take}{\fs17 care}{
\fs17 and}{\fs17 con- }
17 clude}{\fs17 therefrom}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 acausality}{\fs17 or}{\fs17
non-causality.}{\fs17 D'Espagnat}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 mention
}
17 that}{\fs17 'probability'}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 means}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 operational}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 "relative}{\fs17 frequen
cy": }

17 "If}{\fs17 N}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 total}{\fs17 number}{\fs17 of}
{\fs17 particles}{\fs17 emitted}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 source,}{\fs17
then}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 sufficiently }
17 large}{\fs17 N,}{\fs17 NP(x)dv}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 simply}{\fs17 the}{
\fs17 number}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 particles}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 expects}{\fs
17 to}{\fs17 find,}{\fs17 upon }
17 measurement,}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 volume}{\fs17 element}{\fs17
dv.}{\fs17 Thus}{\fs17 principles}{\fs17 (i),}{\fs17 (ii),}{\fs17 (
iii)}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not }
17 imply}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 motion}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 i
ndividual}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 determined}{\fs17 by}
{\fs17 sufficiently }
17 complicated}{\fs17 unknown}{\fs17 forces."}{\up006 \fs10 167 }
26 {\fs17 We}{\fs17 cannot}{\fs17 say}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 is}{\
fs17 nothing}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 behind}{\fs17 the
}{\fs17 operational}{\fs17 or }
17 instrumentalistic}{\fs17 experiences}{\fs17 here.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 o
perational}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 mathematical }
17 formalism}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 description}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 the}{\fs17 experimental}{\fs17 measurements,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 know, }
17 cannot}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 identified}{\fs17 with}{
\fs17 the}{\fs17 unavoidable}{\fs17 objectual-ness}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 th
e }
17 given,}{\fs17 presupposed}{\fs17 system}{\fs17 under}{\fs17 experimental}
{\fs17 investigation.}{\up006 \fs10 168}{\fs17 By}{\fs17 reason}{\fs17 of}{\
fs17 in- }
17 duction,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 underlying}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 Reality-in-t
otal}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 descriptions }
17 is}{\fs17 already}{\fs17 given}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 and}{\fs17
objectual}{\fs17 (in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 being}{\fs17
not}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 concep- }
17 tual}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 imaginary),}{\fs17 onto}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 p
hysical}{\fs17 experiments}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 measurements}{\fs17 apply }
{\fs16 165}{\fs16 d'Espagnat,}{\fs16 Conceptual}{\fs16 Foundations}{\fs16 o
f}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 13. }
16 166}{\fs16 d'Espagnat,}{\fs16 Conceptual}{\fs16 Foundations}{\fs16 of}{\
fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 15. }
16 167}{\fs16 d'Espagnat,}{\fs16 Conceptual}{\fs16 Foundations}{\fs16 of}{\
fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 16. }
16 168}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 have}{\fs16 discussed}{\fs16 this}{\fs16 preconditi
on}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 first}{\fs16 few}{\fs16 chapters}{\fs16 und
er}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 names}{\fs16 'onto- }
49 {\fs16 logical}{\fs16 commitment'}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 'objectual

-ness'}{\fs16 yielded}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 ontological}{\fs16 commitment. }
{\fs17 176 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the rules of mathematics. Mathematics works (i.e., is operational
on physical
ems), but the mathematical description of physical systems presupposes
alities.
26 A totally strict correspondence to the ontologically (objectually) given real
ity
not what is obtained in the description by the mathematical formalism,
i.e.,
e is no exact correspondence between the terms of various descriptions and
actually given system that gives itself to investigation. In short, this means
only that the applicability of mathematics to physics is never exact, absolute,
onsense-based and exhaustive, but also that it is always possible to expect
and more reasons, causes and effects to be discovered through mathe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7232\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cal and experimental interventions. Whatever is thus discoverable can b
e
logically accepted in ontological commitment to there being something-s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7232\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - wh
ich asserts the "fact", and not the "which" of the causes.
26 In order to make the results of the experiment intelligible in a popular way,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7232\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 John
Gribbin explains it very anthropomorphically, as if the electrons kno
w
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7232\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (fro
m when on and till when?) of the work of our consciousness at the moment
bservation, and as if Nature changes itself when we look into it, which only
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7232\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wors
ens understanding and is perhaps responsible for much undue hype about
place of consciousness in QM experiments. I quote him:
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 electrons}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 know}{\fs15
whether}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 both}{\fs15 holes}{\fs15 are}{\fs15
open,}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 know}{\fs15 whether}{\fs15 or }
26 {\fs15 not}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 watching}{\fs15 them,}{\fs15 and}

{\fs15 they}{\fs15 adjust}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 behavior}{\fs15 accordingly.}
{\fs15 There}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 clearer }
26 {\fs15 example}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 interaction}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 observer}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 experiment.}{\fs15 When}{
\fs15 we}{\fs15 try}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 look}{\fs15 at }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 spread-out}{\fs15 electron}{\fs15 wave,}{\fs15 it}{\fs1
5 collapses}{\fs15 into}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 definite}{\fs15 particle,}{\fs15 b
ut}{\fs15 when}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 not }
26 {\fs15 looking}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 keeps}{\fs15 its}{\fs15 options}{\fs15 o
pen.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15 terms}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 Born's}{\fs15 probabilities,}{
\fs15 the}{\fs15 electron}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 being }
26 {\fs15 forced}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 measurement}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 c
hoose}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 course}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 action}{\fs15 out}{\fs15 o
f}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 array}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 possibili- }
26 {\fs15 ties.}{\fs15 There}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 certain}{\fs15 proba
bility}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 could}{\fs15 go}{\fs15 through}{\fs15
one}{\fs15 hole,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 equivalent }
26 {\fs15 probability}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 go}{\fs15 thr
ough}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 other;}{\fs15 probability}{\fs15 interference}{\fs15
produces}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 dif- }
26 {\fs15 fraction}{\fs15 pattern}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 detector.}{\fs
15 When}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 detect}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 electron,}{\fs15 though,
}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 be }
26 {\fs15 in}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 place,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 changes
}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 probability}{\fs15 pattern}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 its}{\fs15
future}{\fs15 behavior}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 that }
26 {\fs15 electron,}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 now}{\fs15 certain}{\fs15 wh
ich}{\fs15 hole}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 went}{\fs15 through.}{\fs15 But}{\fs15 un
less}{\fs15 someone}{\fs15 looks,}{\fs15 nature }
26 {\fs15 herself}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 know}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 ho
le}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 electron}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 going}{\fs15 through.}{\up00
6 \fs8 169 }
Notice how our looking is not differentiated from the causal effects our looking
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7232\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 leav
es on the phenomenon. The way one should have attempted to clarify t
he
er is by saying that the act of observation involves disturbing the
process
ally, which causes superposition of states.
26 I do not attempt a critique of the classical anthropomorphism of o
bjects
in. It suffices just to remark that the apparatus that we use to ob
serve the

{\fs16 169}{\fs16 John}{\fs16 Gribbin,}{\fs16 In}{\fs16 Search}{\fs16 of}{
\fs16 Schrdinger's}{\fs16 Cat}{\fs16 (New}{\fs16 York:}{\fs16 Bantam,}{\fs16
1984),}{\fs16 171. }
\fi6061 177 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 quantum phenomenon, together with the action of conducting the experiment,
ot equivalent to our consciousness directly being involved in the experiment
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6080 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so e
ffectively as to change the course of action of the particle merely by the work\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6080 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
of our mind divorced from the experiment. The apparatus is an extension of
consciousness insofar as it is organized in our way, but it works just causally,
out facilitating further so-called haphazard conscious or unconscious con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6080 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trol
of the particle motion by the very act of our initiating a measuring event on
apparatus. Thus, "whether or not we are watching them" means just whether
ot we permit both the slits to open, or whether or not the apparatus sends
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6080 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a q
uanton to interfere with the course of the quanton to be measured. H
ence,
uch cases of influence of consciousness, always the reference is to the act of
rvention by the apparatus, not directly by the consciousness.
26 The problem of wave motion through two slits was sought to be solved by de
lie (in 1927 in the Solvay Conference, and further in 1928 and thereafter),
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6080 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by p
roposing that a quantum wave called pilot wave{\up006 \fs10 170} guides every pa
rticle in
double slit experiment. Later Bohm{\up006 \fs10 171} (in 1952) sought o
ther related solu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6080 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s. The term 'pilot' appears here because it supposedly drives the particle.
\fi226 {\fs15 Assuming}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 pilot-wave}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 do
es}{\fs15 contain}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 ontological}{\fs15 pilot}{\fs15 wave}{\f
s15 (a}{\fs15 complex- }
26 {\fs15 valued}{\fs15 field}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 configuration}{\fs15 space),}
{\fs15 we}{\fs15 show}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 claims}{\fs15 arise}{
\fs15 from}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 interpreting }

26 {\fs15 pilot-wave}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 its}{\fs15 own}{\fs15 t
erms.}{\fs15 Specifically,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 its}{
\fs15 own}{\fs15 ('subquantum') }
26 {\fs15 theory}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 measurement,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 in}{\fs15
general}{\fs15 describes}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 'nonequilibrium'}{\fs15 state}{\fs1
5 that}{\fs15 violates }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 Born}{\fs15 rule.}{\fs15 Furthermore,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15
realistic}{\fs15 models}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 classical}{\fs15 limit
,}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 obtain }
26 {\fs15 localised}{\fs15 pieces}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 ontological}{\f
s15 pilot}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 following}{\fs15 alternative}{\fs15 macroscopi
c}{\fs15 trajecto- }
26 {\fs15 ries:}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 de}{\fs15 Broglie-Bohm}{\fs15 v
iewpoint,}{\fs15 alternative}{\fs15 trajectories}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 merely}{\
fs15 mathemati- }
26 {\fs15 cal}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 ontological.}{\up006 \fs8 172 }
According to the pilot wave version, it is held that, when in the double slit ex
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6080 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 peri
ment one slit is open, the pilot wave and the particle move through the slit. \p
ar
}
170 Wyatt, Quantum Dynamics with Trajectories, 59.
Bohm's version of QM is qualified by Halpern as "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188
\\f Symbol }} a form of classical mechanics
349 involving special quantum forces." Otto Halpern, "A Proposed Re-interpret
ation of
349 Quantum Mechnics", Phys. Rev., 78, 389 (1952), cited in Quentin Smith, "A Ra
di\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8164\absw7222\absh2754 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 cal Re-thinking of Quantum Gravity: Rejecting Einstein's Relativity
and Unifying
349 Bohmian Quantum Mechanics with a Bell-neo-Lorentzian Absolute Time,
Space
349 and Gravity" (73-124), in William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Ed
s., Einstein,
349 Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (London: Routledge, 2008), 75.
Antony Valentini, "De Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory: Many Worlds in
De\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8164\absw7222\absh2754 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 nial?" (arXiv:0811.0810v2 [quant-ph] 5 Nov 2008), http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/
arxiv/
349 pdf/0811/0811.0810v2.pdf (Accessed 12 April, 2001).
{\fs17 178 }\par

}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 The result on the screen is a line. When two slits are open, one concludes
from
result that particles go through one or the other slit and the pilot wave enters
ugh both. One tends to argue that the interference pattern is a result of this
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 latt
er so-interpreted phenomenon.
26 It is simple enough for us now to argue against the elements of misconcep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
here in the following manner. The pure wave shape as such, if it has to be
ical, is different from the pure particle shape. We know these are not two - a
and a separate particle - in the case of the wavicle. Both are to be seen as
reality, the physical wavicle. Both, in mutual separation, are mathematical
ties, a wave going along a particle or vice versa. In actual case they are to be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 blen
ded to obtain the actual physical instance of wavicle in such a way that they
not to be taken as 'things' different from the entity or as capable
of going
g with the entity. That is, what so to say "jumps" the two slits together is the
ematical wave, and not the physical wave. Both these mathematical entities
be superposed physically to obtain what we represent by wave or particle or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wavi
cle. A sort of physically (not measurementally "spatiotemporal", but objec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tual
ly at the level of extension-motion) elongated particle is thus moving in time
he extended form of a three-dimensional spiral wave. It makes up the four
nsions of mathematical treatment.
26 I suggest that computer simulations of fast moving bodies may yield
that a
ical particle can never move in a straight line, if appropriate mathe
mati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
limits are introduced against the motion being straight line motion u
nless
the motion is infinite in velocity. That yields that near-luminal, l

uminal
superluminal motion can only be curvilinear in all the four dimensions, i.e.,
spiral motion of various dimensional quantities can be physical. A spiral is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a cu
rve with {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 116 \\f Symbol }}(s) / {\field{\*\fldinst SYM
BOL 107 \\f Symbol }}(s) equal to a constant for all s, where {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 116 \\f Symbol }} is the torsion and {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 107 \\f S
ymbol }}
he curvature.{\up006 \fs10 173} This might be termed a macroscopic or classical
explanation,
we cannot have any other explanation even in QM cases, unless one wrongly
mes probability curves as indicating wave motion of individual QM micro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wavi
cles. This latter point has already been discussed.
26 There cannot be purely experimentally demonstrable and mathematically
(ideal) wave-nature and particle-nature. Instead, we have only experimen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tall
y measuremental recognition of the purely mathematical wave- and partic
le
res ascribed to the physical wavicle - which in fact is a sufficiently ideal at\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temp
t to speak of the real physical wavicle nature from the two aspects, namely, \pa
r
}
173 Eric W. Weisstein, CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics (Boca R
aton, FL.:
349 Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1999), s.v. "Spiral".
\fi6061 {\fs17 179 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 physical and mathematical. The experimental demonstration of Einstein's li
ght
ta and de Broglie's matter waves are thus the experimental recognitions of
concepts. Hence, Bohr's explanation of wave-particle duality in terms
of
lementarity is a bad attempt to integrate two physically mutually inco
m\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pati
ble but purely (ideally) mathematical concepts. His was a manner that does

do justice to the real wavicle, because only the concept of a causally variously
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 elon
gated or extended quasi-particle moving in variously extended spiral paths
do justice to the physical case. Just saying that the dual are already comple\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
ary is no explanation.
26 An answer to the question as to which of these ideals is actually recognized
to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be c
loser to the fact at an experiment depends on the kind of experiment. There\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fore
, the only way of integrating the two concepts is to say that the one moves
he other manner, i.e., physical particles move in physical wave form, i.e., in
-packet form, in three-dimensionally extended spiral motion in measured
e-dimension and in the fourth measured time-dimension. Most probably it
ot that mathematical waves move as physical particles, or mathematical par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
es (as "pilot waves") move with physical waves. These latter two ways are im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 poss
ible by QM definition of quanta as composed physical objects with a specific
gy content which is convertible into collected matter form with assign
ed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mass
. In other words, quanta are to be taken at the same time as composed mat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ter
and composed energy; there are no composed matter and simple energy.
26 This yields a way of superposing the mathematical concepts of waves
and
icles in actual physical cases and obtaining the real act of the wavicle. This
ds the misunderstanding that a physical wave and a physical particle
exist
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sepa
rately at different experimental situations. When we say that the wave func\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
collapses, we must know that it is the mathematical function that collapses,
the actual physical wave is a wave of particles moving as wave-shaped packets
that one sort of experiment at a certain stage yields only the mat
hematical
icle nature at the respective calculations, and another sort of experiment at
her stage yields the mathematical wave nature at calculations.
26 The so-called protective measurement of a single particle is nowaday
s pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e, and "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} may give some informat
ion about the measured system only
this system is in an eigenstate of the measured observable. All other QND
urement processes would either lead to a change in the state of the meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ured
system, or give no information about the measured system at all."{\up006 \fs10
174} QND \par
}
174 Orly Alter and Yoshihisa Yamamoto, Quantum Measurement of a Single
System
349 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001), 50. See also Gonzalo Muga, Ra
fael Sala
{\fs17 180 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 ("quantum non-demolition") is a new series of techniques of quant
um meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 urem
ents, in which only the protective measurement works to give reliable
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 info
rmation without infusing a change in the system. Even this measurement
ins statistical for our methods because each measurement depends on pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 viou
s measurements. This can safely be ascribed to our epistemological lim
it
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 situ
ation.{\up006 \fs10 175 }
26 This sort of an explanation is also the sort of claim we can une
arth to be
upposed in the quote above from Valentini (and probably also in Bohm and
rs). The (pilot) wave, which is an ideal mathematical object, a shape
, tra\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ject
ory, or route as regards the classical and quantum formalism, is not
to be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mist
aken to be an ontologically real and independent physical object. Therefore,
mere, physically non-existent mathematical form or shape of a pilot wave as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 capa
ble of guiding the particle does not suffice to explain the actuality. It would
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be b
etter to say that a particle moves in a spiral wave form, where there would
nner alterations in the wavicle, determining the wave form in all the three

ctions of extension.
26 Positing the mathematical constitution of pilot waves or the purely geometri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
wave- and particle concepts as the solution gives up much ground on physical
ctural cogency in argument in any proposed solution. This ends up with a
mathematical instrumentalist formalism and never explains (1) the actual
ical (causal) movement of the wavicle or (2) the so-understood and merely
ible semblance of movement of the wave or particle through both the slits.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Betw
een the wave- and particle concepts, QM cannot decide once for all or sug\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gest
any sort of complementarity, if the variety of interpretations of complemen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tari
ty caused by the original lack of clarity in the geometrical forms will continue
e maintained and a physical solution to the mathematical problem will not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be s
ought. Luckily, practically no one today holds the possibility of a pilot wave
g a solution. By the end of our argument for causality in the EPR paradox,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I sh
all further see if and how the concept of pilot waves, further improved upon
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7175\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by V
alentini, could help us understand QM better - but that in an entirely new
er. \par
}
6 \cf0 Mayato and igo Egusquza, Eds., Time in Quantum Mechanics, Vol. I, Second Ed
349 tion, Lecture Notes in Physics 734 (Berlin: Springer, 2008), 150-151.
Alter and Yamamoto, Quantum Measurement of a Single System, 51.
\fi6061 {\fs17 181 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 8. Interpretations of Important
i1556 Results in Quantum Physics \par
}

\cf0 8.1. Hidden Variables Interpretation
cf0 {\b0 \fs18 I}{\b0 \fs18 take}{\b0 \fs18 up}{\b0 \fs18 here}{\b0 \fs18 so
me}{\b0 \fs18 general}{\b0 \fs18 notions}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 hidden}{\b
0 \fs18 variables}{\b0 \fs18 theory}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 QM}{\b0 \fs18
that}{\b0 \fs18 are }
{\b0 \fs18 useful}{\b0 \fs18 for}{\b0 \fs18 our}{\b0 \fs18 discussion}{\b0 \f
s18 of}{\b0 \fs18 causal}{\b0 \fs18 realism.}{\b0 \fs18 I}{\b0 \fs18 do}{\b
0 \fs18 not}{\b0 \fs18 study}{\b0 \fs18 many}{\b0 \fs18 specific}{\b0 \fs18
varie- }
{\b0 \fs18 ties}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 hidden}{\b0 \fs18
variables}{\b0 \fs18 interpretation;}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 it}{\b0 \
fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 impossible}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18 study}{\b0 \fs18
the }
{\b0 \fs18 originators}{\b0 \fs18 with}{\b0 \fs18 their}{\b0 \fs18 origina
l}{\b0 \fs18 works}{\b0 \fs18 on}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 respective}{\
b0 \fs18 type}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 interpretation }
{\b0 \fs18 developed}{\b0 \fs18 there.}{\b0 \fs18 I}{\b0 \fs18 do}{\b0 \fs
18 not}{\b0 \fs18 claim}{\b0 \fs18 here}{\b0 \fs18 any}{\b0 \fs18 exha
ustiveness.}{\b0 \fs18 My}{\b0 \fs18 aim}{\b0 \fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 only}{
\b0 \fs18 to }
{\b0 \fs18 prepare}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 way}{\b0 \fs18 for}{\b0 \fs18 d
iscussing}{\b0 \fs18 some}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 most}{\b0
\fs18 recent}{\b0 \fs18 double}{\b0 \fs18 slit}{\b0 \fs18 experiments }
{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 EPR}{\b0 \fs18 experiments}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \
fs18 drawing}{\b0 \fs18 some}{\b0 \fs18 general}{\b0 \fs18 conclusions}{
\b0 \fs18 useful}{\b0 \fs18 for}{\b0 \fs18 our }
{\b0 \fs18 purpose. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs18 Consider}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 givenness}{\b0 \fs18 of}
{\b0 \fs18 observables}{\b0 \fs18 in}{\b0 \fs18 QM}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18
their}{\b0 \fs18 eigenstates.}{\b0 \fs18 An}{\b0 \fs18 eigen- }
{\b0 \fs18 state}{\b0 \fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 dynamical}{\b0 \fs18
state}{\b0 \fs18 whose}{\b0 \fs18 state}{\b0 \fs18 vector}{\b0 \fs18 ('wav
e}{\b0 \fs18 function')}{\b0 \fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 an}{\b0 \fs18 eigenvector }
{\b0 \fs18 (called}{\b0 \fs18 'eigenfunction')}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 an}{\
b0 \fs18 operator}{\b0 \fs18 which}{\b0 \fs18 corresponds}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0
\fs18 a}{\b0 \fs18 specified}{\b0 \fs18 physical }
{\b0 \fs18 quantity}{\b0 \fs18 .}{\b0 \fs18 An}{\b0 \fs18 eigenstate}{\b0 \f
s18 of}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 energy}{\b0 \fs18 operator}{\b0 \fs18
(Hamiltonian}{\b0 \fs18 operator)}{\b0 \fs18 with}{\b0 \fs18 a }
{\b0 \fs18 definite}{\b0 \fs18 stationary}{\b0 \fs18 value}{\b0 \fs18 for}{\b
0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 energy}{\b0 \fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 called}{\b0 \fs18 an
}{\b0 \fs18 energy}{\b0 \fs18 state.}{\b0 \fs18 How}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\b0 \fs18
inter- }
{\b0 \fs18 pret}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 value}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 an}
{\b0 \fs18 observable,}{\b0 \fs18 if}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 state}{\b0 \f
s18 of}{\b0 \fs18 that}{\b0 \fs18 system}{\b0 \fs18 is}{\b0 \fs18 not}{\b0
\fs18 an}{\b0 \fs18 eigenstate}{\b0 \fs18 of }
{\b0 \fs18 that}{\b0 \fs18 observable?}{\b0 \fs18 Michael}{\b0 \fs18 Readhed}
{\b0\up006 \fs10 176}{\b0 \fs18 discusses}{\b0 \fs18 this}{\b0 \fs18 question
}{\b0 \fs18 along}{\b0 \fs18 with}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 three }
{\b0 \fs18 historically}{\b0 \fs18 most}{\b0 \fs18 important}{\b0 \fs18 answe
rs}{\b0 \fs18 attempted}{\b0 \fs18 for}{\b0 \fs18 it:}{\b0 \fs18 i.e.,}{\b0
\fs18 hidden}{\b0 \fs18 variables-,}{\b0 \fs18 pro- }
{\b0 \fs18 pensities}{\b0 \fs18 and}{\b0 \fs18 potentialities-,}{\b0 \fs18 an
d}{\b0 \fs18 Copenhagen}{\b0 \fs18 interpretations. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs18 The}{\b0 \fs18 hidden}{\b0 \fs18 variables}{\b0 \fs18 inter
pretation}{\b0 \fs18 may}{\b0 \fs18 be}{\b0 \fs18 conceived}{\b0 \fs18 to}{\
b0 \fs18 be}{\b0 \fs18 a}{\b0 \fs18 causal}{\b0 \fs18 interpre- }
{\b0 \fs18 tation,}{\b0 \fs18 but}{\b0 \fs18 the}{\b0 \fs18 two}{\b0 \fs18 a
re}{\b0 \fs18 not}{\b0 \fs18 identical: }
cf0 \fi226 {\b0 \fs15 [Q]uantum}{\b0 \fs15 mechanical}{\b0 \fs15 'hidden}{\b0
\fs15 variables'}{\b0 \fs15 were}{\b0 \fs15 originally}{\b0 \fs15 proposed}{
\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 be}{\b0 \fs15 variables}{\b0 \fs15 that }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 determine}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 values}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\
b0 \fs15 measurable}{\b0 \fs15 quantities}{\b0 \fs15 but}{\b0 \fs15 are}{\b0
\fs15 not}{\b0 \fs15 themselves}{\b0 \fs15 measurable.}{\b0 \fs15 A }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 'hidden-variable'}{\b0 \fs15 quantum}{\b0 \fs15 theory}{\b0
\fs15 contains}{\b0 \fs15 such}{\b0 \fs15 variables.}{\b0 \fs15 The}{\b0 \fs
15 Causal}{\b0 \fs15 Theory}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 his- }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 torically}{\b0 \fs15 a}{\b0 \fs15 member}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0
\fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 set}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 'hidden-variable'}{\b0 \f
s15 theories}{\b0 \fs15 and}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 still}{\b0 \fs15 label
led}{\b0 \fs15 as}{\b0 \fs15 such}{\b0 \fs15 in }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 much}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 literature.}{\
b0 \fs15 In}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 Causal}{\b0 \fs15 Theory,}{\b0 \fs15
the}{\b0 \fs15 position}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 particle}{\b
0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 (the}{\b0 \fs15 so-called) }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 'hidden}{\b0 \fs15 variable'.}{\b0 \fs15 Although}{\b0 \fs15
there}{\b0 \fs15 are}{\b0 \fs15 restrictions}{\b0 \fs15 on}{\b0 \fs15 the}
{\b0 \fs15 measurement}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 particle}{\b0 \fs15 posi- }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 tions,}{\b0 \fs15 it}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 clearly}{\b0
\fs15 possible}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 measure}{\b0 \fs15 these}{\b0 \fs15
positions.}{\b0 \fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\b0 \fs15
John}{\b0 \fs15 Bell}{\b0 \fs15 made}{\b0 \fs15 strong}{\b0 \fs15 protests }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 against}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 Causal}{\b0 \fs15 Theory}
{\b0 \fs15 being}{\b0 \fs15 labelled}{\b0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \fs15 this}{\b0 \fs1
5 way.}{\b0\up006 \fs8 177 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2411\absw7221\absh7932 \sl-237 \par\par\b \f50 \fs
21 \cf0 {\b0 \fs16 176}{\b0 \fs16 Michael}{\b0 \fs16 Readhead,}{\b0 \fs16 In
completeness,}{\b0 \fs16 Nonlocality}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 Realism}{\b0 \
fs16 (Oxford:}{\b0 \fs16 Oxford}{\b0 \fs16 Uni- }
\fi349 {\b0 \fs16 versity}{\b0 \fs16 Press,}{\b0 \fs16 2002),}{\b0 \fs16 44-5
1. }
{\b0 \fs16 177}{\b0 \fs16 Riggs,}{\b0 \fs16 Quantum}{\b0 \fs16 Causality}{\b
0 \fs16 ,}{\b0 \fs16 57. }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs18 183 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Note that hidden variables are representative of measurements at
the actual
tion of the particle in question. In what way are these measurable? Since
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 they
are not directly measured, perhaps it is possible to indirectly give them
opriate symbols or names representing variable or even unknown values,
h have some connection with the measured values around and about.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Whet
her these variables are measured or non-measured or possible values,
totally forgets and equates them at times with superfluous entities i
n
tions or considers them as real since they tend to represent the rea
l as
. One forgets then also that our problem rests on the fact that any
mental or theoretical measurement is bound to be different from the real
e, and one does not make allowances for this fact. Whether or not t
hese
measurable, the hidden variable interpretation posits the objectual and
al nature of QM objects. In this consists its success as a somewhat causal
ry. The hidden variables interpretation says in short that QM is a g
lo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rifi
ed statistical mechanics and that they are no carriers of mystery wit
hin
objectual external world but only epistemological tools made to look
logical.
26 Digression to the theme of the possibility of ontological commitment in QM
hidden variables theory together, and on the epistemological basis of the for\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mer'
s ontological conclusions, is what I had in mind, as I began with the hidden

ables notion. My view is (1) that the purely measurement-based 'yes-or
-no'
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 atti
tude (in the Turing type ways of measuring as in which-way detectors used in
double slit experiment) and in the probabilistic causation interpretation in QM
epistemological without considering the ontological commitment to there
g something, (2) that the basis of yes-or-no to measurability is based on epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temi
c observation of processes in terms of existent or non-existent techniques
ecognition, and (3) that QM's probabilistic interpretation, like any other, is
result of some or other measure-device based on determination of the epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temo
logical aspect of real existence of things in processes that the measurement
esses vaguely approach.
26 That is, as far as the correspondence between our measured or non-measured
ons and the reality behind the measures are concerned, there is no m
uch
erence between the values of eigenvectors and the non-values of hidden vari\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 able
s: both fall very much short of the reality out there. This view ma
kes me
also that, if the 'yes-or-no' recognition-measure concerning presence / ab\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 senc
e or about sharp value / non-sharp value is only at the performance
of a
urement using apparatus, especially in the context of measuring available
tities from Nature by use of desired quantities with respect to the
Uncer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7153\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tain
ty Principle, EPR entanglement, etc., the recognition-measure is just at the
184 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 epistemological aspect of the ontological facts. The actual thing and its
real on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7104\absh7761 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical measure are as out there, and not as such given in the measur
ement
anism.

26 To corroborate this from various aspects, I quote at length from Willem M.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7104\absh7761 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 de M
uynck without comments on the mathematical aspect. First of all: "Inde\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7104\absh7761 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pend
ently of its interpretation, a physical theory is a (mathematical) representa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7104\absh7761 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of our knowledge about reality, and is, hence, always epistemic (a detector
he laboratory is hit by an electron, not by a wave function). {\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} The "solution"
onsider a wave function not as a physical object but as information should
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7104\absh7761 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rath
er be considered a point of departure rather than solving the problem
."{\up006 \fs10 178 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7104\absh7761 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Seco
ndly:
\fi226 {\fs15 Our}{\fs15 custom}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 seeing}{\fs15 classical}{\f
s15 mechanics}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 no-nonsense}{\fs15 description}{\fs
15 of}{\fs15 'reality}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is' }
26 {\fs15 does}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 seem}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 justified.
}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 custom}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 actually}{\fs15 based}{\fs15 o
n}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 confusion}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 categories, }
26 {\fs15 in}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 ontic}{\fs15 realis
m}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 respect}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 existence}{\fs15
of}{\fs15 certain}{\fs15 objects}{\fs15 conclu- }
26 {\fs15 sions}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 drawn}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 respect}{\fs15 t
o}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 (}{\fs15 epistemic}{\fs15 )}{\fs15 interpretation}{\fs15
of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 describing }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 objects.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 question}{\fs15 whether}{\fs
15 the}{\fs15 planet}{\fs15 Mars}{\fs15 "really"}{\fs15 exists}{\fs15 is}{
\fs15 an}{\fs15 ontic}{\fs15 one.}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 related}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 reality}{\fs15 itself.}{\fs15 However,}{\
fs15 Mars}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 point}{\fs15 mass}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 as
}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 rigid}{\fs15 body}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 exist}{\fs15 only }
26 {\fs15 on}{\fs15 paper,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 imagination,}{\fs15
or}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 mathematical}{\fs15 formalism}{\fs15 of}{\fs
15 classical}{\fs15 mechanics. }
26 {\fs15 This}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 purely}{\fs15 epistemic}{\fs15 mat
ter,}{\fs15 related}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 order
}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 knowledge.}{\fs15 By}{\fs15 attribut- }
26 {\fs15 ing}{\fs15 reality}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 model}{\fs15 a}{\f
s15 realist}{\fs15 interpretation}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 classical}{\fs15 mechani
cs}{\fs15 makes}{\fs15 insufficient }
26 {\fs15 distinction}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 categories
.}{\up006 \fs8 179 }
Thirdly:
\fi226 {\fs15 There,}{\fs15 indeed,}{\fs15 might}{\fs15 exist}{\fs15 a}{\fs1

5 different}{\fs15 interpretation}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 contextual}{\
fs15 state}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs8 A
}{\fs15 ,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 sense}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 density}{\fs15 operator}{\fs1
5 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 thought}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 represent}{\fs15 the}{\fs1
5 final}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 measure- }
26 {\fs15 ment,}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 considered}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 an}
{\fs15 alternative}{\fs15 description}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 initial}{
\fs15 state}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.}{\fs15 The}{\
fs15 transition }
\fi226 {\fs15 from}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 t
o}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs8 A}{\fs15 n
eed}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 considered}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 resul
t}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanical}{\fs15 interaction, }
26 {\fs15 but}{\fs15 might}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 taken}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 an}{\fs1
5 epistemic}{\fs15 sense.}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 might}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 compared
}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 transition}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 a }
26 {\fs15 description}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 billiard}{\fs15 ball}{\fs15
as}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 object}{\fs15 having}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 atomic}{\fs15 c
onstitution,}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 description }
\fi226 {\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 rigid}{\fs15 body.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 equal
ity}{\fs15 Tr{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}P }{\dn006 \fs8 m}{\fs
15 =}{\fs15 Tr{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 P}{\fs15
is}{\fs15 then}{\fs15 comparable}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 fact}{\fs15
that}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 rigid }
26 {\fs15 body}{\fs15 description}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 billiard}{\fs15
ball}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 yield}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 same}{\fs15 results}{\fs15
as}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 atomic}{\fs15 description }
26 {\fs15 as}{\fs15 long}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 restrict}{\fs15 ourselv
es}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 experimental}{\fs15 contexts}{\fs15 valid}{\fs15 within
}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 domain}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 ap- }
26 {\fs15 plicability}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 rigid}{\fs15 body}{\fs15
model}{\up006 \fs8
180. }
As a result of the epistemological reduction of the ontological in QM, even the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7104\absh7761 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hidd
en variables account for observables remains epistemic, though the hidden
ables account strives to be more ontological than the specific measure
s. \par
}
{\phpg\posx4034\pvpg\posy7839\absw243\absh121 \f50 \fs8 \cf0 \f50 \fs8 \cf0 A
m \par
}
78 de Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 83.
de Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 89.
de Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 103. \par
}
85 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Theprogramme of the hidden variables account for observables (call observa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bles
'Q') is, as follows, widely extreme in its theoretical plans: "Nothing is ever
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unsh
arp or fuzzy or undefined or meaningless.{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbo
l }} We {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} need to specify a com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plet
e dynamics of the possessed values of observables, and this would hav
e to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inco
rporate some account of why it is impossible to prepare states in which non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 comm
uting or incompatible observables simultaneously have zero dispersion."{\up006 \
fs10 181 }
26 It may be possible to give a gist of the idea behind the theory without going
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 into
detail and bring out its causal import: There are unknown causal chains that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we n
eed to presuppose as the reason for the statistical probabilities behind QM.
efore we introduce mathematical variables whose actual values and natures
hidden. Collectively, these hidden variables are represented as {\field{\*\fldin
st SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}, with pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e values over the domain of {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 76 \\f Symbol }}, which is
a probability space equipped with a
ability measure which "expresses our ignorance in the QM state |{\field{\*\fldin
st SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}> of the
t values of the hidden variables."{\up006 \fs10 182} With respect to {\field{\*\
fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}, our observables would
to be expressed as the values of appropriate real-valued functions defined
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 76 \\f Symbol }}. The value of an observable Q
in the state |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}> may be repres
ented as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh4925 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 [Q]
{\up006 \fs10 |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}>}. (Note: |{\field{\
*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}> here is to be read as the "power" of [Q].)
\fi226 {\fs15 Consider}{\fs15 now}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 function}{\fs15
[Q] }{\up006 \fs8 |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}>}{\fs15 :}{\fs1
5 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 76 \\f Symbol }}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 174 \\f S
ymbol }}R,}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 represent}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 value}{\fs15 of}{\f
s15 Q}{\fs15 when}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 hidden }

26 {\fs15 variables}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 value}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fl
dinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 [Q]}{\up006 \fs8 |{\field{\*\f
ldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}>}{\fs15 ({\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symb
ol }}).}{\fs15 Let}{\fs15 us}{\fs15 denote}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 probability}{\
fs15 density}{\fs15 function }
\fi226 {\fs15 for}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 hidden}{\fs15 variables}{\fs15 in}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}>}{\fs15
by}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}}{\dn006 \fs8 {\field{\
*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 .}{\fs15 So}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldins
t SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}}{\dn006 \fs8 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbo
l }}}{\fs15 ({\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }})d{\field{\*\fldinst SY
MBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 measures}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 probability}{\fs15
that }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 collective}{\fs15 hidden}{\fs15 variable}{\fs15 lies}{\
fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 range}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Sym
bol }}}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}+d{\field{\
*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}.}{\fs15 Then}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 expectation
}{\fs15 value}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 Q}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 |{\field{\*\fldinst SYM
BOL 121 \\f Symbol }}>}{\fs15 is }\par
}
{\phpg\posx1247\pvpg\posy6431\absw2043\absh246 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 <
Q> {\dn006 \fs8 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}}={\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 242 \\f Symbol }} {\dn006 \fs8 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 76 \\f Symbol
}}} [Q]|{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }} > ({\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
108 \\f Symbol }}) {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }}{\field{\*\fldins
t SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }} ({\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }})d{\field
{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }} \par
}
) \par
}
5 \cf0 where we extend the integration in (1) over the whole range {\field{\*\fl
dinst SYMBOL 76 \\f Symbol }} of values allowed for the
226 hidden variables.{\up006 \fs8 183 }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 result}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\f
s17 hidden}{\fs17 variables}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 theory}{
\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 realistic}{\fs17 sum- }
s17 mation}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 values}{\fs17 of}{\f
s17 the}{\fs17 hidden}{\fs17 variables.}{\fs17 As}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 quant
ity}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 allowed }
s17 space}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 equations,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 have}{\fs
17 the}{\fs17 possibility}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 dumping}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 the}{
\fs17 unknowns}{\fs17 in }
s17 an}{\fs17 inclusively}{\fs17 certain}{\fs17 manner. }
226 {\fs17 The}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 behind}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 hidden}{\f
s17 variables}{\fs17 initiative}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 theoretical}
{\fs17 descrip- }

s17 tion}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 elucidation}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 state}{\fs17 description}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121
\\f Symbol }}>}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 incomplete.}{\fs17 For}{\fs17 this }
s17 Bohm}{\fs17 introduced}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}}
{\fs17 in}{\fs17 order}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 sharply}{\fs17 specify}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 values}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 observables.}{\fs17 The }
s17 observables}{\fs17 (measured}{\fs17 quantities)}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 ex
pressed}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 random}{\fs17 variables}{\fs17 over}{\fs17 th
e }
s17 probability}{\fs17 space}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 76 \\f Symbol }}
.}{\fs17 Consequently,}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 observables,}{\fs17 whether}{\fs17
compatible}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 not, }
{\fs16 181}{\fs16 Readhead,}{\fs16 Incompleteness,}{\fs16 Nonlocality}{\fs1
6 and}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 46. }
s16 182}{\fs16 Readhead,}{\fs16 Incompleteness,}{\fs16 Nonlocality}{\fs16 a
nd}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 46-47. }
s16 183}{\fs16 Readhead,}{\fs16 Incompleteness,}{\fs16 Nonlocality}{\fs16 a
nd}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 46. }
{\fs17 186 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 have well-defined joint probability distributions. {\field{\*\fldinst SYMB
OL 108 \\f Symbol }} cannot be directly measured
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or c
ontrolled. This prevents the preparation of dispersion-free states for all ob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 serv
ables, including the incompatible ones.
26 Additionally: "The notation [Q]{\up006 \fs10 |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121
\\f Symbol }}>}({\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}) indicates that the
value of Q for a given
e of {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }} may depend on the QM st
ate |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}>. In some discussions of
hidden\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vari
able theories it is assumed that this is not the case, i.e. that [Q
] {\up006 \fs10 |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}>}({\field{\*\fldin
st SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}) does
depend on |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}>, but only on {\field{\*\
fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}. There is really no loss of generality, since w
e
always include |{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}> as part of {\field{
\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}, but hidden variable is then a misnomer."{\u
p006 \fs10 184 }

efore, (at least) one possible way of making QM thorough enough is to allow
hidden variables to characterize the equations of probability.
26 The merit of this interpretation over mere acausal or non-causal interpreta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s of QM probabilities is that it is realist in the sense of fully
accepting the
tence and causal efficacy of the external world. Hence, according to Read\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 head
, the two characteristic aspects of this realism are the following: "1. The in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 terp
retation is more than just an instrument for deriving empirical predictions.
his sense it is anti-instrumentalist. 2. It is anti-idealist, in the sense that
human
ciousness plays no role in the specification of the interpretation."{\up006 \fs1
0 185 }
26 To that extent it is compatible with a causalist interpretation, and in that
sense
hidden variables theory is in continuity with the classical expectatio
ns, al\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thou
gh there are metaphysical considerations behind this version too - consid\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 erat
ions that are not yet very clear due to it simultaneous approval of the statisti
cal
re of predictions, mixing it up with the causal aspects of hidden variables and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 occa
sional identification of the probabilistic nature itself as the causal nature of
ity. It is also incapable of valid additional predictions that verify this model
,
e the hidden variables are just summarized in the model theoretically and not
rimentally, due to our inability to specify them. It must also be admitted that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a be
tter mode of introducing hidden variables would be difficult to find.
{\b \fs21 8.2.}{\b \fs21 Propensities-}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Potentialitie
s}{\b \fs21 Interpretation }
The propensities- and potentialities interpretation{\up006 \fs10 186} is another
, basically realist,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7163\absh7142 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 type
of interpretations{\up006 \fs10 187} that stresses that a QM system possesses t
he "propensity \par
}
184 Readhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, 47.
Readhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, 47.

Mauro Dorato, "Do Dispositions and Propensities Have a Role in the Ontology of
349 Quantum Mechanics? Some Critical Remarks" (197ff) in Mauricio Surez, Probabil
349 ties, Causes and Propensities in Physics, Synthese Library 347 (Berlin: Spri
nger, 2011).
Readhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, 48-49.
\fi6061 {\fs17 187 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 or potentiality to produce various possible results on measurement, in res
pect of
observable Q."{\up006 \fs10 188} This interpretation shows the state of the syst
em to be such
o allow only a propensity (not unsharp or fuzzy values) as the probable val\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ues
or interpretation of groups of measured values, beyond individual instances
measurement. "[P]ropensities are not properties of physical systems {\fi
eld{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} but
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 {\fi
eld{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} relational attributes of micro-systems p
lus repeatable experimental arrange\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
s or set-ups which serve to manifest the propensities as long-run rel
ative
uencies for the various possible outcomes of measurement."{\up006 \fs10 1
89} Therefore,
vidual measurement of an observable will still assign a sharp value t
o an
vidual instance of an otherwise probabilistically to be interpreted expected
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unsh
arp average of many values. This is a relativised actualization of a potential\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
in theoretical activity.
26 It is also to be stressed that this potentiality is not an essentially posses
sed one,
a secondary one, which is just one of the results of measurements of some
he essential properties. These essential properties are so to say not measured
uch - a fact we should stress all through. For example, the quality of being of
kind of molecular arrangement gives rise to a certain amount of malleability

n object. If one held only onto the existence of secondary qualities, it is idea
l\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ism
after Berkeley. But the propensities interpretation of QM holds both primary
secondary qualities (similar to the ones in Locke), the latter of which being
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 redu
cible to the first.
26 The causalist merit of this view is the following: The experimental
probing
h unearths propensities is not ontologically consciousness-dependent. Our
ng an experiment is irrelevant to QM results insofar as the results
are at
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 leas
t partially dependent on the processes outside our minds. Propensities
are
pendent of the human mind, although they are realized as being with
a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 shar
p value as assigned by experimental measurements - where sharp values
not be the exact and real value of the process as such. This is realism of an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 irre
ducible variety.{\up006 \fs10 190} It is to be noted: "By 'sharp' we mean here t
he state of any
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7269\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncommuting observable Q, so we can predict (with probability one if not
certainty) what the result of measuring Q will be."{\up006 \fs10 191} The probab
ility "one"
lved is considered to be due to our having to measure it within stipulations
yield some value, which is nothing but assigning of a sharp probable value,
h is sharp and exact at that instance.
and}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 48. }
16 189}{\fs16 Readhead,}{\fs16 Incompleteness,}{\fs16 Nonlocality}{\fs16 an
d}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 48. }
d}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 49. }
d}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 50. }
188 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs18 \cf0 This makes clear that, for the propensities interpretation, the inv
olvement of
ciousness by way of making an experiment does not make the processes of
ciousness to directly causally affect the causal processes within the system.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-249 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Of c
ourse, the influence does take place, but indirectly through the devising and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 exec
uting of the experiment. Only the causal intervention for the sake of meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 urin
g, e.g., intervention by sending a particle, alters the probability of our get\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ting
a result regarding the process in its physical state before affecting it causal
ly.
alteration is caused directly by the intervening physical processes, and only
rectly by the conscious processes. Our consciousness and the process of in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 terv
ention by an instrument are not the same process.
{\b \fs21 8.3.}{\b \fs21 Copenhagen}{\b \fs21 Complementarity}{\b \fs21 Inte
rpretation }
I have mentioned in the Preface and Chapter 1 that knowledge of some
QM
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 resu
lts is presupposed from the very start of the current work. I keep the histori\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 call
y prior Copenhagen interpretation towards the end of the present chapter in
r to show its problems in the light of later interpretations.
26 Karl Popper defines the Copenhagen interpretation as: "{\field{\*\fldinst SYM
BOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the claim that, in
ic theory, we have to regard 'the observer' or 'the subject' as part
icularly
rtant, because atomic theory takes its peculiar character largely from
the
rference of the subject or the observer (and his 'measuring agencies')
with
physical object under investigation."{\up006 \fs10 192} He quotes Bohr's
subjectivist stance
the Copenhagen interpretation thus: "Indeed, the finite interaction betw
een
ct and measuring agencies {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} entails th
e necessity of a final renunciation of
classical ideal {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} and a radical revisi
on of our attitude towards the problem

hysical reality."{\up006 \fs10 193 }
26 Popper attempts further to pinpoint what is wrong here, which we shall men\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 tion
after quoting Popper about Heisenberg in line with the above and discussing
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 it.
It seems to be that Heisenberg's view is unconvincing in its subjectivist inter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7266\absh7406 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 pret
ation of QM and defence of the Copenhagen interpretation. Thus, Popper
es Heisenberg, and comments:
\fi226 {\fs15 '{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 [T]he}{\fs15
traditional}{\fs15 requirement}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 science}{\fs15 {\fiel
d{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 permits}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 divis
ion}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 world}{\fs15 into }
26 {\fs15 subject}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 object}{\fs15 (observer}{\fs15 and}{\fs1
5 observed)}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 This}{\
fs15 assumption}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 permissible}{\fs15 in }\par
}
192 Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, 40.
Bohr, "Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics"
,
349 232, cited in Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (London: Hutc
hin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9484\absw7351\absh1566 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 son, 1982), 40. The same article is available at URL: http://www.tu-harburg.
de/rzt/
349 rzt/it/QM/schilpp.html (Accessed on 8 April 2012).
\fi6061 {\fs18 189 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 atomic physics; the interaction between observer and object causes
uncontrollable large
26 changes in the system [that is] being observed, because of the discontinuous
changes
26 characteristic of the atomic processes.' Accordingly, Heisenberg suggests tha
t 'it is now
26 profitable to review the fundamental discussion, so important for epistemolog
y, of the
26 difficulty of separating the subjective and the objective aspects of the worl
d.'{\up006 \fs8 194 }

{\fs17 Popper}{\fs17 corrects}{\fs17 Heisenberg}{\fs17 effectively}{\fs17
while}{\fs17 giving}{\fs17 his}{\fs17 arguments}{\fs17 against}{\fs17
the }
17 alleged}{\fs17 attainment}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 subject-object}{\fs17 union}{\
fs17 in}{\fs17 QM. }
\fi226 As opposed to all this I suggest that, in practice, physicists measure an
d experiment
26 today fundamentally in the same way as they did before 1925. If there is an i
mportant
26 difference, then it is that the degree of indirectness of measurements has in
creased as
26 well as the degree of 'objectivity'. Where thirty or forty years ago physicis
ts used to look
26 through a microscope to take a 'reading', such as a count of scintillations,
there are now
26 photographic films, of automatic counters, which do the 'reading'. And althou
gh photo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7214\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 graphic films and counter readings have to be interpreted (in the light of th
eory, as must
26 all experiments and observations) they are in no way physically 'interfered w
ith' or 'in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7214\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 fluenced' by our theoretical interpretations. Admittedly, many experimental t
ests now
26 have a largely statistical character, but this makes them no less 'objective'
: their statistical
26 character (often possessed automatically by counters and computers) has nothi
ng to do
26 with the alleged intrusion of the observer, or of the subject, or of consciou
sness, into
26 physics. By contrast, the preparation or setting up of an experiment always h
as had,
26 and continues to have, a great deal to do with our changing knowledge: it dep
ends on
26 theory{\up006 \fs8
195. }
{\fs17 I}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 put}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 argument}{\fs17 of}{\fs1
7 Popper}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 gist}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 follows:}{\fs17 Inserting}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 subjective}{\fs17 in }
17 the}{\fs17 objective}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 vice}{\fs17 versa}{\fs17 in}{\fs17
theory}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 much}{\fs17 different}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 insertin
g}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 subject }
17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 world}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 objects}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 th

eory.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 first}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 most}
{\fs17 part}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 epistemologi- }
17 cal}{\fs17 matter}{\fs17 regarding}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 epistemic}{\fs17 ac
tivity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 humans,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 latter}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 epis- }
17 temically}{\fs17 formulated}{\fs17 statement}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 ontological}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 affairs}{\fs17 outside}{\fs17
of }
17 human}{\fs17 consciousness. }
26 {\fs17 We}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 slightly}{\fs17 refo
rmulate}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 Popper}{\fs17 means}{\fs17 here,}{\fs17 if}{\fs1
7 he}{\fs17 means }
17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 degree}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 direct}{\fs17 object
ivity}{\fs17 regarding}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 objectual-ness}{\fs17 achievabl
e}{\fs17 of }
17 causal}{\fs17 objects}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 increased}
{\fs17 here.}{\fs17 It}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 better}{\fs17 to}{\fs
17 admit}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 mi- }
17 nuteness}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 ways}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 calculating}{\fs17 the}{
\fs17 degree}{\fs17 available}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
classical}{\fs17 ob- }
17 jectivity}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 increased}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 experim
ents,}{\fs17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 complexity}{\fs17 and}{\fs17
increased }
17 exactness}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 apparatuses}{\fs17 and}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 experimental}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 theoretical}{\fs17 methods, }
17 and}{\fs17 consequently}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 extra}{\fs17
objectivity}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 appropriated,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 this}{\fs1
7 is}{\fs17 more }
{\fs16 194}{\fs16 Werner}{\fs16 Heisenberg,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Physical}{
\fs16 Principles}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Theory}{\fs16 (Mineol
a,}{\fs16 N.Y.: }
47 {\fs16 Dover,}{\fs16 1930),}{\fs16 2f,}{\fs16 cited}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Pop
per,}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Theory}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Schism}{\fs1
6 in}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 (London: }
47 {\fs16 Hutchinson,}{\fs16 1982),}{\fs16 40-41. }
16 195}{\fs16 Popper,}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Theory}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 the}{
\fs16 Schism}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 41. }
{\fs17 190 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 indirectly than in classical physics. Even this is a sure sign
that the exactness
ning theoretical closeness to what the reality could be) has increased, and so
some indirect measure of classically expected objectivity. Ontologically, the
ctual-ness of something being there has increased. This is always ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y indirect. But of course, there is some direct objectivity regarding the meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 urab
le aspect of things, which indirectly increases the objectual-ness achievable.
26 Consequently, the Copenhagen interpretation's ad hoc panacea-like theory of
usion of the observer's consciousness in the micro-world need not have
a
e of prominence in QM, if we acknowledge (1) that objectual-ness may be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 incr
eased primarily general-ontologically and that this in turn heightens objec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tivi
ty in theory, (2) that the theoretical confusion in exactness of measurement
classical mechanics to that in QM has only increased due to the irreducibly
easingly statistical nature of QM tools of analysis of results and QM inter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pret
ations, and (3) that these need not mean that we need probabilistic
causal
rpretations for QM matters of fact, which interpretations do not vouchsafe
objectual-ness in processes. The statistical nature of QM, in any case, should
contribute to non-causality in Nature or to our having to be satisfied with
sality, if we have increased exactness of measurement in QM to something
than in classical physics. This is the point of objectivity here yielding more
tness regarding causes and effects.
26 What is behind Popper's "dependence on theory", I surmise, points t
o the
ry-ladenness of our experiments, and not to non-causality in QM.
\fi226 {\fs15 Our}{\fs15 theories}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 guide}{\fs15 us}{\fs15
in}{\fs15 setting}{\fs15 up}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 experiments}{\fs15 and}{\fs
15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 interpretation}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 their}{\fs15 results}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 course}{\fs15 a
lways}{\fs15 been}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 inventions:}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 are}{\fs
15 inventions}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 products }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 'consciousness'.}{\fs15 But}{\fs15 that}{\fs1
5 has}{\fs15 nothing}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 sc
ientific}{\fs15 status}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 theories }

26 {\fs15 which}{\fs15 depends}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 facts}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 as
}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 simplicity,}{\fs15 symmetry,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 explana
tory}{\fs15 power,}{\fs15 and }
26 {\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 stood}{\f
s15 up}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 critical}{\fs15 discussion}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 to}{\
fs15 critical}{\fs15 experimental}{\fs15 tests; }
26 {\fs15 and}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 truth}{\fs15 (correspondence}{\f
s15 to}{\fs15 reality),}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 nearness}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 truth.}
{\up006 \fs8 196 }
We could conclude from these that what Popper wants to contribute to the dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cuss
ion on the QM revision of our attitude to physical reality is the epistemologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
limit-situation of humans with respect to our theoretical capabilities, which
be understood as follows.
26 It is the already existing and newly developed theories and methods, coupled
the imagination of the researcher and the availability of research m
edia,
h determine the setting up, the simplicity or complexity and the results of
xperiment. It need not at all be (to object to the QM subjectivity thesis) that
\par
}
196 Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, 41. \par
}
91 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the more complex a theory and its experiments are the more subjective the
result
be. The difficulty here in QM is not merely about the inevitable statistical in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 terp
retation. They are fully justified in claiming that we have nothing other than
istical methods to determine the results of measurements. But in effect QM
abilistic causalists demand that statistical methods mean also probabilistic
ation. The problem is also with the demand that humans with the meso
ic limit-situation - that we can in principle use only apparatuses oriented to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 meso

-cosmically interpretable results - should not be in a position to obtain any
r results than statistical causality from statistical methods.
26 At any epistemological analysis, use of statistical methods is very
much the
also in the human sciences. This fact points to the epistemological "defect"
ur limit-situation, not to the alleged subjective nature of causal results of QM
riments. The defect consists in that we are generalizing beings that cannot
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 get
Reality into our head as such. That is, we are but theorizing beings. There\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fore
, to draw conclusions we need universal-laden, axiomatically conditioned
ries, and our experiments are thus theory-laden. This is no reason to claim
sort of subjectivist objectivity devoid of causality, which the Copenh
agen
rpretation of Bohr and some others even today imagines to be ever present
M. If we were to follow the Copenhagen notion, we could at the most have
ective elements in theory, which is in fact the theory-laden orientation of all
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trut
h, including causal. Even if theory-laden in all theory and conclusions, the
logically more truth-probabilistic aspect in it all may be termed objectual\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness
due to ontological commitment. This is categorially to be accepted a
s an
lutely true dimension in all (here, causal) truth, though formulations of this
nsion will keep being ever better.
26 In the name of the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr has the following to say
final instrumentalistic-theoretical explanation of the result of the probabilis
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tic
state of affairs in QM: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract
tum mechanical description. It is wrong to think that the task of ph
ysics
o find how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."{\up006 \fs
10 197} It
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7257\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 seem
s absolutely right that there exists no separate QM world other than
the
al world, but only a group of descriptions called QM world. Al the same, if
e is the world, there is a micro-world aspect of this world too. If this much
{\fs16 197}{\fs16 M.}{\fs16 Jammer,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Philosophy}{\fs16 of
}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics}{\fs16 (New}{\fs16 York:}{\fs16 Wiley,}{\f
s16 1974),}{\fs16 204, }
49 {\fs16 cited}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Tullio}{\fs16 Weber,}{\fs16 "Indeterminism,
}{\fs16 Nonseparability}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Einstein-Podolsky- }
49 {\fs16 Rosen}{\fs16 Paradox"}{\fs16 (199-209),}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Giovanni}
{\fs16 Corsi,}{\fs16 Maria}{\fs16 Luisa}{\fs16 Dalla}{\fs16 Chiara}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 Gian }
49 {\fs16 Carlo}{\fs16 Ghirardi,}{\fs16 Eds.,}{\fs16 Bridging}{\fs16 the}{\f
s16 Gap:}{\fs16 Philosophy,}{\fs16 Mathematics,}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Physics.}
{\fs16 Lec- }
49 {\fs16 tures}{\fs16 on}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Foundations}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Ph
ysics}{\fs16 (Dordrecht:}{\fs16 Kluwer}{\fs16 Academic,}{\fs16 1993),}{\fs16
203. }
192 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 can be realistically asserted, it is also possible to say that our descrip
tions about
micro-world are also ever-closer approximations to Nature. It is not
clear
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 why
saying something about Nature will not be a species of finding out
how
re is.
26 The view of Bohr and company about QM could be considered as the Copen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 hage
n interpretation, which has the following salient features.{\up006 \fs10 198 }
26 First: According to Readhead, the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr
and
rs held that there is lack of definability of Q (observables, which are the same
what Bohm called hidden variable quantities) in a non-eigenstate of Q.
An
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 anal
ysis of his concept of definability shows that definability of Q is for him the
lem in QM and that it is a mistake to say that it reflects any limitation on the
ured knowability of Q: Readhead says, "measurements of Q in such a state
uce a spread of results, and are accompanied by an inevitable loss of knowl\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 edge
of the value of any non-commuting observable Q whose value is 'sharp' in
QM state in question."{\up006 \fs10 199} A sharp value is predictable with "prob
ability-one",
is, we can know something or other in QM with some certainty, though even
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 "pro
bability-one" can be otherwise, if further, perhaps more micro or macr
o,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cond
itions are met.
26 For this reason our problem must not be merely about achieving some cer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 tain
ty but about the very concept of definition of what happens in the experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ment
s - in terms of cause or without it. In short, "in preparing a non-eigenstate
Q we inevitably forego precise knowledge of what value of Q a conseq
uent
urement of Q would yield."{\up006 \fs10 200} That is, I would put it as follows:
Bohr is of
opinion that the difficulty with Q is not of an absolute unknowability but of
precise undefinability.
26 To critique this point, for us unknowability and undefinability are, quite na
tu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 rall
y, mutually interwoven. If undefinability is absolute lack of definability, then
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 unkn
owability is absolute lack of knowability - which are not what Bohr speaks
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 of.
He seems to define unknowability as lack of precise knowability, and
un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 defi
nability as lack of precise definability. And in what way Bohr and h
is like
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 woul
d draw the distinguishing line on the criteria of definition of unknowabil\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ity
and undefinability is unknown. If it is right to define both knowability and
nability under rightfully stipulated conditions, they are epistemological
ly
ally interwoven and have an ontological ground for their connection. This
and}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 50.}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 have}{\fs16 added}
{\fs16 my}{\fs16 own}{\fs16 reflec- }
49 {\fs16 tions}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 enumeration}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 th
ese}{\fs16 characteristics. }

d}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 50. }
d}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 50. }
\fi6061 193 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 connection could be based on actual physical processes, and not in absence
of
processes. This connecting line is not anything precise as existing this way
hat, but something physical being there behind the statistical readings. As we
connected the epistemological aspect of such knowledge with ontological
itment in our discussions on objectual-ness and ontological commitment,
re in a position to derive therefrom the probably higher need for causality.
26 It is clear that knowability and definability together imply merely the epist
emo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal aspect of probabilism. We need now the ontological to determine the extent
he causally objectual aspect of QM. This does not at all mean that we already
rically know anything precisely to be this or that or this way or that way, but
that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we k
now by ontological commitment that the world is still there and that it is objec
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tual
ly and causally processual even in its quantum parts. This is no claim that we
the world as such, but that existence and causality are pre-conditions - a fact
will end up in that we never have absolute certainty of details but only of exi
st\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
and causation in what exists as something-there. This is in any case not Aristo
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 teli
an-Thomistic-Modernistic realism and foundationalism, but a foundationalism
seeks ever-better theoretical foundations for ever more exactness in verity.
26 Second: All possible grounds for definability are, generally speaking, mutual
ly
usive experimental arrangements to display QM phenomena. Third: Comple\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
arity could only be a relationship existing between mutually exclusive

QM
omena. Their alleged simultaneity is not mutually dependent or affectin
g.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 For
a "complete" description of the QM reality, we need the two aspects together.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Four
th: The experimental arrangement of QM phenomena is described only classi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y. Fifth: Insofar as it is meant for observation, classical physics is used. If
the very
ratus is the object of observation, the QM description and classical
physics
used, without which we have no way of harmonizing the QM description fully
the physics of the apparatuses. Almost all of the experiments are conducted by
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 use
of other macroscopic or mesoscopic apparatuses which probe the microscopic.
26 These are the most salient features of the Copenhagen interpretation
, but
of them seem to be just conceptual arrangements for the experimental job.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 In s
hort, QM is mysterious in that we are not able to decide between the classical
the "non-classical" languages or understandings. Bohr's admission of th
e
ratus-level primacy of classical concepts in the description of QM phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ena
shows the methodological inadequacy of declaring complementarity in the
of admittedly mutually exclusive QM phenomena, as a measure of compro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mise
. For Readhead, this is a conjectural-fallibilist approach.{\up006 \fs10 201 }\p
ar
}
201 Readhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, 51.
{\fs17 194 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 We should not forget at the above discussion that the two mutually
exclusive
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "phe
nomena" related to one and the same process are in fact no phenomena or
ities but, as discussed earlier, only purely mathematical ideal forms
(wave\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 form
and particle-form) with referents that do not as such suit to be p

art of
ical reality, since the mathematical wave and particle are not identic
al to
formally referred to by the physical wavicle which is real. These re
ferents
imperfect for reality-in-particular in the sense that all geometrical forms are
lizations of what is in nature. Here I need not pick up a discussion on the
ection between geometrical forms and physical reality in order to make the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abov
e claim: either there exists a connection, or there does not, but if we try to
ect them, the connection is imperfect, since the one is ideal and the other
eal.
26 We engaged ourselves in this work mostly by directly and indirectly analysing
ments of the Copenhagen position and formulating positions against its idea
causation (i.e., regarding the Uncertainty Principle, double slit experi
ment
the EPR experiment): first in terms of ontological commitment to the very
tence of objects and then of the possibility of (extension-motion-processual)
ality active behind those most foundational experimental results of QM. As
re now going to use some of the recent EPR experiments and the founda\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s of STR to understand the actual problem in the Copenhagen situation and
her in related directions, I think it is unnecessary to discuss other older sub\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 form
s of interpretation, because I hope that the need to discuss other relevant
rpretations would therewith almost vanish.
26 Within the Copenhagen interpretation, the wave-like distribution of p
arti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cles
on the photographic plate shows a probability wave. This means there is a
ematical probability that shows, from an average{\up006 \fs10 202} of the many s
hots, what
chances are that a particle will be observed to hit a certain spot on the plate.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 It i
s impossible for the time to find out exactly through which slit all particles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ente
red. We are not sure of the exact kind of cause that acted there. So we have

dmit that, in the absence of the knowledge of the exact cause, we need to de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scri
be the process merely in terms of the probability of finding a hit at a specific
on of extension-motion (measured in space and time, measured with respect
reference frames) with a specific quantum. The meaning of the probabil
ity
s can, in my opinion, only be so much.
26 One thing is now clear: They call this state of affairs as a sort of indeterm
inism
to the bizarre state (the alleged or seeming entry through both the slits) of \p
ar
}
202 Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, 60. \par
}
95 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the result of the double slit experiment, and fix the meaning of this epis
temo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal term 'indeterminism' as informing us ontologically that either there is no
causality at work from this point on, or that at least at this point there is n
o
ality, or that we are not sure if causality is at play.
26 In short, the causal reason as to why a particular particle seems to have mov
ed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (of
course in wave form) through "both the slits", is not known within the proba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
stic description, nor does one know why a particle should change path
to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "avo
id" a closed slit and enter through the other - and this, despite the fact that
question too is seemingly set in the classical thought pattern. For this rea\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 son,
should one take refuge (by refusing ontological commitment) in attribut\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
a haphazard causal probabilism or indefinable probabilistic causalism to the
logical actuality of the physical system in its existence, or (by commitment
xistence and causation through ontological commitment) only to the episte-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo

gical aspect of perception, namely, probabilism concerning our perception
ognition or theorization of the causal results of real measurements that too
deceive us in its inability to tell us all about the object/s? I hold the second
better choice, for reasons already discussed and to be discussed further in a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deep
er fashion.
26 In any case, there was such a partially spatiotemporally measurable extended
on of a wave-or-particle. It was no chimera. To simply try and solve
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 issu
es by saying that movement of the quanton was probably through both
slits is to argue vaguely that it was a chimera or unthinkable miracle: (1)that
use cannot act where it cannot be active (not where it is seen to be active),
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (2)th
at one and the same cause or effect can assume bi-location, and for these
ons, also (2) that causality is not the case everywhere in the unive
rse. In
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (1),t
he principle of causality adopted is not the physical ontological Law
of
ality - which says that everything has cause/s whatsoever - but it i
s the
icular scientific (say, physical, chemical, etc.) principle of causality
, where
ific extents of collections of causal roots are prescribed for probing, beyond
h the very particular science does not have jurisdiction and the spec
ific
ods of the particular science are insufficient.
26 Therefore, one should not conveniently absolutize one's particular-scientific
pective - a practice natural to all the particular sciences. What such
ng effects is a universalization of definitions of causation suited to
\cf0 pers
absolu\cf0 tizi
some spe-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7322\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cial

sciences alone. What is conveniently forgotten is the fact that even if a certa
in
ety of cause is not active at a specific process, some other variety of it (impl
ied
he Law of Causality) certainly had the right to be active there. So, premise (1)
is

ctive due to recourse to the insufficient generality of the particular-scientifi
c
ciple of causality, to the detriment of pertinent breadth of approach implied
196 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 theoretically in the Law of Causality. That is, conclusions (2)
and (3) too are
ctive.
26 The above could be considered to be the gist of this whole thesis (to be furt
her
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7084\absh2717 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 elab
orated in the following chapters). This has already been argued out from the
ical ontological perspective in the initial chapters using general principles.
he present chapter this was done from historical and state-of-the-art knowl\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7084\absh2717 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 edge
in QM. This will further be attempted specifically in the EPR and related
exts in the following chapters in terms of some of the latest experi
mental
ances in QM. The results will be augmented towards the end of this work by
ing causal-conceptual defects in some arithmetical considerations followed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7084\absh2717 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in S
TR that have suggested the alleged limit-velocity of light to be the criterial
city to mould all other possible velocities upon. \par
}
97 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 9. Causality in the EPR Paradox:
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy812\absw6718\absh806 \sl-453 \b \f50 \fs28 \cf0 Pa
rt 1. The Physics \par
}
\cf0 9.1. Non-causality, Causality, Subjectivity,

\fi481 Objectual-ness in EPR
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 argue}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 fo
llowing}{\b0 \fs17 sections}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 follows:}{\b0 \fs17 A}{
\b0 \fs17 fixed}{\b0 \fs17 highest}{\b0 \fs17 criterial}{\b0 \fs17 velocity}
{\b0 \fs17 for }
{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 velocities}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 Special}{\b0
\fs17 Relativity}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 fact}{\b0 \fs17
a}{\b0 \fs17 convention}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 layer}
{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 inquiry. }
{\b0 \fs17 Quantum}{\b0 \fs17 physics}{\b0 \fs17 wants}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs
17 consistently}{\b0 \fs17 avoid}{\b0 \fs17 action-at-a-distance}{\b0 \fs17
from}{\b0 \fs17 within }
{\b0 \fs17 such}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 criterial}{\b0 \fs17 velocity,}{\b0 \
fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17 finds}{\b0 \fs17 at}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 same}{\b0
\fs17 time}{\b0 \fs17 luminal-level}{\b0 \fs17 non-causality }
{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 EPR}{\b0 \fs17 non-perplexing.}{\b
0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 parts}{\b0 \
fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 universe}{\b0 \fs17 must}{\b0 \fs17
be }
{\b0 \fs17 reasonably}{\b0 \fs17 connected}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 any}{\b0
\fs17 alleged}{\b0 \fs17 non-causality}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 other}{\b0 \
fs17 parts.}{\b0 \fs17 Even}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 "non- }
{\b0 \fs17 causal"}{\b0 \fs17 processes,}{\b0 \fs17 something}{\b0 \fs17 m
ust}{\b0 \fs17 exist}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 extension-motion.}{\b0 \fs17
Then}{\b0 \fs17 "proba- }
{\b0 \fs17 bilistic}{\b0 \fs17 causality"}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs
17 mere}{\b0 \fs17 epistemic}{\b0 \fs17 term.}{\b0 \fs17 Every}{\b0 \fs17 p
art}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 quantum}{\b0 \fs17 process}{\b0 \f
s17 is }
{\b0 \fs17 ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 causal,}{\b0 \fs17 including}{\b0 \fs17 i
n}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 entanglement}{\b0 \fs17 experiment,}{\b0 \fs17 i
f}{\b0 \fs17 Special}{\b0 \fs17 Rela- }
{\b0 \fs17 tivity}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 made}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 allow}{\b0 \fs17 real}{\b0 \fs17 superluminal}{\b0 \fs17
velocities}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 own}{\b0 \fs17 c
ausal }
{\b0 \fs17 cones}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 ca
usal}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 them.}{\b0 \fs17 Then}{\b0 \fs17 action}{\b0
\fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 entangled}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17
causally }
{\b0 \fs17 results}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 change}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 second}{\b0 \fs17 particle.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 makes}
{\b0 \fs17 finite,}{\b0 \fs17 real}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 causally}{\b0 \
fs17 local }
{\b0 \fs17 superluminal}{\b0 \fs17 velocities}{\b0 \fs17 possible}{\b0 \fs17
in}{\b0 \fs17 quantum}{\b0 \fs17 physics.}{\b0 \fs17 Let}{\b0 \fs17 me}{\b0

\fs17 begin. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 One}{\b0 \fs17 mind-boggling}{\b0 \fs17 conceptual}{\b0 \f
s17 paradox}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{
\b0 \fs17 Einstein-Podolsky- }
{\b0 \fs17 Rosen}{\b0 \fs17 (abbr.}{\b0 \fs17 EPR)}{\b0 \fs17 paradox}{\b0 \f
s17 (1935).}{\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 critical}{\b0 \fs17 dilemma}{\b0 \fs17
today}{\b0 \fs17 about}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 place }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 extent}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs1
7 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 much}{\b0 \fs17 due}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 EPR.}{\b0 \fs17 From}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 subjectivist-}
{\b0 \fs17 mystical }
{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 point}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 view}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 group}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 scientist-thin
kers}{\b0 \fs17 (Fritjof}{\b0 \fs17 Capra,}{\b0 \fs17 Gary}{\b0 \fs17 Zu
kav, }
{\b0 \fs17 Amit}{\b0 \fs17 Goswami,}{\b0 \fs17 Dean}{\b0 \fs17 Radin}{\b0 \fs
17 etc.,}{\b0 \fs17 already}{\b0 \fs17 mentioned}{\b0 \fs17 earlier),}{\b0 \
fs17 microcosmic}{\b0 \fs17 and }
{\b0 \fs17 macrocosmic}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs17 be}
{\b0 \fs17 based}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 identification}{\b0 \fs17 or}{
\b0 \fs17 mixing}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 freedom }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
subjectivity}{\b0 \fs17
with}{\b0 \fs17
some}
{\b0 \fs17
sort}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17
objectivity}{\b0 \fs17
(wit
h}{\b0 \fs17
or}{\b0 \fs17
without}{\b0 \fs17
objectual- }
{\b0 \fs17 ness?),}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 at}{\b0 \fs17 times}{\b0 \fs17
with}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 simultaneous}{\b0 \fs17 dissociation}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 freedom}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 causation, }
{\b0 \fs17 where}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 tends}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 te
rm}{\b0 \fs17 causation}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 "mechanistic"}{\b0 \fs17 an
d}{\b0 \fs17 "freedom"}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 something }
{\b0 \fs17 beyond}{\b0 \fs17 causation.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 identifica
tion}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 dissociation}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 insuff
iciently}{\b0 \fs17 justified, }
{\b0 \fs17 since}{\b0 \fs17 they}{\b0 \fs17 fail}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 co
nnect}{\b0 \fs17 freedom}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 cause}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0
\fs17 fail}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 go}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 way}{\b0 \
fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Universal }
{\b0 \fs17 Causation}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17
ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 fully}{\b0 \fs17 justifiable}{\b0 \fs17 concept}{\b
0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causation. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 Some}{\b0 \fs17 arguments}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0
\fs17 above-said}{\b0 \fs17 broadly}{\b0 \fs17 consciousness-}{\b0 \fs17 ,}{
\b0 \fs17 spiritual-}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 mysti- }
{\b0 \fs17 cal}{\b0 \fs17 school}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 may}
{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 summarized}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 follows:}{\b0 \
fs17 (1)}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 results}{\b0 \fs17 like}{\b0 \fs17 uncert
ainty, }
{\b0 \fs17 wave-particle}{\b0 \fs17 duality}{\b0 \fs17 etc.}{\b0 \fs17 sho
w}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 there}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 both}{\b0 \
fs17 objectivity-with-causality }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 subjectivity-with-freedom}{\b0 \fs17 (both}{\b0 \fs1
7 so}{\b0 \fs17 far}{\b0 \fs17 neither}{\b0 \fs17 defined}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b
0 \fs17 terms}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 anything }
{\b0 \fs17 causal,}{\b0 \fs17 nor}{\b0 \fs17 theoretically}{\b0 \fs17 conn
ected}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 causation)}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{
\b0 \fs17 quantum}{\b0 \fs17 world}{\b0 \fs17 and }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 199 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 consequently in Nature as such. (2) Non-causal subjectivity is where subje
ctivity
somehow counted as outside of causality (as, e.g., in the existentiali
st tradi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
), and mechanistic objectivity and causality are where everything causal hap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pens
mechanistically. (3) Subjectivity (unclearly mixed up with or equated with
dom) is the case in QM partially or fully, and objectivity can never come out
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vind
icated in the subatomic reality, and therefore there will have to be a quick
us-shift of causality into non-causality in microscopic moments everywhere
t some spots in the world, and the subjectivity that will have to be the case
he micro-world can be summed up to be the total case of subjectivity in the
o-world.
26 Some QM physicists may only hold partial, and some universal object
ivity.
our question is: How to connect the admitted extent of lack of obje
ctivity
the remaining partial subjectivity, and, if there is only partial causality, ho
w
onnect it with the remaining partial non-causality?
26 There does admittedly take place the initial objectual contribution of causal
ity
he causally intervening, existing object - here, i.e., a pencil of single quanto
ns
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 used
to measure the quantities related to the uncertainty incurred - of our ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 peri
mental perception. The objectual contribution has an irreducible ontological
itment to there existing something behind the causal intervention. Due to
intervention the process of the object being measured is caused to change
titatively. That is, our physically interfering in a process, via caus
al con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trib
ution by experiment for acquiring better "perception" through apparatuses
quanta, makes a difference in the experiment's internal measure of ca
usal
ge. This interference is not the same as the mysterious proof for subjective
ribution or involvement of consciousness, as in cases where consciousness
ly wills to think or feel in a special way. Instead, the interventio
n is the
ically causal aspect of the experimental effects of the acts of our conscious\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness
on objects / events / processes.
26 Matter is not the mechanistic matter in which motion is thought to
come
outside. The introduction of forces as integral in matter does not yield sub\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ject
ivity. The alleged subjectivity as against pervasively causal objectual-ness in
nterference is that alleged state of affairs in which something (not sure if
al or not) purely from the subject's consciousness acts in the QM ex
peri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
from within a non-extended, non-moving something-without-cause and
uces changes in the objectual aspect of the objects experimented upon.
26 Thereisarealdifferencebetween(1)ourcausalinterferenceinamicro-physical
ess for perceiving, and (2) our thought itself or statistical "perception" itsel
f
he process. This latter is not directly achieved through causal interference in
process of the experiment, but in a merely empirical calculation based on the
200 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 experiment and theoretical reflection. To be clearer, (1) the causal inter
ference is
ctual, (2) the consciousness's formulation of the experiment is intervention\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
ante factum to the experiment, (3) the execution of the experiment causes in
ct only the happening of the experiment, and (4) the probabilistic calculation
he results thereof and further theorisation therefrom are interventionally post
um to the occurrence of the actual experiment, since the experiment causes the
ge, and the consciousness has not caused it directly by its act of planning and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exec
uting the experiment. These facts show that the mind has no direct influence
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 on
the results of the experiment, beyond the causal intervention caused b
y the
's activity of executing the experiment. The influence on the process of ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 peri
mental production of the result is different from the occurrence of the result.
26 This shows that the causal interference due to any measurement proc
ess in
physical process under investigation is not a partially subjective interference,
a directly objectual-physical one, even when the interference is cause
d in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dire
ctly by the activities in the human minds, e.g., the decision to observe the
tion or momentum of a quanton at the double slit experiment. The purely
ective aspect of indirect interference by a decision of consciousness and by
execution does not effect a causal differentiation in the quantitative measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
s of the quantum object. The physical aspect of it, related to the quanton, is
al quantitative interference in the motion of the quanton by use of another
ton, not directly by consciousness. Just qualifying the required quantitative
rference as "qualitatively made" by the mind is no physical explanation, until
questions as to what the qualitative is and how the qualitative gets converted
the quantitative are not clarified.
26 The epistemic aspect of our psychologically characterised mathematical and
rimental "perception" of subatomic processes as such-and-such will not
e the "perception" to be quantitatively differentiated in this or that way in

selves. Further, subjectivism need not be the same as rationally allow
ing
dom a free hand without any brain-level causation upon matter. A caus
al
rference in the experiment is not to be called or reduced to a subjective deci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
or action devoid of causation within. The fantastic conclusion that there is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a su
bjective, spiritual, mystical element always present in the quantum event is
a philosophical over-simplification. In short, the subjectivist and spiritual\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7234\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ist
interpretation of quantum processes in the uncertainty relation, double
slit
riment and wave-particle complementarity or unity or duality cannot stand
test of any realistic logic.
26 In the EPR entanglement experiment (presupposing knowledge of it), i
f
causally-related-and-then-separated (after de Broglie, any such a system is
ed "entangled") particles go on keeping in them the (causal) vestiges of their
\fi6061 201 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 prior entanglement, it is clear that causality has worked until the separa
tion be\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 twee
n them. One can also imagine that the mutual communication thereafter
the change in the second after the intervention on the first is some
how to
nterpreted in terms of causality, since the prior causal effect is not miracu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lous
ly removable, or bridgeable onto a supposedly "non-causal effect". With this
logical foreword we recognize beforehand that there need not be any pure
ectivity in the EPR- or double slit experiment. That is, no pure subjectivity
s an extra quantitative difference at the time of measurement of processes
effects. This is the starting point of my objectualist anti-subjectivist positio
n
respect to the EPR.
{\b \fs21 9.2.}{\b \fs21 Wave-,}{\b \fs21 Particle-}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21
Wavicle}{\b \fs21 Natures }
Diffraction and polarization yielded the wave nature of light and the Compton
ct yielded the particle nature. Probably due to the belief that energy is per\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 haps
a form of existence entirely different from matter, one could not decide if
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phot
ons really existed as material light corpuscles or not. Therefore, the double
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 slit
experiment was conducted to decide between the particle- and wave- natures
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of l
ight. But the experiment and the later developments have ended up conclud\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
that the graininess of light can be conceded when it interacts with charged
icles, and its waviness manifests itself peculiarly and particularly wh
en in
rference, refraction, reflection and phenomena with polaroid sheets.
26 I presuppose for a moment the basics of the EPR experiment and make an in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trod
uctory comment in a different vein. We must keep in mind in the experiment
the measured spatiotemporal realm and distances at issue, of the extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on of the interaction and quanta in the EPR experiments, are not categori\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7141\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y commensurate with the idealized and separated micro-level wave- and
icle-dimensions of the physical wavicle, (1) due to the physical nature of the
ration between the entangled particles and the purely mathematical nature
the ideals of wave- and particle-natures, and (2) due to the space-li
keness
sure of extended nature) of the interaction-objects or quanta. To make the
nd point clearer: due to the fact that, with respect to the larger
velocities
lved, very little range of motion (measured in time) is needed for translation
arger distances, the time is negligible with respect to the extension (measured
pace) involved in them.{\up006 \fs10 203 }
{\fs16 203}{\fs16 In}{\fs16 space-likeness}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 relevant}{\fs1
6 mathematical}{\fs16 tools}{\fs16 tend}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 write}{\fs16 off}
{\fs16 micro-causality }
49 {\fs16 with}{\fs16 respect}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 system,}{\fs16
since}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 time-component}{\fs16 involved}{\fs16 is}{\fs
16 extremely}{\fs16 neg- }
49 {\fs16 ligible.}{\fs16 This}{\fs16 negligibility}{\fs16 does}{\fs16 n
ot}{\fs16 nullify}{\fs16 time}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 motion}{\fs16 at}{\fs1
6 such}{\fs16 points:}{\fs16 some }

202 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 There is a difference between the wave-nature of the quanton and th
e wave-na\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ture
of the statistical pattern (called 'probability wave') at the photogr
aphic plate
he double slit experiment. The intensity pattern at the plate gives a profile of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 patc
hes of lines, each caused by hits of photons. The very profile is statistically
wavy,
it is of thousands of hits by quantons. Technically, the consequent ontological
lusion about the epistemically apparent trajectory which is actually taken by
photons may be that they have allegedly been "probabilistically wavy", as they
caused a profile that is statistically wavy. But the statistical waviness shows
only
we can average out the possible spacetime at which to find a photon hit. This
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tell
s us directly only that our mesoscopic analysis gives us a probability, and it s
hould
be concluded that this is the "probabilistic wavy" nature of photon motion.
26 That is, the result of the double slit experiment in no way says that the act
ual
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wavy
path that an individual photon has assumed is identical with the wavy path
probabilistic wave. This is for us a strategic argument that dissociates prob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abil
ity waves of many hits from the alleged probabilistic wave nature and conse\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quen
t probabilistic causality attributed to wavicles. Consequently, the double slit
riment does not also say that the probability concerning the wave nature of the
hits on the plate is due to the alleged involvement of the subjective nature of
ciousness in the effects due to the quantons. This is an additional reason to sa
y
we do not need subjectivism in QM concerning the waviness of energy propa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gati
ons. Instead, we need to interpret everything in terms of the causality by which

experiments begin and the causality by which a photon propagates in wave form.
her this wave form of particle motion need not be taken to be the same as the
abilistic wave pattern of statistical interpretation of the many hits on the pho
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 togr
aphic plate is a poignant question only until one admits the real wavicle nature
he quanton trajectory as not identical with the wave- and particle natures.
{\b \fs21 9.3.}{\b \fs21 Essence}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 the}{\b \fs21 EPR}{
\b \fs21 Entanglement}{\b \fs21 Experiment }
The problem of causality in the double slit experiment finds itself r
elevant to
EPR experiment. Clarity about what could be happening in the EPR entan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 glem
ent experiments may help avert action-at-a-distance conclusions and the
equent subjectivism in the double slit experiment too. We need therefo
re
ontologically and physically tenable settlement about action-at-a-distance
,
ectivism and non-causality in the double slit experiment, EPR paradox,
\fi349 {\fs16 extremely}{\fs16 minutely}{\fs16 measurable}{\fs16 causal}{\fs1
6 effects}{\fs16 are}{\fs16 present}{\fs16 there.}{\fs16 Hence,}{\fs16 the
re}{\fs16 need }
49 {\fs16 not}{\fs16 be}{\fs16 any}{\fs16 physical}{\fs16 break-down}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 causality}{\fs16 or}{\fs16 tendency}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 crossing}{\
fs16 over}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 back- }
49 {\fs16 ward}{\fs16 causation}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 space-like}{\fs16 systems.
}
\fi6061 203 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Bell inequalities with special reference to the various experiments that h
ave at\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temp
ted to test the Bell inequalities. Without much elaboration on the famous
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 EPR
article or on the history of discussion of the Bell inequalities, we address the
tions by use of some of the latest experimental results about them.

26 The attempt to explain QM probabilities and the consequent question of com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plet
eness or incompleteness of QM resulted in the EPR thought experiment and
consequent suggestion of a paradox or impasse. This was to refute the alleged
leteness of QM and to refute the concepts of non-causality and acausality
he Copenhagen and other related interpretations. These latter based them\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 selv
es on the assumption that the velocity of light in vacuo is the highest possible
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spee
d limit in Nature. Even the hidden variables theory of Bohm, which was an
nsion of de Broglie's pilot wave theory (1927, Solvay), assumed the limiting
re of the speed of light, and Bohm was inspired by the EPR to extend the de
lie pilot wave theory without questioning the allegedly a priori or axiomatic
t character of the velocity of light.
26 Theparadox-natureascribedtotheEPR problemiscircumstantial.Itwouldbe
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bett
er to explain this ascription as resulting from the conjunction of two facts:{\u
p006 \fs10 204 }
the Heisenberg indeterminacy relation where there seems to be a paradox of
rimental perception, and (2) the then-prevailing positivistic philosophical
that what in principle cannot (in effect, as of now) be "known" (after the
tivist criteria) should be without existence. As a direct result of t
he latter,
e still exists a logical-positivist prejudice that permits the uncertainty rela\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
to be interpreted as setting limitations to our knowledge (as is universally
tted), but for that reason (positivistically) also of taking the relation as an
rimental indication or proof that the quantum reality is also ontologically
how "probabilistic". On the other hand, there exists also the notion
that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM r
eality involves something of the mind of the experimenter haphazardly. By
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'qua
ntum reality' is to be meant here first and foremost the ontological actuality
he micro-level of Nature as such, and not the subjectively human aspect of
uremental experience of the quantum-level of reality. But the background
osophy of logical positivism that influenced quantum physicists in the first
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh7931 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 half
of the 20 {\up006 \fs10 th} century would not permit this in theory.
26 D'Espagnat says:
\fi226 {\fs15 It}{\fs15 therefore}{\fs15 suggested}{\fs15 interpreting}{\fs15
these}{\fs15 relationships}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 indicating}{\fs15 that}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 concept}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 having}{\fs15 both}{\fs15 quite}{\fs15 a
}{\fs15 definite}{\fs15 position}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 quite}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 d
efinite}{\fs15 velocity}{\fs15 (just}{\fs15 the }\par
}
204 Bernard d'Espagnat, Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present-Day Quantum Mech
anical
349 Concepts (Cambridge, MA: Westview, 2003), 132.
{\fs17 204 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 concept that the EPR argument leads to) is meaningless: hence the "
paradox". But to
26 this, realists of course responded, and still respond, by rejecting the very
philosophical
26 conception on which this argument is based.{\up006 \fs8 205 }
{\fs17 That}{\fs17 means}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 according}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 d'Es
pagnat}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 eyes}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 those
}{\fs17 who}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 less}{\fs17 of }
17 realists}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 empirical}{\fs17 or}{\f
s17 logical}{\fs17 positivists}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 problem}{\fs17
a}{\fs17 paradox.}{\fs17 A }
17 few}{\fs17 questions}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 scientific}{\fs17 realism}{\fs17 i
n}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 unanswered}{\fs17 behind}{\fs17 it,}{\
fs17 which }
17 we}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 attempt}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 clarify.}{\fs17 For}{\f
s17 the}{\fs17 sake}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 clarity}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 g
ood}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 express}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 argu- }
17 ment}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 point}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 gist}{\fs17 as
}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 introduction:}{\fs17 Suppose}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 only}{\fs1
7 work}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 future}{\fs17 QM }
17 is}{\fs17 (1)}{\fs17 admitting}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 formalism}{\fs17 and}{\
fs17 results}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 pragmatically}{\fs17 and
}{\fs17 instrumen- }
17 talistically}{\fs17 acceptable,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 (2)}{\fs17 further}{\fs
17 accelerating}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 technological}{\fs17 achievements }

17 that}{\fs17 issue}{\fs17 out}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 them.}{\fs17 In}{\fs17 th
at}{\fs17 case,}{\fs17 progress}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 solving}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
problem}{\fs17 concerning}{\fs17 the }
17 theoretical}{\fs17 acceptability}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 n
on-causalism}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 acausalism}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 in}{\
fs17 scientific }
17 research}{\fs17 programs.}{\fs17 But}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 experimental}{
\fs17 edifice}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
ontological }
17 edifice,}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 least}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 physics}{\fs
17 prior}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 approaching}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 micro-world}{\fs17
and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ex- }
17 perimental}{\fs17 apparatuses}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM.}{\fs17 Otherwise,}{\fs
17 one}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 hold}{\fs17 that}{\fs17
there}{\fs17 need }
17 not}{\fs17 exist}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 micro-world,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 instead}
{\fs17 only}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 "experiments"}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 their}{\fs17
"results". }
26 {\fs17 Therefore,}{\fs17 explaining}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 interpreting}{\fs17
not}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 results}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 but}
{\fs17 also}{\fs17 every }
17 little}{\fs17 theoretical}{\fs17 aspect}{\fs17 understood}{\fs17 and}{\fs
17 presupposed}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 part}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
development }
17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 e.g.,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 quantum,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 wavicle,}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 sp
atiotemporal}{\fs17 structure, }
17 observability,theSTR}{\fs17 limitingvelocitybythemediationofwhichQMpropagati
ons }
17 are}{\fs17 measured}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 interpreted,}{\fs17 quantum}{\fs17
state,}{\fs17 eigenvalue,}{\fs17 eigenstate,}{\fs17 entanglement, }
17 superluminal}{\fs17 velocities,}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 r
espect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 EPR}{\fs17 locality}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 non-local
ity, }
17 the}{\fs17 place}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Law}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Causa
lity,}{\fs17 etc.}{\fs17 Without}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 ontology}{\fs17 that}{\fs
17 suits}{\fs17 them}{\fs17 all,}{\fs17 the }
17 human}{\fs17 mind}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 rest.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17
justifies}{\fs17 our}{\fs17 attempt}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 understand}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 EPR}{\fs17 on- }
17 tology}{\fs17 causally.}{\fs17 Some}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 terms,
}{\fs17 especially}{\fs17 those}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 pertain}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
causality}{\fs17 and }
17 probabilism,}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 already}{\fs17 been}{\fs17 discussed}{\fs
17 elaborately.}{\fs17 Now}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 proceed}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 discu

ss }
17 some}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 remaining}{\fs1
7 realities}{\fs17 within}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 context}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{
\fs17 EPR}{\fs17 impasse. }
{\b \fs21 9.4.}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Interpretation}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \f
s21 the}{\b \fs21 EPR}{\b \fs21 Experiment}{\b \fs21 in}{\b \fs21 General }
{\fs17 We}{\fs17 discuss}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 version}{\fs17 of}{\
fs17 the}{\fs17 original}{\fs17 EPR}{\up006 \fs10 206}{\fs17 suggestion}{\fs
17 of}{\fs17 experimentation }
17 as}{\fs17 improved}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 David}{\fs17 Bohm}{\fs17 (hence
}{\fs17 called}{\fs17 "the}{\fs17 standard}{\fs17 Bohm}{\fs17 example"
}{\up006 \fs10 207}{\fs17 ). }\par
}
205 d'Espagnat, Veiled Reality, 132.
Einstein, A., Boris Podolsky, Nathan Rosen (15-05-1935), "Can Quantum-Mechanic
al
334 Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?", Physical Review 47
(10): 777\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9264\absw7222\absh1764 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
334 780. URL: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1 (Accessed on 1 Jun
e 2011).
J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambrid
ge
\fi6061 {\fs17 205 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 The suggested experiment presupposes two particles that are in mo
vement
from each other, and have been parts of one and the same system, say, an
tron-positron pair. They are sent apart by mechanical devices at a combined
tive separation speed more than that of light. This separation speed is per\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 miss
ible even by STR and GTR, since each needs individually to possess only less
or equal to the speed of propagation of light. We do not observe the speed
he one from the other by use of electromagnetic transmission from the one
he other, but by recording their separate results. By the Uncertainty Principle
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (whi
ch we hold as true in essence as a causal interventional result), only either

position (spatial coordinates with respect to the coordinates set by experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
) or the momentum (product of mass and velocity, which involves also rela\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
time) of a particle is measurable at a time.
26 This means that the value assigned by measurement to the eigenstate of one
hem is true as observed, and we do not know what the actual value of it in
lf outside of our measurement process is. That is, we measure now only one
he possible values of one of the particles sent apart from each other. It is a
ible value because some other measurement event might render it slightly
erent by reason of the specificity of the intervention in each case. The par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
es have been entangled in their spatial degree of freedom i.e., in one of the
urements of its extensional ("spatial") range of causal affectation. Measur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
the momentum of one particle yields some arbitrary value p, and this "in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
taneously" determines the other particle's possessing a no longer arbitrary
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mome
ntum -p. This is what is meant in practice by measurement of entangled
icles.
26 The value of measurement of the other particle in each case should automati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y be known, by reason of the relationship between the measured values, on
one hand, of the two members of the system as they were in an "entangled"
e, and, on the other hand, of the speed and direction at which they have been
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sent
apart. Thus, the observer is in grasp of the value assignable to t
he same
meter in the second particle, since it is known to be the opposite of the first.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Now
we may separately measure also the other value of the first particle
, and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 auto
matically the same of the second should be known.
26 If this is experimentally tested, we do not have to question the
Uncertainty
ciple, which states that we cannot know (measurementally reconstruct) with
ainty both the values (position and momentum) of a particle together, simul\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tane
ously - this has to do also with the impossibility of absolute simultaneity of
experiments, by reason of STR. The only difference here is the entangled or

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7358\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nonentangled states at issue. This is possible only if our ontology of particles is
epistemological determinism. Epistemological determinism in effect states
206 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 that the value assigned in the test is called the state and that before th
at it had no
rial state or that we need not speak of it. But it is logical to state that it h
ad a
rial state before the measurement (else, both the physical and the measured
es will be non-real states) and that the previous, physical, state was in some
measurable in a way analogous in achievement level to that of the measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7145\absh6429 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
s that lead to the Uncertainty Principle.
26 The next stage of our inquiry here is as follows. It was sought by David Bohm
xplain the EPR question in terms of his hidden variables theory of QM, where
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7145\absh6429 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Bohm
suggested a non-local way of understanding the action of the wavefunc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7145\absh6429 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
, based on the limit velocity hypothesis of light.
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 wavefunction}{\fs15 acts}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 a}{\fs15
nonlocal}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 particles.}{\fs15 Why}{\fs
15 can}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 send}{\fs15 signals }
26 {\fs15 faster}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 light?}{\fs15 One}{\fs15 cannot,}{\fs15
because}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 equilibrium}{\fs15 hypo
thesis.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 ac- }
26 {\fs15 tion}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 distance}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 the}{
\fs15 wavefunction}{\fs15 mediates}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 randomized}{\fs15 in}{\
fs15 such}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 it }
26 {\fs15 is}{\fs15 unstable.}{\fs15 If}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 equilibrium}{\
fs15 were}{\fs15 false,}{\fs15 superluminal}{\fs15 signaling}{\fs15 might}{
\fs15 be}{\fs15 pos- }
26 {\fs15 sible.}{\fs15 Since}{\fs15 there}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 evide
nce}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 equilibrium}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 false,}{
\fs15 there}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 reason}{\fs15 to }
26 {\fs15 speculate}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 further.}{\up006 \fs8 208 }

Quantum equilibrium is to be understood as follows:
\fi226 {\fs15 Quantum}{\fs15 equilibrium}{\fs15 refers}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}
{\fs15 typical}{\fs15 behavior}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 positions}{
\fs15 given}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 wave }
26 {\fs15 function.{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 The}{\fs1
5 particles}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 equilibrium}{\fs15 given}{\fs15 th
e}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 function.}{\fs15 Non-equilibrium }
26 {\fs15 resides}{\fs15 within}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 function.}
{\fs15 The}{\fs15 following}{\fs15 analogy}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 be}{\fs15
helpful.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 wave }
26 {\fs15 function}{\fs15 generates}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 velocity}{\fs15 vector
}{\fs15 field}{\fs15 (on}{\fs15 configuration}{\fs15 space)}{\fs15 which}{\
fs15 defines}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 Bohmian}{\fs15 trajectories.}{\up006 \fs8 209 }
Regarding quantum equilibrium we could argue as follows: If superluminal ve\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7145\absh6429 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loci
ties are possible on other important grounds (which we will deal with later),
quantum equilibrium too would be possible, though it need not be abso\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7145\absh6429 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lute
ly the case. In the case of superluminal velocities and such communication,
lity will have to be criterioned upon the respective superluminal velocity. In
Bell seems to have claimed to show that QM is \par
}
208 Detlef Drr and Stefan Teufel, Bohmian Mechanics: The Physics and Mathematics
of
349 Quantum Theory (Berlin: Springer, 2009), 208. "A typical universe is an equi
librium
349 universe, the equilibrium, to which our universe evolves (to a thermal death
, as Clau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8604\absw7291\absh2358 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 sius referred to it). Right now we are still very far from thermal death. Ou
r universe is
349 atypical or in non-equilibrium, and that is why we can build a Galton board
or pick
349 up a stone, or look at the moon circling the earth. But at the same time we
experience
349 the determined evolution to equilibrium at every moment and all over the pla
ce via
349 the second law of thermodynamics." Drr and Teufel, Bohmian Mechanics, 81.
Drr and Teufel, Bohmian Mechanics, 151.
\fi6061 {\fs17 207 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 incompatible with any local hidden-variable theory. He did this by
proposing a gener\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7234\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 alization of the EPR experiment that involved rotating the two detectors inde
pendently
26 and looking at the correlations of spin measurements. The results will be dif
ferent for
26 "orthodox" quantum mechanics, in which the particle does not have a
definite spin
26 component until a measurement is made {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f
Symbol }} which assume that each particle has a
26 definite spin from the moment it is created, but that we do not know that spi
n until it
26 is measured.{\up006 \fs8 210 }
{\fs17 This}{\fs17 makes}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 sort}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 realism}{
\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 states}{\fs17 possible.}{\fs17 To}{\fs17 summari
ze}{\fs17 without }
17 much}{\fs17 explanation}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 principles}{\fs17 Bell}{\fs17
put}{\fs17 forth: }
\fi226 Consider the example, advanced by Bohm, of a pair of spin- particles forme
d some\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7234\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 how in the singlet spin state and then moving freely in opposite directions.
Measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7234\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ments can be made, say by Stern-Gerlach magnets, on selected components of th
e spins
\fi226 {\b {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 115 \\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs8 1} and{\b
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 115 \\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs8 2}. If measurement o
f{\b {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 115 \\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs8 1}{\b .}{\b a
} where{\b a} is some unit vector, yields the value +1,
26 then, according to quantum mechanics, measurement of{\b {\field{\*\fldinst S
YMBOL 115 \\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs8 2}{\b .}{\b a} must yield the value -1,
26 and vice versa. Thus we can know in advance the result of measuring any compo
nent
\fi226 of{\b {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 115 \\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs8 2} by p
reviously, and possibly at a very distant place, measuring the corresponding
26 component of{\b {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 115 \\f Symbol }} }{\dn006 \fs8 1
}. This strongly suggests that the outcomes of such measurements, along

26 arbitrary directions, are actually determined in advance, by variables over w
hich we
26 have no control, but which are sufficiently revealed by the first measurement
so that
26 we can anticipate the result of the second. There need then be no temptation
to regard
26 the performance of one measurement as a causal influence on the result of the
second,
26 distant, measurement. The description of the situation could be manifestly 'l
ocal'. The
26 idea seems at least to merit investigation.{\up006 \fs8 211 }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 nature}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 spin}{\fs17 ('up'
}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 'down')}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 deter
mined}{\fs17 according}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the }
17 polarization}{\fs17 component}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 apparatus.}{\fs
17 But}{\fs17 notice}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 apparatus}{\fs17 at}{\f
s17 the }
17 one}{\fs17 end}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 causes}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 effect}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 on}{
\fs17 the}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 end.}{\fs17 That }
17 is,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 alleged}{\fs17 connection}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 remote}{\fs17 observer}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 be}{\fs1
7 included}{\fs17 here }
17 as}{\fs17 valid. }
26 {\fs17 However,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 theoretical}{\fs17 instruments}{\fs17
in}{\fs17 hidden}{\fs17 variables}{\fs17 theory}{\fs17 were}{\fs17
not }
17 enough}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 tackle}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 question.}{\fs17 T
he}{\fs17 quantities}{\fs17 attached}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 hidden}{\fs17 va
riables}{\fs17 are }
17 none}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 them}{\fs17 certain}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 exact,}{\fs17
since}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 known.}{\fs17 Moreover,}{
\fs17 the}{\fs17 deter- }
17 ministic}{\fs17 (in}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 words,}{\fs17 causal)}{\fs17 hid
den}{\fs17 variable}{\fs17 theories}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 able}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
reproduce }
17 the}{\fs17 experimental}{\fs17 predictions}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM,}{\fs1
7 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 difference}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 hi
dden}{\fs17 vari- }
17 able}{\fs17 effects}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Bohm}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 non-loc
al.}{\fs17 But}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 'non-local}{\fs17 effects'}{\fs17 ca
n}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 mean }
17 either}{\fs17 (1)}{\fs17 effects}{\fs17 goes}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 causa

l}{\fs17 influence}{\fs17 beyond}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 cones}
{\fs17 (if}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 are }
{\fs16 210}{\fs16 Thomas}{\fs16 Greenlee,}{\fs16 "Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics}
{\fs16 and}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Nature}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Reality"}{\fs16 (97-1
04),}{\fs16 Mel- }
49 {\fs16 ville}{\fs16 Y.}{\fs16 Stewart,}{\fs16 Science}{\fs16 and}{\fs16
Religion}{\fs16 Dialogue}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 Volume}{\fs16 1}{\fs16 (Chichester:
}{\fs16 Wiley-Black- }
49 {\fs16 well,}{\fs16 2010),}{\fs16 101. }
16 211}{\fs16 Bell,}{\fs16 Speakable}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Unspeakable}{\fs16
in}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 30-31. }
{\fs17 208 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 superluminal velocities), or (2) the effects are just absolutely wondrous
action\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at-a
-distance effects without any communication between the two particles.
26 Whether these effects are causal beyond luminal velocities is always to be di
s\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pute
d, if we cannot imagine superluminal communication, which must again be
iotemporal and causal, since causal communication can propagate only in
te measures of motion (time) and non-causal propagation must travel with\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 out
involvement of physical motion (measured in time), i.e., at infinite velocity.
particles in the experiment follow trajectories called Bohmian trajectories.
these are supposed to have been (physically) determined from the beginning
the universe and its actual physical quantitative values are not clear
(hence
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "hid
den").
26 Therefore, the possible solution according to Bohm is to bring each such de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 term
ination to the domain of experiments, "by trying to approximate as well as
ible the idealized situations in which local hidden variables and quan
tum
anics agree."{\up006 \fs10 212} To go by Bohm's claims, his version is non-local
, and can-

be experimented upon causally beyond the velocity of light, if we mean by
al only those that propagate with or under luminal velocity. But it
can be
l if there are finitely speeding superluminal velocities, which must naturally
ausal. As a result, a set of theoretically imaginable possibilities are the only
rnatives: (1) incompleteness of QM as an ensemble - a set of many possible
es of a system that describes an individual QM system - versus (2) complete\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness
of QM taken as such as an ensemble view. Let it be noted here that the main
ons why I want to try an explanation by use of superluminal but fin
itely
ding and causal propagations are the above two numbered points, and that
e cannot be any other possible way of outlook. The merit of this way is that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it k
eeps reality always causal and causality always local.
{\b \fs21 9.5.}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Solution}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 t
he}{\b \fs21 EPR}{\b \fs21 Paradox:}{\b \fs21 Detailed}{\b \fs21 Discussion
}
In what follows I suggest arguments towards a causal solution to the
EPR im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pass
e, not so far solved in any physical theories or explanations. In my
effort
s based on a clearly "local" rather than "non-local" (which latter is in effect
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nontemporal or non-movemental or infinite-velocity-motion) interpretation
the recent experimental results and reasonable-sounding but near-sighted
rstanding of the physical realities implied in the connection between
the
entangled particles. I call them "near-sighted' not to provoke, but to indicate
\par
}
212 Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 31. \par
}
09 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the irrationality of all sorts involved in the coolly "non-local", "non-ca
usal" and
omenalistic but in fact non-temporal and non-spatial explanations. In any
explanation, the communication or lack of communication between the
ngled-but-now-separated particles has no causal or non-causal meaning.
26 I request a complete reading of the arguments in the present and
follow\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ing
chapters, before one passes remarks. My interpretation here is based
on
only rational alternative - i.e., finite-valued superluminal velocities - for th
e
tion to be measurementally temporal, i.e., ontologically based on finit
e
on. Here the rational presupposition is that what is non-local for an STR
luminal limits to velocities could be local for superluminal velocities being
tituted for c in the Lorenz factor (called also {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 103 \\
f Symbol }}) in STR - for which see the
ter on STR.
26 Alain Aspect's entanglement experiment was so contrived that the one
en\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 tang
led particle in the system could not communicate to the second one of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 pair
at luminal or near-luminal velocities, if a limiting nature is accorded to the
d of light. It is well known that Alain Aspect and many others showed ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 peri
mentally what he and others interpret in a renewed fashion as the al
leged
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 nonlocal nature of the quantum world: (1) in the 1980s with respect to
QM
ciples, applied to correlations in measured polarization states of phot
on
s produced in a spontaneous emission cascade, and (2) recently with respect
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 to Q
M principles, applied to correlations generated in the so-called "parametric
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 down
-conversion"{\up006 \fs10 213} where phase matching naturally induces entangleme
nt be\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 twee
n the wave vectors of the photon pairs.
26 This is also possible for a variety of degrees of freedom (wavelength values)
.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Enta
nglement between position and momentum was also observed in an ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 peri
mental realization of the EPR paradox. Moreover, light's polarization s
tate
a manifestation of photon's spin angular momentum. Light has also an
or\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 bita
l angular momentum. This is manifest in the phase structure of the beam.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Acco
rdingly, in 2001 Zeilinger and others showed correlation in the measured
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7165\absh6992 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 orbi
tal angular momentum states of what are called "down-converted photon
s". This was a proof that, just like in the case of polarization or spin angular
\par
}
213 For a detailed discussion, see George Greenstein and Arthur G. Zajonc, The
Quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9264\absw7337\absh1764 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 tum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Bost
on:
349 Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1997), 150ff. Here, as elsewhere like in Alai
n Aspect,
349 the non-local interpretation is preferred, but without mentioning that it is
from the
349 criterial nature of the velocity of light that the so-called instantaneity i
s concluded.
349 Aspect's work will be referred to later.
{\fs18 210 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 momentum, the orbital angular momentum of light is also a quantum variable
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 asso
ciated with single photons.{\up006 \fs10 214 }
26 The EPR paradox found its test in a series of experiments where an atom is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 made
to decay and emit two photons that have correlated polarizations. Th
is
ies basically the same position and momentum at the start of the two de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cay
particles. In experiments that use single-photon detectors, in which an atom
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deca
ys through an intermediate state and reaches the ground state, there is an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 emis
sion of two photons with correlated polarizations. Polarizers are state pro-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ject

ion devices in QM.{\up006 \fs10 215} Concerning the veracity of results from the
se tests, it is
ible in a philosophical discussion only to point out that in all probability the
lts of the decades-long repetition of the experiments, under various circum\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
ces and qualifications, has been good enough for some rational conclusions.
26 The whole series of experiments were a combined product of efforts to settle
EPR paradox, the local hidden variables theories (the local versions
being
of Bohm), and the Bell inequalities. J. S. Bell had already brought out in his
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 famo
us 1964 article, "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,"{\up006 \fs10 216} the
Bell the\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 orem
, which treats of the effects of the use of hidden variables in the EPR world.
kind of a world is not yet determinable for us to be local or non-local, causal
on-causal, etc. To adopt the highly simplified summary statement about it by
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7156\absh6392 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Alai
n Aspect in his short introduction to Bell's life's work:
\fi226 {\fs15 In}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 original}{\fs15 EPR}{\fs15 situation,
}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 hidden}{\fs15 variables}{\fs15 would}{\fs15 be}{\fs
15 the}{\fs15 initial}{\fs15 positions}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 particles,}{\fs15 taken}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 id
entical,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 velocities,}{\fs15 taken}{\fs15 as}
{\fs15 equal}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 opposite. }
26 {\fs15 Reasoning}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 entangled}{\fs15 states}{\fs15 of}{\fs1
5 two}{\fs15 spin}{\fs15 }{\fs15 particles}{\fs15 (a}{\fs15 simpler}{\fs15
version}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 EPR }
26 {\fs15 situation,}{\fs15 introduced}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 Bohm)}{\fs15 Bel
l}{\fs15 shows}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 easily}{\fs15
explain}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 existence }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 correlations}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 result
s}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 measurements}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs15
particles}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 allow- }
26 {\fs15 ing}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 result}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 measuremen
t}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 depend}{\fs15 only
}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 supplementary }
26 {\fs15 parameters}{\fs15 carried}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 particl
e}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 setting}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 th
e}{\fs15 apparatus}{\fs15 making}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 measurement.}{\fs15 But}{\fs15 then,}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 few}{\fs15 l
ines}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 calculation}{\fs15 suffice}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 show}{\fs
15 a}{\fs15 contradiction}{\fs15 with }

26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 predictions}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanics.}
{\fs15 More}{\fs15 precisely,}{\fs15 even}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 a}{
\fs15 'hidden}{\fs15 variable' }\par
}
214 Eric Yao, et al., "Observation of Quantum Entanglement Using Spatial Light
Modu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8384\absw7222\absh2556 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 lators," URL: Optics Express, Vol. 14, No. 26 (25 Dec. 2006). URL
: www.opticsin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8384\absw7222\absh2556 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 fobase.org/ (Accessed on 21 May 2014).
For the laboratory set up of the entanglement (and of interference)
experiments,
349 see Enrique J. Galvez, "Correlated-Photon Experiments Laboratory Manual, Col
gate
349 University", 2008, URL: http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/P
hoton/
349 root/Workshop08/Lab%20Manual.pdf (Accessed on 22 April 2011).
J. S. Bell, "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox," Physics 1 (1964), (195-2
00),
349 reproduced in Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridg
e:
349 Cambridge University Press, 2004), 14-21.
\fi6061 {\fs17 211 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 theory can reproduce some of the predicted quantum correlations, it
cannot mimic the
26 quantum mechanical predictions for all possible settings of the measuring app
aratus.
26 Thus it is not possible, in general, to understand EPR-type correlations by '
complement\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7044\absh7677 \sl-219 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ing' the quantum theory along the lines proposed by Einstein.{\up006 \fs8 217
}
{\fs17 In}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Aspect}{\fs17 experiment}{\fs17 (1981,}{\fs17 a
nd}{\fs17 repeated}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 better}{\fs17 equipments}{\fs17 later
)}{\fs17 to }
17 try}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 solve}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 EPR}{\fs17 paradox}{\fs17
and}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 test}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Bell}{\fs17 inequalities,}{\fs
17 we}{\fs17 find}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 being }

17 argued}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 follows:}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 photons}{\
fs17 that}{\fs17 originated}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 decay}{\fs17 of}{\
fs17 the}{\fs17 excited }
17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 electron}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 sent}{\fs17
apart}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 such}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 distance}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 t
here}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 lumi- }
17 nally}{\fs17 determinable}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 interaction}{\fs17 between
}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 event}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 determination}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 s
pin }
17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 photon}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 t
hat}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 because}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 separation}{\fs17 between }
17 their}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 cones,}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 p
resumed}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 highest}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 veloci
ty}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 light. }
26 {\fs17 The}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 cones}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 theore
tically}{\fs17 simultaneous,}{\fs17 first}{\fs17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 their
}{\fs17 "simul- }
17 taneous"}{\fs17 origin,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 moving}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 t
wo}{\fs17 directions.}{\fs17 They}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 simultaneous}{\fs17
also}{\fs17 in }
17 the}{\fs17 sense}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 measurement}{\fs17 even
ts}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 "simultaneous",}{\fs17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
instan- }
17 taneous}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 automatic}{\fs17 determination}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 value}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\
fs17 second}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the }
17 entangled}{\fs17 particles}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 value}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 first}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 had.}{\fs17
When}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 event}{\fs17 of }
17 detection}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 occurs,}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 one}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 occurs}{\fs17 presupposedl
y}{\fs17 "simulta- }
17 neously"}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 automatically. }
26 {\fs17 To}{\fs17 summarize}{\fs17 his}{\fs17 conclusions}{\fs17 furth
er}{\fs17 (in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 words}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Butterfield}{\f
s17 and }
17 Earman): }
\fi226 Some milestones: Bell's analysis [1964] turned the EPR argument on its he
ad by show\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7044\absh7677 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ing that Einstein's assumptions of separability and locality, applicable in c
lassical physics
26 and underlying the EPR incompleteness argument, are incompatible with certain
quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7044\absh7677 \sl-219 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tum statistical correlations (not explicitly considered by EPR) of separated
systems in
26 EPR-type entangled states. Later experiments [{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \
\f Symbol }} 1981, {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} 1982] confirmed t
hese non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7044\absh7677 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 classical correlations in set-ups that excluded the possibility of any sort o
f physically
26 plausible, non-superluminal, classical communication between the separated sy
stems.{\up006 \fs8 218 }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 natural}{\fs17 reason}{\fs17 when}{\fs17 writing}{\fs17 o
ff}{\fs17 superluminal}{\fs17 communication}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 all
eged }
17 "simultaneity"}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 communication.}{\fs17 This}{\f
s17 is}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 near-sighted}{\fs17 theoretical}{\fs17 para- }
17 dox}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 argue
}{\fs17 against,}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 order}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 suggest}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 finite }
17 velocities}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 superluminal}{\fs17 communication}{\fs17 betw
een}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 entangled}{\fs17 particles. }
17 This}{\fs17 automatically}{\fs17 saves}{\fs17 causality. }
26 {\fs17 No}{\fs17 amount}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 claiming}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 QM}
{\fs17 is}{\fs17 so,}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 matter-energy}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 ess
entially}{\fs17 non- }
17 local,}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 superluminal}{\fs17 communication}{\fs17 is
}{\fs17 STR-prohibited,}{\fs17 etc.}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 give}{\fs17 any
}\par
}
217 Aspect, "Introduction" (i-xxxix) in J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable i
n Quantum
349 Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), xxiii.
Butterfield and Earman, Eds., Philosophy of Physics, 556.
{\fs17 212 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 useful solution to the paradox - and such claims are examples o
f perspectival
lutism. The reason why non-local and merely luminal solutions are to be the

is not attested by the entanglement experiment or STR as absolute dogmas.
reason for the simultaneity is suggested to be that the events or processes,
the point of view of causality, are non-local with respect to the
speed of
t. One is forewarned here by Aspect against supposing that a superluminal
smission between the two has caused the second event, because it is devised
e "random".{\up006 \fs10 219} But it is important to note here the following:
\fi226 {\fs15 Since}{\fs15 time}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbo
l }}}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 Special}{\fs15 Relativity,}{\fs15 having}{\fs15 meani
ng}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 within}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 context}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}
{\fs15 specified }
26 {\fs15 inertial}{\fs15 frame,}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 be}
{\fs15 surprising}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 hear}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 even
ts}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 simultaneous}{\fs15 in }
26 {\fs15 one}{\fs15 inertial}{\fs15 frame}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 in
}{\fs15 general}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 simultaneous}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 another}{\fs
15 inertial}{\fs15 frame.}{\fs15 Moreo- }
26 {\fs15 ver,}{\fs15 according}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 observer}{\fs15
event}{\fs15 A}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 precede}{\fs15 event}{\fs15 B}{\fs15 but
}{\fs15 according}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 second }
26 {\fs15 observer}{\fs15 event}{\fs15 B}{\fs15 might}{\fs15 occur}{\fs15 f
irst.}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 last}{\fs15 statement}{\fs15 sounds}{\fs15 particu
larly}{\fs15 dangerous}{\fs15 for }
26 {\fs15 it}{\fs15 suggests}{\fs15 problems}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 causality{\f
ield{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 a}{\fs15
remarkable}{\fs15 feature}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 Special}{\fs15 Relativity}{\fs1
5 that }
26 {\fs15 although}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 time}{\fs15 ordering}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
events}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 matter}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 debate
}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 case}{\fs15 for }
26 {\fs15 causally}{\fs15 disconnected}{\fs15 events,}{\fs15 i.e.,}{\fs15 ev
ents}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 cannot}{\fs15 influence}{\fs15 each}{\fs15 other.}
{\up006 \fs8 220 }
Therefore, we could at the most only have rough simultaneity in the entangle\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
effect with respect to the limit velocity criterioned for all measur
ements
hat of light, since there is no simultaneity without the causal cones that the
t cones of each of the entangled particles defines. But we are sure
that the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "eve
nts which cannot influence each other" means events that cannot influence
other if the velocity of light is the ultimate limit of all possible velocities
, for
e existing causal propagation of effects. The rough simultaneity is clearly just
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 roug
hly so, so long as two particles are within one light cone, as is expected even
he results of entanglement experiments.
26 A probable counter-argument would be to say that the two events are simulta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 neou
s because the two entangled particles are in fact part of one system and that
measurement on the first particle collapses the wavefunction of the w
hole
em, and not just the wave function of the first particle. This, I would suggest,
ntologically not to be granted. We cannot forget the finitely qualified exten\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
-motion nature (measured "spatiotemporality") of the two now-separated
icles in their physical relation to each other. The physical background yielded
he entanglement between the two particles into one system does not make us
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 redu
ce them into one indivisible particle even after their separation.
{\fs16 219}{\fs16 Aspect,}{\fs16 "Introduction"}{\fs16 (i-xxxix),}{\fs16 xx
iii. }
16 220}{\fs16 J.}{\fs16 R.}{\fs16 Forshaw}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 G.}
{\fs16 Smith,}{\fs16 Dynamics}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Relativity}{\fs16 (Chichest
er,}{\fs16 UK:}{\fs16 John}{\fs16 Wiley }
49 {\fs16 and}{\fs16 Sons,}{\fs16 2009),}{\fs16 123.}{\fs16 Read}{\fs16 fur
ther}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 thought}{\fs16 experiment}{\fs16 on}{\fs16
the}{\fs16 breakdown}{\fs16 of }
49 {\fs16 simultaneity}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 STR. }
\fi6061 213 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 The one system is now one system of two entangled particles (wavicl
es) work\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
in a spatiotemporal distance that is more than normal for a single wavicle.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 They
are two thereafter and causally connected via the past, as they are
to be
n to be in measured space-like separation in luminally totally separat
ed
al cones{\up006 \fs10 221} defined by the two separate light cones of the two pa
rticles. So
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 long
as they are two particles in extension-motion after their separation,
and
reason of their respective luminal causal cones, there is nothing wron
g in
idering them as two - a decision justified also by other such practices like
idering two intimately connected quarks as separate by minute spatiotem\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pora
l separation.
26 Moreover, it is ontologically and epistemologically unconvincing to point out
light cone separation of the two particles as the reason to say that the col\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 laps
e of the wave function in the two entangled but spatially separated particles
imultaneous. The alleged simultaneity and collapse of wave function together
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 flou
t basic physical principles: If they are simultaneous, nothing - absolutely no
on - has happened in the case of the two particles as a result of separation by
ratus, and the only possible motion then would be of infinite velocity for the
ct to be simultaneous. If for some reason no separation by motion has taken
e, then no change of value has happened in the second particle as a result
he change in the first particle at measurement. This makes collapse of wave
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 func
tion ontologically unnecessary.
26 This must be so, further, due to the natural presupposition that a
nything
requires no time is nothing physical, nothing at extension-motion, no
th\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
measurementally spatiotemporal. We do not know if they are simultaneous
ot, since the two are in two different light cones. Most physicists might get
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 neut
ral here by categorizing this as due to our lack of ways of "knowing the sim\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ulta
neity or not" of the effect in the second particle and thus choose to charac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 teri
ze them pragmatically as simultaneous. This is unwarranted. But when they
causally connected at the start, they can only be finitely of extension-motion
re and thus non-simultaneous. As of now we have no way of experimentally
ing if they are simultaneous or non-simultaneous, since causal connection

is to be re-conceived in terms of a concept of causation extending beyond
light cones, i.e., via superluminal light cones. We shall not and cannot insist
that we need to interpret the lack of knowledge of simultaneity as due to \par
}
221 For a detailed discussion of light cones and their STR-GTR condit
ion of non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9926\absw6968\absh1168 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
358 interaction beyond luminal velocities, see de Muynck, Foundations of
Quantum
358 Mechanics, 10ff.
{\fs17 214 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 ontologically probabilistic causality, as some QM specialists do i
n the case of
experimental results. The reason for this is simply that probabilistic cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty is no physical-ontological causality at all, as is clear enough from the firs
t
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 few
chapters.
26 If all these are no justification to say that the entangled particles can eve
r be
ally connected to each other if there are superluminal propagations, t
here
absolutely no ontological reason to say that the total change effected
in the
ngled particle-system is simultaneous, too. That is, the so-called simultane\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ous
effect on the whole system - meaning some simultaneous change on the two
icles without causes - should then be a miracle, in the sense of ca
used by
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noth
ing given in physical Nature (or any causally active Super-Nature). If there
o simultaneity, the process of entangled change has to be causal, and caused
antecedent physical processes - and only if caused by succeeding physi
cal
es can it imply time travel. Then the two particles in the system must already
ontinuously and always causally connected - not "causally connected merely

they are together" and not causally connected when they cross a combined
al distance actually coverable by the speed of light in vacuo.
26 For these reasons, the explanation for the change resulting from the collapse
uperposition or even annihilation, if any, of the wavefunction of one whole
ystem may be that some real causal influence within the entangled system,
onsistently from without, influences the two parts of the later-separated sys\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tem
from one part over to the next continuously, in an ever-present manner. This
most probably be causally, and if so it has to be due to a superluminal com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 muni
cation between the two. The superluminal solution is still only an assump\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
at this stage, not yet shown as permissible. We need to show its theoretical
issibility within STR, without disturbing the general structure of STR. After
the velocity of light as the limit velocity is no axiom but an experimentally
uced result later accepted as the criterial velocity in STR.
26 Since the measurement of the state of the second particle in entan
glement
aking place due to the measurement on the first, the outcome of the second
ot be random but uniquely determined by the outcome of the first. Th
is
rmination cannot be just our perception or determination but based on the
al states of the entangled particles. This allows us to argue as follows against
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a co
ntradiction in QM and show the validity of certain unavoidable causal con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clus
ions about the fixed idea of the limit-character of the speed of light. There
already a double standard in some QM physicists in drawing these conc
lu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
s from the EPR experiments: (1) Generally, QM accepts the so-called limit\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 char
acter of the velocity of light from the outset. Consequently, it admi
ts that
on-at-a-distance is impossible. (2) But QM tends also to conclude that
the
\fi6061 215 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 "automatic" change in one of the entangled particles at the time of observ
ation
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of (
intervention in) the other entangled particle of the pair is automatic and thus
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal, which is in fact the same as action-at-a-distance.
26 If the effect in the second part of the system is not real, but only an epist
e\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gically particularistic conclusion required by the need to avoid paradoxical
ements (as it would suffice to be epistemological for holding mere no
n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
ality or acausality) from the measurement of the first particle, then we will
to admit that the state-change in the second could be determined or even
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 imag
ined only if we actually go and measure it. But, if the very state of the second
omehow determined or altered by the measurement of the first, some causal
uence is admittedly presupposed in the first one, and some causal influence
ld be accepted as being transferred from the first to the second. How could
be automatic and simultaneous, if these two qualities together will
show
thing unnatural?
26 It might also be argued here that the situation is just unexplainable with th
e
epts available to us in QM, STR, GTR, etc., including the STR postulate of
limit-velocity of light. This argument looks too simple and does not opt for a
tion. Any suggested solution has to be either within the purview of the limit
city of light, or finitely beyond it. If within its purview, we have something
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unna
tural and, if not, any velocity lower than that of light does only repeat the
ation before us. Hence in my opinion the only solution is to posit superlumi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nal
velocities for the entanglement influence as natural.
26 In gist: To avoid infinite-velocity action-at-a-distance (as also QM
wants) in
ral, and yet to stay within the luminal velocity-limit, we need again an abso\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lute
ly unnatural action-at-a-distance in the second of the entangled particles. But

void this latter, we need superluminal velocities. This will automatically make
ality possible even in entangled particles by making superluminal causal com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 muni
cation possible. We did not presuppose causality here, but deduced it as the
solution to a paradox in QM.
{\b \fs21 9.6.}{\b \fs21 "Upward"}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 "Downward"}{\b \fs
21 Causality }
The above causal solution can be held even when we mean by 'cause' the general
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "upw
ard" and "downward" forms of causation. Though I do not specifically study
e aspects of causation, I shall indicate here what it generally means, which is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 self
-evidently not a case of non-proper cause and non-proper effect, but arising
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 out
of different considerations fully acceptable to our causal attitude. Only when
begins to conclude something not of the order of extension-motion out of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it w
ill arise inconsistencies. It is also important to note that not many hard-core
216 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 physicists have begun to take a fancy for this, though some hol
istically cross\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7210\absh7070 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 disc
iplinarily oriented authors have begun to hint at it as an interesting aspect
ausality.
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 in-formation}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 actual}{\fs15 entitie
s}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 information}{\fs15 present}{\fs15 in}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 field}{\fs15 interconnects }
26 {\fs15 actual}{\fs15 entities}{\fs15 throughout}{\fs15 spacetime.}{\fs15
The}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 relations}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 hold}{\fs15 sway}{\fs
15 in}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 domain }
26 {\fs15 are}{\fs15 twofold:}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 include}{\fs15 downward}{\f
s15 as}{\fs15 well}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 upward}{\fs15 causation.}{\fs15 Classi
cal}{\fs15 causation}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 "upward}{\fs15 causation,"}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 is,}{\fs15 the}{\fs1
5 causal}{\fs15 process}{\fs15 whereby}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 set}{\fs15 of}{\fs1
5 parts}{\fs15 jointly}{\fs15 determine }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 structure}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 function}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 system}{\fs15 formed}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 them.}{\fs15 Evidently,}{\
fs15 this}{\fs15 kind}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 causa- }

26 {\fs15 tion}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 operative.}{\fs15 However,}{\fs15 given}{\fs
15 that}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 things}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 spacetime}{\fs15 are}{\f
s15 connected}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 other }
26 {\fs15 things,}{\fs15 there}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 also}{\fs15 downward}{\fs15
causation:}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 influence}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 whol
e}{\fs15 systems}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 each }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 parts. }
26 {\fs15 At}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 level}{\fs15 downward}{\fs
15 causation}{\fs15 creates}{\fs15 "entanglement"}{\fs15 among}{\fs15
particles }
26 {\fs15 within}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 system}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 coordinates.}{\
fs15 In}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 living}{\fs15 world}{\fs15 downward}{\fs15 causa
tion}{\fs15 produces }
26 {\fs15 coherence}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 correlation}{\fs15 within}{\fs15 and}{
\fs15 among}{\fs15 organisms}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 ecologies.}{\fs15 And,}{\fs1
5 at}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 as- }
26 {\fs15 tronomical}{\fs15 level,}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 form}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
causation}{\fs15 produces}{\fs15 coherent}{\fs15 evolution}{\fs15 among}{\f
s15 the}{\fs15 macro- }
26 {\fs15 structures}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 universe."}{\up006 \fs8 222
}
This is rationally thinkable in the large-scale universe, because each
instance
ausation - however far away the cause and effect are from each other in the
erse - is a specific instance of proper causation, and what is called "down\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7210\absh7070 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ward
causation" can only be yet another form of proper causation between
er cause and proper effect. The proper causes in "downward causation" are
extensionally broader elements of Reality in some of their cumulative causal
cts on specific processes. Whatever the sort or aspect of causal influence, the
er cause is in the proper past.
26 This reduces even what "takes place" in the so-called non-local communica\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7210\absh7070 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
or non-communication in the entanglement experiment into a genuine case
roper causation, if we want to remain within the bounds of reason and sense.
is, the proper cause within an entity or process is for the purpos
e of causal
ourse an entity or process. The concept of the Law of Causality remains the
also for the entanglement experiment. In view of achieving more clarity in

matter, we discuss in the next chapter the status of the Law of Causality with
ect to the entanglement experiment in a physical ontological fashion. \par
}
222 Ervin Laszlo, Global Shift in the World Mind: From Global Breakdo
wn to Global
349 Breakthrough (Rochester: Inner Traditions, 2009), 114-115.
\fi6061 {\fs17 217 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 10. Causality in the EPR Paradox:
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy812\absw6915\absh847 \sl-498 \b \f50 \fs28 \cf0 Pa
rt 2. The Physical Ontology \par
}
\cf0 10.1. Causal Realist Ontology in the Entanglement Experiment
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 Now}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 discuss}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \f
s17 ontology}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 realism}{\b0 \fs
17 presupposed}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 previous }
{\b0 \fs17 chapter.}{\b0 \fs17 Suppose}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs
17 the}{\b0 \fs17 entanglement}{\b0 \fs17 experiment}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs
17 transfer}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 informa- }
{\b0 \fs17 tion}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 to}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 other}{\b0 \fs17 entangled}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b
0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 simultaneous}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 instanta- }
{\b0 \fs17 neous,}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 Aspect}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
many}{\b0 \fs17 others}{\b0 \fs17 hold.}{\b0 \fs17 As}{\b0 \fs17 already}{\b
0 \fs17 said,}{\b0 \fs17 if}{\b0 \fs17 there}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 no}{\
b0 \fs17 transfer}{\b0 \fs17 at }
{\b0 \fs17 all,}{\b0 \fs17 then}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 actual}{\b0 \fs17
change}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
particles}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 absolutely}{\b0 \fs17 a}
{\b0 \fs17 non-causal }
{\b0 \fs17 action-at-a-distance}{\b0 \fs17 coming}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17
nowhere.}{\b0 \fs17 Otherwise}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 must}{\b0 \fs17
be}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 result}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 transmission}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs1
7 first}{\b0 \fs17 entangled}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 t
he}{\b0 \fs17 second,}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 extension}{\b0 \fs17 and }

{\b0 \fs17 motion,}{\b0 \fs17 i.e.,}{\b0 \fs17 causal,}{\b0 \fs17 though}{\b0
\fs17 faster}{\b0 \fs17 than}{\b0 \fs17 light. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 A}{\b0 \fs17 third}{\b0 \fs17 possibility}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b
0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 change}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}
{\b0 \fs17 second}{\b0 \fs17 part}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 s
ystem}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 caused }
{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 external}{\b0 \fs17 influence,}{\b0
\fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 may}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 expected}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b
0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 theory}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 "downward}{\b0 \fs17
cau- }
{\b0 \fs17 sation".}{\b0 \fs17 Insofar}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs
17 third}{\b0 \fs17 influence}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 power}{\b0 \fs17 doe
s}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 anything}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs1
7 do}{\b0 \fs17 with }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 experiment}{\b0 \fs17 within}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \f
s17 system,}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 show}{\b
0 \fs17 why}{\b0 \fs17 always}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 cause}{\b0 \fs17 exte
rnal }
{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 system}{\b0 \fs17 must}{\b0 \fs17 be
}{\b0 \fs17 invoked}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 each}{\b0 \fs17 such}{\b0 \fs17
occurrence,}{\b0 \fs17 because}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 experiment }
{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 conducted}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 wel
l}{\b0 \fs17 insulated}{\b0 \fs17 system.}{\b0 \fs17 Even}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0
\fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 case}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 arg
ument }
{\b0 \fs17 stands}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 win:}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 e
verything}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 causal. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 One}{\b0 \fs17 may}{\b0 \fs17 argue}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0
\fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 second}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 was}{\b0 \fs
17 already}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 entangled}{\b0 \fs17
state }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 changed}{\b0 \fs17 t
he}{\b0 \fs17 state.}{\b0 \fs17 'State'}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs
17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 measured}{\b0 \fs17 determination}{\b0 \fs17
of }
{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 experiment.}{\b0 \f
s17 An}{\b0 \fs17 eigenstate}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 dynami
cal}{\b0 \fs17 state}{\b0 \fs17 whose}{\b0 \fs17 state}{\b0 \fs17 vec- }
{\b0 \fs17 tor}{\b0 \fs17 ('wavefunction')}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \
fs17 eigenvector}{\b0 \fs17 (called}{\b0 \fs17 'eigenfunction')}{\b0 \fs17 o
f}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 operator}{\b0 \fs17 that }
{\b0 \fs17 always}{\b0 \fs17 corresponds}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \
fs17 specified}{\b0 \fs17 (measured)}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 quan
tity,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 need }
{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 real}
{\b0 \fs17 thing's}{\b0 \fs17 real}{\b0 \fs17 (as}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17
is}{\b0 \fs17 outside}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 mind)}{\b0 \fs17 quantitativ

e}{\b0 \fs17 attribute }
{\b0 \fs17 is.}{\b0 \fs17 That}{\b0 \fs17 is,}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 so-c
alled}{\b0 \fs17 concept}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 state}{\b0 \f
s17 is}{\b0 \fs17 always}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 actual}{\
b0 \fs17 "quantities}{\b0 \fs17 as }
{\b0 \fs17 measured".}{\b0 \fs17 But}{\b0 \fs17 then,}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs1
7 the}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 non-entity}{\b0 \fs17 bef
ore}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 act}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 measurement? }
{\b0 \fs17 If}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 was}{\b0 \fs17 something}{\b0 \fs17 r
eal}{\b0 \fs17 ,}{\b0 \fs17 then}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 als
o}{\b0 \fs17 had}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 material}{\b0 \fs17 state}{\b0 \fs1
7 of}{\b0 \fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 own}{\b0 \fs17 before}{\b0 \fs17 and }
{\b0 \fs17 after}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 was}{\b0 \fs17 measured.}{\b0 \fs17
The}{\b0 \fs17 state}{\b0 \fs17 determined}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 measur
ement}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 alteration}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 previously}{\b0 \fs17 actual}{\b0 \fs17 state.}{\b0
\fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 minimum}{\b0 \fs17 onto
logy}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 must}{\b0 \fs17 presuppose, }
{\b0 \fs17 without}{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17
physics}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 jeopardy. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 No}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 theory}{\b0 \fs17 presuppose
s}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 real}{\b0 \fs17 material}{\b
0 \fs17 state}{\b0 \fs17 before}{\b0 \fs17 measure- }
{\b0 \fs17 ment}{\b0 \fs17 did}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 exist.}{\b0 \fs17
This}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0 \fs17 ontolog
ical}{\b0 \fs17 commitment}{\b0 \fs17 requires}{\b0 \fs17 be- }
{\b0 \fs17 fore}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 measurement}{\b0 \fs17 event}{\b
0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 cognition}{\b0 \fs17 -}{\b0 \fs17
not}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 what}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 determine
}
{\b0 \fs17 about}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17
define}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 be}{
\b0 \fs17 should}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 existed}{\b0 \fs17 prior}{\b
0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 its }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 219 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 measurement, but that something should have been there with its
physical\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7218\absh6095 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 onto
logical state. If it has not existed, no measurement (another causal event)
d be performed.

26 That is, QM should have ontological commitment to the effect that
the
em really exists and that measurement is on some real system. We nee
d
mean here by 'real' anything already measured or conceived as measured.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7218\absh6095 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Onto
logically, measurement has to be of something real, objectual. If any
icist says that the concept of the 'real' has to be revised, what h
e means
revision of the concept of measured actuality or measured reality. Wha
t I
by 'reality' is in fact reality existing prior to or outside the involvement
easurement, as whatever it is in objectual-ness, as is given in ontological
itment.
26 It is the original physical non-measured state of the second partic
le that is
eived in some way differently at the measurement. In this case it has already
changed into a different material state with respect to the first, comparable
he original physical state, whatever the empirical statement of it is. This is d
ue
he change in the measured state of the first, after which it has further been
ged into the opposite of that state, again by the measurement of the second.
actual non-perceived change of the second is not an epistemic one. Instead,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7218\absh6095 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it m
ust have been physically real. Here superluminal communication could be
ted as the reality between the particles. We must wait till the chapter on STR
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7218\absh6095 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to j
ustify this claim as physically allowed.
26 Butterfield and Earman suggest an alternative theory where, with sufficiently
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7218\absh6095 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sens
ible conditions set, superluminal communication between A and B (say,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7218\absh6095 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Alic
e and Bob) is possible. They stipulate "a quantum system Q which is part of
mpound system QE; E for 'environment', although E could be any quantum
em of which Q is a subsystem. Pure states of QE are represented as rays or \par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7604\absw4394\absh467 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 u
nit vectors in a tensor product Hilbert space{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f S
ymbol }}."{\up006 \fs10 223 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7604\absw4394\absh467 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cuss
ion they come to the conclusion: \par

}
fter much theoretical dis- \par
}
5 \cf0 In effect, a measurement of an E-observable with eigenstates |{\dn006 \fs
8
ie }> will leave the compos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8215\absw6349\absh2708 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi
226 ite system QE in one of the states |{\dn006 \fs8
ir }> |{\dn006 \fs8
ie }> with probability w{\dn006 \fs8 i}, and a measurement of an
226 E-observable with eigenstates |i> (the orthogonal states of the Schmidt comp
osition {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }})
\fi226 will leave the system QE in one of the states |i> |i> with probability p
{\dn006 \fs8 i}. Since Q and E
226 could be widely separated from each other in space, no measurement of E coul
d affect
226 the statistics of any Q-observable; or else measurements at E would allow su
perluminal
226 signaling between Q and E. It follows that the mixed state {\field{\*\fldins
t SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} can be realized as a mix\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8215\absw6349\absh2708 \sl-138 \par\f50 \fs15 \cf0
\fi226 ture of orthogonal states |i> (the eigenstates of {\field{\*\fldinst SYM
BOL 114 \\f Symbol }}) with weights p{\dn006 \fs8 i}, or as a mixture of
{\fs16 223}{\fs16 Butterfield}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Earman,}{\fs16 Eds.,}{\fs1
6 Philosophy}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 565. }
{\fs17 220 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 non-orthogonal relative states |{\dn006 \fs8
jr }> with weigh
ts w{\dn006 \fs8 j} in infinitely many ways, depending
26 on the choice of basis in H{\up006 \fs8 E} {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f
Symbol }} and {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} different mixtures wi
th the same density operator
26 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 114 \\f Symbol }} must be physically indistinguisha
ble.{\up006 \fs8 224 }
{\fs17 This}{\fs17 yields}{\fs17 mathematical}{\fs17 conditions}{\fs17 by}{\
fs17 which}{\fs17 superluminal}{\fs17 signaling}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 Q }
17 and}{\fs17 E}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 occur.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 furt
her}{\fs17 clarified}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 defining}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 'no-cloning}
{\fs17 theorem'}{\fs17 that }
17 says}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 "non-orthogonal}{\fs17 quantum}{\fs17 states}{\fs
17 cannot}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 copied",}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 'no}{\fs17
broad- }
17 casting}{\fs17 theorem'}{\fs17 ("no}{\fs17 information")}{\fs17 which
}{\fs17 says}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 "an}{\fs17 arbitrary}{\fs17 set}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 states }
17 can}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 broadcast}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 only}{\f
s17 if}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 represented}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 mu
tually}{\fs17 commuting }
17 density}{\fs17 operators."}{\up006 \fs10 225}{\fs17 Now,}{\fs17 "[i]f}{
\fs17 Bob}{\fs17 could}{\fs17 distinguish}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMB
OL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 mixtures}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 cloning, }
17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 shorter}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 t
aken}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 travel}{\fs17 between}{\fs17
Alice}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 Bob,}{\fs17 he }
17 would}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 able}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 ascertain}{\fs17 whether}{\
fs17 Alice}{\fs17 measured}{\fs17 X}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 Z}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17 so}
{\fs17 1}{\fs17 bit}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 informa- }
17 tion}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 transferred}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 Alice}
{\fs17 to}{\fs17 Bob}{\fs17 superluminally."}{\up006 \fs10 226 }
26 {\fs17 This}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 case}{\fs17 where}
{\fs17 superluminal}{\fs17 communication}{\fs17 could}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 thou
ght }
17 to}{\fs17 occur,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 condition}{\fs17 set}{\fs1
7 for}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 different}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 t
he}{\fs17 luminal}{\fs17 condition }
17 set}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 STR.}{\fs17 If}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 calls}{\fs17
it}{\fs17 infinite}{\fs17 velocity,}{\fs17 then}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 is
}{\fs17 contradicting}{\fs17 oneself}{\fs17 in }
17 that}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 already}{\fs17 assumed}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 STR}{\fs17 luminal}{\fs17 velocity}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 objects.}{\fs17 We
re}{\fs17 there }
17 anything}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 infinitely}{\fs
17 speedy}{\fs17 there,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 point}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 con
tact}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 influ- }
17 ence}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 finitely}{\fs17 speeding}{\fs17 an
d}{\fs17 infinitely}{\fs17 speeding}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 first}{\fs17 to}{\fs1
7 be}{\fs17 defined }
17 just}{\fs17 there.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 conceptually}{\fs17 impo
ssible}{\fs17 because}{\fs17 infinite-velocity}{\fs17 influence}{\fs17 is }
17 either}{\fs17 something}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 something}{\fs17
non-causal:}{\fs17 If}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 considered}{\fs17 to}
{\fs17 be }
17 propagating}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 infinite}{\fs17 velocity,}{\fs17 it}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 possible}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 show}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 i
nfluence}{\fs17 does }
17 not}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 travel}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 infinite}{\fs

17 speed}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 long}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 influence}{\f
s17 can}{\fs17 just}{\fs17 happen }
17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 second}{\fs17 simultaneously}{\fs17 (i.e.,}{\fs17 w
ith}{\fs17 infinite}{\fs17 speed}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 co
mmunica- }
17 tion}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 all).}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 virt
ue}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 was}{\fs1
7 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 same}{\fs17 instant}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 in
itial }
17 causal}{\fs17 event}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 first}{\fs17 instance}{\
fs17 as}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 transferred}{\fs17 into}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 second.}{\fs17 If}{\fs17 non-causal, }
17 its}{\fs17 point}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 contact}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
finitely}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 cannot}{\fs17 rationally}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 im
agined}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 all. }
17 Thus,}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 reasonable}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 suggest}{\f
s17 finite}{\fs17 superluminality}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 best}{\fs17
solution.}{\fs17 This }
17 saves}{\fs17 causality}{\fs17 automatically. }
26 {\fs17 One}{\fs17 might}{\fs17 say}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 Bohm}{\f
s17 (or}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 others)}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 could}{\fs17 not}{\fs
17 have}{\fs17 been}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 al- }
17 teration}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 material}{\fs17 state}{
\fs17 (not}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 measured}{\fs17 values)}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{
\fs17 second}{\fs17 particle }
17 at}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 measurement}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 first,
}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 measurement}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 only}{\f
s17 revealed}{\fs17 the }
17 epistemologically}{\fs17 determined}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 real}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 first}{\
fs17 particle }
17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 rational}{\fs17 conclusion}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 it}{
\fs17 about}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 second.}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 not}{
\fs17 continue}{\fs17 to }
17 be}{\fs17 perceived}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 case,}{\fs17
since}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 actual}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 measurement}{\fs17 of}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 second }\par
}
24 Butterfield and Earman, Eds., Philosophy of Physics, 568.
Butterfield and Earman, Eds., Philosophy of Physics, 581.
Butterfield and Earman, Eds., Philosophy of Physics, 582. \par
}
21 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 particle would reveal something different from what was in it at
the measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
of the first.
26 Therefore, even at the event of measurement of the physical state of the firs
t
ngled particle obtaining a measured state, a real physical propagation from it
have reached the second, which had to cause some alteration in the second.
, as we measure the physical ontological state of the second, we get as meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ured
another state that is different from the one materially actual in the second.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Cons
equently, only a rational conclusion (not a measurement of physical state)
rding the second is needed, from the case of the first particle, to know the
tence of the measurable form of the physical-ontological state of the other.
26 Here one cannot bring up the argument that the connection between the two
ngled-but-later-separated particles is a vacuum state. A vacuum state i
s a
ific spatiotemporal state of least expectancy of energy. But even here
, sta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tist
ically speaking, at least one quantum process does take place. Does i
t then
that, say, every second a certain percentage of the statistical expectancy is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 taki
ng place at a given measured spacetime of extension-motion level particles?
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 No m
athematician would permit that for a vacuum state, but in reality the prob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abil
ity thus measured as vacuum state is mathematically meant for a more mac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rosc
opic view. Something causal happens there at some time that is stipul
ated
ys to be relative to another time frame. It does happen always, but it does
happen always for statistical perception. The happenings are most rare in the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vacu
um state, which enables us to call it vacuum state statistically.
26 There are measured proper times within every sufficiently large duration of
on of groups of physical states, where the proper times are to be measured

respect to the wavicle in the vacuum state which exists with some physical
icle in causal process. This alone can be the meaning of the absence
of a
ability distribution at some given spacetime points in an extension-motion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rang
e in a vacuum state and even in the experiment of the Indeterminacy Prin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cipl
e and the double slit experiment. To keep with this understanding, we can
well interpret also the probabilistic expectancy of results of "obser
vables"
ning "properties") of one entangled particle, when, theoretically speaking,
other one of the entangled particles displays just the opposite spin or another
erty. The statistical randomness due to which Alain Aspect forewarns (see
previous chapter) against assuming superluminal communications between
two entangled particles is just this.
26 Merely because the only possible experimental description of the state result
from measurement of the one particle is statistical, (1) one does no
t rea\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7274\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sona
bly conclude that what happens there physical-ontologically is a "statistical
probabilistic something" - i.e., one does not take this "something" fo
r an
222 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 ontologically physical and causal event or process there behind t
he statistical
ure; but (2) one concludes rationally that the description of what happened
ach of the separated particles could at the most be statistically interpreted,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 whos
e epistemologically perceived state is called as a "statistical something". Ther
e
ntologically some process happening behind it. From this viewpoint the "ran\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 domn
ess" of Aspect and the "vacuum state" arguments of any others do not ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ply
in the case of apprehending the possibility of a superluminal communication
een the two entangled particles at the time of the experiment. Randomness
vacuum state are another way of expressing "probabilistic causality", which
been shown in the first few chapters to be improperly fitting to any ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
form of causation.
26 If we still keep to non-causal non-local communication with respect to a sup\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pose
d luminal velocity, then backward time travel is also not excluded therewith.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I qu
ote d'Espagnat on the paradoxes of superluminal velocities (presumably only
s with imaginary values of non-causal transgressions of luminal velocities),
e the causal cone of the velocity of light is retained in a questionable manner:
\fi226 {\fs15 Signals}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 outrace}{\fs15 light}{\fs15 give}{\
fs15 rise}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 bizarre}{\fs15 paradoxes}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 causa
lity}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 observers }
26 {\fs15 in}{\fs15 some}{\fs15 frames}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 reference}{\fs15 fi
nd}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 event}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 "caused"}{\fs15 by
}{\fs15 another}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 yet }
26 {\fs15 happened.}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 turns}{\fs15 out,}{\fs15 however,}{\fs1
5 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 instantaneous}{\fs15 influences}{\fs15 that}{\fs15
seem}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 at }
26 {\fs15 work}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 distant-correlation}{\fs15 experi
ments}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 require}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 dras
tic}{\fs15 revision}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 ac- }
26 {\fs15 cepted}{\fs15 ideas.}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 seems}{\fs15 quite}{\fs15 c
ertain}{\fs15 these}{\fs15 influences}{\fs15 could}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 be}{\f
s15 employed}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 transmit }
26 {\fs15 any}{\fs15 "useful"}{\fs15 information,}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 as}{\fs
15 orders}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 instructions.}{\up006 \fs8 227 }
One does not recognize here the need to admit causal superluminal cones be\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 twee
n the two entangled particles. It is surprising how d'Espagnat states his per\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
ion of the concept of a signal or transmission, from which he isolat
es the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7694 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ones
that QM tends to understand merely as instantaneous. He connects the
entangled particles via a common cause, unaware that what happens in that
e for the measurement of an attribute in A to be followed by a change of an
ibute in B is already due to a cause that may even be part of
common
two
caus
attr
the
caus
e:
\fi226 {\fs15 No}{\fs15 event}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 causes}{\fs15 another}{\fs1
5 event}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 linked}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 thr
ough}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 mechanism;}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 instantaneous}{\fs15 influences}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 pass}{\fs15 only
}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 events}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 related}{\fs15
by}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 common }
26 {\fs15 cause.}{\fs15 Hence}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 concept}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}
{\fs15 signal}{\fs15 could}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 redefined}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 suc
h}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 those }
26 {\fs15 means}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 communication}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 transmit}{
\fs15 useful}{\fs15 information}{\fs15 would}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 called}{\fs15
signals.}{\fs15 The }\par
}
227 Bernard d'Espagnat, "Quantum Theory and Reality", Scientific American, 1979
, 180,
349 URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf (Access
ed
349 on 7 June 2011).
\fi6061 {\fs17 223 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 principle of the finite velocity of signals would then be preserved
. Even this solution
26 impairs scientific realism to some extent. The basic law that signals cannot
travel faster
26 than light is demoted from a property of external reality to a feature of mer
e communi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7093\absh7698 \sl-219 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 cable human experience. Although this represents a step toward philosophical
positiv\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7093\absh7698 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ism, the concept of an independent or external reality can still be retained
as a possible
26 explanation of observed regularities in experiments. It is necessary, however
, that the
26 violation of Einstein separability be included as a property, albeit a well-h
idden and
26 counterintuitive property, of that independent reality. It should be noted in
passing that
26 Bohr's refutation of Einstein's argument for hidden parameters introduces an
implicit
26 violation of separability. It is founded on a strange indivisibility of the s
ystem of particles
26 and the instruments of observation.{\up006 \fs8 228 }
{\fs17 Notice}{\fs17 how}{\fs17 simply}{\fs17 d'Espagnat}{\fs17 steers}{\fs1
7 clear}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causality,}{\fs17 though}{\fs17 he}{\fs17 mention
s}{\fs17 the }
17 need}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 first.}{\fs17 For}{\fs17
him}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 common}{\fs17 cause}{\fs17 much}{\fs17 prior}{
\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 actual}{\fs17 meas- }
17 urement}{\fs17 event}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 A}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 prior}{\f
s17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 allegedly}{\fs17 "simultaneous"}{\fs17 change
}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 B}{\fs17 is }
17 the}{\fs17 remote}{\fs17 cause}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 change}{\fs17
in}{\fs17 B.}{\fs17 He}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 dare}{\fs17 imagine
}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 specific }
17 cause}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 final}{\fs17 effect}{\fs17 need}{\fs17
not}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 whole}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 common
}{\fs17 cause.}{\fs17 In}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 he }
17 violates}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 principle}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 proper}{\fs17 caus
e}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 proper}{\fs17 effect.}{\fs17 He}{\fs17 gives}{\fs17 to
}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 demotion }
17 of}{\fs17 superluminal}{\fs17 velocities}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 status}{\f
s17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 mere}{\fs17 communicable}{\fs17 human}{\fs17
experi- }
17 ence.}{\fs17 For}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 he}{\fs17 uses}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ne
ed}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 assign}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 finite}{\fs17 veloc
ity}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 communicable }
17 experiences.}{\fs17 (Superluminal}{\fs17 velocities}{\fs17 too,}{\fs17 if
}{\fs17 permissible,}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 fi
nite }
17 velocities.)}{\fs17 It}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs
17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 proper}{\fs17 cause}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 proper}{
\fs17 effect}{\fs17 takes}{\fs17 im- }
17 portance.}{\fs17 He}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 seem}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
stick}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 proper}{\fs17 cause}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 e
ffect,}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 the }
17 only}{\fs17 elements}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 take}{\fs17 part}{\fs17 in}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 process.}{\fs17 Thus}{\fs17 he}{\fs17 digresses}{\fs17 from}{
\fs17 one}{\fs17 level}{\fs17 to }
17 another}{\fs17 level}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causation}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 from}{\f
s17 the}{\fs17 physical-ontological}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 vague}{\fs17
communi- }
17 cable}{\fs17 human}{\fs17 experience,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 latter}{\fs17 of
}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 basis}{\fs17 on}{\fs

17 any}{\fs17 imaginable }
17 physical}{\fs17 ontology. }
26 {\fs17 He}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 address}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 real}{
\fs17 issues}{\fs17 here}{\fs17 (1)}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 origin}{\f
s17 of}{\fs17 change}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 particle }
17 B}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 entanglement}{\fs17 experiment,}{\fs17 and
}{\fs17 (2)}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 possibility}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\f
s17 generalization }
17 of}{\fs17 STR}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 make}{\fs17 finite}{\fs17 superluminal}{\
fs17 velocities}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 finite}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 cones}{\fs17
possible. }
17 In}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 absence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 these,}{\fs17 his}{\fs17
talk}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 instrumentalistic}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 phenomenalistic.}{
\fs17 The }
17 only}{\fs17 way}{\fs17 out}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 admit}{\fs17 that
}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 signals}{\fs17 (or}{\fs17 whatever}{\fs17 happens}{\fs17
or}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 seem }
17 to}{\fs17 happen)}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 entangled}{\fs17 part
icles}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 causal.}{\fs17 If}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 ca
usal,}{\fs17 they }
17 have}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 real.}{\fs17 Then}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 need
}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 revise}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 aposteriorily}{\fs
17 based}{\fs17 singular }
17 velocity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Lorenz}
{\fs17 factor,}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 103 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 =
}{\fs17 (1}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 v}{\up006 \fs10 2}{\fs17 /}{\fs17 c}{\fs17 )}
{\fs17
,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 instead}{\fs17 give}{\fs17 the }
17 relatively}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 priori}{\fs17 natural}{\fs17
condition}{\up006 \fs10 229}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 spectrum}{\fs17 o
f}{\fs17 finite}{\fs17 velocities }\par
}
-1/2 \par
}
228 d'Espagnat, "Quantum Theory and Reality", 180.
Of help here may be a spectral theory of apriority and aposteriority of catego
ries,
349 universals and natural kind terms, with a range of values of both in apriori
ty and
{\fs17 224 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 including superluminal ones by simply substituting c with a higher C, with
out
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 detr
iment to STR.
{\b \fs21 10.2.}{\b \fs21 Ontological}{\b \fs21 Commitment}{\b \fs21 and}{\b
\fs21 Causality }
01 {\b \fs21 in}{\b \fs21 the}{\b \fs21 EPR}{\b \fs21 Paradox }
The correlations between the two particles that Bell's theorems speak of are not
how directly between the two particles, but between "states" taken as
"a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cata
logue of correlations": "Bell theorem tells us that if {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
114 \\f Symbol }} is Bell correlated, its cor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rela
tions cannot be simulated in any local hidden variables (LHV) model. Being
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Bell
-correlated is, therefore, one sense in which a state - understood simply as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a c
atalog of correlations - can be said to be 'nonlocal'."{\up006 \fs10 23
0} This non-locality is
t a catalog of correlations of measured values under the assumption of the
est limit velocity as that of light. This indicates that we have to differentiat
e
een (1) states that are just catalogues of correlations obtained from proper\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
as measurement results and (2) real material states of wavicles obtained by
ontological commitment as the givenness of things real before, during and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 afte
r the measurement. Thus, instituting ontological commitment as a precondi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
for all physics (and for that matter all sciences) is a must.
26 Ontological commitment does not bring in any determinate ontology of fully
ned beings as in olden thinkers. It simply admits the existence of real physical
esses as such behind what we perceive in this or that way in measurements
therwise. Its conceptual instruments are not the same as the categories that
gs should ontologically possess even without our intervention - and which
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we t
end to name (always imperfectly from what they really are in things) as on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical categories given in consciousness.
26 For example, the old ontology of things that the "wave-particle duality- and
lementarity concept" resists is an outmoded ontology of 'things as is per\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ceiv
ed as really out there objectually, but compartmentalized and characterized
erceived'. Ontological commitment is not to such "mechanistic beings", but to
there being something whatever processual out there behind all that is ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 peri
mented upon - not in the mind, nor as such as the mind predicts or charac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 teri
zes. To that extent, ontological commitment is non-controversial. It is just the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 coun
ter-way to ward off the strictly solipsistic elements of philosophical results
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7359\absh9336 \sl-215 \par\par\f50 \fs17 \
cf0 \fi349 {\fs16 aposteriority.}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 will}{\fs16 attempt}{\fs16
the}{\fs16 same}{\fs16 later}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 tool}{\fs16 to}{\fs
16 transcend}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 presence}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 over- }
49 {\fs16 much}{\fs16 particularism}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 analytical}{\fs16 philo
sophy}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 general. }
16 230}{\fs16 Rob}{\fs16 Clifton,}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Entanglements:}{\fs
16 Selected}{\fs16 Papers}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 Jeremy}{\fs16 Butterfield}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 Hans }
49 {\fs16 Halvorson,}{\fs16 Eds.}{\fs16 (Oxford:}{\fs16 Oxford}{\fs16 Univer
sity}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 2005),}{\fs16 422. }
\fi6061 225 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 from Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Berkeley, Newton, Hume, Kant, (
even
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Heid
egger, Husserl), etc., where what is given in epistemic concepts and defini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s of somethings-over-there are taken for millennia to be the processes-out\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ther
e and the game of philosophy was upon these definitions-as-things. The case
physics has not been different.
26 If measurement is performed on real, existent physical systems and
not on
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fict
itious ones, we can admit that measurement yields at least the intervention\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
altered real physical state of the system as the aftermath of the ontological
ondition. But the EPR correlations, if performed under the strict principle
imit-character of the velocity of light, will yield only non-local correlations.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Such
non-locality and action-at-a-distance need not be the case, if we admit fi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nite
superluminal velocities in order to avoid acceding that merely at that point
measurement somehow things themselves and the causality active in them
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vani
sh. Our argument in favour of superluminal communication between the
separated entangled particles can therefore clearly be presented as follows:
26 Separable states may be separable catalogues of properties in QM. But admit\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ting
them is equivalent to admitting no physical existence. Physical existence is
real properties beyond the determined ones. Real properties are not given
uch in our measured properties. Measured properties are mental appropria\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s of what the real things could be in their material properties. What they are,
surely at least partially different from what we measurementally determine
to be. That is, I argue that the something-s given in ontological commitment
with real ontological properties; and these real properties are not exactly the
as the measuremental ones. The catalogue of properties in Bell and other
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM p
hysicists is of the measuremental ones, not the real ones out-there. These
ones are presupposed in the measuremental ones as existing.
{\b \fs21 10.3.}{\b \fs21 Non-locality}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Causality}{\b
\fs21 in}{\b \fs21 the}{\b \fs21 EPR}{\b \fs21 Paradox }
We admit by reason of ontological commitment that there are separable physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
states with appropriate catalogues of properties (called "Bell states") at each
urement instance. At the same time, the separable "states" which QM ad\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mits
are local with respect to the limit velocity of light in vacuo; otherwise they
non-local when assumed without any causal action within. Non-separable
es are entangled states with appropriate measured quantities, but with
real
physically separable, extended parts. Should then these physically existing
es be non-local?
26 This question is not merely about the probable non-locality of cata
logues
properties but also about the real physical objectual states (token en
tities'
226 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 objectually physical states as such). "A state which violates any
Bell inequal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity,
including generalized inequalities, must be non-separable. Moreover, since
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 corr
elations in such states {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} cannot be re
produced by any local hidden vari\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 able
theory, one is justified in terming them non-local states."{\up006 \fs
10 231} This quote
Clifton speaks of non-separability of states that are states with respect to
r measured (perceived) states, and not of non-separability of real physical
es alone.
26 If one concludes from this that measured states are non-local, it implies onl
y
"non-locality" of measured properties, not of real physical states. What about
physical (ontological) states of particles A and B, if it is discove
rable that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Bhas
some change of some real properties by the very fact that some properties
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of Aa
re mechanically really changed when any intervention has to effect some\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g causally? This physical-ontological change has to be either null, in which
we must admit that there are only measuremental property changes of
gs and not of real properties as such of wavicles: where 'properties' is under\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stoo
d only as the version of measured results of physical states with 'real proper\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
', not as qualities inherent in the material system. This is impossib
le, since
result of measurement is an index of something causal happening in the real
em measured. That means there is also some physical-ontological change
a result of change of observed properties: where the ontological chang
es in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 A an
d B have to be real and of the order of extension-motion. Thus, the non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 meas
uremental changes in the system have to be real and caused.
26 A caused change cannot be just a quality change, since quality always physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y presupposes quantities and physical actualities in extension-motion. If this

ge is caused and if change is of the order of extension-motion (meas
ured
spatiotemporal), it can be only by superluminal communication occurring
he extension-motion order from particle A to B or vice versa or both. How\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7244\absh6320 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ever
the communication happens, it has to be superluminal, and if not, i
t will \par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7854\absw3640\absh467 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 b
e the action- or passion-at-a-distance{\up006 \fs10 232 }
t-velocity. \par
}
{\phpg\posx4354\pvpg\posy7854\absw3260\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 m
easured with respect to the luminal \par
}
7 \cf0 Moreover - to anticipate the result in the chapter on STR - the luminal v
e\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8354\absw7222\absh2583 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loc
ity limit is not justifiable as absolute because the absolutisation of
the Lor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8354\absw7222\absh2583 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ent
z factor {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 103 \\f Symbol }} = (1 - v {\up006 \fs1
0 2}/c )
in the equations is mathematically not justifiable
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8354\absw7222\absh2583 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 und
er the presupposedly only possible criterial velocity of quantons. Tach
yon
{\fs16 231}{\fs16 Clifton,}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Entanglements}{\fs16 ,}{\f
s16 340. }
s16 232}{\fs16 'Passion-at-a-distance'}{\fs16 was}{\fs16 coined}{\fs16 by}{
\fs16 Abner}{\fs16 Shimony.}{\fs16 See:}{\fs16 George}{\fs16 Greenstein}{\f
s16 and }
349 {\fs16 Arthur}{\fs16 G.}{\fs16 Zajonc,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16
Challenge:}{\fs16 Modern}{\fs16 Research}{\fs16 on}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Found
ations}{\fs16 of }
349 {\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics}{\fs16 (Boston:}{\fs16 Jones}{\fs16 and}
{\fs16 Bartlett}{\fs16 Publishers,}{\fs16 1997),}{\fs16 150. }
\fi6061 227 \par
}
-1/2 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 theories by E. C. G. Sudarshan and others show only an imaginary superlumi
nal
city involving a complex number. These are not real because they still take
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lumi
nal velocity as the criterion to measure superluminal velocities.{\up006
\fs10 233} Hence,
an bracket values that involve complex quantities. Therefore, the so-called
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nonlocal effect of entanglement could only be a real local effect with respect to
superluminal communication between A and B, which have to be always
erioned over other higher superluminal velocities if any.
26 There is a causal anomaly when at least the first experimental int
ervention
n electron by a photon is first of all assumed to be causal by the Uncertainty
ciple, and if thereafter the statistical results from the double slit experiment
,
indeterminacy principle, etc. are considered to be ontologically random and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal, and not merely measurementally random.
26 In the same vein, we may argue against Aspect who cites (see the
previous
ter) the random nature of the determination of the state of the second par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
e as the reason for absence of causation here. But this is based on the belief,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in c
ommon language, that 'random' means 'without cause' - that is, probabilistic
rpretation minus the ontological commitment behind the existence of those
ts about which the probabilistic inquiry is. In a mathematically rando
m
t or process there may not be a perceived cause, since the event is consid\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ered
statistically and apart from its cause. Ontologically, in the devising of the
riment, not all causal sources of the motions in the experiment are brought
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in.
Hence, the event is contrived or measured to be random, meaning the causes
perceived (measured) randomly or not perceived. This cannot mean that the
ins of the motions in the event were all non-causal.
26 We are now left with only the following choice. The event of (any) "automatic
"
ration in the second particle in the entanglement experiment is in fa
ct not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "aut
omatic without causation", i.e., not to be named "non-local". It is caused by
thing, by a real communication that is not perceived by use of techniques that

nd on local propagations that obey the luminal speed-limit. The alteration in
given circumstance could then only have been caused by a superluminal sig\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nal
from the first to the second entangled-but-spatiotemporally-separated parti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7265\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cle
or vice versa or both. If it is not yet detected, one is not entitled to say tha
t it
non-causal regression into the past history of the two particles or time travel
the past in a wondrously non-local way.
{\fs16 233}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 difficulties}{\fs16 when}{\fs16 tachyons}{\
fs16 are}{\fs16 brought}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 serve}{\fs16 supe
rluminal}{\fs16 information }
49 {\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 entanglement}{\fs16 experiment,}{\fs16 withou
t}{\fs16 questioning}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 criterial}{\fs16 velocity}{\fs16 of}
{\fs16 light, }
49 {\fs16 are}{\fs16 discussed}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Tim}{\fs16 Maudlin,}{\fs16
Quantum}{\fs16 Non-Locality}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Relativity:}{\fs16 Metaphysica
l }
49 {\fs16 Intimations}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Modern}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 (Oxford:
}{\fs16 Blackwell,}{\fs16 2002),}{\fs16 77f. }
228 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Although it is easily said that, in the case of non-causal non-loca
l communi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cati
on, time travel into the past is possible, we should first physical-ontologicall
y
it (1) either as a causal effect from the proper past, (2) or as an absolutely
ltaneous "causally neutral" effect from the common past of the two particles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or "
from" their common future, (3) or as an absence of effect that is incapable
producing an effect in the other particle and yet something happens i
n the
nd particle without anything causal. The only rational option left here is to
t that it was caused from the past of the system and if so by a superlumi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nall
y real but finite signal. The reasons, self-evidently, are: (1) there
could not
been any of the already acceded events or processes of causation before the
particles entered into two different light cones, if they ceased to have causal
ection after they entered two different light cones, and (2) there could have
no causality if the two events were simultaneous.
26 STR naturally forbids absolute simultaneity only when the two particles are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 outs
ide the ultimate frame of reference of one light cone, since simultaneity is
d on luminal causal communication, and since the two species of motions
to two such light cones are absolutely not mutually connected due to
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unap
proachability of the one world (causal cone) to the other over the maximal
d of light. But, for the reasons given in (1) and (2) above, no th
eory can
act allow any event of simultaneity in the entangled-but-now-separated pair
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 beca
use the two particles of the entangled system entered two luminally mutu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
unapproachable causal cones after they were in one and the same cau
sal
t cone. If they have been causally connected at luminal velocity, the
y can
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 neve
r be separated from each other at real superluminal distance from eac
h
r if superluminal velocities were not possible. The effectively superluminal
ances in the entangled-but-now-separated pair is not real velocity but only
ffective mutual increase in distance beyond that achieved in a single luminal
smission.
26 The paradox in simultaneous non-causal effect in entanglement
is about
time and kind of entry of the two entangled particles into a physic
al state
ein the physical-ontologically mutual causal connection allegedly disap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pear
s. It is understandable if it is just an epistemic disappearance - m
eaning,
understanding fails to grasp the actual causal connection in a given event.
appearance of some physical effect in B "simultaneous with" the effect in A
s that there is some real but allegedly "simultaneous" transmission between
two even in the state of the luminal-cone-level mutual isolation of the two.
is, there is a more than merely human epistemic fault or inability here, i.e.,
physical transmission, which naturally cannot issue and be absorbed ab\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 solu
tely simultaneously by a luminal reckoning of time. Hence, a superluminal
\fi6061 229 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 communication which is transpires at extension-motion is an ontological ne
ed
he entanglement scenario.
26 Otherwise the particles should travel backwards in relativistic time
after
eving simultaneity. Only then can we, at least mathematically, have the tem\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pora
lly zero-point event, namely, a simultaneous event. But, just as the light cones
he two entangled particles allegedly do not permit luminal or superluminal
smission from the past, so also luminal or superluminal travel back into lumi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nal
time too is impossible. This is because (1) luminal travel back from one point
elative time cannot approach the past at the same speed, and (2)superluminal
smission backwards can also be measured with respect to its own speed
h too forbids reaching a superluminal past event at the same superluminal
d. That is, time travel will not be possible even in case of superluminal veloci
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
being true, since causal cones in the superluminal case would be extended
nd all light cones.
26 The propagations at the big bang to opposite directions of the pri
meval
are comparable to the space-like separation of the entangled particle
s.
we go back to the question of pilot waves, which Antony Valentini brings
to physics to make instantaneous superluminal propagations possible and
to make possible a rewriting of the Law of Causality with respect
to the
ially non-causal QM causality.
26 He says, "In the early universe, space expanded so fast that dista
ntly sepa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rate
d particles couldn't interact if those interactions were limited by the speed
ight{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}. But observations suggest such d
istant interactions did happen."{\up006 \fs10 234} He
s that the pilot wave theory can permit particles interacting faster than light
instantaneously. If this (purely mathematical wave) can guide particles in a
i-dimensional configuration space, the detailed motions of these leftove
r
icles should have been present in the early universe, e.g., gravitons and dark
er, the latter of which too still floats around in space now, must now give us
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 evid
ence for pilot waves.{\up006 \fs10 235 }
26 The ground for Valentini's argument is that in the early universe there shoul
d
been superluminal velocities. The present work does not treat of that realm
osmological possibilities. It suffices to say that this claim is not substantiat
ed
ny way till date. That is, we remain content with the arguments of the pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7172\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sent
work where we attempt to make superluminal propagation highly probable \par
}
234 Mike Martin, "Teaching an Old Wave New Tricks", URL: http://www.fqxi.org/da
ta/
349 articles/Valentini_Antony.pdf (Accessed on 13 August 2011).
Martin, "Teaching an Old Wave New Tricks".
{\fs17 230 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 with respect to QM and STR. Again, it must be kept in mind th
at the alleged
antaneity of propagation of these influences is irrational. Valentini h
as no
rimental reasons to substantiate that claim. He finds the conclusions some-

supported by observation - an observation that he presents in the pi
lot
manner. But we have already argued earlier that pilot waves are no more a
tion since they are just imaginary mathematical waves. The spatiotemporal
ection between things causal and the instantaneous nature of causal influ\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
s that he predicts are together unthinkable. Therefore, I hold that finite su\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perl
uminal causal velocities under extension-motion conditions with no power
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to w
ork the instantaneous wonder of infinite-velocity propagation must be the
tion.
26 This may be validated, in a first step, by rendering wavicle fields causally
real
not merely an artificial amalgamation of two geometrical ideals into instru\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
alistic tools that are simultaneously separate and complementary. In an
mpt to explain the causal / non-causal dilemma produced by the wave / par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
e dichotomy, through three examples for corrective candidates, Peter Ri
ggs
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gets
in favour of realism and causalism. If we follow his suggestion, th
e wave
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fiel
d (matter wave) concept can render the isolated wave concept and the isolated
icle concept unreal. Peter Riggs says:
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 Double}{\fs15 Slit}{\fs15 Experiment}{\fs15 and}{\f
s15 the}{\fs15 Ahranov-Bohm}{\fs15 Effect}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 exemplars}{\fs1
5 wherein}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 assumption}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 objectively}{\fs15 existing}
{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 field}{\fs15 provides}{\fs15 coherent,}{\fs15 realistic}
{\fs15 and}{\fs15 causal }
26 {\fs15 explanations}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 phenomena.}{\fs15 The}{\f
s15 third,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 manipulation}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 matt
er}{\fs15 waves,}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 an }
26 {\fs15 example}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 physical}{\fs15 processes}{\fs15 made}{\f
s15 possible}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 recent}{\fs15 developments}{\fs15
in}{\fs15 laser}{\fs15 tech- }
26 {\fs15 nology,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 explanation}{\fs15 of}{\fs
15 which}{\fs15 requires}{\fs15 accepting}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 fields}{\fs15
(matter}{\fs15 waves)}{\fs15 as }
26 {\fs15 objectively}{\fs15 real.}{\up006 \fs8 236 }
To make a physical field real we need to take the isolated waves and particles a
s
ly geometrical, the wavicle as physical-ontologically real, and the fie
ld as
cle field and as the way of existence of all matter.
26 Will the wavicle field concept help in upholding the primacy of th
e Law of
ality in QM? From what we have discussed, the primacy of Causality may be
r insofar as the wave field is physical, of the order of extension-motion, etc.,
permits composition of real wavicle fields out of them everywhere in
the
erse. Admitting the ubiquity of causation against the background of the en\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tang
lement experiment (if STR permits superluminal propagation) implies caus\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7283\absh8159 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
active wavicles propagating in superluminal velocities too - and not
pure
absolute, non-extended and non-movemental geometrical waves. A merely \par
}
236 Riggs, Quantum Causality, 96. \par
}
31 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 non-local, non-causal, vacuous and instantaneous propagation is impossible
in
entanglement experiment.
26 If one argues in favour of a non-extended and non-changing "spaceti
me"
agation, and theoretically constructs an action-at-a-distance to accom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plis
h it, we may argue differently and bring out the impossibility of an
event
occurs only in an infinitesimally small (= a finite value divided by infinity,
extension-motion dimensions) arithmetical point of "spacetime". Measured
etime does not exist since spatiality and temporality are just measure
al, ontologically imply extension and motion, which in turn imply partial
anence and partial change, which ipso facto shows that the said event
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (tha
t involves partial extension and motion) in infinitesimally small extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on cannot occur. The alleged infinitesimal action-at-a-distance of non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
al, infinite-velocity effect in particle B "due to" or "at the instan
ce of" a
ge in particle A is no action by physical stuff, which is always on
ly near\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 infi
nitesimal in active existence.
26 Suppose that the said infinitesimal event is merely non-causal but spatiotem\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pora
lly measured and is thus taking place at the extension-motion order. Then
e was no initial or later causation, and hence no change or event at all, at lea
st
in the concerned system, until the said event. Moreover, since the event is
gedly non-causal, there is no causal change after the event, too. Now consider
resultant time line within the light cone of it between the immediat
e past
future of the said event. The event is representable only as an infinitesimal
t between the two non-causal streams; this again, as assumed, as non-causal.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Any
event that occurs at a Euclidean infinitesimal point of extension-moti
on
bsolutely not in extension and motion. Therefore, the event at this point of
is not a physical energy wavicle, because an energy wavicle is a real, near\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 infi
nitesimal field quanton with a specific energy and momentum (even when
urable only differently from what it exactly is), and not an infinite
simal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nonextended point. Thus, the notion of infinitesimal non-causal events is a con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trad
iction in terms.
26 Cosmologically, extension-motion is the ontologically a priori differentiatin
g
gorial condition of physical causation and of the resulting relative c
hange.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 It i
s differentiating due to their particularizing and changing nature. Spacetime
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is j
ust its epistemological counterpart set of categories. Anything non-causal is

efore of non-extension-motion status, measurementally non-spatiotemporal
thus unchangeable, and does not exist in this extension-motion universe. It
cannot happen in this world, since all happening is in extension-motion.
26 Moreover, the assumption of the uncaused event of alteration in certain quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 titi
es with regard to the second of the entangled particles (if it were
non-local
232 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 and absolutely random) also implies an uncaused future. But an uncaused fu
ture
not the case because we have determined (1) that the effect on the
second
icle (even of collapse of wavefunction) is of one system with the first particle
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7149\absh7484 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (and
with other such former wavicles of collapse), and "simultaneous" with the
t on the first particle of the system, and (2) that the first and second parti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7149\absh7484 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cles
move farther from each other, by all possible experimental and theoretical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7149\absh7484 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reck
oning, into a relatively forward future time. This movement need not
be
lutely at 180 degrees apart from each other, but some sort of movement away
each other, since after the detection the particle moves differently.
26 In short, contiguity in extension-motion - ensured by the finite mutual dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7149\absh7484 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tanc
e, by any method of measuring, between the origin and end of the tr
ans\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7149\absh7484 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 miss
ion - in the transmission of influences is a must in physical systems. This
s also that the primacy of causation, which is always transmission of force
cause to effect in contiguity at the order of extension-motion, must always be
upposed under pain of loss of all meaning otherwise. If the Law of Causal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7149\absh7484 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
is admitted, our only choice in the entanglement experiment will then be for
rluminal communication between the particles. All other possibilities ar
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7149\absh7484 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fore
closed.
26 The light cone is the Einstein causality condition, against the bac
kground
hich Bell's theorem is constructed and the EPR entanglement experiments
conducted. But now we can broaden the Einstein causality condition to su\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7149\absh7484 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perl
uminal velocities, if we want to save causality rather than admit wondrous
on-at-a-distance (which is non grata for STR and GTR) in the entanglement
riment. From this point of view, the following statements are questionable
to their tendency to jump into insufficiently reasonable conclusions:
\fi226 {\fs15 Stated}{\fs15 more}{\fs15 simply,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 experiment
}{\fs15 provides}{\fs15 strong}{\fs15 evidence}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 a}{\fs15
quantum}{\fs15 event}{\fs15 at }
26 {\fs15 one}{\fs15 location}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 affect}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 eve
nt}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 another}{\fs15 location}{\fs15 without}{\fs15 any}{\fs1
5 obvious}{\fs15 mechanism }
26 {\fs15 for}{\fs15 communication}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs
15 locations.}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 been}{\fs15 called}{\fs15 "spo
oky}{\fs15 action}{\fs15 at }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 distance"}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 Einstein}{\fs15 (who}{\fs15 d
oubted}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 physical}{\fs15 reality}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 this}{\fs
15 effect).}{\fs15 However,}{\fs15 these }
26 {\fs15 experiments}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 allow}{\fs15 faster-than-l
ight}{\fs15 communication,}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 events}{\fs15 themse
lves }
26 {\fs15 appear}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 inherently}{\fs15 random.}{\up00
6 \fs8 237 }
This is difficult to admit because there is essentially no explanation about how
causal is connected to the spooky non-causal. If there is no causati
on in \par
}
237 URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect (Accessed on 11 Jan. 2011).
Fora
349 clear view of the requirement of Einstein causality against which Bell's The
orem and
349 the entanglement experiment are stated, see URL: http://arxiv.org/ftp
/quant-ph/
349 papers/0402/0402001.pdf (Accessed on 29 Oct. 2011.)
\fi6061 {\fs17 233 }\par

}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 entanglement, we need no causation anywhere in physics, because e
verything
n principle reducible to entangled pairs at a reasonable level of wavicle size.
26 By all reckoning, in all forms of interpretation in which an entan
gled state
agates forwards in time, it appears that the choice of the polarizer orienta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh7259 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
at the time of detection of one photon or particle immediately affects the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh7259 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pola
rization of the other one that is some sizeable distance away.{\up006 \fs10 238}
One jumps
to the conclusion that this is instantaneous (simultaneous) and that
this
smission of the influence indicates a violation of locality and causality, since
assumption an allegedly "STR-impossible" superluminal velocity should be
lved if there is a causal transmission between the members of the pair now
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh7259 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sent
apart from each other.
26 What is meant so far by local causality? Aspect says,
\fi226 {\fs15 Bell}{\fs15 begins}{\fs15 his}{\fs15 discussion}{\fs15 with}{\
fs15 an}{\fs15 intuitive}{\fs15 notion}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 local}{\fs15 causa
lity}{\fs15 ,}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 events}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 one }
26 {\fs15 spacetime}{\fs15 region}{\fs15 cannot}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 causes}{\fs
15 of}{\fs15 events}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 another,}{\fs15 spacelike}{\fs15 sepa
rated,}{\fs15 region.}{\fs15 He }
26 {\fs15 then}{\fs15 goes}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 define}{\fs15 a}{\fs1
5 model}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 correlation}{\fs15 experiment}{\fs15 as}
{\fs15 being}{\fs15 locally}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 probability}{\fs15 distribution}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 outco
mes}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 measurements}{\fs15 factorises}{\fs15 when}
{\fs15 condi- }
26 {\fs15 tioned}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 'hidden'}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 {
\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 overla
p}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 past}{\fs15 light}{\fs15 cones}{\fs15 of}{\f
s15 the}{\fs15 measurement }
26 {\fs15 events.}{\up006 \fs8 239 }
Whether there actually are hidden variables or not, dumping the probability dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh7259 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trib
ution of outcomes of measurements under a mere configuration-term "non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh7259 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loca
l" or "statistically causal" will not suffice to be an explanation as
to whether
phenomenon occurs with or without some sort of transmission. If it
occurs
out transmission, the question can never be answered, 'Why should non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh7259 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loca
l effects occur?' If they do occur, the occurrence cannot be by luminal but
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh7259 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by s
uperluminal transmission, if it is to be a validly extension-motion level real
rrence. Here the concept of locality will depend on and be re-defined with
ect to superluminal velocities. In short, to be rational in physics,
the so\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh7259 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
ed non-locality must be under some real communication between the two
ngled particles. To state that these are just states detected by expe
riments
that when not detected there are no "states" and no material states,
is to
ne all possible states in terms merely of detection without physical basis. This
nstrumentalistic denial of reason, physical existence and all particle ontology.
\par
}
238 URL: http://www.qcaustralia.org/Publications/2006/Pegg.pdf (Accessed on
12 Jan.
349 2011) David T. Pegg, "Causality in Quantum Mechanics" (411-414), Physics Let
ters A
349 349 (2006), 414. See also URL: http://www.cqc2t.org/publications?year=2006.
Harvey R. Brown, Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Pe
r\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9486\absw7314\absh1564 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 spective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007), 184.
{\fs17 234 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 One may argue that measurement on one of the entangled pa
rticles yields
actual physical state of the particle, and that until then it had no quantum
e. The first part of this could be conceived to go in the direction of quick
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 judg
ment (so I think). This is in vogue among non-instrumentalist absolute\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 real
ist physicists. The latter part is in vogue among instrumentalists. Bu
t the
logical fallacy behind them is that the quantum state is in fact the state as
ured and that the usual meaning of physical state is the physical-ontolog\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ical
state whatever of the particle, whether the said measurement is conducted
not. If a physicist does not admit the real physical state being the
re at all,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 he m
ust be conducting his experiment in vacuum, i.e., on a system in a non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phys
ical state.
26 It is ontologically useless to say that the state before measurement is unkno
wn.
physical state is inexistent. This is my point in proposing ontological com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mitm
ent (in a more general vein than in Quine) in QM. The previous stat
e is
known in its entirety, but some physical properties of that state are known
ially. That is, the actual state that we use in the theory is as measured, but t
his
ot to deny that the system had, and has, some real physical state - which was
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 earl
ier, and is later causally affected by the measurements yielding the perception
different state.
26 At the measurement-event of interfering in a motion, wave p
roperties
reduced to particle properties. But does this mean that the real nat
ure of
wavicle was not there before the measurement? It must be either the
pure
nature or the pure particle nature or both together physical wavicle nature.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Wavi
cle nature alone is real and physical. For widely different reasons t
he
al wavicle apart from measurement of states could be much different from
we can imagine. Still that pre-measurement state continues to be a phys\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0
-ontological state, more important for us in ontological commitment
n
measured state. Thus, ontologically, the real physical state of the wavicle
ical
tha
the
- or

ever it was - is what was measured. In consequence of the measuremen
t
ess, it was causally influenced to be converted into a different physical par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
e state, which we do not capture as such in measurement.
26 Similarly, (1) if the second particle of the entangled pair is measured at al
the same time but at another space point within more than luminal dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tanc
e in physical "extension", (2) if it yields an opposite spin other t
han what
expected in the original measurement of that particle, and (3) even i
f we
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exch
ange the kind of measurement made on the spins of both the particles in
her experiment and get just the opposite spin of the first particle in the sec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ond
in each case, we are sure of the following: (1) the effect in the second parti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7146\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cle
is not simultaneous but slightly later than the first since all other measured
\fi6061 235 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 parameters are different and there is no reason why the temporal
parameter
ld not be different, and (2) there have been some real physical corr
ela\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
actually taking place between the two particles before and at the t
ime of
measurement, since the effect in the second particle is not simultane
ous.
e correlations could not have been without actual communication between
two, and this communication had to occur beyond a velocity that goes in
beyond the two ends of their respective light cones. Thus, the communica\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
must be superluminal.
26 For the superluminal cone of the propagation, the communication is local, hen
ce
nd strict luminal Einstein-causality but yet realistically causal. By S
TR as\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sump
tions, there can be no supernatural communication and no lack of commu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nica
tion. Causality is more supreme, more primary, than a fixed highest velocity
pooky action-at-a-distance. Hence, the trans-STR locality necessitated by the
experiment must be a positive causal locality condition for superlumin
al
unication, not one that yields complex values for velocity. This makes su\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perl
uminal communication a real need for EPR and a motive for a generali
zed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 revi
sion of STR.
26 If we can show that superluminal velocities are not impossible in
a version of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 STR,
then the possibility of superluminal velocities can re-implant the ca
usal
well within the causal reach of superluminal causal cones - not in experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
al detail, but at least by ontological commitment. The presuppositions
of
physicists trusting STR as such may be as follows: (1) the velocity of pho\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tons
and other similar "energy" wavicles, which we take as the standard for our
urement of processes, are the only standard that we can use for measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
of movement in extension-motion, and (2) at least in this big bang universe
highest possible speed of propagation is that of light - this latter being in fa
ct
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a ho
pe rather than a rational conclusion.
26 Cognizant of QM's possible successes in optical, nano-technological a
nd
unications applications using alleged "non-local transmissions", we set
question of superluminal causal propagations clearly. The problem of the
e "transmissions" or "non-transmissions" is relevant in QM, because one
ther form of it is sought to be used in applications, and so it should be dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cuss
ed in search of theoretical rationalization. Our question here is whet
her
e are really non-local in the sense of an absence of causation, or non-local
ly in the manner of our understanding with respect to luminal com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 muni
cation. It is useless to assign to the phenomenon the quality 'non-local',
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7206\absh8567 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 anadj
ective that, I think, is incapable of any ontological commitment within
context. \par
}
36 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs21 \cf0 10.4. Causal Pervasiveness in QM
f0 {\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 presupposed}{\b0 \f
s17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 through}{\b0 \fs17 these}{\b0 \fs17 discussions,}{\
b0 \fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17 asked}{\b0 \fs17 whether }
\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 spooky}{\b0 \fs17 action-at-a
-distance}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 unreasonable.}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17
attempted}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 show }
\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 latter}{\b0 \fs17 cannot}{\b0 \fs17
explain}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 events}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 will}{\b
0 \fs17 nullify}{\b0 \fs17 even}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 event}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 causal }
\b0 \fs17 intervention}{\b0 \fs17 prior}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 any}{\b0
\fs17 spooky}{\b0 \fs17 action.}{\b0 \fs17 If}{\b0 \fs17 there}{\b0 \fs1
7 is}{\b0 \fs17 no}{\b0 \fs17 superluminal}{\b0 \fs17 transmis- }
\b0 \fs17 sion,}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 so-called}{\b0 \fs17 "instantaneous
"}{\b0 \fs17 change}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 second}{\b0 \fs1
7 particle}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 entangled }
\b0 \fs17 pair}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 spooky}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17
because}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 transpires}{\b0 \fs17 beyond}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 sacrosanct}{\b0 \fs17 light}{\b0 \fs17 cones}{\b0 \fs17
of }
\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 event}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 change}{\b0 \fs17 in
}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 second}{\b0 \fs17 particle.}{\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \
fs17 change}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 second}{\b0 \fs17 entan
gled }
\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 need}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 c
aused}{\b0 \fs17 separately}{\b0 \fs17 within}{\b0 \fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 ligh
t}{\b0 \fs17 cone,}{\b0 \fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17 together}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs
17 both }
\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 light}{\b0 \fs17 cones,}{\b0 \fs17 since}{\b0 \fs
17 the}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 particles}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 w

ider}{\b0 \fs17 apart}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 light}{\
b0 \fs17 cone}{\b0 \fs17 of }
\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 beginning}{\b0 \fs17 event.}{\b0 \fs17 A}{\b0 \fs17
simultaneous}{\b0 \fs17 action}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 enta
ngled}{\b0 \fs17 particles}{\b0 \fs17 at}{\b0 \fs17 supra- }
\b0 \fs17 luminal}{\b0 \fs17 distances}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 outside}{\b
0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 show}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 superl
uminal}{\b0 \fs17 velocity.}{\b0 \fs17 An}{\b0 \fs17 extra }
\b0 \fs17 hidden}{\b0 \fs17 variable}{\b0 \fs17 active}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \
fs17 beyond}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 light}{\b0 \fs17 cones
}{\b0 \fs17 together}{\b0 \fs17 may}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 possible, }
\b0 \fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b
0 \fs17 between}{\b0 \fs17 them. }
fi226 {\b0 \fs17 No}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 find}{\b0 \fs17
it}{\b0 \fs17 rational}{\b0 \fs17 without}{\b0 \fs17 transmission-}{\b0 \fs1
7 or}{\b0 \fs17 exchange}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 from }
\b0 \fs17 outside}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 light}{\b0 \fs17
cones}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 yet}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17
physical}{\b0 \fs17 phenomenon}{\b0 \fs17 happen}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 t
he }
\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 entangled}{\b0 \fs17 particles}{\b0 \fs17 simultaneo
usly.}{\b0 \fs17 Therefore,}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 reason
able}{\b0 \fs17 solution }
\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 superluminal}{\b0 \fs17 velocities.}{\b0 \fs17 Let}{\
b0 \fs17 us}{\b0 \fs17 call}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 argument}{\b0 \fs17
as}{\b0 \fs17 "the}{\b0 \fs17 entanglement-super- }
\b0 \fs17 luminality}{\b0 \fs17 argument".}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0
\fs17 attempted}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 bring}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 a
bout}{\b0 \fs17 variously.}{\b0 \fs17 With}{\b0 \fs17 super- }
\b0 \fs17 luminal}{\b0 \fs17 communication}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 is
}{\b0 \fs17 saved}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 EPR}{\b0 \fs17 so
lution.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 makes}{\b0 \fs17 the }
\b0 \fs17 Law}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Causality}{\b0 \fs17 rationally}{\b0 \
fs17 supreme}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 e
xistence.}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 call}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 scenario }
\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 ubiquity}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17
all-pervasiveness}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 . }
fi226 {\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 conclusion}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 favour}{\
b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 superluminal}{\b0 \fs17 velocities}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0
\fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 anything}{\b0 \fs17 absolutely }
\b0 \fs17 new.}{\b0 \fs17 E.}{\b0 \fs17 C.}{\b0 \fs17 G.}{\b0 \fs17 Suda
rshan,}{\b0 \fs17 O.}{\b0 \fs17 M.}{\b0 \fs17 Bilaniuk}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\
b0 \fs17 others}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 tried}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs1
7 justify}{\b0 \fs17 them }
\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 1960s}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 there
after,}{\b0 \fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 point}{\b0 \
fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 view}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 imaginary}{\b0 \fs17 numbe
rs, }
\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 cannot}{\b0 \fs17 anyway}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17
real.}{\b0\up006 \fs10 240}{\b0 \fs17 For}{\b0 \fs17 general}{\b0 \fs17 exam
ples}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 those}{\b0 \fs17 who}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs1
7 worked }
1 \cf0 {\b0 \fs16 240}{\b0 \fs16 For}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 original}{\
b0 \fs16 article}{\b0 \fs16 by}{\b0 \fs16 Bilaniuk}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \
fs16 Sudarshan,}{\b0 \fs16 see}{\b0 \fs16 O.}{\b0 \fs16 M.}{\b0 \fs16
Bilaniuk}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 E.}{\b0 \fs16 C. }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 G.}{\b0 \fs16 Sudarshan,}{\b0 \fs16 "Causality}{\b0 \fs16
and}{\b0 \fs16 Space-like}{\b0 \fs16 Signals",}{\b0 \fs16 URL:}{\b0 \fs16
http://www.scribd.com/ }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 doc/52799862/E-C-G-Sudarshan-Causality-and-Space-Like-Signals}{
\b0 \fs16
(Accessed}{\b0 \fs16
on }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 13}{\b0 \fs16 August}{\b0 \fs16 2011).}{\b0 \fs16 The}{\b0 \
fs16 following}{\b0 \fs16 are}{\b0 \fs16 recent}{\b0 \fs16 articles}{\b0 \fs
16 on}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 area:}{\b0 \fs16 Erasmo}{\b0 \fs16 Recami,}
{\b0 \fs16 "A }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 Homage}{\b0 \fs16 to}{\b0 \fs16 E.C.G.}{\b0 \fs16 Sudarshan:
}{\b0 \fs16 Superluminal}{\b0 \fs16 Objects}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 Waves}
{\b0 \fs16 (An}{\b0 \fs16 Updated}{\b0 \fs16 Over- }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 view}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 Relevant}{\b0 \
fs16 Experiments)",}{\b0 \fs16 URL:}{\b0 \fs16 http://www.scribd.com/doc/6523
027/A- }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 Homage-to-ECGsudarshan-Superluminal-Objects-And}{\b0 \fs16
(
Accessed}{\b0 \fs16
on}{\b0 \fs16
13}{\b0 \fs16
August }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 2011);}{\b0 \fs16 Erasmo}{\b0 \fs16 Recami}{\b0 \fs16 and
}{\b0 \fs16 Michel}{\b0 \fs16 Zamboni-Rached,}{\b0 \fs16 "On}{\b0 \fs16
Localized}{\b0 \fs16 Superlumi- }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 nal}{\b0 \fs16 Solutions}{\b0 \fs16 to}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b
0 \fs16 Maxwell}{\b0 \fs16 Equations",}{\b0 \fs16 URL:}{\b0 \fs16 http:/
/arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/ }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 pdf/0709/0709.2191v1.pdf}{\b0 \fs16 (Accessed}{\b0 \fs16 on
}{\b0 \fs16 13}{\b0 \fs16 August}{\b0 \fs16 2011);}{\b0 \fs16 M.}{\b0 \f
s16 Ibison,}{\b0 \fs16 "Tachyons }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 Superluminal}{\b0 \fs16 Boosts",}{\b0 \fs16
URL:}{\b0 \fs16 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.3277. }
fi349 {\b0 \fs16 pdf}{\b0 \fs16 (Accessed}{\b0 \fs16 on}{\b0 \fs16 13}{\b0 \f
s16 August}{\b0 \fs16 2011);}{\b0 \fs16 Joe}{\b0 \fs16 Helmick,}{\b0 \fs16
"}{\b0 \fs16 Yod}{\b0 \fs16 Field}{\b0 \fs16 Statistics}{\b0 \fs16 for}{\b0 \
fs16 Tachyon }
f0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 237 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 on the possibility or impossibility of superluminal velocities and in relat
ed areas,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7061\absh917 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 see v
arious authors given in the footnote here.{\up006 \fs10 241} They either positiv
ely suggest,
egatively and positively discuss the possibility of superluminal velocit
y:
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7061\absh917 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eithe
r in connection with time travel or otherwise. \par
}
6 \cf0 Interactions", The General Science Journal, URL: http://www.wbabin.
net/physics/
349 helmick.pdf (Accessed on 13 August 2011), the last being a very simple intro
duction.
For technical discussions on superluminal velocities, see Erasmo Recami and Mi
chel
349 Zamboni-Rached, "On the Localized Superluminal Solutions to the Maxwell Equa
349 tions", URL: arXiv:0709.2191v1 [physics.class-ph] 14 September 2007 (Accesse
d on
349 17 May 2014); and M. Ibison, "Tachyons and Superluminal Boosts", URL: www.wb
a\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7066\absw7222\absh3742 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 bin.net/physics/helmick.pdf (Accessed on 17 May 2014). For further reference
s, see
349 D. Vitali, M. Fortunato and P. Tombesi, Phyisical Review Letters, 85 (2000)
445-448;
349 Y. H. Shih, Annalen der Physik (Leipzig) 10 (2001), 19-34; Y.-H.
Kim, S. P. Kulik
349 and Y. Shih, Journal of Modern Optics 49 (2002) 221-236; W. K. Wootters and
W. H.
349 Zurek, Nature 299 (1982) 802-803; L. Smolin, Scientific American 290 (1), 66
(2004);
349 J. Baez, Nature 421, 702 (2003); J. Schmidhuber, International Foundation fo
r Com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7066\absw7222\absh3742 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 puter Science 13 (4), 587 (2002); R. Woesler, American Institute for Physics
Confer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7066\absw7222\absh3742 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 ence Proceedings 750, 378 (2005), etc. These references are form Richard Woe
sler,
349 Conceivable Superluminal Transmission of Classical Information and Ap

plications
349 (Bochum: Europischer Universittsverlag GmbH, 2006), 78.
{\fs17 238 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 11. Causality in a New Double Slit
i1716 Experiment and in EPR \par
}
\cf0 11.1. A Recent Double Slit Experiment and the EPR Paradox
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 In}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 meantime}{\b0 \fs17 between}{\b0
\fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 emergence}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Cope
nhagen}{\b0 \fs17 interpretation}{\b0 \fs17 and }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 recent}{\b0 \fs17 EPR}{\b0 \fs17 experiments,}{\
b0 \fs17 there}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 been}{\b0 \fs17 many}{\b0 \fs1
7 and}{\b0 \fs17 varied}{\b0 \fs17 schools}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 in
- }
{\b0 \fs17 terpretation,}{\b0 \fs17 including}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 hi
dden}{\b0 \fs17 variables}{\b0 \fs17 theory,}{\b0 \fs17 but}{\b0 \fs17 t
heir}{\b0 \fs17 relevance}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 question}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 slightly}{\b0
\fs17 reduced,}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 face}{\b0 \fs17 of}{
\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 present-day}{\b0 \fs1
7 double }
{\b0 \fs17 slit}{\b0 \fs17 experiments}{\b0 \fs17 (and}{\b0 \fs17 EPR}{\b0
\fs17 experiments)}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 results.
}{\b0 \fs17 That}{\b0 \fs17 is,}{\b0 \fs17 many}{\b0 \fs17 past }
{\b0 \fs17 experiments}{\b0 \fs17 need}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 particularly
}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 mentioned}{\b0 \fs17 because}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \
fs17 more}{\b0 \fs17 recent}{\b0 \fs17 ones }
{\b0 \fs17 highlight}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 issues}{\b0 \fs17 better}{\
b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 our}{\b0 \fs17 purpose}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
clarifying}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 extent}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 c
ausality }
{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \fs17 conclude}{\b0 \fs17
for}{\b0 \fs17 QM.}{\b0 \fs17 Let}{\b0 \fs17 us}{\b0 \fs17 grant}{\b0 \fs17
our}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 conclusion}{\b0 \fs17 regarding}{\b0 \fs17
the }
{\b0 \fs17 recent}{\b0 \fs17 EPR}{\b0 \fs17 experiments,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0
\fs17 use}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 here}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \
fs17 discussion}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 new}{\b0 \fs17 versio
n}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the }

{\b0 \fs17 double}{\b0 \fs17 slit}{\b0 \fs17 experiment.}{\b0 \fs17 As}{\b
0 \fs17 will}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 clear,}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
double}{\b0 \fs17 slit-}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 EPR}{\b0 \fs17 experi
ments }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 interpretations}{\b0 \fs17 can}
{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 seen}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17
way}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 related.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 brings
}{\b0 \fs17 out }
{\b0 \fs17 some}{\b0 \fs17 fundamental}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 erro
rs}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 spacetime}{\b0 \fs17 description}{\b0 \fs17 base
d}{\b0 \fs17 merely}{\b0 \fs17 on }
{\b0 \fs17 mathematical}{\b0 \fs17 imagination. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 We}{\b0 \fs17 study}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 recent}{\b0
\fs17 double}{\b0 \fs17 slit}{\b0 \fs17 experiment}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \
fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 suggested}{\b0 \fs17 interpretation }
{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 solve}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 puzzle}{\b0 \fs17
why}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 interference}{\b0 \fs17 patterns}{\b0 \fs
17 disappear}{\b0 \fs17 when}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 detect }
{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 slit}{\b0 \fs17 each}{\b0 \fs17 electron}{\b0 \fs
17 travels}{\b0 \fs17 through,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 why}{\b0 \fs17 the
y}{\b0 \fs17 create}{\b0 \fs17 interference}{\b0 \fs17 pat- }
{\b0 \fs17 terns}{\b0 \fs17 when}{\b0 \fs17 unobserved}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0
\fs17 wavicles.}{\b0 \fs17 A}{\b0 \fs17 team}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
scientists}{\b0 \fs17 consisting}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Stefano }
{\b0 \fs17 Frabboni}{\b0 \fs17 (}{\b0 \fs17 University}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \f
s17 Modena}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Reggio}{\b0 \fs17 Emilia,}{\b0 \fs1
7 and}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 CNR-Institute}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 Nanoscience,}{\b0 \fs17 both}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 Modena,}{
\b0 \fs17 Italy),}{\b0 \fs17 Gian}{\b0 \fs17 Carlo}{\b0 \fs17 Gazzadi}{\
b0 \fs17 (CNR-Institute}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 Nanoscience,}{\b0 \fs17 Modena),}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 Giulio}
{\b0 \fs17 Pozzi}{\b0 \fs17 (University}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Bologna)}{\
b0 \fs17 used}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 trans- }
{\b0 \fs17 mission}{\b0 \fs17 electron}{\b0 \fs17 microscope}{\b0 \fs17 for}{
\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 modified}{\b0 \fs17 version}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs1
7 the}{\b0 \fs17 double}{\b0 \fs17 slit}{\b0 \fs17 experi- }
{\b0 \fs17 ment}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 new}{\b0 \fs17 "whic
h-way"}{\b0 \fs17 electron}{\b0 \fs17 detector}{\b0 \fs17 at}{\b0 \fs17 one}
{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 slits.}{\b0\up006 \fs10 242 }
cf0 \fi226 {\b0 \fs15 "Over}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 last}{\b0 \fs15 few}{\b
0 \fs15 years,}{\b0 \fs15 we}{\b0 \fs15 tried}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 use}
{\b0 \fs15 our}{\b0 \fs15 expertise}{\b0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \fs15 transmission}{\
b0 \fs15 electron}{\b0 \fs15 micros- }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 copy}{\b0 \fs15 and}{\b0 \fs15 focused}{\b0 \fs15 ion}{\b0
\fs15 beam}{\b0 \fs15 specimen}{\b0 \fs15 preparation}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs
15 realize}{\b0 \fs15 some}{\b0 \fs15 basic}{\b0 \fs15 experiments }

\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 related}{\b0 \fs15 to}{\b0 \fs15 some}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \f
s15 the}{\b0 \fs15 'mysteries'}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 quantum}{\b0 \fs15
mechanics,}{\b0 \fs15 as}{\b0 \fs15 pointed}{\b0 \fs15 out}{\b0 \fs15 by}{\b
0 \fs15 Feynman}{\b0 \fs15 in }
cf0 {\b0 \fs16 242}{\b0 \fs16 URL:}{\b0 \fs16 http://www.physorg.com/news/201
1-01-which-way-detector-mystery-}{\b0 \fs16 double- }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 slit.html}{\b0 \fs16 (Accessed}{\b0 \fs16 on}{\b0 \fs16
18}{\b0 \fs16 May}{\b0 \fs16 2011).}{\b0 \fs16 For}{\b0 \fs16 detailed}{
\b0 \fs16 information,}{\b0 \fs16 Stefano}{\b0 \fs16 Frabboni, }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 Gian}{\b0 \fs16 Carlo}{\b0 \fs16 Gazzadi,}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\
b0 \fs16 Giulio}{\b0 \fs16 Pozzi,}{\b0 \fs16 "Ion}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16
Electron}{\b0 \fs16 Beam}{\b0 \fs16 Nanofabrication}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16
the }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 Which-Way}{\b0 \fs16 Double-Slit}{\b0 \fs16 Experiment}{\b0
\fs16 in}{\b0 \fs16 a}{\b0 \fs16 Transmission}{\b0 \fs16 Electron}{\b0 \fs16
Microscope,"}{\b0 \fs16 Applied }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 Physics}{\b0 \fs16 Letters}{\b0 \fs16 97,}{\b0 \fs16 263101
}{\b0 \fs16 (2010). }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 239 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 his celebrated lectures and books," Frabboni told{\field{\*\fldinst
SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}. First, the scientists used focused ion
26 beam milling to make two nanoslits on a barrier. Then they modified one of th
e slits by
26 covering it with a filter made of several layers of "low atomic number" mater
ial to create
26 a which-way detector for the electrons passing through. Although the electron
s (which
26 were shot one by one) could still pass through the filtered slit, the filter
caused more of
26 the electrons to undergo inelastic scattering rather than elastic scattering.
{\up006 \fs8 243 }
{\fs17 A}{\fs17 filter}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 forces}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 electron}{\fs17 into}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 certain}{\fs17 type}{\fs
17 of}{\fs17 detectable}{\fs17 behaviour. }
17 The}{\fs17 interference}{\fs17 effect}{\fs17 changed}{\fs17 according
}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 thickness}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 f
ilter.}{\fs17 If}{\fs17 the }
17 filter}{\fs17 was}{\fs17 thicker}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 thicker,}{\fs17

the}{\fs17 greater}{\fs17 was}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 of}
{\fs17 inelastic}{\fs17 scat- }
17 tering,}{\fs17 thus}{\fs17 almost}{\fs17 cancelling}{\fs17 out}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 possibility}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 elastic}{\fs17 scattering.}{\
fs17 Inelastic }
17 behaviour}{\fs17 was}{\fs17 clearly}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 result}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 filtering}{\fs17 through}{\fs17 thick}{\fs17 filters.}{\up006 \fs10 24
4}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 physicists }
17 explain}{\fs17 further}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 actual}{\fs17 effe
cts}{\fs17 observed,}{\fs17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 c
an}{\fs17 differen- }
17 tiate}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 elastic}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 inelastic}{\fs17 s
cattering: }
\fi226 An electron undergoing inelastic scattering is localized at the covered s
lit, and acts like a
26 spherical wave after passing through the slit. In contrast, an electron passi
ng through the
26 unfiltered slit is more likely to undergo elastic scattering, and act like a
cylindrical wave
26 after passing through that slit. The spherical wave and cylindrical wave do n
ot have any
26 phase correlation, and so even if an electron passed through both slits, the
two different
26 waves that come out cannot create an interference pattern on the wall behind
them. The
26 physicists also found that the thickness of the filter determined the interfe
rence effects:
26 the thicker the filter, the greater the probability for inelastic scattering
rather than elastic
26 scattering, and so the fewer the interference effects. They could make the fi
lter thick
26 enough so that the interference effects canceled out almost completely. "When
the elec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw6952\absh7364 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tron suffers inelastic scattering, it is localized; this means that its wave
function collapses
26 and after the measurement act, it propagates roughly as a spherical wave from
the region
26 of interaction, with no phase relation at all with other elastically or inela
stically scattered
26 electrons," Frabboni said. "The experimental results show electrons through t
wo slits (so

26 two bright lines in the image when elastic and inelastic scattered electrons
are collected)
26 with negligible interference effects in the one-slit Fraunhofer diffraction p
attern formed
26 with elastic electrons."{\up006 \fs8 245 }
{\fs17 Further: }
\fi226 In a separate study, the physicists covered both slits to see if two sphe
rical waves would
26 create an interference pattern. They found that, in the very faint inelastic
intensity, no
26 fringes seem present, whereas interference fringes are recovered, at a very l
ow intensity, \par
}
243 URL: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-which-way-detector-mystery-double\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9486\absw7053\absh1564 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
347 slit.html (Accessed on 18 May 2011).
URL: www.physorg.com/pdf214811269.pdf (Accessed on 20 April 2012).
URL: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-which-way-detector-mystery-double\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9486\absw7053\absh1564 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
347 slit.html (Accessed on 20 April 2013).
{\fs17 240 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 when the elastic image is taken. Overall, the results suggest that
the type of scattering an
26 electron undergoes determines the mark it leaves on the back wall, and that a
detector
26 at one of the slits can change the type of scattering. The physicists conclud
ed that, while
26 elastically scattered electrons can cause an interference pattern, the inelas
tically scat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7171\absh7601 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tered electrons do not contribute to the interference process.{\up006 \fs8 24
6 }
{\fs17 PhysOrg.com}{\fs17 says}{\fs17 further}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 this}{\fs17
experiment}{\fs17 resulted}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 following:}{\fs17
If}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 'soft' }
17 filter}{\fs17 (one}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 forces}{\fs17 the
}{\fs17 electron}{\fs17 into}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 special}{\fs17 behaviour}

{\fs17 with}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 prob- }
17 ability}{\fs17 lower}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 one)}{\fs17 were}{\fs17 to}{\fs1
7 be}{\fs17 used,}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 occurs}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 a}{\fs17
gradual}{\fs17 interference. }
17 That}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 thick}{\fs17 filter}{\fs17 changes}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 whole}{\fs17 scenario}{\fs17 into}{\fs17 least}{\fs17 interfe
rence}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 most }
17 localization.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 experiment}{\fs17 shows}{\fs17 which}{\fs
17 type}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 filter}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 effective}{\f
s17 at}{\fs17 local- }
17 izing}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 electrons,}{\fs17 i.e.,}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 take
s}{\fs17 more}{\fs17 information}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 flight}{\fs1
7 path}{\fs17 and }
17 reduces}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 interference}{\fs17 pattern}{\fs17 most.}{\
up006 \fs10 247}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 discussion}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 the}{\
fs17 new}{\fs17 group }
17 of}{\fs17 double}{\fs17 slit}{\fs17 experiments}{\fs17 shows}{\fs17 that
}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 so-called}{\fs17 double}{\fs17 slit}{\fs17 jump}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 and }
17 the}{\fs17 same}{\fs17 wave}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 myth,}
{\fs17 despite}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 do}{\fs
17 not}{\fs17 yet}{\fs17 know}{\fs17 how}{\fs17 to }
17 explain}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 difference}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 least}{\fs17
wave}{\fs17 pattern}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 thick}{\fs17 filter}{\fs17 measurement
s }
17 and}{\fs17 higher}{\fs17 wave}{\fs17 pattern}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 soft}{\fs1
7 filter}{\fs17 cases. }
26 {\fs17 A}{\fs17 slightly}{\fs17 different}{\fs17 aspect}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 issue}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 equally}{\fs17 important}{\fs17 for}{\fs
17 consideration: }
17 that}{\fs17 entanglement}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 special,}{
\fs17 sophisticated}{\fs17 case}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 superposition.}{\fs17 This
}{\fs17 is }
17 why}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 new}{\fs17 generation}{\fs17 double}{\fs17 slit}{
\fs17 experiment}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 included}{\fs17 here.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17
interfer- }
17 ence}{\fs17 pattern}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 probabilistic}{\fs17 dis
tribution}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 hits}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 photographic}{\
fs17 plate}{\fs17 is }
17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 "superposition}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 reflected}{\fs17 an
d}{\fs17 transmitted}{\fs17 states".}{\fs17 Alain}{\fs17 Aspect}{\fs17 give
s}{\fs17 very }
17 clear}{\fs17 comments}{\fs17 about}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 situation,}{\fs17 i
n}{\fs17 terms}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 'entan
glement'. }
\fi226 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the existence of superpositio
n of states [is allowed by QM, i.e., this is how QM in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7171\absh7601 \sl-219 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 terprets it]: if a system has several possible quantum states, or 'coherent s
uperposition',
26 composed of several basic states. Entanglement is a sophisticated case of sta
te superposi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7171\absh7601 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tion, but even single systems can be put in superposition states {\field{\*\f
ldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the case of an atom in
26 a superposition of a dark state and a bright state. The situation becomes qui
te troubling
26 when the two states involved are obviously incompatible. For instance, consid
er an atom
26 arriving at an atomic beam splitter. The atom can either be transmitted or re
flected,
26 two options that can lead to well-separated paths. But the atom can also come
out in a
26 superposition of the reflected and transmitted states, i.e. simultaneously pr
esent in two
26 clearly separated regions of space. One can show experimentally that this sup
erposi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7171\absh7601 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tion state does exist, by recombining the two paths and observing interferenc
e fringes,
26 which can only be explained by admitting that both paths were followed simult
aneously.
26 Such behaviour has been observed both with microscopic objects (electrons, ph
otons, \par
}
246 URL: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-which-way-detector-mystery-double\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9706\absw7053\absh1366 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
URL: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-which-way-detector-mystery-double\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9706\absw7053\absh1366 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
\fi6061 {\fs17 241 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 neutrons, atoms, molecules as large as C {\dn006 \fs8 60} f
ullerenes), and with mesoscopic objects

26 (electric currents in nanocircuits), but never with macroscopic objects, even
though
26 this is not a priori forbidden by the quantum formalism.{\up006 \fs8 248 }
{\fs17 As}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 seen}{\fs17 previously,}{\fs17 the}{
\fs17 experimental}{\fs17 demonstration}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 superposition}{\fs1
7 is }
17 again}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 acceptance}{\fs17 of}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 purely}{\fs17 ideal}{\fs17 geometrical}{\fs17 nature}{\fs17 o
f}{\fs17 particles }
17 and}{\fs17 waves.}{\fs17 Therefore,}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 not}{
\fs17 be}{\fs17 considered}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 experimental}{\fs17 demonstra}
17 tion}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 superposition}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 the}{\fs17 experience}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 superposition. }
26 {\fs17 Aspect}{\fs17 explains}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 experimental}
{\fs17 experience}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 superposition}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 the}{\fs1
7 rea- }
17 son}{\fs17 why}{\fs17 Schrdinger}{\fs17 tried}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 explain}{\
fs17 this}{\fs17 situation}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 terms}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 example}{\fs17 of }
17 a}{\fs17 cat.}{\fs17 But}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 most}{\fs17 notable}{\fs17 f
act}{\fs17 here,}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 Aspect}{\fs17 explains,}{\fs17 is}{\fs17
that}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 superposition }
17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 reflected}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 transmitted}{\fs17
states}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 states}{\fs17 that}{\f
s17 should}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 under- }
17 stood}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 simultaneously}{\fs17 present}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 tw
o}{\fs17 clearly}{\fs17 separated}{\fs17 regions}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 space}{\f
s17 (these }
17 regions}{\fs17 being,}{\fs17 ontologically}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 us,}{\fs17
regions}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 extension).}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 understanding}{\fs17
is }
17 interestingly}{\fs17 classical,}{\fs17 although}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 actual}
{\fs17 probabilities}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 many}{\fs17 hits}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 pho- }
17 tographic}{\fs17 plate}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 statistical}{\fs17 i
nformation}{\fs17 averaging}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 various}{\fs17 minute}{\fs17
hits. }
17 That}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 when}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 experimentally}{\fs17 show
s}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 superposition}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 states}{\fs
17 exists, }
17 it}{\fs17 means}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 macroscopic}{\
fs17 explanation}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 probabilities}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
many}{\fs17 hits }
17 on}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 plate}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 the}{\
fs17 average}{\fs17 were}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 distributed}{\fs17 as}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 sharp}{\fs17 value}{\fs17 attribut- }
17 able}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 each}{\fs17 particle. }
26 {\fs17 On}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 hand,}{\fs17 Aspect}{\fs17
puts}{\fs17 down}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 meaning}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17
measurements }
17 precisely}{\fs17 (I}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 emphasize}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 fina
l}{\fs17 statement),}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 hereunder: }
\fi226 Quantum mechanics was constructed at the price of several radical {\field
{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} revisions of clas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7275\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 sical concepts. For instance, to take into account particle-wave duality, qua
ntum me\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7275\absh9326 \sl-219 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 chanics had to renounce the idea of a classical trajectory. This renunciation
is best stated
26 in the celebrated Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which describes quantitat
ively the
26 impossibility of defining precisely and simultaneously the position and veloc
ity of a par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7275\absh9326 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ticle. One can also illustrate this renunciation of classical trajectories by
remarking that
26 in an interference experiment the particle 'follows many paths at once'.{\up0
06 \fs8 249 }
{\fs17 I}{\fs17 believe,}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 Aspect}{\fs17 intends}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 communicate}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 that,}{\fs17 given}{\fs17 ou
r}{\fs17 present}{\fs17 sci- }
17 entific}{\fs17 capabilities}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 difference}{\fs1
7 between}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 sorts}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 phenomena}{\
fs17 we }
17 encounter,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 cannot}{\fs17 define}{\fs17 precisely}{\fs17
and}{\fs17 simultaneously}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 position}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 ve}
17 locity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 (by}{\fs17 reason}
{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Uncertainty}{\fs17 Principle)}{\fs17 and,}
{\fs17 consequently, }
{\fs16 248}{\fs16 Aspect,}{\fs16 "Introduction"}{\fs16 (i-xxxix),}{\fs16
xxx.}{\fs16 (Square}{\fs16 brackets}{\fs16 mine.)}{\fs16 A}{\fs16 ful
lerene}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 "any }
49 {\fs16 of}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 class}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 hollow}{\fs16 aromatic}
{\fs16 carbon}{\fs16 compounds}{\fs16 whose}{\fs16 structures}{\fs16 are}{\
fs16 made}{\fs16 up}{\fs16 of }
49 {\fs16 12}{\fs16 pentagonal}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 differing}{\fs16 numbers}{\

fs16 of}{\fs16 hexagonal}{\fs16 faces,}{\fs16 especially:}{\fs16 one}{\fs16
having}{\fs16 a }
49 {\fs16 roughly}{\fs16 spherical}{\fs16 shape."}{\fs16 Merriam-Webster's
}{\fs16 Third}{\fs16 New}{\fs16 International}{\fs16 Dictionary}{\fs16 ,
}
49 {\fs16 Unabridged. }
16 249}{\fs16 Aspect,}{\fs16 "Introduction"}{\fs16 (i-xxxix),}{\fs16 xxi. }
{\fs17 242 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 this predicament calls for abandoning the classical trajectory. If
seen from the
sical point of view, the situation can still be explained as a wave
following
paths at once.
26 'At once' is indicative of the unfortunate correlation between (1) our inabil
ity (in
rdance with the Uncertainty Principle) to define precisely and simultaneously
position and velocity of a particle and (2) the interpretation (in the double sl
it
riment) that the particle follows two or many paths at once - based on the
etrical distinction between wave and particle. More elaborately, if we
take
ement (1) epistemologically (due to our capabilities) and ontologically (due to
re's inabilities) as absolutely true based on the pure geometrical concepts of
and particle, then the only possible interpretation remains statement (2) even
the Uncertainty Principle, since in this case the particle following two or more
etrical paths may be cited to be the reason for the uncertainty in (1). But if w
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 say
that (1) is true only epistemologically (as I have attempted to show), then (2)
is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 true
only epistemologically. In our context, 'epistemologically' means 'by reason of
limited epistemic capacities given by our epistemologically mesoscopic status'.

26 Classical physical methods will find the situation explained as a wave follow
many paths at once. This is because of the classical success in con
ceiving
-motions with the help of purely mathematical wave- and particle- con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
s. But when applied in the case of micro-objects' very high motion,
these
geometrical forms work as if they did not need time, or, in other
words,
can speed at infinity. This situation is termed space-likeness with
respect
he effect in the entangled particle B, though in fact there is no really physica
l
lute space-likeness. The same wave- and particle notions are active in
the
le slit experiment's conclusions too.
26 The mathematical purity or ideality of the concepts of separate wave and par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
e is to blame here - which one calls classical and would like to ostracize from
field of QM, but continues to use in QM in their ideality as such. This mathe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cal purity is clearly not in that of the real existent wavicles that are measure
d
ously as particle and wave. If physicists unconsciously take particle and wave
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as n
on-extended pure ideals, there is no automatic interface between the physical
the mathematical as we extend each of the ideals separately to the case of the
tent wavicle. But if we conjoin the mathematical particle- and wave- concepts
their conjoining conditions with the physically real wavicle (whatever exists
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as w
avicle), there will be greater adequacy in the real physical case.
26 Representing QM motions with pure wave and particle so mathematically and
out detriment to classical measurement results in our minds gives the
im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pres
sion that no near-luminal velocities are involved in the QM motive where the
ematical concepts of wave and particle are less applicable idealizations. If we
\fi6061 243 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 take "wavicle" to mean 'particle in three-dimensionally extended spiral wa
ve form
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7079\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 info
rwardmotioninmeasuredtime',wemayfindeffectstothetuneoftheresultsof
entanglement experiment in the double slit case too (as I would soon explain).
conjoining of the wave- and particle- properties might find an adequate on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7079\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical interpretation: the one I suggest is a simple four-dimensional absorption
he mesoscopically observed properties into ontological commitment.
26 This may be supported by our need for clarity as is clear from the following
e from de Muynck, where he speaks (1) of the positivist-empiricist st
and
atoms (and similarly all quantons) should exist, and (2) of the informal QM
rumentalist (and I would add, ontologically non-committed) stand that the
ton could be at the most the representation of the observed pattern of wave\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7079\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 and
particle- quantities or a complex of observation statements (which latter too
its origin from logical positivism), where the particle remains a mere mathe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7079\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cal point not reconciled to the extended nature of the physical particle:
\fi226 {\fs15 Let}{\fs15 us}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}
}{\fs15 consider}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 issue}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 microscopic}{\fs1
5 objects.}{\fs15 As}{\fs15 far}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 logical}{\fs15
positivist}{\fs15 /}{\fs15 em- }
26 {\fs15 piricist}{\fs15 believes}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 existence}{\f
s15 of}{\fs15 atoms,}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 re
sult}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 his}{\fs15 observations.}{\fs15 Cer- }
26 {\fs15 tain}{\fs15 combinations}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 observations}{\fs15 (lik
e,}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 instance,}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 track}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 a}{\
fs15 Wilson}{\fs15 chamber,}{\fs15 or }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 configuration}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symb
ol }})}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 convince}{\fs15 him}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 accept}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 'particle'}{\fs15 concept}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 meaningful. }
26 {\fs15 Strictly}{\fs15 speaking,}{\fs15 however,}{\fs15 he}{\fs15 is}{\fs
15 not}{\fs15 allowed}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 transcend}{\fs15 equality}{\fs15 of
}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 concept}{\fs15 and }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 observed}{\fs15 pattern.}{\fs15 Hence,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 positivistic}{\fs15 view}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 concept}{\fs15 of}{
\fs15 an}{\fs15 electron}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 dif- }

26 {\fs15 ferent}{\fs15 from}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 corresponding}{\fs15 complex}
{\fs15 of}{\fs15 observation}{\fs15 statements.}{\fs15 An}{\fs15 important}
{\fs15 conse- }
26 {\fs15 quence}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 that,}{\fs15 since}
{\fs15 observations}{\fs15 regarding}{\fs15 electrons}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 des
cribed}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 quantum }
26 {\fs15 mechanics,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 electron}{\fs15 obtains}{\fs15 a}{\fs
15 place}{\fs15 within}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 theory,}{\fs15 though}{\fs15 onl
y}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 complex}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 observation}{\fs15 statements}{\fs15 related}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 quan
tum}{\fs15 mechanical}{\fs15 measurements.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 electron}{\fs15
is }
26 {\fs15 conceived}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 being}{\fs15 constituted}{\fs15 by}{\fs
15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanical}{\fs15 phenomena}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMB
OL 188 \\f Symbol }}. }
26 {\fs15 This}{\fs15 may}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 satisfactory}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 lo
ng}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 content}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 a}{\fs
15 rather}{\fs15 abstract}{\fs15 image}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 electron}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 some}{\fs15 strange}{\fs15 entity}{\fs15
manifesting}{\fs15 itself}{\fs15 sometimes}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 part
icle,}{\fs15 sometimes }
26 {\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 wave,}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 reason}{\f
s15 occasionally}{\fs15 referred}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 'wavi
cle'.}{\fs15 However,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 applying }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 Born}{\fs15 statistical}{\fs15 interpretation}{\fs15 of
}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 function}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 interference}{\fs1
5 experiments}{\fs15 in }
26 {\fs15 which}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 character}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}
{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanical}{\fs15 object}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 supposed}{\
fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 impor- }
26 {\fs15 tant,}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 empirical}{\fs15 evidence}{\fs15 is}{\fs15
consistent}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 assumption}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 th
e}{\fs15 phenomena}{\fs15 are }
26 {\fs15 induced}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 point-like}{\fs15 objects}{\fs15 {\field{
\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 seems}{\fs15 that}{\fs1
5 there}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 actually}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 different}{\fs15 'par
ticle' }
26 {\fs15 concepts.}{\fs15 One}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 implemented}{\fs15 by}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 logical}{\fs15 positivist}{\fs15 /}{\fs15 empiricist}{\fs15 co
ncept}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 wavicle }
26 {\fs15 in}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 thoug
ht}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 extension}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}
{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 packet}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 represented;}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 other}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 thought}{\fs
15 of}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 point-like}{\fs15 object,}{\fs15 to}{\fs15
be}{\fs15 found,}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 measurement, }

26 {\fs15 somewhere}{\fs15 inside}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 packet.}{\fs
15 The}{\fs15 latter}{\fs15 'particle'}{\fs15 concept}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 of}
{\fs15 a}{\fs15 much}{\fs15 more}{\fs15 in- }
26 {\fs15 formal}{\fs15 nature}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 former}{\fs15
one:}{\fs15 since}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanical}{\fs15 state}{\
fs15 is}{\fs15 represented}{\fs15 by }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 function}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs
15 at}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 clear}{\fs15 how}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 point-like}{\f
s15 objects}{\fs15 could}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 represented}{\fs15 in }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanical}{\fs15 formalism{\field{\*\fld
inst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.}{\up006 \fs8 250 }
{\fs16 250}{\fs16 de}{\fs16 Muynck,}{\fs16 Foundations}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Qu
antum}{\fs16 Mechanics}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 78-79. }
244 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 Clearly, those QM specialists who are instrumentalistic about the foundati
ons of
formalism are in general not adequately committed to the reality of some\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g existing over there behind observations like the empirically expressed and
rumentalistically meant wave functions. Against this I have suggested all over
work the need to institute ontological commitment, so that something pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
ual is behind it in existence, and it will naturally be a physically real wavicl
e.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 If s
o, it cannot be a mere mathematical point or wave but a real extended physical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stuf
f which has both the observed qualities of wave and particle only partially.
what else can it be, if not extended (or elongated-extended) wavicle?
26 As I interpreted also Aspect's statements above, the mathematical de
scrip\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
situation in QM could entail favouring wave-particle duality (and an ad hoc
lementarity) due to QM's predicament of classically describing a wave and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a p
article separately after the manner of the pure ideality of the mathe
matical
epts of wave and particle. This interpretation is also supported by the fact
the mathematical notions of wave and particle are inadequate to be trans\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ferr
ed as such into QM explanations from a classical picture of mathematically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 desc
ribing the two separately. To do away with the classical content in these ideal
ons, we needed physical adaptation. The double slit experiment is thus
a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 devi
se to classically determine what is naturally had in the probabilities.
26 The entanglement experiment may in effect be conceived as a clever device to
sical-geometrically measure what is naturally had in the light cones of the two
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nowseparated particles as a result of the experiment, under the presupposition that
rluminal velocities are impossible. One can argue that entanglement signifies
llapse of the interference that should otherwise be considered only as caused.
o, is it be possible to explain the two-way jump of the electron in the two slit
ment in terms of entanglement? Aspect's suggestion that the interference- and
rposition effects of the double slit experiment is a sophisticated instance of s
u\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perp
osition in the entanglement experiment (see above) points to that conclusion.
26 Can we suppose that, due to entanglement (as in the EPR experiment
) of
electron with its natural pair positron that is available elsewhere o
r in the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vici
nity, the electron is just being triggered to act as it does in the
double slit
riment, giving rise to the classically and in general physically unjustifiable
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 impr
ession that it moves through both the slits? This could explain the dilemma.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 If
it does, it is favourable to us, in the sense that we need then on
ly to ask if
rluminal signals between the two separated but originally entangled par
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
es is possible, in order for us to keep the influence on the one par
ticle as a
al result of the action on the other, instead of having to take it as a miracle
in
entanglement- and double slit experiments. We have called this argument as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7354\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "the
entanglement-superluminality argument".

\fi6061 245 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs18 \cf0 If this solution does not work in the double slit experiment, our l
ine of ques\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 tion
ing should be (1) from the point of view of the real processes at the double
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 slit
experiment, namely, about possible internal disturbances within the electron
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 as i
t moves past the slits, and (2) from the point of view that the notions of parti
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cle
and wave applied herein are purely mathematical notions as discussed above.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 Why
not we use these two and also the earlier entanglement-superluminality
ment to explain the impasses?
26 Exactly the point of view of pure mathematical representation of wave and par
ti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cle
has led to the classicalist's rejection of the conception of a (classical) parti
cle fol\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 lowi
ng many paths at once, which is normally taken as nonsense from the point of
of all possible logical commonsense. But some want to call this rejection as th
e
on for the classical difficulty with QM notions, forgetting the fact that the ma
th\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 emat
ical ideality of the concepts of wave and particle is the only probable odd man
nd the nonsense of "classical wavicles following many paths at once" in QM.
{\b \fs21 11.2.}{\b \fs21 Classical}{\b \fs21 Simultaneity}{\b \fs21 in}{\b
\fs21 QM}{\b \fs21 as}{\b \fs21 Unacceptable }
The same sort of difficulty as mentioned above is involved also in c
onceiving
ality in QM in general, in EPR and in quantum gravity. It suffices
here to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 note
that Quentin Smith concedes this, though in the context of discussion of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 unif
ication of quantum gravity and QM. According to him the problem with
icists in general, and Bohmians in particular, is the following:
26 {\fs15 They}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 been}{\fs15 trying}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 unify
}{\fs15 de}{\fs15 Broglie-Bohm}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 Einstein's}

{\fs15 GTR,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 impossible,}{\fs15 since}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 de}{\fs15 Broglie-Bohm}
{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 non-local,}{\fs15 space-like,}{\fs
15 instantaneous, }
26 {\fs15 universe-wide}{\fs15 EPR}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 correlation}{\fs15 a
mong}{\fs15 events}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 logically}{\fs15
incompatible}{\fs15 with }
26 {\fs15 Friedman}{\fs15 GTR's}{\fs15 basic}{\fs15 laws}{\fs15 that}{\fs15
causal}{\fs15 correlations}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 time-like,}{\fs15 local,}{\fs1
5 propagated}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 finite }
26 {\fs15 velocity}{\fs15 (not}{\fs15 exceeding}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
light)}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 non-instantaneous.}{\fs15 However,}{\f
s15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 Aspect's}{\fs15 con- }
26 {\fs15 firmation}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 Bell's}{\fs15 theorems}{\fs15 disconfir
ms}{\fs15 Einstein's}{\fs15 GTR}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 less}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 t
hey}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 his}{\fs15 STR{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }
}.}{\up006 \fs8 251 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-335 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 It m
ust be kept in mind in this context that the discussions in the edited work
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7343\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 by W
illiam Lane Craig and Quentin Smith on simultaneity and absolute length
STR and GTR are partially meant to retain simultaneity against Einstei
n.{\up006 \fs10 252 }
, for Craig and Smith, depends very much on their finding the reason to be
Bell and Aspect have undone non-simultaneity through their EPR solutions.
{\fs16 251}{\fs16 Smith,}{\fs16 "A}{\fs16 Radical}{\fs16 Re-thinking}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Gravity:}{\fs16 Rejecting}{\fs16 Einstein's}{\fs1
6 Relativity }
49 {\fs16 and}{\fs16 Unifying}{\fs16 Bohmian}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics
}{\fs16 with}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 Bell-neo-Lorentzian}{\fs16 Absolute }
49 {\fs16 Time,}{\fs16 Space}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Gravity",}{\fs16 75. }
16 252}{\fs16 See}{\fs16 William}{\fs16 Lane}{\fs16 Craig}{\fs16 and}{\fs1
6 Quentin}{\fs16 Smith,}{\fs16 "Introduction",}{\fs16 William}{\fs16 Lane}{
\fs16 Craig}{\fs16 and }
49 {\fs16 Quentin}{\fs16 Smith,}{\fs16 Eds.,}{\fs16 Einstein,}{\fs16 Relativ
ity}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Absolute}{\fs16 Simultaneity}{\fs16 (London:}{\fs16 R
out- }
49 {\fs16 ledge,}{\fs16 2008). }
246 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 As I have pointed out in the above and in other chapters, the Aspect solut
ion by
ltaneity has itself many other physical, mathematical and epistemologica
l
ons (as already discussed at length), which need not stand the test of reason.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I p
ersonally am of the opinion, on grounds of simple commonsense, that n
o
events or processes or things can ever have absolute identity-simultaneity in
r separate or partially separate extension-motion, however well or bad one
es from the ontology of identity of indiscernibles.
26 Now that we have shown in the above two chapters somewhat convincingly that
only way to understand entanglement is to posit superluminal locality - not
lity in the luminal sense - we must claim that the EPR indirectly claims that
s incomplete since it makes the EPR paradox work non-locally and not locally
in possible superluminal velocities - a part of the blame of which should go to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 STR'
s acceptance of luminal velocity as fundamental. Henceforth, I would suggest
, any Grand Unification Theory (GUT) should assume a reformed GTR stance
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sans
any limiting luminal or other velocity for unification with QM.
26 A reason for the mathematical ideality of wave- and particle concepts without
ical actuality may be the probabilistic "recognition" or conclusion that there
imultaneity in the wave and particle entering through both the slits. The QM
anation by simultaneity has become classical and ideal only in the existing
on of luminal causal cone level simultaneity. What will be the scenario re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gard
ing the STR and GTR presupposition that the classically accepted concept
imultaneity is impossible? Classical simultaneity is such that it depends only
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7250\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 on o
ne unchanging frame of reference, and the QM recognition of simultaneity
he double slit experiment too is in one and the same frame of reference. But,
rding to GTR, we always have other frames of reference, and in our
case
superluminal causal cones, where luminal causal cone simultaneity does not
ess the ultimate nature ascribed to it.

26 But what there is in STR and GTR is congruence in spacetime from the point
iew of one and the same reference frame.
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 space-time}{\fs15 measure}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 d}{\dn00
6 \fs8
4s}{\fs15 }{\fs15 is}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 invariant}{\fs15 both}{\f
s15 as}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 different}{\fs15 reference}{\fs15 frames }
26 {\fs15 and}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 respect}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 use}{\
fs15 of}{\fs15 different}{\fs15 space}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 time}{\fs15 coordi
nates}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 given}{\fs15 frame. }
26 {\fs15 It}{\fs15 follows}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 space-time}{\f
s15 intervals}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 congruent}{\fs15 in}{\fs1
5 one}{\fs15 reference}{\fs15 frame }
26 {\fs15 in}{\fs15 virtue}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 having}{\fs15 equal}{\fs15 meas
ures}{\fs15 d}{\dn006 \fs8
4s}{\fs15 }{\fs15 in}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 fra
me}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 likewise}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 equal}{\fs15 measures }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 d}{\dn006 \fs8
4s}{\fs15 }{\fs15 and}{\fs15 hence}{
\fs15 will}{\fs15 also}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 congruent}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 any}{\f
s15 other}{\fs15 frame.}{\fs15 Accordingly,}{\fs15 there}{\fs15 are}{\fs15
no }
26 {\fs15 alternative}{\fs15 infinitesimal}{\fs15 space-time}{\fs15 congruenc
es}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 GTR,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 latter}{\
fs15 kind}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 con- }
26 {\fs15 gruences}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 thus}{\fs15 unique.}{\up006 \fs8 253 }
{\fs16 253}{\fs16 Adolf}{\fs16 Grnbaum,}{\fs16 "Reply}{\fs16 to}{\fs16
Hilary}{\fs16 Putnam's}{\fs16 'An}{\fs16 Examination}{\fs16 of}{\fs16
Grnbaum's }
51 {\fs16 Philosophy}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Geometry'"}{\fs16 (1-150),}{\fs16 Robe
rt}{\fs16 S.}{\fs16 Cohen}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Marx}{\fs16 W.}{\fs16 Wartofsk
y,}{\fs16 eds., }
\fi6061 247 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 From the ontology of the extent of identity of indiscernibles, too, one mu
st be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wary
of absolute simultaneity of motion and sameness of extension in processes.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Shou
ld we then retain the classical simultaneity in QM, if the entanglement experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
's simultaneity of effects in A and B are already in obedience to STR?
26 In Einstein, classical simultaneity is out of the question for any level of m
icro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scop
ic phenomena within a frame of reference. If so, how could a wavicle jump

slits simultaneously in the double slit experiment, however minutely a
nd
tively time may be conceived here? The general ontological - not classical \par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reas
on here must be respected: that the reason for the problem of simultaneity
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lies
elsewhere, i.e., in the unsuitability of micro-levels of statistical
description
we are capable of, at any future time whatever in history, to be treated on par
macro-levels of description. QM has not been able to adequately deal with
feeling of simultaneity in the entanglement- and double slit experimen
ts.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Clas
sical simultaneity is geometrically and physically unreal, and its empl
oy\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
in QM is to be rejected.
26 Additionally, it should not be forgotten that the concept of alleged simultan
e\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
in the entanglement-measurement of influence of one particle on its pair is
indicative of the fatal and unavoidable correlation and confusion of (1) our
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (epi
stemological) inability to define precisely and simultaneously the posit
ion
velocity of a particle, with (2) the mathematical concept of the particle and
- conceived of purely classically - following two or more paths, and/or with
the concept of the separate particle and wave - allegedly fully ontologically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - f
ollowing two or more paths simultaneously. The merely epistemically pos
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e geometrical sense of particle and wave in (2) is the sense of the statistical
rpretation based on classical criteria, but based fully on (1), and results un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cons
ciously - and classically - in the ontologized statement as in (3). Hence, we
led to try to generally conceptualize and rationalize the actual process of the
ged double slit "jumps" as difficult to be visualized merely due to the space\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 like
nature of the motions therein and the epistemic base of human inabil
ities
ied in statistical description of the "many" in the micro-, meso- and macro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7113\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 word
s. This automatically gives Causality its place, too.

26 More elaborately, if we take (1) above as absolutely true (epistemi
cally due
our scientific incapability in observation), and take (2) above as abs
olutely
ected to it (again, due to our epistemic inabilities), then the actuality at the
\par
}
{\phpg\posx1372\pvpg\posy9924\absw6906\absh616 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 B
oston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. V, Proceedings of the Boston Co
l\par}{\phpg\posx1372\pvpg\posy9924\absw6906\absh616 \sl-219 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 loqu
ium for the Philosophy of Science 1966-1968 (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing
\par}{\phpg\posx1372\pvpg\posy9924\absw6906\absh616 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 Co.,
1969), 13. \par
}
48 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 so-called simultaneous double slit "jump" is such only by reason of the st
atistical
rpretation. Then the correct ontological interpretation of the actuality, if we
d slow down the whole process to the mesoscopic level of imagination, need
go against all logic and ontological common sense that bases on the existence
ome causal process out there to cause the motion of one wavicle through slit 1
another through slit 2. That is, the particle has been conceived to follow two
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 path
s only by reason of our scientific predicament of statistical interpre
tation.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 In o
ther words, what is true by QM, and can be different in classical mechanics
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (if
classical mechanics accepts the epistemological limit-status of our scientific
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 capa
bilities), is only an interpretation and not the actual ontological fact. There
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is,
then, no sense in insisting on purely interpretational acausalism or
non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
alism as the case in Nature in this respect.
26 Further, if we know for sure only the truth of (1), it shows onl
y our epis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temo
logical predicament. If it is correlated to (2), then (3) cannot be
true on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gically, i.e., by all forms of logic and common sense, because it is

a faulty
rpretation merely to suit the space-like (with extremely minute amount
of
ured time inevitably present) status of the velocities involved. In this case,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (3) s
hould have taken into consideration that no logic can support one rea
l
cle or particle following simultaneously two separate paths. This can
save
alism without detriment to the minimum realistic sense in logic. QM, STR
GTR are counter-intuitive in respect to certain common ways of description
henomena, but they cannot do away with physical existence of one portion
physical reality or with one of the categories of all possible reason
(namely,
e) for the sake of protecting the "counter-intuitiveness" of quantum logic,
h (quantum logic) is just a name for manipulating the implications of our
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inab
ility to mathematically exactly describe certain micro-phenomena. This
ement stands partially justified by the fact that, on the other side, QM itself
mpts to justify much by common reason and rational imagination.
{\b \fs21 11.3.}{\b \fs21 Meaning}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Causality}{\b \fs21
in}{\b \fs21 the}{\b \fs21 Uncertainty}{\b \fs21 Principle }
Chapters 9, 10, and the present one have been discussing two of the foundational
riments in QM. As a result of our debate on the EPR experiments, we ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 proa
ch the relatively highly probable conclusion that holding the Law of Causal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
is more reasonable in QM than non-causality or acausality. Now we co
me
to the Uncertainty Principle and ask if the complementarity principle
of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Bohr
can at all be held if we find ourselves in the context of probability, observ\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7287\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abil
ity and unobservability in the Uncertainty Principle. First of all, in general,
rding to Arkady Plotnitsky,
\fi6061 249 \par
}

ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 In Heisenberg's initial formulation of quantum mechanics the (conti
nuous) orbital mo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7066\absh7488 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tion of electrons (retained in the old quantum theory along with discontinuou
s and
26 non-causal quantum jumps from one orbit to another) and the orbital frequenci
es of
26 this motion were seen as, if existent at all, in principle unobservable. Henc
e, these fre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7066\absh7488 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 quencies were excluded from his new mechanics and its formalism altogether, b
ased on
26 the relationships between the "quantities which in principle are observable".
{\up006 \fs8 254 }
{\fs17 Next,}{\fs17 Plotnitsky}{\fs17 summarizes}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 meaning}{
\fs17 of}{\fs17 non-causality}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
QM }
17 in}{\fs17 general}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 complementarity
}{\fs17 principle}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Uncertainty}{\fs17 Principle
}
17 in}{\fs17 particular,}{\fs17 thus: }
\fi226 The key physical point was that, instead of relating to physical motion q
uantum ob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7066\absh7488 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 jects, Heisenberg's new kinematical elements referred to, and properly predic
ted, the
26 probabilities of discontinuous and - given that we can only estimate their pr
obabilities
26 - noncausal transitions (quantum jumps) from one quantum energy level to anot
her.
26 Accordingly {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} in Heisenberg's schem
e one does not deal with the evolution of a quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7066\absh7488 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 tum object, such as an electron in the atom, either physically or mathematica
lly. There
26 is no transformation of the state under the action of the energy operator, an
d hence no
26 physical evolution, however related to this transformation. There are only st
ationary
26 states of an electron at certain energy levels, each numerically determinable
by a meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7066\absh7488 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 urement, and the probabilities, calculated from the matrix formalism, of the
discon-

26 tinuous transitions from a given state to other possible states, the transiti
ons physically
26 manifested in spectra.{\up006 \fs8 255 }
{\fs17 It}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 rewarding}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 note}{\fs17 that}{\fs
17 quantum}{\fs17 jumps,}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 direct}{\
fs17 and}{\fs17 immediate }
17 cause}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 found,}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 here}{\fs17
pragmatically}{\fs17 treated}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 just}{\fs17 non-causal}{\fs17
transitions, }
17 which}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 necessarily}{\
fs17 mean}{\fs17 non-causal}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 probabilistic.}{\fs17 This}{\
fs17 prag- }
17 matic}{\fs17 treatment}{\fs17 issues}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
fact}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 theory}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 QM
}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 mere }
17 tool}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 description}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 quantum}{\fs17 proces
ses,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 theory}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 deals
}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the }
17 probable}{\fs17 evolutionary}{\fs17 history}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 quanta}{\fs1
7 from}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 initial}{\fs17 stages}{\fs17 until}{\fs17 becom
ing }
17 quanta}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 thereafter.}{\fs17 Moreover,}{\f
s17 the}{\fs17 trend}{\fs17 was}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 find}{\fs17 'probab
ilistic'}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 a }
17 contradictory}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 substitute}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 '
causal'. }
26 {\fs17 In}{\fs17 short,}{\fs17 within}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 local-atomic}
{\fs17 context,}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 horizonal}{\fs17 researc
h}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 not }
17 envisioned}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 QM.}{\fs17 There}{\fs17 existed}{\fs17
no}{\fs17 reason}{\fs17 why}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 not}{\fs1
7 have}{\fs17 been. }
17 From}{\fs17 within}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 limited}{\fs17 local-atomic}{\fs17
environment,}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 ever}{\fs17 lack}{\fs17 ever}{\f
s17 wider }
17 temporally}{\fs17 measuremental}{\fs17 causal}{\fs17 historical}{\fs17
details}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 quanta}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 reconstruct }
17 what}{\fs17 causes}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 quantum}{\fs17 jumps.}{\fs17 W
ithout}{\fs17 these,}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 wont}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
be}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 partial, }\par
}
254 Arkady Plotnitsky, Epistemology and Probability: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrdinge
r, and
349 the Nature of Quantum-Theoretical Thinking, Fundamental Theories of Physics

161
349 (New York: Springer, 2010), 215.
Plotnitsky, Epistemology and Probability, 215.
{\fs17 250 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 incomplete theory that can naturally only attribute unknown details of the
wiser
al horizon to unknowable probabilities. This shows that what may be at fault
producing the semblance of non-causality in QM is the epistemological state
ffairs of unknowability of probabilism that forgets the causal horizonal his\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tory
of quanta; and we tend to believe that the QM probabilism spells the end
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of,
or partial end of, the Law of Causality due to misinformed contradiction of
abilism and causation.
{\b \fs21 11.4.}{\b \fs21 Causality}{\b \fs21 vs.}{\b \fs21 Phenomena-Noumen
a}{\b \fs21 Continuity }
Having discussed a clear claim by a quantum physicist about what I like to call
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a m
erely epistemological semblance of non-causality in QM, we turn to som
e
ral causal conclusions about the various other instances of such semblance
M, especially in the Uncertainty Principle. In general, any scientific expla\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nati
on has an irreducible access to elements and theoretical foundations f
rom
nd the problem at issue that awaits interpretation. Similar is the case also
the non-causality or acausality attributed to the probabilistic state of affair
s
nowledge of the result of the Uncertainty Principle (and further results). Its
anation always involves concepts and theoretical results that pertain to it but
theoretically properly based at deeper and broader realms - not only concep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tual
ly deeper and broader but, through them, also from outside the past of the
ical realm at discussion. We need to determine which of the concepts used
more fundamental and which less fundamental, i.e., which is less and which
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is m
ore inclusive of elements farther from the past of the physical phenomenon
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at
issue. The questions of non-causality and acausality too are of no me
aning
out that.
26 If (1) we are philosophically ready to place Universal Causality in physical
esses as such of beings or events, as the very way of being ontolog
ically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prio
r to the physical dimensional measurability (spatial and temporal) of these
esses; and if (2) we accept the way of arising of anything processual as due
the activity of some other processes (even if the whole effect is no
t from
one or a few causes known) and as a particular instantiation of the general
ersal Law of Causality - then the hitting of an electron by a photon and the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rece
ption of the electron by the photographic plate are already specific causal
esses, the causes of which are found in a few other processes in the specific
ntific manner, and not in all the causal past of the process. If causation is
an ontological relation at all as in Hume, then not even the hittin
g of an
tron by a photon and the reception of the electron by the photograph
ic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7228\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plat
e can be causal.
\fi6061 251 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 If we do not accept the causal nature of QM processes, then we are
left with
Humean arguments against causality. Hume perceives only occurrences be\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fore
and after, and never any real physical connection of arising of the resultant
the antecedent. This resulted in his own doubting existence of substances
ny form and later in the Kantian theoretical separation of phenomena from
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noum
ena. What if Reality (whatever there is the case, i.e., whatever occu
rs) is

composed of two absolutely distinct pieces or stuffs? That is, the e
vent of
eption and possible things in themselves that are physically ontological pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es are not absolutely mutually discontinuous, and no real line of separation
ts. If so, the Humean solution is to be forgotten, and the perception and the
eived (in Kant, phenomena and noumena) are not two absolutely differenti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ated
worlds.
26 The primary but badly unnoticed issue in the Humean problem of causality is
mereological lack of clarity as to which parts of an entity or process are in fa
ct
cause of an effect, and which parts of the entity or process is their effect. A
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deta
iled discussion of this centuries-old vexing issue is given in the initial chap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ters
, wherefrom we have concluded that the confusion is (1) not merely about
ontological connection or conjunction between cause proper and effect
er, but (2) about the very admixture of the ideas of the entity or process that
ains the cause proper and the ideas of the entity or process that contains the
ct proper, and (3) also between the psychic perception of the cause proper
the cause-including process and the effect proper with the effect-including
ess on the one hand, and on the other the existence of the something-s physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
over there as events and processes yielded by the ontological commitm
ent
upposed behind them. Hence, the Humean argument against the real exist\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
of and connection between causes and effects would not hurdle our inquiry.
26 Now to the Kantian stake on our QM inquiry on causality. Spatiality and tem\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pora
lity, as the perceptual and ontological dimensional aspects of measurements
he experiment behind the uncertainty phenomenon (and in other QM phe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nome
na), are, ontologically, just the epistemic or perceptual dimensions of the
al processes of the perceiving-perceived (phenomena-noumena) nexus of
micro-world, where the perceived (noumena) are real-actual. By 'perceiving'
'phenomena' are here meant the humanly perceiving aspects of things i
n
r showing themselves, and by 'perceived' or 'noumena' are meant merely the

gs themselves in their thus-ness, process-ness and physical actuality.
26 In their belonging to the noumena (things or processes themselves)
proper
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 espe
cially of the perceiving persons, phenomena are part of the noumena too, if,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by r
eason of ontological commitment, we are allowed to understand 'noumena'
erently from Kant, as the causally active extension-motion nexus between the
252 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 noumena outside and the perceiver as such a noumenon too. Therefore, the p
er\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ceiv
ing and the phenomena-as-given-in-perceiving are not physically absolutely
ontinuous with the perceived. In any case, therefore, phenomena are no
t
le, vacuous, non-corporeal "elements" subsisting in vacuum. Actual physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
elements are involved and active in the process of perceived phenomena too,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by w
ay of biologically physical processes, and so they too are in fact noumena.
26 The fact is therefore not the other way around, i.e., phenomena-noumena are
ontologically part of the perceptual categories or dimensions (space and time)
ausal processes in extension-motion. Instead, space and time are epistemo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal categories of the physical ontological categories or dimensions, namely,
nsion and motion, of the causal processes of beings / processes, which are
phenomena-noumena continuum. If so, the categories of Space and Time we
k of in QM and STR are consequent in ontological importance to the purely
logical categories of Extension and Motion of beings / processes / actualities.
26 Then, "ontological before and after" becomes the reason for admitting some
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sort
of procession from processes with respect to spirally temporal consecutive\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness
, which is what we call causation, which cannot be in pure vacuum.
The
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spir
ally temporal nature of consecutiveness has its justification in the fact that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in N
ature frames of reference cannot be met with in complete mutual isolation.

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Fram
es of reference, too, interact in that also the processes therein interact. This
raction is ontologically speaking by causation. That is, causation is causation
processes / entities by some other processes / entities in extension-m
otion.
is, ontologically, and for physics, the Law of Causality - the fact that every\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g is caused - which is of beings, is prior in importance to the categories of
e and Time.
{\b \fs21 11.5.}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Existence}{\b \fs21 vs.}{\b \fs21
Instrumentalism}{\b \fs21 over }
01 {\b \fs21 Mathematical}{\b \fs21 Results }
Only for the purpose of mathematical description or portrayal in Field Theory,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 STR,
GTR, etc., are the epistemological categories of Space and Time more im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 port
ant than the ontological categories of Extension, Motion and Causality. (It is
icult to understand why the tradition, inclusive of linguistic and phenomeno\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal ontologies, did not see this point.) Cause is not experimentally measur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7230\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 able
, and it is not directly describable mathematically. Mathematical applications
physics deal with space and time (measurements of extension and motion
)
er than with extension or motion or causes. Thus, if causal processes
in
nsion-motion are prior to and for that matter ontologically more necessary
their spatiotemporal dimensions, then the statuses of extension, motio
n,
\fi6061 253 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 causality, non-causality and acausality are to be ascertained ontologicall
y within
Uncertainty Principle too, as prior to that of, and as explaining the measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
al spatiality and temporality of, the wavicles. Causality is not just of a few
gs, but of all that are in extension-motion - this is called the Law of Causal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity.
What hinders the acceptance of causality in QM in general may be dealt with
her, with the help of this inquiry.
26 The Law of Causality is categorially prior to and more necessary than spati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 otem
poral description physical-ontologically, in the sense that Matter-Energy
existent) is causally processual in Extension-Motion which is measured in
e and Time. Causality is not mathematically prior to space and time
due
the tool nature of mathematics as the quantitative-qualitative study of
ideal
ctures. Then, scientific and mathematical instrumentalism about spatiotem\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pora
l description and its bias against Causality are naturally due to mis
givings
t and hesitation against the ontological priority of Causality after M
atter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Ener
gy and Extension-Motion as scientific categories, over the epistemically
logical categories of Space-Time.
26 Similar to the forgetfulness of Causality characteristic of the abstract natu
re of
ematics is the forgetfulness of matter-energy and extension-motion in prefer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
for spacetime in physics, which latter cannot be justified since it is answerab
le
hysical ontology with respect to the categories of Causality, Matter-Energy
Extension-Motion in ontological commitment. Scientific and mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
instrumentalism is the outcome of overemphasis on mathematical spati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 otem
poral description. This, presumably, cannot hold ontologically in physics,
one opts for some measure of ontological commitment in physics. That
is,
rumentalism should not be the ontological way of QM, if basically the entan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 glem
ent experiment problem of causation can be solved by causally produced
rluminal communication over superluminal causal cones and if this can be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7186\absh9333 \sl-253 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 made
possible by STR (for which see Chapter 12). Scientific instrumentalism in
strong sense about spacetime description may be explained thus, so to derive

the concept of mathematical instrumentalism about theoretically concluded
ties ("theoretical entities"):
\fi226 {\fs15 [I]nstrumentalism}{\fs15 about}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 theoretical}{\
fs15 entities}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 science}{\fs15 tells}{\fs15 us}{\fs15 that}
{\fs15 a}{\fs15 scientific}{\fs15 theory }
26 {\fs15 is}{\fs15 just}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 convenient}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 of}{\
fs15 talking}{\fs15 about}{\fs15 observations.}{\fs15 According}{\fs15 to}{
\fs15 this}{\fs15 view,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 theory }
26 {\fs15 is}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 more}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 instrument}
{\fs15 (just}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 James}{\fs15 said}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 theories
}{\fs15 were)}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 enables}{\fs15 us}{\fs15 to }
26 {\fs15 predict}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 lot}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 observations}{\fs15
on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 basis}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 another}{\fs15 lot}{\fs15 of
}{\fs15 observations.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15 spite}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 fact}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 scientific}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 makes}{\fs
15 free}{\fs15 use}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 look}{\fs15 like}{\fs15 n
ames}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 classes}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 things }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 observable}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 name
s}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 'atom',}{\fs15 'electron',}{\fs15 'proton'}{
\fs15 -}{\fs15 those}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 just}{\fs15 fictions. }
26 {\fs15 In}{\fs15 reality}{\fs15 there}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 such}{
\fs15 things.}{\fs15 All}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 really}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 is}{\f
s15 observations}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 more}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 less }
26 {\fs15 complicated}{\fs15 scheme}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 calculating}{\fs15 wha
t}{\fs15 observations}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 expect}{\fs15 to}{\fs15
make,}{\fs15 given }
254 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 observations already made. The theory is a calculus: put observable
s in and it puts out
26 further observables.{\up006 \fs8 256 }
{\fs17 Despite}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 element}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 convenience}{\fs17
in}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 theory,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 above}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 pe
rhaps}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 pejorative }
17 presentation}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 scientific}{\fs17 instrumentalism}{\fs17 in
}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 starkly}{\fs17 suggests}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 co
ncept }
17 of}{\fs17 unreality}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 observables}{\fs17 (measured}{\fs17
properties)}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 by-product}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\

fs17 only }
17 possible}{\fs17 way}{\fs17 suggested}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 instrumentalism,}{\
fs17 albeit}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 similarity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 to}{\f
s17 Humean }
17 sceptic}{\fs17 empiricism.}{\fs17 For}{\fs17 example,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
statement:}{\fs17 "In}{\fs17 fact}{\fs17 there}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 no}{\fs17
such}{\fs17 things." }
17 It}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 mean}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
names}{\fs17 'atom',}{\fs17 'electron',}{\fs17 'proton'}{\fs17 etc.}{
\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 exist}{\fs17 as }
17 things;}{\fs17 instead,}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 means}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 denotat
ives}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 terms}{\fs17 do}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 exist
}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 need}{\fs17 not }
17 be}{\fs17 conceived}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 existing,}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 pragmatic}{\fs17 successes}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 science.}{\fs17 If}{\fs17
existence}{\fs17 and }
17 causation}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 instilled}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 p
hysical}{\fs17 ontology}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 theoretical}{\fs17
foundation}{\fs17 of }
17 physical}{\fs17 sciences}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 then}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 understa
nding}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 results}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 sta
ke. }
26 {\fs17 Kirk}{\fs17 perhaps}{\fs17 forgets}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 not}{\fs17
unreality}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 non-existence}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 such
}{\fs17 should }
17 have}{\fs17 been}{\fs17 attributed}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 observati
on-constructs}{\fs17 (observables)}{\fs17 made}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 dis- }
17 course}{\fs17 out}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 experience}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 observat
ion}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 existing}{\fs17 processes.}{\fs17 Processes}{\fs17 exi
st}{\fs17 as }
17 whatever}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 are,}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 observable
s.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 embarrassing}{\fs17 thing}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 we}{\fs17
follow}{\fs17 the }
17 instrumentalist}{\fs17 position}{\fs17 given}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 Kirk}{\fs17
with}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 implications}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 that}{\fs
17 the}{\fs17 process }
17 of}{\fs17 observation,}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 leads}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 these}
{\fs17 observables,}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 also}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 non
-existent }
17 process,}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 denial}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 observables}{\fs17 (measured}{\fs17 properties)}{\fs17 cannot }
17 be}{\fs17 absolutely}{\fs17 devoid}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 some}{\fs17 physical
}{\fs17 reality,}{\fs17 though}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 independent}{\fs17 existen
ce. }

26 {\fs17 Perhaps}{\fs17 instrumentalists}{\fs17 mean}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 conno
te}{\fs17 only}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 theory-ladennes}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 obser- }
17 vation}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 observables.}{\fs17 For}{\fs17 fear}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 incurring}{\fs17 unwarranted}{\fs17 metaphysical}{\fs17 claims, }
17 the}{\fs17 instrumentalist}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 bother}{\fs17 s
o}{\fs17 much}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 seriously}{\fs17 take}{\fs17 purported}{\fs1
7 proofs }
17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 extra-mental}{\fs17 existence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 som
ething}{\fs17 behind}{\fs17 "observables"}{\fs17 (or}{\fs17 "measured }
17 properties")}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 deriving}{\fs17 useful}{\fs17 results}{\f
s17 from}{\fs17 QM}{\fs17 theories}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 methods}{\fs17 applie
d. }
17 Mathematical}{\fs17 methods}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 science}{\fs17 are}{\fs1
7 part}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 methods,}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 ex
tension- }
17 motion,}{\fs17 matter-energy}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 Causality}{\fs17 are}{\fs1
7 not}{\fs17 prior}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 spacetime}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 mathematica
l }
17 applications}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 science.}{\fs17 In}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 sens
e,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 setback}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 causal-ontological
}{\fs17 con- }
17 ception}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 Reality}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 pragmatic}{\fs17 successes}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 pragmatic}{\fs17 phy
sics,}{\fs17 which }
17 instrumentalists}{\fs17 assume}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 s
uccess. }
26 {\fs17 Mathematical}{\fs17 instrumentalism}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 physics}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 form}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 instrumentalism}{\fs17 in }
17 which}{\fs17 experimental,}{\fs17 theoretical}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 mathemati
cal}{\fs17 methods}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 results}{\fs17 remain }
17 ideally}{\fs17 formulated}{\fs17 symbolic}{\fs17 presentations}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 actual}{\fs17 facts}{\fs17 like}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 spatiotemp
o- }
17 ral}{\fs17 description,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 beyond}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 met
hods}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 results}{\fs17 (and}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 scientific}{
\fs17 and }
17 technological}{\fs17 applications)}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 finds}{\fs17 no}
{\fs17 need}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 causal-ontological}{\fs17 facts}{\fs17 an
d }\par
}
256 Robert Kirk, Relativism and Reality: A Contemporary Introduction (London: R
out\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10144\absw7015\absh972 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 ledge, 1999), 91.

\fi6061 {\fs17 255 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 existence. This is an off-shoot of the philosophically now extinct positiv
ist phi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loso
phy, pragmatism and empiricism, which gives rise to scientific instrumental\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ism
with overmuch concern for and faith in anything derived by mathematical
ods. This faith spreads against things ontological because existence an
d
ation cannot have a place in the idealisations of mathematics. Thus comes
t the alleged instrumentalistic ontology, which is the one the Copenhagen
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scho
ol and other causal probabilists in orthodox QM have adhered to in t
he
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 init
ial days.
26 Instrumentalistic attitudes in the philosophy of science have caused the pref
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eren
ce for practically prioritizing spacetime description over the causal a
nd
tential. In ontological commitment (existence with real properties, without
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 both
ering about details of attributes) which spreads over into the realm of the
logy of spacetime and causation, but, theoretical justification unto ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
commitments to something physically real beyond mathematical description
not unwarranted. Ontological commitment brings with it objectual-ness as
ondition for physical theory and experimentation; thus we have grounds to
d scientific and mathematical instrumentalism in QM.
26 Mario Bunge uses the term 'quantons' to avoid the classicism and m
athe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cal instrumentalism involved in the concepts of waves and particles. H
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh8003 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 give
s his reasons in the context of discussing the Schrdinger- and Heisenberg
tions:
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 function}{\fs15 (or}{\fs15 vector)}{\f
s15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 co

mplex}{\fs15 valued}{\fs15 function}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 space}{\fs1
5 and}{\fs15 time }
26 {\fs15 coordinates.}{\fs15 Its}{\fs15 precise}{\fs15 form}{\fs15 is}{\fs1
5 determined,}{\fs15 up}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 constants,}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the}{
\fs15 precise}{\fs15 form}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 [H]amiltonian}{\fs15 {\f63 \u292\'3f}}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 well}{\fs15
as}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 initial}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 boundary}{\fs15
conditions.}{\fs15 In}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 simplest}{\fs15 case, }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 single}{\fs15 quanton}{\fs15 free}
{\fs15 from}{\fs15 external}{\fs15 forces,}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
121 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 looks}{\fs15 like}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 classical}{\fs15
plane}{\fs15 wave;}{\fs15 in }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 case}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 attractive}{\fs15 cent
ral}{\fs15 force}{\fs15 (such}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 exerted}{\fs15
by}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 atomic}{\fs15 nucleus}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 an }
26 {\fs15 electron),}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 121 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15
looks}{\fs15 like}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 classical}{\fs15 spherical}{\fs15 wave.}
{\fs15 These}{\fs15 purely}{\fs15 formal}{\fs15 analogies}{\fs15 gave}{\fs1
5 rise }
26 {\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 misnomers}{\fs15 'wave}{\fs15 function'}{\fs1
5 and}{\fs15 'wave}{\fs15 mechanics',}{\fs15 just}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 the}{\f
s15 use}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 [H]amilto- }
26 {\fs15 nian}{\fs15 formalism}{\fs15 associated}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\f
s15 Schrdinger}{\fs15 equation}{\fs15 suggested}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 misnomer}{
\fs15 'par- }
26 {\fs15 ticles'}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 ultimate}{\fs15 specific}{\fs
15 referents}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanics.}{\fs15 Bohr}{\fs15
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 held}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 t
he }
26 {\fs15 undulatory}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 corpuscular}{\fs15 views}{
\fs15 were}{\fs15 mutually}{\fs15 complementary,}{\fs15 whence}{\fs15 we}{\
fs15 had }
26 {\fs15 to}{\fs15 keep}{\fs15 them}{\fs15 both}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 play}{\f
s15 dialectical}{\fs15 games}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 them.}{\fs15 On}{\fs15 the
}{\fs15 other}{\fs15 hand}{\fs15 Heisenberg }
26 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 admitted}{\fs15 t
hat}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 'mental}{\fs15 pictures'}{\fs
15 and}{\fs15 'are}{\fs15 both}{\fs15 incomplete}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 have}{\
fs15 only }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 validity}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 analogies}{\fs15 which}{\fs15
are}{\fs15 accurate}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 limiting}{\fs15 cases'.}
{\fs15 Since}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 indeed }
26 {\fs15 just}{\fs15 analogies,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 since}{\fs15 they}{\fs15
cannot}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 both}{\fs15 correct,}{\fs15 we}{\fs15 shall}{\fs15
adopt}{\fs15 neither}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 them.}{\fs15 We }
26 {\fs15 hold}{\fs15 instead}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 central}{\fs15

referents}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 sui}{\fs
15 generis}{\fs15 entities}{\fs15 deserv- }
26 {\fs15 ing}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 name}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 own:}{\fs1
5 quantons}{\up006 \fs8
257. }\par
}
257 Bunge, Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Volume 7, Part I, 171.
{\fs17 256 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 The mental pictures or analogies of wave and particle pragmatically applie
d to
case of wavicles are mathematical ideals / forms useful to describe physical
omena. This shows that some sort of realism of (causal) processes is a must
QM. Without it we have no right to speak of anything in the science
s. The
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sui
generis entities that Bunge posits are surely not classical particles absolutely
rate at the extension-motion order, or Aristotelian or Platonic beings.
Yet
final proper parts of quantons, which may theoretically be taken to be active
ome or other relational manner, are the causes and effects. To that extent, at
t the proper causal parts of them are sui generis.
26 With this physical-ontological background that works against absolutisation
nstrumentalism, let me point out (again) the actuality of causal connection
een quantons at the very major experimental source of QM, namely, in the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Unce
rtainty Principle and then reason out further. Empirically, one should ad\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mit
at least that one photon has been made to collide with an electron in a certain
gy level around an atom. The moment this is had, the electron shifts beyond
energy level to another; and one is not able to determine its space (place in
nsion with respect to others) with its direction of motion and mass.
26 This intervention of the moving system by a moving particle already shows
need to hold causal realism at the origin of the experiment. Unfortunately,
is later considered irrelevant for mathematical description of later quantum

esses. The neglect of it is not justified by positively attempting to explain th
e
ection between the causal origin of the process (which is primary) and the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ingr
ession of something impossible (negative) or inexplicable, i.e., non-causality
causality. What has been happening is a shift from the causal explanation of
first intervention to a non-causal or acausal interpretation of the remaining
ess. Without this admission of the spatiotemporally physical system's need
(and thus inevitably also ontological) primacy and necessity of causality (of
al sui generis parts), the very phenomenon behind the Uncertainty Principle
ot be conceived to occur. This is a witness against mathematical and scien\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tifi
c instrumentalism and a milestone that stands for causation everywhere
in
micro-world.
{\b \fs21 11.6.}{\b \fs21 A}{\b \fs21 Non-mechanistic,}{\b \fs21 Non-probabi
listic}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Law }
I give additional reasons why the shift from the causal to the non-c
ausal or
sal is impossible, and argue that we must be satisfied only by a better than
anistic-deterministic causal realism. We ask: Has the actual event of pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ject
ion of the photon onto the electron occurred? If it has, then, has it affected
place and momentum of the electron? If this too has happened, then
this
\fi6061 257 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 affecting is what we normally call the causing of change of mom
entum (in ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tens
ion-motion) of the electron by the photon. Now, if one argues after Hume
there still is acausality or non-causality here, and holds instrument
alisti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y that the photon and the electron are simply perceived events or theoretical
tructs, and not objects as such in process, a counter-argument would be as

ows:
26 Admittedly, the actual relative space of an electron at a relative
and time\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rela
ted momentum is difficult to fix with respect to any classical concep
t of
cts. If this fact is what qualifies them to be uncaused quantum events, let us
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 agre
e to call just such events as existent objects / processes, for there are only s
uch
his world. This helps us to conclude from the very fact of the environment
he experiment of the Uncertainty Principle that the very experiment presup\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pose
s ontological commitments to there being the objectual events / processes
he photon, electron, etc. on the one hand; and, on the other hand, that there
energy-level jumps that are events of a different variety, events that involve
ctual processes, and there is the very event of the experiment, which involves
these other types of events.
26 Further, classical mechanistic causalism is just one sort of causalism. If me
ch\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 anis
tic causalism and any form of non-causalism or acausalism can be shown to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be l
ess compatible with the levels of events of the photon and electron, of energy\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 jump
s, and of the whole uncertainty state of the experiment, then we must seek
lternative causalist explanation for these events, and not go overboard saying
acausalism and causalism have failed or that causalism in general has failed.
has been a failure on the part of many QM physicists and some QM phi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loso
phers, and some philosophers of science who, without sufficient attention to
universality of the physical-ontological Law of Causality, repeated the slogan
QM has proved that there is some mysterious involvement of non-causality
onsciousness beyond causation. We must thus admit that we have to do away
any mechanistic-causalist, non-causalist and acausalist interpretations
of
Uncertainty Principle in QM and seek another.
26 I digress here to argue in favour of the primacy of Causality after ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
commitment (existence) in science, now using arguments in the ontology

physical science and thereafter using the categorial primacy of the La
w of
ality over all other Laws. We move here towards the Law of Causality at the
m of Reality-in-total as the ontological conditio sine qua non that goes - in
onal necessity and importance - beyond what we have come to call as various
ific theories of causation and the particular laws of sciences. These theories
laws presuppose Causality as the cosmic and ontological content of the Prin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cipl
e of Sufficient Reason.
258 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Causality as a physical law, which is more ontological than other p
hysical laws
apply only to some provinces of experiments with physical reality, i
s thus
ubiquitous, and more importantly a Law of Nature than other scientif
ic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7294\absh9336 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 laws
of Nature themselves. Thus, (1) all of the latter type are based on the univer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7294\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sal
ontological fact of Causality expressed in each and every near-infinitesimal
entary part of Reality which are the individualized instances of causation,
(2) Causality is based on the very To Be of the whole of Reality - parts of
h are expressed in the 'to be' of beings or each and every near-infinitesimal
entary part of Reality and these parts constitute the various province
s of
ity where the other Laws are more suitably applicable.
26 For example, the law of universal gravitation is a law of Nature
less funda\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7294\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
al than Causality, because gravitation is only one instance of causal agency.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7294\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 It e
xplains the universal long-range attractive force in nature, developing "spa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7294\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ceti
me curvatures" in non-causal language, and "extension-motion curvatures"
ntological-causal language. This is itself a form of causation; and causation is
a form of gravitation. Hence, gravitation should be
articles called gravitons, gravitinos, or whatever,
\sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 not

constituted by some form
\sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of p
with the only condition that

are elements of Reality (matter-energy). But causation is not made up of any
special particles. Everything is causal. There is much more to Reality within
ality as such, than gravitational wavicles. Gravitation represents a portion of
al Reality. Causality is not a material thing or force. Instead, it is an actual
ical fact in all that happens in every part of Reality, considered in their ne\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7294\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
ity with respect to the prior and after of motion. Thus, gravitation does only
antiate the Law of affectation of one thing by another, where production of
from the many is part, namely, the Law of Causality. So, this Law is more
ersal than universal gravitation.
26 To try and demonstrate that causal ubiquity is most probably the case in the
e of Reality without yet implying any mechanistic causalism (against which
makes hue and cry), we consider the possibility of causality in the
whole
os and come back to the case of causality in the Uncertainty Principle with
former's implications for various QM-results. We attempted previously a
n
rpretation of the problem of non-locality in the entanglement experiment
,
h experiment, for some, seemed to introduce non-causal or acausal events
the universe. This and the above discussions facilitate construction
of a
ical ontology of causal microcosmic ubiquity or pervasiveness contrary to
non-causal or acausal interpretations of the principles of QM.
26 It should be stressed in physics that, just as any good explanatio
n of GTR
udes also the Newtonian meso-world physics as a special case, so also should
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7294\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM p
robabilities be part of any general explanation of the micro-world and of
\fi6061 259 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the ever smaller. That is, we need in QM a causal explanation
that subsumes
s of what seem non-causal or acausal, in terms of the improved version of
law of infinitesimally pervasive causation and permits an ontologically better
rstanding of so-called non-causality, acausality, probabilistic causality and
istical reality. From this should result what I propose as causal ubiquity or pe
r\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vasi
veness in QM. Else, statistical explanations will be interpreted as acausal or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal, under the false assumption that all that is causal can be named 'classi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y causal'. Questions like, 'What then would have to be the sort of branches of
ematics used to explicate causal ubiquity in QM?', 'How to formulate them
manner compatible with QM and Cosmology?', etc., are beyond the purview
a philosophical work, and hence, to be left for mathematical physicist
s and
ologists.
26 Within the ambit of the present work it is possible only to approach the cos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gical aspect proper of the concept of "causal locality" as necessitated by our
tion to the EPR paradox, in order to clarify cosmic issues related to causality
M - where all velocities have to be finite and what was called 'instantaneous
unication' could in fact only be finite superluminal velocity/ies. Superlu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mina
l velocities may be sufficiently well justified only after the question of STR
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 allo
wing superluminal velocities is discussed.
26 The causality I defend here is not the classical one in that the version I ha
ve
discussing does not limit the influence of causation to provinces of Real\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity.
This is the sense of the Law of Causality defined from the very start. It is no
t
the statistical one insofar as our Law of Causality considers the statistically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 held
absence or unavailability of causes as a call to statistical approximation for

tical purposes. The definition of Causality in our case is an indication that
o not need any ontological ceteris paribus condition other than the catego\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ries
of general ontology and scientific ontology, so that the Law of Causality may
held as the supreme Law in Reality-in-total. Instantaneous communication
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 brin
gs in simultaneous bilocation of effects - and finite superluminal velocities
dispense with this bizarre effect in the physical world. The fact that we have
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 yet
no experimental proof of finite superluminal velocities is no justification to
that infinite material velocity or a certain finite velocity can be tolerated.
26 To end this discussion, I admit that there exists the dilemma of
local STR
in safely luminal propagations and non-local QM even by admitting STR in
ciple and transgressing its basic demand of duration between cause and
ct. Under the possibility of finite superluminal velocities this proble
m is
come with the presupposition that the so-called instantaneous state-collapse
ot of an existent physically ontological state but of a so-called observed state
.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7260\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 If c
ollapse is only of the observables, and not of the observed processes out-there,
260 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 then QM is grappling with a ghost that does not exist. This clarity may be
found
ing in the following long quote from Butterfield and Earman:
\fi226 {\fs15 [O]n}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 hand,}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 mig
ht}{\fs15 note}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 non-signaling}{
\fs15 theorem}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 sug}
26 {\fs15 gests}{\fs15 some}{\fs15 kind}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 compatibility}{\fs1
5 of}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 relativity}{\fs15 the
ory.}{\fs15 Hence,}{\fs15 there }
26 {\fs15 may}{\fs15 be,}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 some}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 called}{\
fs15 it,}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 'peaceful}{\fs15 co-existence'}{\fs15 between}{\fs

15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 theories.}{\fs15 While }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 correlations}{\fs15 seem}{\fs15 to}{\fs1
5 imply}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 failure}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 locality,}{\fs15 and}{\fs
15 while}{\fs15 collapse}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 occurs}{\fs15 instantaneously,}{\fs15
neither}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 these}{\fs15 facts}{\fs15 entails}{\fs15 the}{\fs1
5 capacity}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 send }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 signal}{\fs15 faster}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 light.}{\fs15 Mo
re}{\fs15 generally,}{\fs15 neither}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 these}{\fs15 features}
{\fs15 of}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 theory }
26 {\fs15 entails}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 experimental}{\fs15 ,}{\fs15 or}{\fs15
observational}{\fs15 conflict}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 relativity.}{\fs15 It
}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 sometimes}{\fs15 said }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 respects}{\fs15 the}{\fs1
5 letter}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 law}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 relativity}{\fs1
5 (but}{\fs15 violates}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 spirit}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 law). }
26 {\fs15 Moreover,}{\fs15 even}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 claim}{\fs15 that}{\fs15
superluminal}{\fs15 signaling}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 incompatible}{\fs15 with}{\fs
15 relativity}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 controversial.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 argument}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 the}{\
fs15 incompatibility}{\fs15 relies}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 idea}{\fs15
that}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 signal- }
26 {\fs15 ing}{\fs15 generates}{\fs15 inconsistent}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 loop
s}{\fs15 because}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 allows}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 p
ropagation}{\fs15 into}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 past.}{\fs15 And}{\fs15 some}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 point}{\fs15 out}
{\fs15 that}{\fs15 even}{\fs15 superluminal}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 processes}
{\fs15 (for}{\fs15 example, }
26 {\fs15 superluminal}{\fs15 transmission}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 matter}{\fs15 or
}{\fs15 energy)}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 inconsistent}{\fs15 with}{\fs15
relativity. }
26 {\fs15 So,}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 relativity}{\fs15 demand?}{\fs1
5 One}{\fs15 thing}{\fs15 seems}{\fs15 clear,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 is,}{\fs15
at}{\fs15 least,}{\fs15 agreed}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 vast}{\fs15 majority}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 physicists:}{\fs15 a}{\fs15
theory}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 Lorentz-invariant}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}
{\fs15 relativistic.}{\fs15 Here, }
26 {\fs15 we}{\fs15 encounter}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 real}{\fs15 problem.}{\fs15
The}{\fs15 collapse}{\fs15 postulate}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 standard}{\fs15 quan
tum}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 not}{\fs15 Lorentz-invariant,}{\fs15 nor}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 it}{\fs1
5 clear}{\fs15 how}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 make}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 so,}{\fs15 whil
e}{\fs15 maintaining}{\fs15 empirical }

26 {\fs15 adequacy. }
26 {\fs15 There}{\fs15 are,}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 course,}{\fs15 relativistic}{\f
s15 quantum}{\fs15 theories.}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol
}}}{\fs15 Their}{\fs15 equations}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 motion}{\fs15 are }
26 {\fs15 Lorentz-}{\fs15 invariant}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 requisite}
{\fs15 way.}{\fs15 However,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 collapse}{\fs15 postulat
e,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 need}{\fs15 for }
26 {\fs15 which}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 disappear}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 re
lativistic}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 theories,}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 Lore
ntz-invariant}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 it }
26 {\fs15 specifies}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 instantaneous}{\fs15 collapse.}{\up006 \
fs8 258 }
Clearly there is dilemma, but the necessity of superluminal velocities exists, a
c\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7035\absh6800 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cord
ing to at least minimum necessary reason, to render the questions of local\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7035\absh6800 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
and non-locality cognizable. If our discussions in these chapters are of some
onal value, the place of superluminal velocities in rendering Causality more
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7035\absh6800 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fund
amental than having to continuously appeal to fantastic miracles in every
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7035\absh6800 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pore
of Reality can be somewhat vindicated. Now I move to inquire if superlu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7035\absh6800 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mina
l velocities are allowable within the framework of STR. \par
}
258 Butterfield and Earman, Eds., Philosophy of Physics, 396-397. \par
}
61 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 12. Causality in the Special Theory
i1716 of Relativity \par
}
\cf0 12.1. Source-Independence and Highest Velocity
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 In}{\b0 \fs17 connection}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \
fs17 vast}{\b0 \fs17 experimental}{\b0 \fs17 research}{\b0 \fs17 Ruggero}{\b
0 \fs17 Maria}{\b0 \fs17 Santilli}{\b0 \fs17 (In- }

{\b0 \fs17 stitute}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 Basic}{\b0 \fs17 Research,}{\
b0 \fs17 Palm}{\b0 \fs17 Harbor,}{\b0 \fs17 Florida)}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0
\fs17 done}{\b0 \fs17 about}{\b0 \fs17 possible}{\b0 \fs17 ef- }
{\b0 \fs17 fectively}{\b0 \fs17 superluminal}{\b0 \fs17 velocities}{\b0 \fs17
while}{\b0 \fs17 they}{\b0 \fs17 passed}{\b0 \fs17 through}{\b0 \fs17 vario
us}{\b0 \fs17 media,}{\b0 \fs17 and }
{\b0 \fs17 while}{\b0 \fs17 interpreting}{\b0 \fs17 STR}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b
0 \fs17 GTR}{\b0 \fs17 accordingly,}{\b0 \fs17 Santilli}{\b0 \fs17 makes
}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 following}{\b0 \fs17 re- }
{\b0 \fs17 mark}{\b0 \fs17 about}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 attainment}{\b0
\fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 superluminal}{\b0 \fs17 velocity}{\b0
\fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 light}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 virtual}{\b0 \fs17
effect }
{\b0 \fs17 while}{\b0 \fs17 experimenting}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 water: }
cf0 \fi226 {\b0 \fs15 [I]t}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 known}{\b0 \fs15 that}{\b
0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \fs15 water}{\b0 \fs15 particles}{\b0 \fs15 such}{\b0 \fs15
as}{\b0 \fs15 electrons}{\b0 \fs15 can}{\b0 \fs15 travel}{\b0 \fs15 faster}
{\b0 \fs15 than}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 local }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 speed}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 light,}{\b0 \fs15 an}{\b0 \f
s15 occurrence}{\b0 \fs15 characterized}{\b0 \fs15 by}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \f
s15 emission}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 Cerenkov}{\b0 \fs15 li
ght.}{\b0 \fs15 In}{\b0 \fs15 the }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 event}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 speed}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \f
s15 light}{\b0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \fs15 water}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 assumed}{
\b0 \fs15 as}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 maximal}{\b0 \fs15 causal}{\b0 \fs15
speed,}{\b0 \fs15 there}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 the }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 violation}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 principle
}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 causality.}{\b0 \fs15 In}{\b0 \fs15 case}{\b0 \fs1
5 the}{\b0 \fs15 speed}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 light}{\b0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \f
s15 vacuum}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\b0 \fs15 assumed}{\b0 \fs15 as }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 maximal}{\b0 \fs15 causal}{\b0 \fs15 speed}{
\b0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \fs15 water}{\b0 \fs15 ,}{\b0 \fs15 there}{\b0 \fs15 is}{\
b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 violation}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 p
rinciple}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 relativistic }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 superposition}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 speeds}{\b0 \fs15 (t
he}{\b0 \fs15 sum}{\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 two}{\b0 \fs15 speeds}{\b0 \fs15
of}{\b0 \fs15 light}{\b0 \fs15 in}{\b0 \fs15 water}{\b0 \fs15 does}{\b0 \fs
15 not}{\b0 \fs15 yield}{\b0 \fs15 the}{\b0 \fs15 speed }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs15 of}{\b0 \fs15 light).}{\b0\up006 \fs8 259 }
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 seeming}{\b0 \fs17 extra}{\b0 \fs17 velocity
}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 luminal}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b
0 \fs17 water}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 greater}{\b0 \fs17 than}{\b0 \fs1
7 what }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 actual}{\b0 \fs17 case}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
water}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 direction}{\b0 \fs17 is,
}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 due}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 relativistic }

{\b0 \fs17 superposition}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 addition}{\b0 \fs17 of}{
\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 speed}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 light}{\b0 \fs17
in}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 directions,}{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17
need }
{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 taken}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 the}{
\b0 \fs17 real}{\b0 \fs17 case}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 tota
l}{\b0 \fs17 velocity}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 pencil}{\b0 \f
s17 of}{\b0 \fs17 photons}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 one }
{\b0 \fs17 direction.}{\b0 \fs17 Instead,}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 can}{\b0 \
fs17 be}{\b0 \fs17 considered}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 name}
{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 experimentally}{\b0 \fs17 cre- }
{\b0 \fs17 ated}{\b0 \fs17 distance}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 arises}{\b0 \f
s17 while}{\b0 \fs17 applying}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 limiting}{\b0 \fs17
notion}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 speed}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs
17 light }
{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 vacuo}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 cases}{\b0 \fs17 of}
{\b0 \fs17 "interior}{\b0 \fs17 dynamical}{\b0 \fs17 problems",}{\b0 \fs17 i
.e.,}{\b0 \fs17 problems}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0
\fs17 do }
{\b0 \fs17 only}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 interior}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 system,}{\b0 \fs17 like}{\b0 \fs17 water,}{\b0
\fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 atmosphere}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ear
th,}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 sun,}{\b0 \fs17 etc.}{\b0 \fs17 -}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\
b0 \fs17 short,}{\b0 \fs17 when}{\b0 \fs17 "measured"}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs
17 two}{\b0 \fs17 directions}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 respect}{\b0 \fs17
to}{\b0 \fs17 one }
{\b0 \fs17 fixed}{\b0 \fs17 point.}{\b0 \fs17 Hence,}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs
17 is}{\b0 \fs17 no}{\b0 \fs17 proof}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 superluminal
}{\b0 \fs17 velocities. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17
scenario}{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 regard}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\
b0 \fs17 entanglement}{\b0 \fs17 experiment.}{\b0 \fs17 There }
{\b0 \fs17 something}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 made}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs1
7 happen}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 particle}{\b0 \fs17 A}{\b0 \fs17 and
}{\b0 \fs17 something}{\b0 \fs17 opposite}{\b0 \fs17 happens }
{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 B.}{\b0 \fs17 Whether}{\b0 \fs17 it}{\b0 \fs17 happ
ens}{\b0 \fs17 automatically}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 simultaneously,}{\b0 \
fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 caused}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 an }
cf0 {\b0 \fs16 259}{\b0 \fs16 Ruggero}{\b0 \fs16 Maria}{\b0 \fs16 Santilli,}
{\b0 \fs16 "Experimental}{\b0 \fs16 Verifications}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 I
soredshift}{\b0 \fs16 with}{\b0 \fs16 Possible}{\b0 \fs16 Ab- }
\fi349 {\b0 \fs16 sence}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 Universe}{\b0 \fs16 Expansio
n,}{\b0 \fs16 Big}{\b0 \fs16 Bang,}{\b0 \fs16 Dark}{\b0 \fs16 Matter,}{\b0 \
fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 Dark}{\b0 \fs16 Energy"}{\b0 \fs16 (126-144), }
\fi349 {\b0 \fs16 The}{\b0 \fs16 Open}{\b0 \fs16 Astronomy}{\b0 \fs16 Journal
}{\b0 \fs16 2010,}{\b0 \fs16 3}{\b0 \fs16 ,}{\b0 \fs16 URL:}{\b0 \fs16 http:
//www.benthamscience.com/open/ }
\fi349 {\b0 \fs16 toaaj/articles/V003/126TOAAJ.pdf}{\b0 \fs16 (Accessed}{\b0 \f
s16 on}{\b0 \fs16 17}{\b0 \fs16 July}{\b0 \fs16 2011),}{\b0 \fs16 127. }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 263 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 interaction, is to be decided by sound judgment in physics and
philosophy of
ics. If we do not theoretically accept as absolutely true the principle of con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
cy of the speed of light and any theory that comes to that conclusion, we may
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ask
whether it would not go well if we substitute in the STR equations the gener\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
accepted constant speed of light with something higher. Consequently, there
arise some theoretical insufficiency in STR, and further theoretical flexibility
be created in STR, which may show that the luminal limiting velocity is not
lutely necessary. This claim will be clarified in the present chapter.
26 The principle of special relativity states"thatlawsofnatureareunaffectedunder
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 {\fi
eld{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the Lorentz transformations, whereby the
velocity of light, and also Maxwell's
tions, are invariant on transition from one (inertial) system of space-time
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 coor
dinates x {\up006 \fs10 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 97 \\f Symbol }}} to another
such system x {\up006 \fs10 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 97 \\f Symbol }}}. The di
stinctive fundamental property
hese transformations is that they leave invariant the "proper time", d{\field{\*
\fldinst SYMBOL 116 \\f Symbol }} (called
the scalar line element of interval d{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 116 \\f Symbol }
})."{\up006 \fs10 260} STR was proposed by Einstein in
r to make all physical laws consistent with his principle of relativity and thus
treat all physical processes in the cosmos as spatially (ontologically
speak\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing,
with regard to extension) three-dimensional and temporally (with respect to
on) uni-dimensional integral spatiotemporal processes at sufficiently high

ds, at which level significant results are predicted.
26 The STR unification of measuremental space and time is different from the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Gali
lean and Lorentzian. John Lucas shows the superiority of STR here:
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 integration}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 time}{\fs15 with}{
\fs15 space}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 fundamental}{\fs15 feature}{\fs1
5 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 Special}{\fs15 Theory. }
26 {\fs15 Whereas}{\fs15 temporal}{\fs15 duration}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 an}{\fs1
5 invariant}{\fs15 quantity}{\fs15 under}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 Galilean}{\fs15
transforma- }
26 {\fs15 tions,}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 under}{\fs15 the}{\f
s15 Lorentz}{\fs15 transformation,}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 preserves}{\fs15 onl
y}{\fs15 space-time}{\fs15 sepa- }
26 {\fs15 ration,}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 either}{\fs15 spatial}{\fs15
ones}{\fs15 or}{\fs15 temporal}{\fs15 ones}{\fs15 separately.}{\fs15 {\fie
ld{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 Special}{\fs15 Theor
y}{\fs15 does }
26 {\fs15 not}{\fs15 make}{\fs15 out}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 is}{\fs1
5 relative:}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 stresses}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 absoluteness}{\fs15
of}{\fs15 space-time.}{\fs15 Minkowski }
26 {\fs15 famously}{\fs15 announced,}{\fs15 "Henceforth}{\fs15 space}{\fs15
by}{\fs15 itself,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 time}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 itself}{\fs15 ar
e}{\fs15 doomed}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 fade }
26 {\fs15 away}{\fs15 into}{\fs15 mere}{\fs15 shadows,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 on
ly}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 kind}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 union}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15
two}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 preserve}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 independ- }
26 {\fs15 ent}{\fs15 reality.}{\up006 \fs8 261 }
This shows also how important measuremental spacetime description has b
e\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 come
in STR. The seeming sufficiency of mathematical spacetime description
aled the experimental avoidance of directly causal and existential desc
rip\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7308\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
in STR and consequently in GTR. Though the descriptive tool works, the
{\fs16 260}{\fs16 Benjamin}{\fs16
Gal-Or,}{\fs16
Cosmology,}{\fs16
Ph
ysics,}{\fs16
and}{\fs16
Philosophy}{\fs16
(New}{\fs16
York:}{\fs16
Springer, }
43 {\fs16 1981),}{\fs16 182. }
16 261}{\fs16 John}{\fs16 Lucas,}{\fs16 "The}{\fs16 Special}{\fs16 The
ory}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Absolute}{\fs16 Simultaneity"}{\fs16 (279-290),}{\
fs16 in }
67 {\fs16 William}{\fs16 Lane}{\fs16 Craig}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Quentin}{\fs16
Smith,}{\fs16 Eds.,}{\fs16 Einstein,}{\fs16 Relativity}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 A
bsolute }
67 {\fs16 Simultaneity}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 281. }
264 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 theoretical way of understanding of the evolution of the universe in all i
ts parts
ins causal. Using the Law of Causality to rekindle the extent of or the ubiq\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 uity
of Causality can thus give new light.
26 We have seen that the EPR needs superluminal velocities if it has to retain
ality, and banish the otherwise necessary infinite numbers of miracles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 havi
ng to take place all over in the QM realm every second. This is a
strong
m. In what follows, let us see if this is theoretically possible in STR, given
fact that in GTR space and time are spacetime. GTR takes the STR c
on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
of spacetime into the realm of gravitational processes and unifies the four
iotemporal dimensions with gravitational fields, i.e., the whole universe is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trea
ted in terms of gravitation. By reason of STR, we cannot measure a velocity
mere velocity without reference to other motions, since there is no p
rivi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lege
d frame of reference and since bodies are always in some or other overall
internal motion. Velocity is measurable with respect to various frames of
rence. The velocity of an object is normally dependent on the velocit
y of
source. It is normally dependent on that of the medium too - even
that
lectromagnetic and other such propagations, here usually less the case than
ther propagations.
26 In accordance with the frame of reference considered, the measured mass of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a bo
dy changes with respect to the criterion of measure, namely, the velocity of
t. A statement of the following kind does not mean that STR and GTR are
lutely relativistic concerning relations of motion, but instead that any meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 urem
ent of motion in them is frame-dependent: "That the relativistic conce
pt
the classical concept of mass are very different indeed becomes clear if we
ider that the former is a relation, involving relative velocities, bet
ween an
ct and a coordinate system, whereas the latter is a property of the object itsel
f
independent of its behaviour in coordinate systems."{\up006 \fs10 262} M
oreover, motion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in S
TR and GTR is absolutely relative with respect to the velocity of light. Ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cord
ingly, GTR defines the relation of the velocity of an object with respect to
highest conceived velocity used to measure it. The velocity of light is taken
tatic in principle everywhere. Therefore, there is a velocity-related absolute
tivity in STR and GTR relative to the velocity of light.
26 The so-called source-independence (also called "outcome independence") of
t is supposed to be clear also from the fact that gravity does not retard the \p
ar
}
262 Paul K. Feyerabend, "Problems of Empiricism" (145-260), R. G. Colo
dny, Ed.,
354 Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy
(Engle\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9926\absw7222\absh1168 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
354 wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), 169.
\fi6061 {\fs17 265 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 speed of light at the time of emission of a photon even from a source of s
trong
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 grav
itation that travels at a similarly high speed. Instead, it only either deflects
tops the interacting photons or wavicles severally, and not at once retard the
d at source of emission of the radiation-train composed of many photons.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Rati
onally - to put in other words - when a graviton (which too can on
ly be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a wa

vicle) joins an electromagnetic wavicle, the graviton and the photon with
ific wavelengths fuse to form a neutralization effect against, or in, or simply
from the direction of motion of the photon. If this is any process
, it is
tlessly causal. Notice, anyway, that the invariance in source-independence
in a gravitational field is to be measured against the speed of li
ght. In
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 calc
ulations based on experiments, one is supposed to find that the veloc
ity
lectromagnetic propagation need not depend on the velocity of the source.
her the velocity of this signal is absolutely independent of the emit
ting
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sour
ce cannot be ascertained theoretically; for this we need experiments n
ot
merely performed with respect to electromagnetic signals, but also, a
nd
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prim
arily, in reference to all possible signals. Unfortunately, QM, STR an
d
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 GTR
have fixed it upon the velocity of light as the criterion. This is
a funda\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
al rational aspect of all my arguments in this chapter, which aspect makes
highest-velocity-assumption susceptible to doubt, though on a pu
rely
retical basis.
26 STR equations of motion were couched in the Lorentz transformations,
h are an improvement upon the Galilean transformations. The Galilean
sformations presuppose sameness of the laws of physics in all frames
of
rence. Based on this, Newton had obtained the dynamics of bodies rela
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
to each other.{\up006 \fs10 263} His presupposition of absoluteness per
tained to the laws
otion, without a fixed velocity that facilitates a framework of observation
motion with respect to frames of reference. But he too may have used
the
n-undetected) velocity of light as the criterion, thinking that this later-so-

icitated electromagnetic mode of observation is instantaneous in propaga\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
, i.e., needing no time for propagation. This must have been presupposed by
to be of infinite velocity and hence in straight line motion, but need not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sure
ly and always have been thought to be so by Newton. Many in his time and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7094\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perh
aps he too considered light not as an effect of bodies but as a quality that has
\par
}
263 Books 1 and 2 of The Principia deal with the motion of bodies, and Book 3 w
ith the
349 system of the world, which is, again, of bodies at the macroscopic level. Th
e three
349 laws of motion are treated as "axioms or laws" of all possible motion. Newto
n, The
349 Principia, 416-430.
{\fs17 266 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 no quantities of extension to point to.{\up006 \fs10 264 }\par
}
{\phpg\posx4244\pvpg\posy854\absw3496\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 He
nce we say, Newton may at the most \par
}
have vacillated between the two possibilities of instantaneous and temp
orally
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fin
ite propagations.{\up006 \fs10 265 }
226 This has (perhaps unconsciously for Newton) resulted (1) in the di
vision
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bet
ween matter and energy as two absolutely different forms of "physical"
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exi
stence - assuming that matter needs time, and energy takes no time f
or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pro
pagation - and (2) in the tacit assumption that this energy is perhaps not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so
physical as matter particles, or not at all physical. Moreover, the
reason
the theory behind this assumption was not consciously questioned was
bably that, for mesoscopic observations touching in the smallest the realm

molecules, this assumption had worked. If energy were then known to
be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 int
er-convertible with mass, even the relevance and meaning of the concep
t
mass could have been revised from that time on - a theme we do not enter
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 upo
n here.
226 If we consider two trains in adjacent rails, A being stationary and B accele
rat\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
, A could be the frame of reference to calculate the motion of B. In the first
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 typ
e (concerning stationary or inertial "mass") of frame of reference, everything
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mov
es with respect to it, and Newton's first law (asserting the continuity of bod\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ies
in rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless acted on otherwise) that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 con
cerns also uniform rest is obeyed. In measurement of motion with respect to
second type (accelerating or decelerating objects), the first law is not obeyed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pas
sengers experience a backward or frontward fling in acceleration
or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dec
eleration.{\up006 \fs10 266} As against this, the situation in STR is m
ore interesting and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 com
prehensive: If A is itself moving at the highest possible velocity - here that
light -, then B, which moves with respect to A, can be observed as
moving
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 als
o with respect to A (with respect to the speed of light). This generalization of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mot
ion of bodies in the universe remains so even when A and B are at the speed
light. The view of observation of relativity with respect to the speed of light
has
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7085\absh6317 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bec
ome standard from the time of STR. \par
}
264 For a detailed historical discussion of Newton's qualitative notion of ligh
t, see: Jed
349 B. Buchwald and I. Bernard Cohen, Eds., Isaac Newton's Natural Philosophy (C
am\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8606\absw7222\absh2356 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 bridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2001), 24ff.
This is clear from the fact that he claimed his corporeity theory of light to
be a hypoth\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8606\absw7222\absh2356 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 esis. See Hooke's attacks on Newton and Newton's reply to Hooke, in I. B.Cohe
n, Ed.,
349 Isaac Newton's Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy (Cambridge, Mass.: H
arvard
349 University Press, 1958), especially 118f.
Andrew Whitaker, Einstein, Bohr and the Quantum Dilemma (Cambr
idge:
358 Cambridge University Press, 1996), 76.
\fi6061 {\fs17 267 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 The Michelson-Morley (1887) and later the Kennedy-Thorndike
s{\up006 \fs10 267} have empirically set the velocity of light. By 1900
the scientific
unity was sure that light is of the same velocity even when observed from
spatial directions. At some point it was shown that an absolute spac
e or a
ground-ether was most probably non-existent, or at least unnecessary as a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 medi
um for particle motion. Einstein, as he claims, did not directly know of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Mich
elson-Morley finding of a fixed speed of light as the background condition
measurement of motion. He received his impetus in part from the Maxwell
tions for the motion of electromagnetic waves, which had already included
speed of light as an absolute constant.{\up006 \fs10 268 }
26 On the other hand, one of the first astrophysical supports, with very high ac
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cura
cy, that there could be nothing practically wrong in taking the STR approxi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
on of the velocity of light for something absolute, is that Brecher, "[u]sing
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 X-ra
y sources in binary star systems to minimize effects predicted by the extinc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
theorem (1977), found that Einstein's second postulate [of constancy of the
d of light] was consistent with the data he obtained to one part in 10{\up006 \f
s10 9}. Brech\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 er's
result indicates the high degree of accuracy of special theory of relativity."{
\up006 \fs10 269 }

the "consistency" with data and the accuracy to one part in 10 {\up006 \fs10 9}
do not bring it
t that we have an absolutely clear "theoretical" or experimental justification
the assumption. Here let me make two suggestions: It could again be found
ce-independent upon an even more minute accuracy of one part of less than
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 10 {
\up006 \fs10 9}, if we go for verification by higher and higher degrees of accu
racy; and there
d be other environments like other universes where this could be further dif\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fere
nt due to the much higher density of big bang proper to it, which must have
rmined a higher value of the highest speed possible therein, at the moment
ts big bang. Thus, theoretically speaking, a different highest possible velocity
east in another universe can find STR in need of generalization.
26 General physics students seem to almost assume that Einstein has mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y shown for sure the criterion-status of the velocity of light using the equatio
ns
STR. But all of Einstein's theoretical work was done under the presup
posi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
that the speed of light (by which we observe, measure and represent
all
r propagations in higher order physics) is the medium under the criterion of
{\fs16 267}{\fs16 Milton}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 Rothman,}{\fs16 Discovering}{\fs1
6 the}{\fs16 Natural}{\fs16 Laws:}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Experimental}{\fs16 Ba
sis}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Physics }
49 {\fs16 (New}{\fs16 York:}{\fs16 Dover,}{\fs16 1989),}{\fs16 223ff. }
16 268}{\fs16 John}{\fs16 Gribbin,}{\fs16 Q}{\fs16 Is}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 Q
uantum}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 s.v.}{\fs16 "Michelson-Morley}{\fs16 Experiment". }
16 269}{\fs16 Arthur}{\fs16 I.}{\fs16 Miller,}{\fs16 Albert}{\fs16 Einstei
n's}{\fs16 Special}{\fs16 Theory}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Relativity:}{\fs16 Emerge
nce}{\fs16 (1905)}{\fs16 and }
49 {\fs16 Early}{\fs16 Interpretation}{\fs16 (1905-1911)}{\fs16 (Reading,}{\f
s16 Mass.:}{\fs16 Addison-Wesley}{\fs16 Publishing}{\fs16 Com- }
49 {\fs16 pany,}{\fs16 1981),}{\fs16 283. }
268 \par
}

ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 which the speed of the body at issue (including that of light!) is to be m
easured.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 From
later experiments arose the strong conviction that light can have the high\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 est
measurable speed due to the so-called source-independence of its veloc
ity.
believes only wrongly that the limiting character of the velocity of light was
rimentally shown to be beyond doubt. The status of the limiting character
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ascr
ibed to it is a strong assumption based on the experimentally shown source\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inde
pendence of light and on a certain degree of accuracy of independence of
measurement of its velocity at the time of emission, and not theoretically as a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prio
ri or axiomatic, and hence, in-principle source-independent or other forms
ropagation of higher and higher values of velocity are imaginable.
26 Now to the "invariance" of the speed of light in vacuo. This can
be experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
ally absolutely correct only if absolute vacua are found or created and ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 peri
ments conducted in such an environment show their correctness beyond
t. An absolute vacuum is not to be experimentally found, so as to render
quantity (the velocity) actually invariant. Hence, even the invariance of this
city - an approximation in measurement - is not fully based on its so-called
ce-independence. Even when it were so based, it could not automaticall
y
excluded superluminal and other similarly source-independent media of
unication from existence by merely basing their measurement on the ve\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loci
ty of light. Also, in practice no measurement in physics can be abso
lutely
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fixe
d, due to preconditions set by respective causal history, its environment and
tations of human means of measurement. Of course, ratios (e.g., some physi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
constants) between quantities of measurement can be fixed, but even h
ere
to the non-absoluteness of measured values of anything, we cannot in prin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cipl
e obtain absolute fixity in any physical constant, even if such constants can
ys be posited as objective norms in Nature.

26 The foregoing discussion facilitates reasoning in favour of possible superlu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mina
l source-independent or source-dependent propagations. It will be almost
ingless to take the criterial velocity as an a priori fixed result if we can rel
a\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tivi
se the c of the Lorentz factor so that any velocity inclusive of any real-valued
rluminal velocity is fully in order as additional criterial velocities, whether
ce-independent or not - a desirable state of affairs where the relati
vity of
ds will yield an acceptable spectrum of values of criterial velocities, with no
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7258\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 end
of the values in view at least in an infinite multiverse.
{\b \fs21 12.2.}{\b \fs21 QM-STR}{\b \fs21 Marriage}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21
the}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Paradox }
We come closer to the problem of basing all calculations on the criterial assert
ion
he speed of light. To state the intent clearly at the start:
\fi6061 269 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 STR forgets that even the theoretical calculation and acceptance of
the speed
ight as the highest possible speed presumes the speed of light as the measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
-criterion in the square root Lorentz factor denominator, i.e., (1- v {\up006 \fs
10 2}/c )
.
Lorentz factor yields only that the equations of transformation describing the
tion between two moving bodies are adjusted to measurement based on
speed of light. How can it imply accepting limit character for the speed of ligh
t
rove the same character? Should our inability to adjust the mathematical rela\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
between two moving photons, using one photon's velocity as the criterion, be
reason why the limit velocity of that photon is considered theoretically as the
est? In the Lorentz factor, when v = c brings whole equations involv
ing

Lorentz factor into a standstill (obtaining zero and infinity), something un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reas
onable must be perceived there. Accepting the experimental proof as a priori
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gave
Einstein and others confidence to base STR equations upon invariance of
speed of light in vacuo. We depend upon electromagnetic propagations for
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "see
ing" with eyes and instruments of any accuracy and tend to have only elec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trom
agnetic propagation as the medium of measurement. To conclude there\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 from
that no higher velocity is applicable to the formulae of relativistic motion is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 surp
rising. Superluminal velocities, posited to avoid the contradiction in terms
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in i
nfinite-velocity causal or non-causal instantaneous interactions in EPR, facili\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tate
generalization of STR for all possible cases of experimental "seeing" and thus
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moot
further predictions.
26 The rendezvous between QM and STR began as follows: For QM the begin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ning
of the revolution was with the breaking of the experimental and theoreti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
explanation of the infinity that classical electrodynamics predicted for black
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 body
radiation. For STR the revolution began with the breaking of Galilei
co\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vari
ance in the Maxwell equations, confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
. This experiment showed that, contrary to common sense and the rules
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of G
alilean kinematics, no extra rate of value of velocity, however small, can be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 adde
d to that of light in vacuo by motion of the source or any other object. This
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 put
an upper limit to the maximum conceivable velocity for any causal influence
physical system of propagation. If so, one thought, a less than universal law
ausality had to be compatible with what seemed more fundamental, namely,
velocity of light.{\up006 \fs10 270} The presumed infinity in black body radiati
on could be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 solv
ed by quantization and a limit velocity to propagations. And whatever
be
{\fs16 270}{\fs16 Paolo}{\fs16 Budinich,}{\fs16 "Axioms}{\fs16 and}{\fs1
6 Paradoxes}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Special}{\fs16 Relativity"}{\fs16 (149-17
3),}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Gio- }
49 {\fs16 vanni}{\fs16 Corsi,}{\fs16 Maria}{\fs16 Luisa}{\fs16 Dalla}{\fs16
Chiara}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Gian}{\fs16 Carlo}{\fs16 Ghirardi,}{\fs16 Eds.,}{

\fs16 Bridging}{\fs16 the }
49 {\fs16 Gap:}{\fs16 Philosophy,}{\fs16 Mathematics,}{\fs16 and}{\fs16
Physics:}{\fs16 Lectures}{\fs16 on}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Foundations}{\fs16
of}{\fs16 Science }
49 {\fs16 (Dordrecht:}{\fs16 Kluwer}{\fs16 Academic,}{\fs16 1993),}{\fs16 14
9. }
270 \par
}
1/2 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the EPR entanglement change on particle B, the change was thought not to t
ake
e due to the STR stipulation of a highest velocity.
26 Mixing up the limit velocity solution with the then-prevalent QM lo
gical\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 posi
tivist version of the epistemically deterministic law of causality (discussed in
initial chapters) and the notion of causal explanation (see Chapter 2) was easy
natural, instead of with an ontologically more reasonable Universal Law of
ality. The-then QM version of causality was mostly epistemically determin\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 isti
c, because it was mostly explained probabilistically and without ontolo
gical
itment to the existence of causes. In epistemic determinism, what exists, if
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at a
ll permissible at scientific discussion, is what is epistemically determined, i.
e.,
question of existence is somewhat irrelevant to science due to the mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
instrumentalism imposed by much of the logical positivism of olden days and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prev
alent in many physicists' minds even today. The state of a particle or system
meaning here if it is epistemically determined (known), and in effect it is de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 term
ined probabilistically. Evidently, such causation is probabilistic due t
o the
cal positivistic stance of early physicists, without explaining causation in ter
ms
the predisposing causal existence of real processes being measured and

pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dict
ed except in terms of the probabilistic measurement- and prediction values.
26 Admitting the existence of a system as something specific with some or other
ical state beyond probabilistically perceiving experiment at any given time
ntological commitment. This is absent in the probabilistic interpretations of
n the sense that many physicists admit only the existence of a probabilistic
rpretation of causality and knowledge in terms of measured eigenstates, and
of real physical states behind it, which latter have their own importance as
es independent of the probabilistically measured state. Something physic
al
nd the probabilities obtained from finitely communicated causation means
that there cannot be infinite-velocity causal communication between tw
o
gs, since the latter is no communication but a fantastic miracle within one
the same thing. Particular processes for physical action are really p
resent
e. Hence, an infinite flight of specific data by an infinite-velocity non-physic
al
ening or physical non-happening is unnecessary.
26 If QM causality is substituted by the Law of Causality, the marriage of the S
TR
ion of limit velocity and any possible reason in the non-causal version of the
nglement experiment will disappear. Hence, we move to reflect on the extent
ossibility of deriving superluminal velocities from the foundations of STR.
{\b \fs21 12.3.}{\b \fs21 Superluminality}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Causality}
{\b \fs21 via}{\b \fs21 STR}{\b \fs21 Transformations }
Galileo first formulated the principle of relativity using his Galilean transfor
ma\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s. In the words of Ginzburg, the essence of Galilean transformations is this:
\fi6061 271 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 If a given system is inertial, any other system moving uniformly in
a straight line relative
26 to it is also inertial. The generalization of this conclusion over all mechan
ical phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7047\absh7194 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 ena - the assertion that all mechanical phenomena occur absolutely identicall
y in all
26 inertial systems - is just what the classical, or Galilean, principle of rela
tivity is all about.
26 More precisely, the definition and application of the principle incorporates
the quite
26 definite prerelativistic assumption concerning the connection between the coo
rdinates
26 and time of events in different inertial systems. Thus, if one such system K'
(coordinates
26 x', y', z', and t') is moving relative to a given inertial system K (coordina
tes x, y, z, and
26 time t) with a velocity V along the positive axes x, x' (the direction of whi
ch we assume
26 to coincide), then, as assumed before special relativity, x' = x-Vt, y' = y,
z' = z, and t' =t
26 (the Galilean transformations). The absolute nature of time - its independenc
e of the
26 motion of the reference system (whence the equality t' = t) - was, of course,
assumed to
26 hold in all reference systems in general.{\up006 \fs8 271 }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 Galilean}{\fs17 principle}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 relativity}{\fs
17 is}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 mechanical}{\fs17 phenomena}{\fs17 occ
ur}{\fs17 ab- }
17 solutely}{\fs17 identically}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 inertial}{\fs17
systems}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 move}{\fs17 uniformly}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17
straight}{\fs17 line }
17 relative}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 each}{\fs17 other.}{\fs17 But}{\fs17 Eins
tein's}{\fs17 principle}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 relativity}{\fs17 means}{\fs17
that}{\fs17 physical }
17 laws}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 include}{\fs17 both}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
mechanical}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 electromagnetic}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 same}{\fs17 in }
17 all}{\fs17 frames}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 reference.}{\fs17 It}{\fs17 states}{\
fs17 that}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 physical}{\fs17 laws}{\fs17 "are}{\fs17 form
ed}{\fs17 identically }
17 in}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 systems}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 co-ordinates}{\fs17 moving
}{\fs17 uniformly}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 straight}{\fs17 line."}{\up006
\fs10 272}{\fs17 Whether }

17 there}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 absolutely}{\fs17 straight}{\fs17 line}
{\fs17 motion}{\fs17 even}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 case}{\fs17 of}{\fs1
7 light}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 different }
17 matter,}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 too}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 bent}{\fs1
7 by}{\fs17 gravitation.}{\fs17 But}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 ideal}{\fs17 case}{\f
s17 of}{\fs17 motion}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 vacuo }
17 is}{\fs17 imaginable. }
26 {\fs17 If}{\fs17 ether}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 considered}{\fs17 once}{\fs17 as}
{\fs17 true}{\fs17 background}{\fs17 matter}{\fs17 holding}{\fs17 all}{\fs1
7 motion}{\fs17 that }
17 obeyed}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Galilean}{\fs17 transformations}{\fs17 -}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 motionless}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 inertial}{\fs17 system}{\
fs17 (}{\fs17 K}{\fs17 ), }
17 then}{\fs17 c}{\fs17 =}{\fs17 3}{\b \fs17 }{\fs17 10}{\up006 \fs10 8}{\f
s17 m/s}{\fs17 irrespective}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 direction.}{\fs17
The}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 conclusion}{\fs17 was: }
17 "[I]n}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 inertial}{\fs17 systems}{\fs17 K{\f63 \u900\'3f
}}{\fs17 moving}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 velocity}{\fs17 V}{\fs17 relative}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ether}{\fs17 (along }
17 the}{\fs17 x}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 x{\f63 \u900\'3f}}{\fs17 axes),}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 velocity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 is}{\
fs17 obvious}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Galilean}{\fs17 trans- }
17 formations,}{\fs17 c{\f63 \u900\'3f}}{\fs17 =}{\fs17 c}{\fs17 -}{\fs1
7 V}{\fs17 along}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 x}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 x{\f63 \u900\
'3f}}{\fs17 axes}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 c{\f63 \u900\'3f}}{\fs17 =}{\fs17 c
}{\fs17 +}{\fs17 V}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 opposite }
17 direction,}{\fs17 etc."}{\up006 \fs10 273}{\fs17 This}{\fs17 did}{\fs17 n
ot}{\fs17 hold}{\fs17 experimentally}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 light.}{\fs17 Instea
d,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 velocity }
17 of}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 was}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 same}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 all}
{\fs17 directions}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 but,}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 course,}{\fs17 mea
sured}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs17 to }
17 the}{\fs17 very}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 criterial}{\fs17 velocity}{\fs17 of}{\
fs17 light}{\fs17 signals. }
26 {\fs17 Lorentz,}{\fs17 influenced}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 FitzGerald's}{\fs17
proposal}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 bodies}{\fs17 approaching}{\fs17 the }
17 velocityoflight}{\fs17 experienceforeshortening,formulatedtheLorenztransform
ations }\par
}
271 V. L. Ginzburg, "Supplement" (317-60), V. A. Ugarov. Special Theory of Rela
tivity,
349 Yuri Atanov, Trans. (from the Russian), (Moscow: Mir Publishers, 1979), 319.

D. P. Gribanov, Albert Einstein's Philosophical Views and the Theory
of Relativity,
349 H. Campbell Creighton, Trans. (from the Russian), (Moscow: Progress Publishe
rs,
349 1987), 194.
V. L. Ginzburg, "Supplement", 320.
{\fs17 272 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
}}\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw766\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \
cf0 (1904){\fs10 274 }\par
}
{\phpg\posx1765\pvpg\posy854\absw6284\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by
relating the measuremental space and time coordinates of any two \par
}
systems in motion at uniform and constant velocity relative to each o
ther. A
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7116\absh1817 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Lor
enz transformation is any linear transformation of Euclidean four-space
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7116\absh1817 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pre
serving the quadratic form q (x,y,z,t) = t {\up006 \fs10 2}-x {\up006 \fs10 2}
-y {\up006 \fs10 2}-z and used in STR to relate
space and time variables of different Lorentz frames.{\up006 \fs10 275}
In yet other words,
entz transformations relate space and time measurements of one observer to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7116\absh1817 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tho
se of another moving observer. If the relative motion is measured along the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7116\absh1817 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 x-,
y-, z-, and t-axes and if its magnitude is {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\f Sy
mbol }}, the expressions for attainment of a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7116\absh1817 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pos
ition of motion in the four dimensions, measured with respect to the velocity \p
ar
}
par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3102\absw4838\absh245 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 o
f light transmitted from these objects, are: x{\f63 \u900\'3f} = (1- {\field{\*\
fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\f Symbol }}{\up006 \fs10
2}/c ) \par
}
-1/2 \par
}
{\f63 \u900\'3f} = (1- {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\f Symbol }} {\up006 \fs10
2}/c ) \par
}

-1/2 \par
}
{\phpg\posx2287\pvpg\posy3352\absw802\absh245 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (t
- {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\f Symbol }} x/c ). \par
}
276 \par
}
{\phpg\posx5813\pvpg\posy3102\absw1556\absh245 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (
x-{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\f Symbol }}t), y{\f63 \u900\'3f} = y, z{\f63 \
u900\'3f} = z, \par
}
7 \cf0 Invariance of the speed of light, in the backdrop of the invariance of el
ectro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mag
netic field equations and their combined application in GTR, shows, addi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tio
nally, only that observation and calculation (by mesoscopic and macroscopic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 app
aratuses) of relative motion of objects is now possible. It is possible by invol
v\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
the speed of light as the criterial velocity of observation merely because the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ver
y measurement of motions and distances in these equations is based only on
velocity of light, which is justified by the a posteriori choice to experimen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tal
ly settle the by-then-accepted source-independence of the velocity of l
ight.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Thu
s, the transformations given by Einstein, using Lorentz transformations, tell
only that this is possible without a priori justification. But this, I think, is
not
owable when superluminal velocities are welcome in place of c in the Lorentz
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fac
tor. To the above equations were later added by Einstein the description of in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cre
ase of mass, shortening of length and dilating of time at approach of the body
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clo
se to the velocity of light.{\up006 \fs10 277} Here arises in STR the concept of
zero rest mass,
the attendant mathematically justified zero length, breadth and depth of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy3604\absw7158\absh4331 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lig
ht particle with respect to criterial velocity.
226 A simple definition of zero rest mass is here:
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 mass}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 body}{\fs15 or}{\f
s15 particle}{\fs15 measured}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 an}{\fs15 observer}{\fs15 wh
o}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 moving}{\fs15 relative}{\fs15 to }
226 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 body}{\fs15 (particle).}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 measured}{\f
s15 mass}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 significantly}{\fs15 different}{\fs15 from}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 rest}{\fs15 mass}{\fs15 only }\par
}
274 For a simplified exposition of the Lorenz transformations and the principle
s of STR,
349 see Andreas Trupp, Something New about Time: An Extension of the Special Rel
ativity
349 Theory Entailing Drastic Consequences for the Nature of Time (Mnster: Waxmann
,
349 1990), 8f.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, 2003. URL: http://
en\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy8826\absw7273\absh2158 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 cyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Lorenz+contraction (Accessed on 13 June 20
11).
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia, s.v. "Relativity".
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropaedia, s.v. "Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon".
\fi6061 {\fs17 273 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 for objects moving at a sizeable fraction of the speed of light rel
ative to the observer.
26 Particles which travel at the speed of light, including photons, have zero re
st mass, even
26 though they are never at rest.{\up006 \fs8 278 }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 name}{\fs17 'rest}{\fs17 mass'}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 technical
.}{\fs17 It}{\fs17 "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 is}{\f
s17 used}{\fs17 because}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 mass}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 just}{\fs1
7 m}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 Lor- }
17 enz}{\fs17 frame}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 particle}{\fs1
7 is}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 rest."}{\up006 \fs10 279}{\fs17 That}{\fs17 is,}{\fs1
7 if}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 were}{\fs17 brought }
17 to}{\fs17 artificial}{\fs17 rest,}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 need}{\f
s17 to}{\fs17 possess}{\fs17 zero}{\fs17 mass}{\fs17 .}{\fs17 Now}{\fs17 w
e}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 differentiate}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 to }
17 what}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concept}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 zero}{\fs17 rest}{\fs17
mass}{\fs17 shall}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 shall}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 mean: }
\fi226 [P]eople sometimes wonder whether it makes sense to talk about the "rest
mass" of a
26 particle that can never be at rest. The answer {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188
\\f Symbol }} is that "rest mass" is really a misno\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7212\absh7098 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 mer, and it is not necessary for a particle to be at rest for the concept of
mass to make
26 sense. Technically, it is the invariant length of the particle's four-momentu
m. {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} For all
26 photons this is zero. On the other hand, the "relativistic mass" of photons i
s frequency
26 dependent. UV photons are more energetic than visible photons, and so are mor
e "mas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7212\absh7098 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 sive" in this sense, a statement which obscures more than it elucidates.{\up0
06 \fs8 280 }
{\fs17 Further, }
\fi226 In one sense, any definition is just a matter of convention. In practice,
though, physicists
26 now use this definition because it is much more convenient. The "relativistic
mass" of
26 an object is really just the same as its energy, and there isn't any reason t
o have another
26 word for energy: "energy" is a perfectly good word. The mass of an object, th
ough, is a
26 fundamental and invariant property, and one for which we do need a word.{\up0
06 \fs8 281 }
{\fs17 Now}{\fs17 follows}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 crux}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 my}{\fs17
argument}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 chapter}{\fs17 :}{\fs17 Any}{\fs17
measuremental}{\fs17 result }
17 like}{\fs17 mass,}{\fs17 velocity,}{\fs17 momentum}{\fs17 etc.}{\fs17
using}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 concepts}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 rest}{\fs17 mass}
{\fs17 and}{\fs17 crite- }
17 rial}{\fs17 velocity}{\fs17 together}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 equivalent}{\fs
17 to}{\fs17 saying}{\fs17 (1)}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 keeping}
{\fs17 the}{\fs17 criterion }
17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 velocity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 c
}{\fs17 (a}{\fs17 constant)}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 denominator,}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 mass,}{\fs17 velocity, }
17 momentum}{\fs17 etc.}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 (being}{\
fs17 measured}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 find}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 mass)}{\fs17 in}{\fs
17 the}{\fs17 nomina- }
17 tor}{\fs17 would}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 were}{\
fs17 infinity}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 zero}{\fs17 depending}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 result}{\fs17 expected}{\fs17 and }
17 the}{\fs17 values}{\fs17 going}{\fs17 in,}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
denominator}{\fs17 disallows}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 superluminal}{\fs17 velocit
y, }
17 and}{\fs17 (2)}{\fs17 that,}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 result,}{\fs17 ap
proach}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 velocity}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 light,}{\fs17
or}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 any}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 veloc- }
17 ity}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 matter,}{\fs17 functioning}{\fs17 in}{
\fs17 place}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 c}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 partic
le}{\fs17 recording}{\fs17 v}{\fs17 velocity, }
17 will}{\fs17 naturally}{\fs17 end}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 obtaining}{\fs17 zeros
}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 infinities}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 values}{\fs17 of
}{\fs17 v}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 higher }
17 velocities}{\fs17 were}{\fs17 anathema}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 physics}{\fs17
measures}{\fs17 everything}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 respect}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 th
e }\par
}
278 John Gribbin, Q Is for Quantum, s.v. "Rest Mass".
Dwight E. Gray, Coordinating Ed., American Institute of Physics Handbook, Thir
d
349 Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), special pagination 8-280.
URL: http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/rmext04/92andwed/pf_quant.html#Top (Accessed
339 on 24 May 2011).
URL: http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/rmext04/92andwed/pf_quant.html#Top.
{\fs17 274 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 velocity of light. That is, the so-called criterial use of c makes it poss
ible for v to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be e
qual to c, even if c is substituted by a lower velocity, and record all sorts of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 zero
s and infinities - an undesirable state of affairs that tends to arouse concepts
zero rest mass.
26 We are yet to come to grips with the above statements that show that some\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g is clearly wrong with this arithmetic that went in to the Lorenz factor. The
tions of rest mass, velocity, momentum etc. need not be studied separately \par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 we n
eed only general statements to achieve our purpose. I attempt now a detailed
ription of the afore-said difficulties in some of the basic formulae of STR,

e the basic concept of the Lorentz factor is a priori defective when it brings
t zeros and infinities by assuming c as measurement rod on the Lorentz fac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tor.
This will help us conclude to a possible continuous spectrum of velocities at
t in case there are infinite worlds with so many criterial velocities. We begin
aking for granted (by comparison of the velocity of the object by optical sign\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-316 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alin
g velocity c) that the velocity of the wave moving along direction OM {\dn006 \f
s10 1} rela\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-183 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
to the apparatus is c - v. In classical non-relativistic physics, when an objec
t
s in the direction of the wave, the velocity of the wave could be measured
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as c
- v, already presupposed by the STR assumption is that the velocity of light
he highest possible.
26 Einstein's STR tried to solve the Galilean confusion regarding measurement
otions and velocities, by showing that the Galilean transformations are only
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a me
so-world approximation of what we call today as Lorentz transformations.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 He p
ublished it soon after Lorentz did his.
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 precise}{\fs15 equations}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 link}{\
fs15 coordinates}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 time}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 frames
}{\fs15 K{\f63 \u900\'3f}}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 K}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 form}{\fs15 x{\f63 \u900\'3f}}{\fs15 =}{\fs15 (}{\fs15 x}{\fs15 -}
{\fs15 Vt}{\fs15 )}{\fs15 /}{\fs15
(1}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 V }{\up006 \fs8 2
}{\fs15 /}{\up006 \fs8
2c}{\fs15 }{\fs15 ),}{\fs15 y{\f63 \u900\'3f}}{\f
s15 =}{\fs15 y}{\fs15 ,}{\fs15 z{\f63 \u900\'3f}}{\fs15 =}{\fs15 z}{\fs15 ,
}{\fs15 t{\f63 \u900\'3f}}{\fs15 =}{\fs15 (}{\fs15 t}{\fs15 -}{\fs15 (}{\fs1
5 V/c }{\up006 \fs8 2}{\fs15 )}{\fs15 x}{\fs15 )}{\fs15 /}{\fs15
(1}{\fs1
5 -}{\fs15 V}{\fs15 /}{\fs15 c}{\fs15 )}{\fs15 (Lor- }
26 {\fs15 entz}{\fs15 transformations).}{\fs15 If}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 relative
}{\fs15 velocity}{\fs15 V}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 inertial}{\fs15 systems}{\fs15
is}{\fs15 small}{\fs15 compared}{\fs15 to }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 speed}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 light}{\fs15 c}{\fs15 ,}{\fs15
the}{\fs15 Lorentz}{\fs15 transformations}{\fs15 become}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 G
alilean}{\fs15 transformations; }
26 {\fs15 hence}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 degree}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 accuracy}{\fs15 g
iven}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 parameter}{\fs15 V }{\up006 \fs8 2}{\fs15
/c}{\fs15 . }
But Einstein too did not realize (1) the anthropic bias in our way
of seeing or
uring motions using electromagnetic quanta taken as the criterion, (2) the

of apriority in limiting possible velocities in the universe to the experimen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tall
y averaged velocity of light by using it in the denominator in the
Lorentz
or, and (3) especially the production of mathematical paradoxes, like
the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7120\absh8189 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 zero
s and infinities, from arithmetically basing measurements of all motion
s
signals on the speed of light signals. His only justification was th
at of the
rimentally justified source-independence of the velocity of light. Even that \pa
r
}
{\phpg\posx6461\pvpg\posy6949\absw55\absh121 \f50 \fs8 \cf0 \f50 \fs8 \cf0 2 \pa
r
}
{\phpg\posx6630\pvpg\posy6949\absw55\absh121 \f50 \fs8 \cf0 \f50 \fs8 \cf0 2 \pa
r
}
282 \par
}
282 V. L. Ginzburg, "Supplement", 320-21. \par
}
75 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 need not have empowered him to monopolize the measurement of vel
ocities,
smissions and signals by quantal velocities. He could at the most have said
light signals are but one criterion of measurement of motions or signals or
cities.
26 Einstein accepted the Lorentz transformations into STR and then improved
using his relativistic presuppositions. His equations predicted results
mentally true for the meso- and micro- worlds. From this viewpoint, t
he
d of light is invariant. He has not done it with respect to all possible near\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 infi
nitesimally smaller and smaller layers of all possible higher and higher crite\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rial
velocities. This implies thereby that the constancy of the speed of light need
be limited to that produced by causal grounds from the maximum density
strength of big bang attained at the centre of our big bang island universe.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 I w
ould muster courage to state so because Einstein has witnessed the in
itial
esses of his STR and GTR being applied beyond his own static model
of
universe, to the more dynamic theories of the origin and evolution o
f the
erse, e.g., the big bang- and dynamic steady state theories. In some of these
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 broa
der worlds the possibility of superluminal or subluminal criterial velocities
d have been admitted by him at least as aposteriorily possible.
26 Classical mechanics allowed observer-independence to objects, because
it
ed in the mesoscopic world that includes the atomic (not subatomic) and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 less
subtle worlds like molecules and other grosser objects. But now we find that,
inthemicro-world,velocitiesequaltothatoflightareobserver-independent.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 By r
eason of the absence of any special reference to a particular criterial velocity
scenario of many possible superluminal velocities, observer-independence
ot be because of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction or absence of simulta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 neit
y of events or absence of simultaneity of observation of events with respect to
t quanta - all based on the luminal velocity -, but due to real-world non-zero
raction of the wavicle in transit at near-luminal, luminal or superlum
inal
cities. This is the theoretical possibility we moot in our discussions, on the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 comb
ined strength of our argument in the previous chapters that causal super\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7242\absh8706 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lumi
nal velocities are a need by reason of the EPR entanglement experiments, in
r to avoid the infinite number of miraculous appearances of effects in every
of entangled particle pairs due to the possible causal effect of a measurement
t upon the other.
26 Lorentz sought to bridge electrodynamic and mechanical incompatibiliti
es
een the Galilean transformations and the principle of relativity,

\fi226 {\fs15 without}{\fs15 rejecting}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 Galilean}{\fs15 tra
nsformations}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 assuming}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 bodies
}{\fs15 moving}{\fs15 with }
\fi226 {\fs15 respect}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 ether}{\fs15 contract.}{\f
s15 If}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 ruler}{\fs15 whose}{\fs15 length}{\fs15 at}{\fs15
rest}{\fs15 relative}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 ether}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 l}
{\dn006 \fs8 0}{\fs15 is }\par
}
\cf0 of length l{\dn006 \fs8 0 }
{\fs17 276 }\par
}
(1 - (V/c{\up006 \fs8
2) }) when moving at velocity V, then we can explain
why some \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 experiments do not reveal the motion of bodies relative to the ethe
r, and their results
26 do not depend on the velocity of the Earth's motion with respect to the Sun.
However,
26 the contraction hypothesis is not adequate for all experiments; new facts kep
t coming
26 to light which agreed with the relativity principle and required additional h
ypotheses
26 to explain them. This was {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} an into
lerable situation, and Lorentz had to show that
26 for a body in uniform rectilinear motion (relative to the ether) the equation
s of electro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy862\absw7167\absh8207 \sl-220 \f50 \fs15 \cf0 \fi2
26 dynamics allow for solutions which in a certain way correspond to the solutio
ns for an
26 identical body at rest. Correspondence is achieved by going over to new varia
bles, x{\f63 \u900\'3f},
26 y{\f63 \u900\'3f}, z{\f63 \u900\'3f}, and t{\f63 \u900\'3f}, with the help of
the Lorentz transformations, as well as the introduction of
26 new (primed) electromagnetic field vectors. The field equations do not change
as a result
26 of these transformations, and they have the same form for the old (unprimed)
and new
26 (primed) quantities. This property is known as invariance, in the present cas
e invariance

26 of the electromagnetic field equations with respect to the Lorentz transforma
tions.{\up006 \fs8 283 }
{\fs17 What}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 exact}{\fs17 nature}{\fs17 of}{\fs1
7 the}{\fs17 invariance}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 speed}{\fs17 of}{\fs17
light}{\fs17 under}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Max- }
17 well}{\fs17 equations}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 vacuo}{\fs17 ?}{\fs17 The}{\fs17
Maxwell}{\fs17 equations}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 invariant}{\fs17 under}{\fs17 th
e}{\fs17 Lorentz }
17 transformations.}{\fs17 The}{\fs17 parameter}{\fs17 c}{\fs17 is}{\fs1
7 invariant}{\fs17 under}{\fs17 Lorentz}{\fs17 transformations. }
17 Since}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 electromagnetic}{\fs17 wav
e,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 constant}{\fs17 velocity}{\fs17 c}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17 take
n}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 criterion, }
17 is}{\fs17 identified}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 speed}{\fs17 of}{\fs1
7 light}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 vacuo}{\fs17 .}{\fs17 Moreover,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
physical}{\fs17 meaning}{\fs17 of }
17 the}{\fs17 Maxwell}{\fs17 equations}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17
experienced}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 describe}{\fs17 elec
tromagnetic }
17 phenomena.}{\fs17 Now,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 moment}{\fs17 we}{\fs17 ac
cept}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 principle}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 Maxwell}
{\fs17 equa- }
17 tions}{\fs17 describe}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 propagation}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 wav
icles}{\fs17 like}{\fs17 light,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 speed}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 l
ight}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 invari- }
17 ant}{\fs17 under}{\fs17 Lorentz}{\fs17 transformations.}{\fs17 Hence,}{\f
s17 the}{\fs17 speed}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 vacuo}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 same }
17 in}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 reference}{\fs17 frames,}{\fs17 insofar}{\fs17 as}{
\fs17 the}{\fs17 Lorentz}{\fs17 transformations}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 taken}{\f
s17 to}{\fs17 give}{\fs17 a }
17 true}{\fs17 description}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 frames}{\fs17 of}{\
fs17 reference}{\fs17 . }
26 {\fs17 Lorenz}{\fs17 transformations}{\fs17 presuppose}{\fs17 measuring
}{\fs17 motion}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 electromagnetic }
17 signals.}{\fs17 They}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 way}{\fs17 of}{\fs1
7 systematically}{\fs17 subtracting}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 adding}{\fs17 the
}{\fs17 effect}{\fs17 of }
17 distance}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 observer's}{\fs17 frame}{\fs17 from
}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 observed:}{\fs17 Whenever}{\fs17
two}{\fs17 ob- }
17 servers}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 associated}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 two}{\fs17
distinct}{\fs17 inertial}{\fs17 frames}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 reference}{\fs17
in}{\fs17 relative }

17 motion}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 each}{\fs17 other,}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 determina
tions}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 intervals}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 d
istances}{\fs17 be- }
17 tween}{\fs17 events}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 disagree}{\fs17 systematically,}{\
fs17 without}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 being}{\fs17 'right'}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}
{\fs17 other }
17 'wrong'.}{\fs17 It}{\fs17 cannot}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 established}{\fs17 tha
t}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 them}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 rest}{\fs17
relative}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 ether }
17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 motion.}{\fs17 In}{\fs17 f
act,}{\fs17 if}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 compare}{\fs17 their}{\fs17 respective}{\
fs17 measuring}{\fs17 rods }
17 (in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 direction}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 motions),}{\fs17 each}{
\fs17 will}{\fs17 find}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 other's}{\fs17 rod}{\fs17 foresho
rtened.}{\fs17 The }
17 speed}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 will}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 found}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 equal}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 same}{\fs17 value,}{\fs17 c}{\fs17 =}{\f
s17 300,000}{\fs17 km}{\fs17 per}{\fs17 second, }
17 relative}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 every}{\fs17 inertial}{\fs17 frame}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 reference,}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 all}{\fs17 directions. }
\fi226 {\fs17 The}{\fs17
velocity}{\fs17
of}{\fs17
the}{\fs17
wave}{
\fs17
motion}{\fs17
along}{\fs17
direction}{\fs17
M }{\dn006 \fs10
1}{\up006 \fs10 }{\fs17 O }{\up006 \fs10 }{\fs17
relative}{\fs17
to}{\fs17
the }
17 apparatus}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 c}{\fs17 +}{\fs17 v}{\fs17 ,}{\fs17 and}{\f
s17 OM}{\dn006 \fs10 1}{\fs17 =}{\fs17 OM }{\dn006 \fs10 2}{\fs17 .}{\fs17
So,}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 time}{\fs17 t }{\dn006 \fs10 1}{\fs17 required}{\fs
17 to}{\fs17 travel}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 path }\par
}
283 V. L. Ginzburg, "Supplement", 322. \par
}
77 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 OM{\up006 \fs10
} + M{\up006 \fs10
}O {\up006 \fs10 } is: t = (L / [
c - v]) + (L / [c + v]) = 2Lc / (c - v ). That is, t = (2L / c) \par
}
{\phpg\posx5360\pvpg\posy869\absw73\absh142 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 2 \p
ar
}
{\phpg\posx5666\pvpg\posy869\absw73\absh142 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 2 \p
ar
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1102\absw6742\absh470 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (
1 / [1 - v {\up006 \fs10 2}/c {\up006 \fs10 2}]). The reflected wave from O
travels along the hypotenuse OM
he right angled triangle OM OM{\up006 \fs10
}. Then M M{\up006 \fs10
} = v
t {\up006 \fs10 }, and OM
= ct . So, c t \par
}
{\phpg\posx7267\pvpg\posy1120\absw102\absh261 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 \fi55 \f50 \fs10 \
cf0
\par}{\phpg\posx7267\pvpg\posy1120\absw102\absh261 \sl-133 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 2 \pa
r
}
{\phpg\posx6652\pvpg\posy1369\absw46\absh142 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 \pa
r
}
2 \par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
2 \par
}
= v t
+ L {\up006 \fs10 2}, i.e., t = L / {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 214 \\f
Symbol }}(c - v ). Hence, the time taken by the reflected wave to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tra
vel the distance OM{\up006 \fs10
} + M{\up006 \fs10
}O {\up006 \fs10 } is
yielded by t = 2t = 2L / {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 214 \\f Symbol }}(c - v
) = [2L (1 /
ield{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 214 \\f Symbol }}(c {\up006 \fs10 2} - v {\up006 \fs10
2}))] / c. The difference in time, which would be zero for a stationary ob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ser
ver, now becomes {\f63 \u8710\'3f}t = t = 2L [(1 / (1 - v {\up006 \fs10 2}/c {
\up006 \fs10 2}) - (1 / {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 214 \\f Symbol }}(1 - v{\up00
6 \fs10 2}/c ))]. {\up006 \fs10 284} Notice that
division of v {\up006 \fs10 2} by c {\up006 \fs10 2} indicates that c is take

n as the criterion for measuring the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rel
ative proportion of v to any criterial velocity whatever. This criterion enters
all
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 oth
er formulae that have to do with relative velocities - like mass, momentum,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 etc
. But the causal horizonal approach is wanting here, with which we s
hould
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hav
e been empowered to ask after the causes of QM wavicle formation and the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pos
sible causes of a variety of them.
226 The relativistic transformations are a way of inter-converting the
measure\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 men
ts of extension and motion, namely, space and time, of different events by
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dif
ferent observers moving in uniform relative motion,{\up006 \fs10 285} all measur
ed with re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spe
ct to the velocity of light. Invariance of the field equations in the light of t
he
enz transformations, along with the posited invariance of the speed of light,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hel
ped in achieving among scientists quick concurrence with Einstein's STR
.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Thi
s was despite the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) sho
w\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
the constancy of the speed of light - later further perfected by others - was
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ini
tially only in view of showing the reality / unreality of ether. Einstein's 'spe
cial
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pri
nciple of relativity' regarding inertial motion thus became a study of the fact
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tha
t "the laws of nature are invariant (take the same form) in all inertial referen
ce
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fra
mes,"{\up006 \fs10 286} based on the principles of invariance of the speed of li
ght for all frames
reference and of the impossibility of obtaining simultaneity experiment
ally
h respect to varying frames of reference. (Notice here that laws of nature are
the same as ontological / categorial laws of nature.)
226 The source-independence and invariance of the speed of electromagnet
ic
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 qua
nta with respect to the micro-world are results of Einstein's arithmet
ic
rest mass and foreshortening, which, in turn, are the results of mea
suring
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1602\absw7326\absh8661 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (or
considering) the speed of objects with respect to the criterial speed as appear
s
{\fs16 284}{\fs16 S.}{\fs16 P.}{\fs16 Singh}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 M.}{\fs16
K.}{\fs16 Bagde,}{\fs16 Elements}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Special}{\fs16 Relativity
}{\fs16 (New}{\fs16 Delhi:}{\fs16 S.}{\fs16 Chand}{\fs16 & }
349 {\fs16 Co.,}{\fs16 1988),}{\fs16 10-11. }
s16 285}{\fs16 URL:}{\fs16 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lorenz+transform
ations}{\fs16 (Accessed}{\fs16 on}{\fs16 22 }
349 {\fs16 May}{\fs16 2011). }
s16 286}{\fs16 Routledge}{\fs16 Encyclopaedia}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Philosophy}{
\fs16 ,}{\fs16 s.v.}{\fs16 "Relativity}{\fs16 Theory,}{\fs16 Philosophical}{
\fs16 Signifi- }
349 {\fs16 cance}{\fs16 of,"}{\fs16 by}{\fs16 Michael}{\fs16 Redhead. }
278 \par
}
2 \par
}
r
}
par
}
par
}
r
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 in 1 / {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 214 \\f Symbol }}(1 - v {\up006 \fs10 2}
/c {\up006 \fs10 2}). When v approaches c, it is replaceable by c, and the valu
e in
denominator tends to zero, since c is already taken as the limit and the
e expression tends to infinity. The denominator of the second term inside
Lorentz factor enters equations of measurement of relative velocity, momen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tum,
mass, etc., and plays the mischief. There is thus overall inconsistency in the
retical results as a result of using this factor, because we measure even pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e superluminal velocities with respect to luminal velocity, merely because we
not measured anything beyond it so far. Perhaps the big bang universe in
nfinite universe is just like a globular cluster in the big bang universe, which
mean that the velocity of light as c is only for a corner in the infinite unive
rse,
not theoretically forever and for all cases.
26 If there are real superluminal velocities in this universe as per our causal
in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 terp
retation of the entanglement experiment, we are now entitled to substitute c
superluminal velocities in the Lorentz factor so to make STR complete in a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 broa
der sense. One does not then have to deduce, with respect to electromagnetic
city, that the mass of the particle with velocity v tends to infinity if v merel
y
mes c. If the physical-ontologically causal approach is taken with respect to
probably existent superluminal propagations, we are entitled to ask why the
city of light has to be the criterion for accounting for the velocity of light,
and
a superluminal velocity cannot theoretically speaking let c remain a m
assed
icle in all relativistic circumstances. A massed particle will naturally be caus
al.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 A th
eoretically massless particle need not be causal since it is not physical. Here
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ente

rs into the picture the need for a dynamically causal and ontologically com\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mitt
ing explanation beyond the kinematic description in microphysics, in order
ircumvent the pragmatism and instrumentalism of basing everything on the
city of light. This can yield a wide spectrum of causal horizonal possibilities
rding why source-independence need not be an absolute truth merely about
tromagnetic velocity.
26 Lorenz factor's basing all measurements of velocities on that of li
ght quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tons
is like quoting God's words to prove the existence of God, because one uses
ewith light's velocity in the denominator to show that, by approaching its ve\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loci
ty, smaller velocities will tend to the speed of light and incur a zero or infin
ity
rding as what we seek to calculate. One forgets to bring in causalit
y in all
tal processes and ask: 'Wherefrom is this word of God if there is no God?'
cannot calculate the properties of objects with respect to light to say that
e they are measured with respect to light and found to naturally pro
duce
nity or zero when v approaches c, the light quantum is theoretically source\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7277\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inde
pendent or has the highest limit velocity with respect to itself. If
c is the
t, it is the inertial referential velocity. But is it the limit velocity at all?
This
\fi6061 279 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 may be determined only from outside, like from our causal interpretation o
f the
nglement experiment and the need to posit superluminal velocities. That is,
notion of source-independence is not theoretically sound enough for ph
ysics.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7310\absh7934 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 On
a self-justifying theory is the descriptive justification of source-inde
pendence
ndent.
26 To measure superluminal velocities that are not fettered by the speed of ligh
t,
r source-independent inertial superluminal propagations must be used as
rence velocities. Proving source-independence of light quanta (or superl
u\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7310\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mina
l quanta) by using their own velocity as measuring rod has precipitated the
ptance of the velocity of light in vacuo as fundamental.
\fi226 {\fs15 To}{\fs15 transmit}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 signal}{\fs15 means}{\fs15
to}{\fs15 transmit}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 momentum}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 energy}{\fs1
5 (taken}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 insepara- }
26 {\fs15 ble}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 relativit
y}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }})}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 are
}{\fs15 capable}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 "switching}{\fs15 on"}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 cer
tain}{\fs15 device, }
26 {\fs15 e.g.}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 trigger}{\fs15 mechanism{\field{\*\fldinst SYM
BOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.}{\fs15 Although}{\fs15 there}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 no}{\fs
15 privileged}{\fs15 frame}{\fs15 among}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 inertial }
26 {\fs15 frames,}{\fs15 there}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 privileged}{\fs15
velocity}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 them.}{\fs15 Both}{\fs15
these}{\fs15 circumstances}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 in- }
26 {\fs15 trinsically}{\fs15 associated}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 fact}{
\fs15 that}{\fs15 electromagnetic}{\fs15 waves}{\fs15 can}{\fs15 propagate}
{\fs15 in}{\fs15 vacuo}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} }
26 {\fs15 [N]o}{\fs15 material}{\fs15 medium}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 needed}{\fs15
for}{\fs15 their}{\fs15 propagation.}{\up006 \fs8 287 }
It is perfect that there is no privileged frame of reference, but it
goes counter
he same sanity if one forgets that finite-velocity electromagnetic quanta are
selves in STR a privileged frame of reference.
26 If finite positively-valued superluminal velocities are necessary for EPR cau
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7310\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
sm, and given adequate apparatuses, they too can perhaps be shown to
be
pendent of material source and medium, or the velocities of electromagnetic
superluminal propagations can perhaps be proved to be source-dependent
medium-independent, in causally ever more minute realms of influence. If
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7310\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 c wa
s not the limit velocity to all observation media, the source-independence
constancy in vacuo of the speed of light can surely be taken at le
ast as a
-world approximation, if not as one with respect to this big bang wo
rld
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7310\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or i
ts current sub-phase of explosion and expansion. By reason of our probable
causal conclusion of superluminal velocities, it is perhaps justified to bring
he dynamical-explanatory question of what causes the source-independence
elocity.
26 This seems impossible within the current STR to inquire, with its definitions
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7310\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fixe
d on electromagnetic speed and acausal spacetime description. If placing su\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7310\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perl
uminal velocities in place of c in relativistic equations will do the
trick of
ng luminal velocities even in the nominator within the Lorenz factor into \par
}
287 V. A. Ugarov, Special Theory of Relativity, trans. (from the Russian) by Yu
ri Atanov
349 (Moscow: Mir Publishers, 1979), 36-37.
{\fs17 280 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 less than of the value in the denominator, then we need not take the princ
iple of
tivity as having necessary connection with the alleged constancy, source-in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 depe
ndence and criterial nature of the speed of light. If we introduce a spectrum
alues for the denominator in the second term of the Lorentz factor, causal
anations will be natural at least for why each of these velocities i
s or is not
ce-independent. This can make physical ontology causal, and not dependent
the acausal spacetime descriptive stance. Thus, causal explanation may
be
n up seriously in future physical ontology.
26 That the microscopic world of experiments we are dealing with is now packed
electromagnetically criterioned experiments does not in principle warrant
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 non-
acceptance of superluminal source-independent radiations. All superlumi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nal
ones are inter-convertible with mass, and so need never be anything other
matter particles with non-zero mass, called energy particles. Similar is the
with relativistic mass-{\up006 \fs10 288} and velocity-related place- an
d time concepts in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 STR;
and particles with such mass, velocity, momentum etc. are no non-material
gy particles. Insofar as the status of criterial velocity of light is
not to be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 obey
ed, measuring the time and space of velocity, momentum and mass can
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 obey
any higher energy-velocity.
26 Defining the electromagnetic measuring rod as the omnipotent criterio
n is
cosmologically absurd. To make STR and GTR universal in the application
he laws of physics, the criterion-velocity must be generalized for superlumi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nal
cases with respect to all possible grades of near-infinitesimality of
matter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ener
gy and all possible expanses and big bang densities of universes other than
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ours
. The extent of velocities of superluminal transmissions may then be deter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mine
d by the mass, volume, velocity, angular momentum, etc., of the respective
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 big
bang fireball of each island universe or of the black hole explosions in centres
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of b
ig bang universes. Density, maximum explosion strength etc. at the starting
ts of the explosions would determine the highest possible velocity in
any
hem. This suggestion for consideration in cosmology is not an argument or
nse of superluminal velocities, but one based on their possibility.
26 It is now easier to see that, while dealing with concretist / particularist p
hysi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
categories like mass, energy, velocity, momentum, etc. and their epistemolog\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ical
ly physical and ontological categories of Space and Time, the specific values
such physical categories in each process are determinable only with re
spect
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to u
niversal constants causally determined at the explosions of respective island \p
ar
}
288 Abraham Albert Unger, Analytic Hyperbolic Geometry and Albert Einstein's Sp
ecial
349 Theory of Relativity (New Jersey: World Scientific, 2008), 11.
\fi6061 {\fs17 281 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 universes. Not merely physical constants, but even some specific presuppos
itions
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh6304 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or l
aws of physics in each such universe are thus based for their universality on
concrete maximal values obtained in each specific big bang. Such universal\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh6304 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
need only apply to the respective big bang (island) universe member of the
iverse.{\up006 \fs10 289 }
26 By the end of the 20 {\up006 \fs10 th} century we find advanced entanglement
experiments
lting in acceptance of "non-locality" as normal in QM. But, as already seen,
lity criterioned upon light cones could better be based hereafter on superlu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh6304 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mina
l causal cones by reason of our new minimum criterion (v in the nominator
than a more general C in the denominator in the Lorenz factor, according
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh6304 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as w
hether we measure subluminal or luminal or superluminal propagations) of
icability of STR in EPR. Otherwise there will further be the paradox of non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh6304 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loca
l but instantaneous effects in EPR in another universe even if what is placed
lace of c in that universe is higher than our c. The relevance of the principle
elativity in the multiverse can thus be generalized without basing on the fixed
rmediate value of c in our universe. Superluminal velocities thus take
the
e of c on a higher range of universes.
26 We may now read our conclusion, that in STR the velocity of light is no theor
eti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh6304 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
necessity, in conjunction with our "local-causal" interpretation of the phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh6304 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enon
of superluminal communication in EPR.
{\b \fs21 12.4}{\b \fs21 Consequences}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Local-Causal}{\
b \fs21 STR}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 EPR }
These theoretical conclusions necessitate a principle of existence of ever small

er
es of energy particles to facilitate a future train of QMs that deal with ever
minute but real quantities and distances. Notice here that I do not posit in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7213\absh6304 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fini
tesimality of matter-energy existence, but only ever smaller real micro-physical
es, and what I do here is not physics but physical ontology. With t
he finite, \par
}
289 For an argument based on a trans-big-bang-, trans-oscillating-, and trans-i
nflation
349 multiverse theory mooting the possibility of an infinite number of
real universes
349 each taking origin at a finite past measured from today, and for their being
infinite in
349 total matter-energy content at any given instance of origin, see Raphael Nee
lamkavil,
349 "General Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology: A New Cosmological Argu
ment
349 for Continuous Creation" (61-87), Divyadaan Journal of Philosophy and Educat
ion,
349 {\b 25}/1 (2014). This argument took shape in my mind in 1984, as I was a fi
rst year
349 Bachelor student of philosophy. I have attempted all these years to "disprov
e it" and,
349 as my conviction grew positive, I have attempted to perfect it over the deca
des from
349 various physical and philosophical angles and got it critiqued by some physi
cists.
{\fs17 282 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 ever smaller, levels of the micro-world in sight, we may obtain real causa
l conti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nuit
y of values of velocities and constants in the multiverse - if every such level
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 is b
rought into the purview of a causally committed but statistically active QM.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 An e
nergy value absent in this island universe may be present in another island

erse, specifically in the sub-, subsub-, and other ever smaller micro-levels of
tal existence, and these add up to a Principle of Causal Continuity of Velocity
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Valu
es (and also of other values). This summates over all specific physical values
onstants in universes unto the cosmological ideal of physical Reality-in-total.
yields the principle of Causal Continuity of influences in all possible worlds.
26 Relativity theory does not preclude "tachyons" - a term coined by
the US
icist Gerald Feinberg in 1967 from the Greek tachys, "fast". These have su\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perl
uminal velocities, but have imaginary values with square root of -1, render\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
them unrealistic with respect to any real world due to theoretical dependence
he criterial velocity of c in the Lorentz factor. Tardyons / ittyons (Greek tar\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dys
and Hebrew ittys, "slow") with subluminal velocities would not exceed the
city of light in vacuum and tachyons would never reach or cross below the
city of light.{\up006 \fs10 290} The criterion for all these is the velocity of
light. That stops us
accepting imaginary-valued beings.
26 Galileo dealt with observational limits and developed the transformations of
on. Poincar and Lorentz too had similar intentions. Poincar, in a paper
he dynamics of electrons (1906), developed a theory of relativity based on
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 his
transformations of motion. "The principal difference was that Einstein de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 velo
ped the theory from elementary considerations concerning light signaling,
eas Poincar's treatment was based on the full theory of electromagnetism
was restricted to phenomena associated with the concept of a universal ether
functioned as the means of transmitted light."{\up006 \fs10 291} In both the ca
ses - Galileo,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Lore
nz and Einstein on the one side and Poincar on the other - a presupposed
t of possible velocity existed. Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Einstein finally pointed
the phenomenon of foreshortening and the ensuing idea of zero rest mass of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bodi
es at the velocity of light, through equations that regarded electromagnetic
al as criterial to calculation of foreshortening. The same state of affairs may

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7255\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be o
btained also with any other subluminal or superluminal velocity. That this is
a matter of choice of criterion is embarrassing.
{\fs16 290}{\fs16 Clifford}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 Pickover,}{\fs16 Time:}{\fs1
6 A}{\fs16 Traveller's}{\fs16 Guide}{\fs16 (Oxford:}{\fs16 Oxford}{\fs
16 University}{\fs16 Press, }
49 {\fs16 1998),}{\fs16 150.}{\fs16 It}{\fs16 was}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 I}{\fs16
read}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 first}{\fs16 half}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 1984
}{\fs16 about}{\fs16 E.}{\fs16 C.}{\fs16 G.}{\fs16 Sudarshan's}{\fs16 re}
49 {\fs16 searches}{\fs16 into}{\fs16 tachyons}{\fs16 that}{\fs16 I}{\fs
16 conceived}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 idea}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 real-valued}{\fs1
6 superluminal }
49 {\fs16 velocities. }
16 291}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 New}{\fs16 Encyclopaedia}{\fs16 Britannica:}{\fs16
Micropaedia}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 s.v.}{\fs16 "Poincar,}{\fs16 Henri." }
\fi6061 283 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Similarly, the constant quantum limiting value of Planck is probabl
y an ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prox
imation with respect to the current experimental state of affairs in our group
niverses, if there is an infinite or finite multiverse that contains our present
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 big
bang universe. Hence, we have before us the desirable broader possibility of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 havi
ng all sorts of quantum- and gravitational constants and limiting velo
city
es, at least in the totality of all possible island universes in the
multiverse.
ontological base or totality is 'Reality-in-total' - though it is broader if th
ere
ontinuous creation.
26 Another matter of concern is the experimentally and observationally
based
retical conclusion that the neutron-proton rest mass difference of 1.29
3
810 {\fs10 2}{\fs10
292} involving again the criterial
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-160 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 MeV

is yielded by the formula {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 101 \\f Symbol }}{\dn006 \fs
10 n} = (m - m ) c ,
city of light. If possible superluminal criteria are substituted for c, the whol
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 seri
es of calculations of individual masses of near-infinitesimal masses and the
l masses of island universes will be different, for the measurement of mass
relative to the frames of reference and the criterial velocity involve
d. Then,
neutron-proton difference, the quantities of various physical constants, etc.,
also differ from those with respect to the one criterial velocity of the presen
t
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 STR.
This is possibly a good argument that can go a long way to relativise the
erial status of the velocity of light, and this will win us back to
locality and
ality with respect to superluminal velocities in the EPR.
26 Without prejudice to the massive accomplishments of Einstein in developing
for a static universe, we may critique his work as follows: One forgets that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 STR
calculations are with respect to the measuring rod c. This leads to conclu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
s erroneous with respect to the big bang universe and the finite or infinite
iverse, if one of the relative motions is measured with respect to t
he en\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tang
lement experiment's probable superluminal velocities. This latter possibility
not real at the time of Einstein, but he could have imagined this as possible:
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 he h
ad noticed that if, as a matter of principle, even a subluminal velocity is sub\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stit
utable for c as measuring rod in the Lorenz factor and then the results would
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be d
ifferent in STR and GTR.
26 In other words, the "structure of spacetime" in GTR is merely with
respect
he criterial velocity of light, which assumes automatically that gravitons too
agate only at that speed, resulting in possible discrepancies in GTR and in
cting the velocity of gravitons. If my proposal of possible superlumin
al ve\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loci
ties based on the need for causality is considered a mere assumption, then the \
par
}
{\phpg\posx4127\pvpg\posy3503\absw73\absh141 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 n \
par
}
{\phpg\posx4562\pvpg\posy3503\absw73\absh141 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 \f50 \fs10 \cf0 p \
par
}
292 I. N. Tolstikhin and J. D. Kramers, The Evolution of Matter: From the Big B
ang to the
349 Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 45.
{\fs17 284 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 assumption regarding gravitational velocity as equivalent at the m
ost to electro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 magn
etic velocity is no less an assumption. The proposal that gravitons a
re the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 carr
iers of gravitation was not taken for granted before a century. But today it
ld be taken to be irrational to imagine gravitation without gravitons, for it is
rwise spooky action-at-a-distance.
26 As the highest velocity relative to every inertial reference frame
and in all
ctions is absolutely fixed, the status of Maxwell's ether could thereby be cast
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in d
oubt, as the state of motion of ether cannot be ascertained by any conceiv\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 able
experiment. Consequently, the erroneous notion of an ether as the carrier
lectromagnetic phenomena has been eliminated in contemporary physics.{\up006 \fs
10 293 }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Sinc
e the existence of a reference frame called ether is abandoned, since the ve\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loci
ty of light is found constant in all directions in vacuo, and since
the speed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of d
ischarge of quanta is found source-independent consequent from its crite\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rial
use in the Lorenz factor, Einstein and others measured motion with respect
he merely experimentally somewhat well proved constant velocity. But one
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 forg
ot that this was criterioning a criterion upon itself. This explains the lack of
ersality in STR, GTR, QM, etc.

26 As the speed v of one inertial frame of reference relative to c increases, it
ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pear
s increasingly foreshortened from the measuring rod, and its clocks mo
re
more slowed down, due merely to the preferential adoption of c. As v ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 proa
ches c, both the foreshortening and the dilation of respective clocks increase
finitely. This indefinite increase is only due to the approach of v to c. Had
approached the to-be-presupposed causally local superluminal transmission
city, there would not have been such an indefinite rise of quantities
to an
nite value with respect to electromagnetic propagation. The relative sp
eed
he two frames could not exceed c, since light and other electromagnetic phe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nome
na were to travel at speed c in all directions when viewed from either frame
eference. Hence we say, STR had to foreclose indefinite-but-finite increase in
tive speeds of frames of reference due to the lack of care in STR. Thus, the
owing conclusion about relativistic inertial frames of reference is not entirely
ptable: As an inertial frame of reference can be associated with any material
ct in uniform non-rotational motion, it follows that no material object can
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trav
el at a rate of speed exceeding c{\up006 \fs10
294. }
26 Another propagation that may be luminal or superluminal and source\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7224\absh7895 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inde
pendent or -dependent and could be used for various measurements in \p
ar
}
293 The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia, s.v. "Relativity."
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia, s.v. "Relativity." \par
}
85 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 future is gravitation. We have not been able to trap and isolate them effe
ctively,

measure their velocity, because we do not currently have such experime
n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tal
know-how. This does not inhibit us from the above conclusion and talking
t gravitons. Just as we compare c with itself, the resulting infinite
quanti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
with respect to the photon are the result of using c as the criterion, not of
limiting character of c over all possible superluminal velocities - so also can
itation behave in place of c. Criterioning the velocity of light makes it insur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moun
table in the apparent absence of other source-independent propagations.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 On
this assumption and on the relativity principle based on luminal crite
rial
city is based Einstein's use of the Lorentz transformations and the Lorentz
or. Hence, it is not necessary to believe that mathematical conclusion
s or
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 deri
vations from straightforward physical applications of c are truth-preserving,
any physicists seem to hold, e.g., Andreas Trupp.{\up006 \fs10 295} We have thus
reason to
ralize further from the special STR-GTR of our island universe's case unto
case of physical Reality-in-total.
26 The STR equations make it impossible for the non-local entanglement effect
pproach superluminal velocity, because they are guided by the Lorentz factor
he denominator of equations. But in the new (1- {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\
f Symbol }} {\up006 \fs10 2}/C )
- by substituting a
rluminal velocity C in place of the criterial velocity - the situation is simple
:
particle with velocity v cannot possess infinite mass or zero mass even if it
oaches c (which is here intermediate to v and C), but not so when
it ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 proa
ches C. The concept of source-independence resulting in Einstein's relativ\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
postulate of STR can be dispensed with, if there are ever more superluminal
al velocities that can make a comparison of relative percentages of s
ource\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inde
pendence possible. This can open up a new field of physics based on a large
trum of criterial velocities and gravitation, say, a Criterial Velocity
Range
ry of Relativity.
{\b \fs21 12.5.}{\b \fs21 Luminally}{\b \fs21 and}{\b \fs21 Superluminally}{
\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Velocities }
Let me put the arguments in this chapter in a nutshell: As is wellknown, the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 post
ulates of STR are: (1) sameness of the laws of physics in all inert
ial refer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
frames (the principle of relativity), and (2) sameness of the speed of light
ree space in all reference frames. From these follow deductions like: (1) the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7345\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Lore
ntz-Fitzgerald contraction of length of particles moving at the speed of light,
increase of mass of particles when in luminal and immediately subluminal
{\fs16 295}{\fs16 Andreas}{\fs16 Trupp,}{\fs16 Something}{\fs16 New}{\fs16
about}{\fs16 Time}{\fs16 :}{\fs16 An}{\fs16 Extension}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the
}{\fs16 Special}{\fs16 Relativity }
49 {\fs16 Theory}{\fs16 Entailing}{\fs16 Drastic}{\fs16 Consequences}{\fs16
for}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Nature}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Time}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 51. }
286 \par
}
-1/2 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 motion, and (3) slowing down of "moving clocks as time measurers
" in such
umstances.{\up006 \fs10 296} Note that these deductions from the postulat
es are based on
element {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 103 \\f Symbol }} (the Lorenz factor). T
his is an unwarranted limiting of superlu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mina
l velocities based merely on the velocity of light. This is too limi
ting for
to accept STR and GTR for cosmological purposes, because it compels o
n
the now-insufficiently-rational determination of causality based merely o
n
tromagnetic causal cones or, what is the same, time lines based on luminal
city. We need a spectrum of criterial velocities for ever-broader causal cones

respective time lines.
26 Relativity theory does not preclude "tachyons" (the term coined by
the US
icist Gerald Feinberg in 1967 from the Greek tachys, "fast"). These are sup\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pose
d to have superluminal velocities having imaginary values involving square
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 root
of -1. This renders them unrealistic with respect to any real world due to
criterial velocity of c in the Lorentz factor denominator. Feinberg says that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tard
yons / ittyons (Greek tardys; Hebrew ittys, "slow") with subluminal veloci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
would not exceed the velocity of light in vacuum and tachyons would never
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 reac
h or cross below the velocity of light.{\up006 \fs10 297} Yet, it must be admitt
ed that our cri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 teri
on for all these happens to be the velocity of light that appears in the Lorenz
or denominator. The only reason for dumping the possibility of superluminal
cities might therefore have been the current possibility of direct physical ap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plic
ations based only on the criterial velocity of light.
26 Here comes into picture the need for a dynamic causal explanation
beyond
kinematic approach of description in microphysics. We need the dynamic ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plan
atory approach in micro-physics, if we have to circumvent the pragmatism
instrumentalism of basing everything on the velocity of light and also on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gically commit to causal dynamic processes. This can yield a wide spectrum
causal horizonal possibilities regarding why source-independence need not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be a
n absolute truth merely about the velocity of light. Lorenz factor's basing all
cities on the velocity of light quantons is like quoting God's word to prove
existence of God - we use there the very speed of light in the de
nominator
show that, by approaching its velocity, smaller velocities will tend to the spee
d
ight and will involve infinities and zeros. Why not we ask: 'Wherefrom is the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7324\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 word
of Light if there is no Criterial Luminal Velocity?', by setting up causality i
n
quantal processes via all possible velocities in STR? Why measure (calculate)
{\fs16 296}{\fs16 Milton}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 Rothman,}{\fs16 Discovering}{\fs1

6 the}{\fs16 Natural}{\fs16 Laws:}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Experimental}{\fs16 Ba
sis}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Physics }
49 {\fs16 (New}{\fs16 York:}{\fs16 Dover,}{\fs16 1989),}{\fs16 137. }
16 297}{\fs16 Clifford}{\fs16 A.}{\fs16 Pickover,}{\fs16 Time:}{\fs16
A}{\fs16 Traveller's}{\fs16 Guide}{\fs16 (Oxford:}{\fs16 Oxford}{\fs16
University}{\fs16 Press, }
49 {\fs16 1998),}{\fs16 150. }
\fi6061 287 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the properties of objects with respect to light and say that, since they a
re measured
respect to light and found to naturally produce infinite and zero v
alues
v approaches c, light quanta are theoretically source-independent and have
highest limit velocity with respect to themselves? Why assert that c is the limi
t
call it the inertial referential velocity? That is, the whole question of source
pendence is not theoretically absolutely sound. On a self-justified theory is th
e
riptive justification of source-independence based.
26 As a final statement about the feasibility of an all-embrac
ing physical\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 onto
logical Law of Causality, we say: The existence of the Lorentz factor in STR
not guarantee that velocities have to be infinite for the EPR transmission be\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 yond
the causal limits that the velocity of light sets. The entanglement
, coupled with the velocity of light as the final criterion for measurement of
cities, might show that the EPR superluminal velocities are non-causal. But
fantastically miraculous nature of the scenario implied by this fact, coupled
the theoretical permissibility of real-valued superluminal velocities in STR,
ssitates the existence of finite superluminal velocities as additional criteria
easurement, if we want to keep categorial rationality and grades of categorial

rtance supreme. Hence, the current generation of STR and GTR is only a
ial case of a range of many possible STRs and GTRs that base themselves on
ous possible superluminal velocities.
26 If the so-called non-local communication with respect to criterial luminal ve
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loci
ty is taking place in this universe, and additionally since the speed of light
not be the theoretical upper limit of possible velocities in the multiverse,
an rationally question why the so-called non-local communication should
he "action-at-a-distance" as Einstein has called it, and not causal superlumi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nal
communication that makes the communication local within superluminal
cities. Non-local communication in QM need not be an imaginary tachyon
or a non-causal case. If c is extended to indefinite values in all possible isl
and
erses in a possible multiverse, the deductions from the principles of STR and
will have different meanings - causal at any rate - and will assume luminal
superluminal velocities, of which the latter two would be most relevant for
ally and ontologically committed physics. \par
}
88 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 13. Micro-Physical and Cosmic
i1716 Causal Continuity \par
}
\cf0 13.1. Classical and Reformed Views of Causal Continuity
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 Many}{\b0 \fs17 philosophical}{\b0 \fs17 traditions}{\b0 \fs1
7 till}{\b0 \fs17 Locke}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 differentiated}{\b0 \
fs17 between}{\b0 \fs17 simple }
{\b0 \fs17 ideas}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 primary}{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b
0 \fs17 (absolute,}{\b0 \fs17 objective,}{\b0 \fs17 immutable}{\b0 \fs17
and}{\b0 \fs17 mathematical) }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 simple}{\b0 \fs17 ideas}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
secondary}{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0 \fs17 (relative,}{\b0 \fs17 subject
ive,}{\b0 \fs17 fluctuating}{\b0 \fs17 and }

{\b0 \fs17 sensed).}{\b0 \fs17 Primary}{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0 \fs17 were}{
\b0 \fs17 attributed}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 substance}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \
fs17 its}{\b0 \fs17 intrinsic,}{\b0 \fs17 essential }
{\b0 \fs17 attributes.}{\b0 \fs17 Simple}{\b0 \fs17 ideas}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0
\fs17 primary}{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0 \fs17 were}{\b0 \fs17 effects}{\b0 \
fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 action}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 primary }
{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 senses.}{\b0 \fs
17 Primary}{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0 \fs17 were}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 fa
ct}{\b0 \fs17 directly}{\b0 \fs17 attributable}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 sub}
{\b0 \fs17 stance,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 their}{\b0 \fs17 ideas}{\b0 \fs1
7 were}{\b0 \fs17 via}{\b0 \fs17 direct}{\b0 \fs17 sense}{\b0 \fs17 impress
ions.}{\b0 \fs17 That}{\b0 \fs17 was}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 ideal}{\b0 \f
s17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 objective}{\b0 \fs17 entity}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 experience,}
{\b0 \fs17 based}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 objectivity}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \f
s17 invariance}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 primary }
{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 things.}{\b0\up006 \fs10 298 }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 Soon}{\b0 \fs17 came}{\b0 \fs17 about}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \
fs17 trend,}{\b0 \fs17 inspired}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 mec
hanistic}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 sciences,}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 reducing}{\b0 \fs17 quality}{\b0 \fs17 into}{\b0 \fs17 quantity}{\
b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 means,}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 hist
ory}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 well}{\b0 \fs17
known. }
{\b0 \fs17 Simultaneously}{\b0 \fs17 came}{\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 the}{
\b0 \fs17 trend}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 treating}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \f
s17 epistemological}{\b0 \fs17 sense-to- }
{\b0 \fs17 understanding}{\b0 \fs17 realm}{\b0 \fs17 truncated}{\b0 \fs17
from}{\b0 \fs17 possibly}{\b0 \fs17 existing}{\b0 \fs17 field}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 physical }
{\b0 \fs17 ontology}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 things.}{\b0 \fs17 In}{\b0 \fs17
Chapter}{\b0 \fs17 11}{\b0 \fs17 we}{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 relativised
}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Kantian}{\b0 \fs17 phenomena- }
{\b0 \fs17 noumena}{\b0 \fs17 distinction}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 made}{\b0
\fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 into}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 aspects
}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 one}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 self
same }
{\b0 \fs17 mutually}{\b0 \fs17 continuous}{\b0 \fs17 reality.}{\b0 \fs17 Here
after}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 problems}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 substance,
}{\b0 \fs17 primary}{\b0 \fs17 quali- }
{\b0 \fs17 ties}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 secondary}{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0
\fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 reduction}{\b0 \fs17 of}
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 latter}{\b0 \fs17 two}{\b0 \fs17 into}{\b0 \fs17
substance }
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2409\absw7222\absh7933 \sl-221 \par\par\b \f50 \fs

21 \cf0 {\b0 \fs16 298}{\b0 \fs16 Luo}{\b0 \fs16 Jiachang,}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\
b0 \fs16 Hu}{\b0 \fs16 Xinhe,}{\b0 \fs16 "Relational}{\b0 \fs16 Realism}{\b0
\fs16 on}{\b0 \fs16 Reform}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 View}{\
b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 Physical }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 Reality}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 Its}{\b0 \fs16 Logical}{\
b0 \fs16 Manifestation"}{\b0 \fs16 (359-379),}{\b0 \fs16 in}{\b0 \fs16 Rober
t}{\b0 \fs16 S.}{\b0 \fs16 Cohen,}{\b0 \fs16 Risto}{\b0 \fs16 Hilpinen }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 Qiu}{\b0 \fs16 Renzong,}{\b0 \fs16 Eds.,}{\b
0 \fs16 Realism}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 Anti-realism}{\b0 \fs16 in}{\b0 \f
s16 the}{\b0 \fs16 Philosophy}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 Science,}{\b0 \fs16
Beijing }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 International}{\b0 \fs16 Conference,}{\b0 \fs16 1992}{\b0 \f
s16 ,}{\b0 \fs16 (Dordrecht:}{\b0 \fs16 Kluwer}{\b0 \fs16 Academic}{\b0 \fs16
Publishers,}{\b0 \fs16 1996),}{\b0 \fs16 360. }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 The}{\b0 \fs16 same}{\b0 \fs16 page}{\b0 \fs16 says}{\b0 \f
s16 further:}{\b0 \fs16 "the}{\b0 \fs16 secondary}{\b0 \fs16 qualities}{\b0
\fs16 are}{\b0 \fs16 binary}{\b0 \fs16 (or}{\b0 \fs16 plural)}{\b0 \fs16 fu
nctions, }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 neither}{\b0 \fs16 reducible}{\b0 \fs16 to}{\b0 \fs16 the}{
\b0 \fs16 substantial}{\b0 \fs16 entities,}{\b0 \fs16 i.e.,}{\b0 \fs16 the}{
\b0 \fs16 primary}{\b0 \fs16 qualities}{\b0 \fs16 completely,}{\b0 \fs16 nor
}
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 ascribable}{\b0 \fs16 to}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 state
}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 human}{\b0 \fs16 sense}{\b0 \fs16 in}{\b0 \fs1
6 and}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 themselves,}{\b0 \fs16 namely}{\b0 \fs16
(1)}{\b0 \fs16 y}{\b0 \fs16 =}{\b0 \fs16 f(x1, }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 x2,{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }})}{\b0 \fs16 wh
ere}{\b0 \fs16 y}{\b0 \fs16 are}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 secondary}{\b0 \fs
16 qualities,}{\b0 \fs16 x1}{\b0 \fs16 are}{\b0 \fs16 entities}{\b0 \fs16 a
nd}{\b0 \fs16 their}{\b0 \fs16 essential}{\b0 \fs16 attrib- }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 utes,}{\b0 \fs16 x2}{\b0 \fs16 are}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs1
6 states}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 human}{\b0 \fs16 senses.}{\b0 \fs16 Then,
}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 y's}{\b0 \fs16 are}{\b0 \fs16 relative}{\b0 \fs16
manifestations,}{\b0 \fs16 or }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 projections}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs16 x1}{\b0 \fs16 or}{\
b0 \fs16 x2,}{\b0 \fs16 or}{\b0 \fs16 relations}{\b0 \fs16 between}{\b0
\fs16 x1}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 x2.}{\b0 \fs16 But}{\b0 \fs16 when}
{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 y's}{\b0 \fs16 are}{\b0 \fs16 the }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 primary}{\b0 \fs16 qualities,}{\b0 \fs16 (2)}{\b0 \fs16 y}{
\b0 \fs16 =}{\b0 \fs16 g(x1)}{\b0 \fs16 they}{\b0 \fs16 have}{\b0 \fs16 not
hing}{\b0 \fs16 to}{\b0 \fs16 do,}{\b0 \fs16 in}{\b0 \fs16 their}{\b0 \fs16
existence,}{\b0 \fs16 with}{\b0 \fs16 sur- }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 rounding}{\b0 \fs16 variables."}{\b0 \fs16 See}{\b0 \fs16 a
lso}{\b0 \fs16 Nicholas}{\b0 \fs16 Wolterstorff,}{\b0 \fs16 John}{\b0 \fs16
Locke}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 the}{\b0 \fs16 Ethics}{\b0 \fs16 of}{\b0 \fs
16 Be- }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 lief}{\b0 \fs16 ,}{\b0 \fs16 Cambridge}{\b0 \fs16 Studies}{\
b0 \fs16 in}{\b0 \fs16 Religion}{\b0 \fs16 and}{\b0 \fs16 Critical}{\b0 \fs1

6 Thought}{\b0 \fs16 2}{\b0 \fs16 (Cambridge:}{\b0 \fs16 Cambridge }
\fi347 {\b0 \fs16 University}{\b0 \fs16 Press,}{\b0 \fs16 1996),}{\b0 \fs16 1
5. }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 289 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 and quantity may be substituted by the question of theory (the qualities o
f uni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vers
als in perception, ideas, theories, etc.) and reality (that about which theory
and of which ontological commitment is). Therefore, it is no more pos
sible
ddress philosophical questions purely from within mechanistically physical
eptions of two worlds or one world and its qualities.
26 Imre Lakatos analyses the core of physical research (here, of class
ical) into
retical and metaphysical components. The theoretical component consti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tute
s the basic postulates and laws of a theory in which the postulates and law
comprise the physical foundations of research; and the basic, relatively un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 chan
ging, methodological rules that constitute the research programme may be
ed the metaphysical component. "A progressive (syntactically) metaphysical
ry produces a sustained metaphysical shift in its protective belt of auxiliary
ries."{\up006 \fs10 299} In classical physics, Newton's laws of motion and the l
aw of universal
itation apply to phenomena that are deterministically and mesoscopically
rstood to be merely mechanistic - these form part of the protective
belt
oretical). They are the basic, conceptually sedimented framework or world\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pict
ure or physical ontology of the time, namely, the avowedly atomistic
and
temologically deterministic meso- and macro- physics based on the differ\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
of the three Euclidean geometric spatial dimensions and the one temporal,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 serv
ing as criterion of construction and evaluation of theories. These are
part
he theoretical aspect, i.e., the protective belt, supported by the metaphysical
ework of the time.
26 The classical (generally, Newtonian) concept of reality is a case o
f mecha\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nism
that explains phenomena by continuous motion of particles with definite,
ctive properties in absolute space and time, according to an exact relation of
ality, which is referable merely to the immediate past,{\up006 \fs10 300} this l
imited refer\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ence
being justified by the immediate past's consisting of all the effect
s of the
together. In the metaphysically methodological aspect of it one subsumes all
past causes. The concept of continuity of matter and motion, Maxwell's field
ry of matter and the view of space and time in GTR, may be used as reforms of
metaphysical component of classical categorical concepts. The classical conti\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nuit
y of motion was based on the continuity of wave motion. Today this has been
thrown by discreteness of quanta in motion. Now, causal continuity-not
{\fs16 299}{\fs16 Imre}{\fs16 Lakatos,}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Methodology}{\f
s16 of}{\fs16 Scientific}{\fs16 Research}{\fs16 Programmes}{\fs16 ,}{\fs
16 Philosophical }
49 {\fs16 Papers}{\fs16 Volume}{\fs16 1,}{\fs16 John}{\fs16 Worrall}{\fs16
and}{\fs16 Gregory}{\fs16 Currie,}{\fs16 Eds.}{\fs16 (Cambridge:}{\fs16 Cam
bridge }
49 {\fs16 University}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 1978,}{\fs16 reprinted}{\fs16 1989
),}{\fs16 47. }
16 300}{\fs16 Cf.}{\fs16 Jiachang,}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Xinhe,}{\fs16 "Relati
onal}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 on}{\fs16 Reform}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Vi
ew}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Physical}{\fs16 Real- }
49 {\fs16 ity}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Its}{\fs16 Logical}{\fs16 Manifestation",}{\
fs16 360-61. }
290 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 continuity of wave motion - as obtains from our causal conclusions from QM
riments and STR, befits being treated as part of a scientific realism which
s the metaphysical aspect (to follow Lakatos's scheme), since any talk of cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty can be connected to any other in time only through other intervening and
inuous acts of causation. Such causal continuity is distinctly different from
continuity of motion in classical mechanics based on Euclidean geometry.
26 In virtue of QM causality and the methodology of causal horizonal research,
ything existing is most probably in continuous causal process with man
y
rs, in objectual-causal connection with the proper past of its 'contemporary
d' (a specialized process-philosophical term in A. N. Whitehead,{\up006
\fs10 301} used
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 slig
htly differently here). The contemporary world of an entity is that part of the
erse that is not causally connected to the others of that level, but
through
r respective pasts. This world is a part of a wide extension-motion expanse,
e parts closer to its measurementally temporal edges and away in extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on are already parts of other causal cones. Thus, all parts of the world, which
temporally behind one of the parts of a present world within its causal cone,
causally connected to the past, is the causal past proper to it, with respect
he highest possible limits of relative time measure within the causal cone of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it.
This in turn is so with respect to the cone of the highest possible velocity in
world.
26 If our causal arguments in the previous chapters are sound, we may postulate
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 allpervasive causal continuity in Reality-in-total, naturally with the strong im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plic
ation that all the causal pasts together of all parts of the universe cannot at
given time belong to the causal pasts of all other parts. The immediate causal
of a world will have its own causal pasts, some of which naturally belong to
causal pasts of others, but no one part of the world will have causal pasts that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7243\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 belo
ng to the causal pasts of all others. To how many causal pasts of other parts of
world the causal past of one part belongs is naturally clear: to a finite number
hem, and not to infinite number or all of them that exist, even when there are
nite worlds in the multiverse.
26 This allows theoretically tracing the causal past of any part of the world in
to
causal pasts of at least many others, however minutely past these causal pasts
and however contemporaneous to the present world in question they seem
elong to. This shows also that most probably there is causal continuity from
{\fs16 301}{\fs16 Alfred}{\fs16 North}{\fs16 Whitehead,}{\fs16 Process}{\fs
16 and}{\fs16 Reality:}{\fs16 An}{\fs16 Essay}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Cosmology}{
\fs16 ,}{\fs16 Gifford}{\fs16 Lec- }
49 {\fs16 tures}{\fs16 Delivered}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 University}{\fs
16 of}{\fs16 Edinburgh}{\fs16 During}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Session}{\fs16 1927
-28,}{\fs16 Cor- }
49 {\fs16 rected}{\fs16 Edition,}{\fs16 David}{\fs16 Ray}{\fs16 Griffin}{\fs
16 and}{\fs16 Donald}{\fs16 W.}{\fs16 Sherburne,}{\fs16 Eds.}{\fs16 (New}{
\fs16 York:}{\fs16 The }
49 {\fs16 Free}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 1978),}{\fs16 123,}{\fs16 171,}{\fs16 3
18,}{\fs16 319. }
\fi6061 291 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the past of any contemporary process, not merely in temporally (movemental
ly)
te but in generally progressive dimensional spiral linearity from the past, and
various past spatiotemporal directions. What is missing in one spiral line
the past may be filled by a past in another partial contribution f
rom the
nsion-motion (measurable in spacetime) past proper of the process at issue.
e would thus trace a past-directed circumscriptive spiral of causal traces.
26 Consequently, in all probability there has been causal continuity fr
om the
, and will be into the future. This is what we shall call the Ontological Causal
ciple of Excluded Vacuous Middle, i.e., there is most probably no spiral but
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 prog
ressive-dimensional stream of measure of motion that is vacuous of cau
-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sati

on between two causally mutually finitely connected parts of the unive
rse.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Thus
, we need to reinterpret the classical view of reality in the presen
t work,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 usin
g the radical changes brought about beyond classical, quantum and relativ\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
physics. We begin this attempt from the micro-world by a sort of ontological
cle-reinterpretation on the strength of the foregoing chapters.
{\b \fs21 13.2.}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Wavicles}{\b \fs21 vs.}{\b \fs21
Mathematical}{\b \fs21 Description }
It is classical to consider the so-called dual nature of the quantum
"quanton"
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (aft
er Mario Bunge) in quantum events as a violation of realism, depending on
experiment we perform. One often finds it difficult to define 'realism' here,
h, I think, may be done only via cosmic causal continuity ontology.
The
lem is that, even if the different experimental conditions and ever more ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cura
te experiments miraculously tell us when the objects are waves or particles,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stil
l two questions remain unanswered: (1) the question as to how a theoretical
anation may be given for conversion from one to the other state of micro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exis
tence, (2) the question of conversion from causalism to non-causalism
or
salism, after some avowedly physical causal-processual intervention. If there
causal vacuum between two QM events, I believe it is a breach of realism in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 volv
ing discontinuity between two events of causation - though the experiments
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 perf
ormed are real and well-performed according to the standards prescribed.
26 The important features of QM that make realists stumble are (1) the alleged
-particle duality, wherein the causal aspect of wavicles is shrouded in acausal
abilism ascribed as the ontological nature of wavicles, and (2) the difficulty
settling the EPR entanglement experiment via the concept of non-localit
y,
e one is not sure if causal locality is allowed by this experiment. We have
eved a causal view of both the problems in the previous chapters. Now I at\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 temp
t to causally explain or illustrate the concepts of waves and particles. With\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7189\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 out
that, a satisfactorily all-embracing concept of the Law of Causality,

at the
292 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 level of inductive totalization of all the macro-, meso-, micro-, nano- an
d other
near-infinitesimal levels of processes, will continue to elude, despit
e the
that inductive totalizations of small-scale processes unto the whole universe
inductive generalizations of laws of physics are in vogue in physics when we
k of the continuity of the Law of Causality in the universe.
26 That is, if we do not totalize upon the whole universe from small-scale pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh5909 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cess
es, we must face (1) the anti-realism, anti-causalism and acausalism s
up\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh5909 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 port
ed by wave-particle duality and non-local action-at-a-distance, both of
h do not seek spatiotemporally wider and deeper causes for any phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh5909 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 enon
, (2) the probabilism supported indirectly by scientific and mathemati\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh5909 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 cal
instrumentalism, which works against the search for the wider and dee
per
iotemporal causal contribution from the past toward processes, and (3) the
ontinuity of Causality that these two imply in Reality-in-total. To clarify the
t further by an example from biological evolution: the kind of discontinuity
Causality in general meant here is not the kind that Amit Goswami,{\u
p006 \fs10 302} e.g.,
ks of when he defends causal discontinuity in quantum evolution after the
er of that in the biological world. He says,
\fi226 {\fs15 There}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 indeed}{\fs15 causal}{\fs15 discontinui
ty}{\fs15 involved}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 specification}{\fs15 and
}{\fs15 evolution, }
26 {\fs15 and}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 the}{\
fs15 basic}{\fs15 processes}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 neo-Darwinism}{\fs15 must}{\fs
15 work}{\fs15 here}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 different}{\fs15 ways,}{\fs15 namely
}
26 {\fs15 with}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanism,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 o

rder}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 plausible.}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 explored }
26 {\fs15 here}{\fs15 gives}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 picture}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 evolut
ion}{\fs15 very}{\fs15 close}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 Gould}{\fs15 and
}{\fs15 Eldredge}{\fs15 envisioned}{\fs15 - }
26 {\fs15 rapid,}{\fs15 discontinuous,}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 evolution,}{\fs1
5 followed}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 long}{\fs15 periods}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 homeostas
is}{\fs15 con- }
26 {\fs15 sisting}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 gradual,}{\fs15 classical}{\fs15 (in}{\fs
15 the}{\fs15 sense}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 physics)}{\fs15 evolution{\field{\*\fl
dinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}.}{\up006 \fs8 303 }
This variety of causal discontinuity is that from the standpoint of t
he specific
mental(measurementallytemporal)expanseofaspecies,specifiedinChap\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7122\absh5909 \sl-250 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 ter
3, Section 3.3 as scientific causality. By reason of causal horizonal research,
\par
}
302 Some of his works positively harp on the claim that the acausality or non-c
ausality
347 allegedly proved or incurred by QM shows that there is some sort of subjecti
ve Super\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7946\absw7222\absh2950 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
347 consciousness within the universe (or without, or both?). Some of
his important
347 works are: The Self-aware Universe (Los Angeles: Tarcher Publishing, 1995),
Physics of
347 the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation and Immortality (
New\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7946\absw7222\absh2950 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
347 bury Port, Massachusetts: Hampton Roads Publishing, 2001), Quantum Mechanics
347 (Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2003), God Is Not Dead: What Quantum
Phys\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7946\absw7222\absh2950 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
347 ics Tells Us about Our Origins and How We Should Live (Newbury Port, Massach
u\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy7946\absw7222\absh2950 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
347 setts: Hampton Roads Publishing, 2008), Creative Evolution: A Physicist's Re
solution
347 between Darwinism and Intelligent Design (New York: Quest Books, 2008) etc.
Amit Goswami, The Physicist's View of Nature: Part 2. The Quantum R
evolution
349 (New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum, 2001), 270.
\fi6061 {\fs18 293 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the Law of Causality envelopes the causal past ever broader. The point of
view
pecific temporal expanses includes only the immediate or immediate-to-the\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 imme
diate causes. Many causes that hide behind these in the distant extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on recesses are left aside by particular-scientific causality. It is t
he lack of
al reach obtained in any inquiry that causes discontinuity in explanation of
course of causes, and these are responsible for the irreducible causal discon\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tinu
ities in quantum biological evolution and microcosmic QM evolution.
26 Under the point of view of the totality of the universe and of all that is, w
e
hope that every causal route has been real in the past, and so, everything
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 flow
s of causal necessity, and not without causes that explain their whole process,
her of finite or infinite past origin. This yields causal continuity throughout
universe. Our reference to the various elements in causal continuity
is not
ly to the immediate, but to the whole past that fills the non-causal explana\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tory
vacua in the immediate extension-motion vicinity of every iota of a seem\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ingl
y non-causal QM world.
26 To show that the whole Reality is most probably causally real and continuous,
should first rationally show that it is so in all its near-infinitesi
mally small
s. By causal continuity is meant the absence of discontinuity of causation in
near-infinitesimal part of the universe in any extension-motion region. Con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tinu
ity is continuity as and how it obtains in finite, specific extension
-motion
ons in physical bodies. It is not absolute physical and spatiotemporal
con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tinu
ity as in flat geometry. Therefore, we attempt a QM causal realism a
nd its
logically tenable form of probabilism, without resorting to the anti-realism

experimental instrumentalism implied in the causal probabilism that QM
how ontologizes in a puzzling manner without ontological commitment to
tence of all causally connected processes in the past.
26 A few allusions to the ontologically suspect details of QM instrume
ntalism
to the basic QM experiments that relate them to the ontology of microcos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mic
causal continuity is in place: "{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} Bohr
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} insisted that quantum theory refers
to 'observations obtained under experimental conditions described by sim\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7219\absh7877 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ple
[classical] physical concepts'."{\up006 \fs10 304} Heisenberg too points to the
same:
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 statement}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 any}{\fs15 light}{
\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 gone}{\fs15 either}{\fs15
through}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 first}{\fs15 or }
26 {\fs15 through}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 second}{\fs15 hole}{\fs15 is}{\fs15
problematic}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 leads}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 contradictions.}{
\fs15 This}{\fs15 example }
26 {\fs15 shows}{\fs15 clearly}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 concept}{\fs15
of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 probability}{\fs15 function}{\fs15 does}{\fs15 not}{\
fs15 allow}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 description }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 what}{\fs15 happens}{\fs15 between}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 ob
servations.}{\fs15 Any}{\fs15 attempt}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 find}{\fs15 such}{\f
s15 a}{\fs15 description }\par
}
304 Niels Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, cited in Mario Bunge, Treat
ise on
349 Basic Philosophy, Volume 7, Part I, 169. Square brackets mine.
{\fs17 294 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 would lead to contradictions; this must mean that the term 'happens
' is restricted to
26 the observation.{\up006 \fs8 305 }
{\fs17 The}{\fs17 ambivalent,}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 epistemic}{\fs17 ('ep
istemic'}{\fs17 meaning}{\fs17 'observational',}{\fs17 'what }
17 happens}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 mind}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 pr

ocess}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 knowing',}{\fs17 etc.,}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 ontolog
ical}{\fs17 com- }
17 mitment}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 objectual-ness)}{\fs17 interpretation}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 'happen'}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 experimental }
17 point}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 view}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 perhaps}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
essence}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 experimental}{\fs17 instrumentalism}{\fs17 and}{\fs
17 leads }
17 to}{\fs17 non-causalism}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 acausalism. }
26 {\fs17 Though}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 physicists}{\fs17 vascillated}{\fs17
about}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 shape}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 micro-particles}{\fs17 of
}
17 light}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 corpuscles}{\fs17 or}{\fs17 pure}{\fs17
waves,}{\fs17 Bohr}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 others}{\fs17 took}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
path}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 cor- }
17 puscles}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 supposedly}{\fs17 spatially}{\fs17 dimensionless
}{\fs17 within}{\fs17 and,}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 being}{\fs17 "energy",}{\fs17
to}{\fs17 be }
17 different}{\fs17 from}{\fs17 matter}{\fs17 particles}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 th
at}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 perfectly}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 spatial}{\
fs17 dimen- }
17 sions}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 themselves}{\fs17 other}{\fs17 than}{\fs17 forwar
d}{\fs17 motion}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 wave-shape.}{\fs17 Here}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
physi- }
17 cists}{\fs17 were}{\fs17 apparently}{\fs17 prey}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 a}{\fs1
7 contradiction,}{\fs17 since}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 could}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 c
learly}{\fs17 put}{\fs17 it }
17 down}{\fs17 decisively}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 clearly}{\fs17 temporal}
{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 allegedly}{\fs17 non-temporal }
17 wave}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 regard}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 energy}{\fs17 propagatio
n.}{\fs17 Newton}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 others}{\fs17 were}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 ca
lling}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 a }
17 wave}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 corpuscle. }
26 {\fs17 Soon}{\fs17 Thomas}{\fs17 Young's}{\fs17 double}{\fs17 slit}{\fs17
experiment}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 visible}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 suppo
sed}{\fs17 to }
17 have}{\fs17 shown}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 light}{\fs17 propagates}{\fs17 like
}{\fs17 waves.}{\fs17 Young,}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 his}{\fs17 double}{\fs17 sli
t}{\fs17 experiment }
17 (sometime}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 first}{\fs17 five}{\fs17 years}{\f
s17 after}{\fs17 1800),}{\fs17 measured}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 distance}{\fs17
(1)}{\fs17 between }
17 the}{\fs17 interference}{\fs17 fringes,}{\fs17 (2)}{\fs17 between}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 photographic}{\fs17 film}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 double}{\
fs17 slit, }
17 and}{\fs17 (3)}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 slits.}{\fs17
He}{\fs17 calculated}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 wavelength}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\
fs17 particles}{\fs17 using }
17 the}{\fs17 well-known}{\fs17 formula}{\fs17 n{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 108
\\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 =}{\fs17 d}{\fs17 sin}{\fs17 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
97 \\f Symbol }},}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 concluded}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 light}{\fs
17 travels}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 waves. }
17 This}{\fs17 calculation}{\fs17 presupposes}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 each}{\fs17
object}{\fs17 has}{\fs17 passed}{\fs17 through}{\fs17 both}{\fs17 the}{\f
s17 slits }
17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 screen}{\fs17 because}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 motion
}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 single}{\fs17 particle}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 dimen
sions}{\fs17 should }
17 always}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 through}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 single}{\fs17 slit,}{\fs
17 and}{\fs17 waves}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 taken}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 ju
st}{\fs17 perfectly}{\fs17 dimen- }
17 sionless}{\fs17 paths}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 forward}{\fs17 motion,}{\fs1
7 but}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 not}{\fs17 objects}{\fs17 like}{\fs17 partic
les.}{\fs17 Physics }
17 uses}{\fs17 mathematical}{\fs17 waves}{\fs17 without}{\fs17 realizing}{\f
s17 that}{\fs17 they}{\fs17 have}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 purity-dimension }
17 that}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 be}{\fs17 dispelled}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 physical}
{\fs17 explanations}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 making}{\fs17 adequate}{\fs17 provisio
ns }
17 against}{\fs17 this}{\fs17 purity.}{\fs17 That}{\fs17 is,}{\fs17 at}{\fs
17 calculating}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 wavelength}{\fs17 when}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 p
asses}{\fs17 through }
17 the}{\fs17 screen}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 slits,}{\fs17 we}{\fs17
are}{\fs17 made}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 assume}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 each}{\fs17 ob
ject}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 places }
17 simultaneously.}{\fs17 This,}{\fs17 according}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 many}{
\fs17 physicists,}{\fs17 shows}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 object}{\
fs17 pos- }
17 sesses}{\fs17 wave}{\fs17 character.}{\up006 \fs10 306 }
{\fs16 305}{\fs16 Werner}{\fs16 Heisenberg,}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 and}{\
fs16 Philosophy:}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 Revolution}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Modern}
{\fs16 Science }
58 {\fs16 (NewYork:}{\fs16 Harper}{\fs16 &}{\fs16 Row,}{\fs16 1958),}{\fs16
52. }
16 306}{\fs16 Lars-Gran}{\fs16 Johansson,}{\fs16 "Realism}{\fs16 and}{\fs16
Wave-Particle}{\fs16 Duality"}{\fs16 (329-338),}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 Robert }
49 {\fs16 S.}{\fs16 Cohen,}{\fs16 Risto}{\fs16 Hilpinen}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Q
iu}{\fs16 Renzong,}{\fs16 Eds.,}{\fs16 Realism}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Anti-reali
sm}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 the }

49 {\fs16 Philosophy}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Science,}{\fs16 Beijing}{\fs16 Int
ernational}{\fs16 Conference,}{\fs16 1992}{\fs16 (Dordrecht:}{\fs16 Kluw
er }
49 {\fs16 Academic}{\fs16 Publishers,}{\fs16 1996),}{\fs16 329-330. }
\fi6061 {\fs17 295 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 The double slit experiment today permits choosing photons,
electrons, etc.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (in
general, "quantons") as the test particles (objects), even without solving the
retical contradiction at least between the concept of tacitly dimension
less
ons and the concept of the physically objectual photons. An intensity dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trib
ution results on the photographic film, yielding 'the wave character of each
he singular objects that hit,' so all tended to hold. The object does also behav
e
a particle, because it "somehow" passes through one of the double slits. In\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tere
stingly, each particle is supposed to be in a definite position when hitting the
ographic film. Each has made a spot on the film, the position being measur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 able
with an accuracy of the mean diameter of the grains in the film emulsion.
accuracy is smaller than the distance between the two slits in the
screen.
measure of accuracy at interaction of the particle with the emulsion shows it
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to h
ave been a wave, but in superposition, yielding the dark fringes in the plate.
if they have not been particles, they could not have hit the emulsion. That is,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 befo
re entering the slit/s they are observed or measured to behave like waves and
eafter as particles.
26 Could this be merely by the supposedly classical explanation of the quantum
ation described as simultaneous duality and complementarity, which (as al\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 read
y discussed) is in contradiction to all reason? Cannot there be a better ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plan
ation? Is the duality-complementarity explanation because particles simply

in wave form, so that the sort of experiment and the stage of intersection
motion of the particle in wave motion could be conceived to be the
reason
the observational duality? What about the minute lack of accuracy which is
than the mean diameter of the grains in the film emulsion? Should we only
that the "classical" is all changed in the quantum and mean by it that every\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g real is gone now? What can this mean?
26 If the object was really a particle at hitting the film, the simultaneous int
ensity
ribution of hits of particles (indicating waves over the cumulative target re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gion
) will be explained.{\up006 \fs10 307} This could be solved by assuming the part
icles (1) to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be m
oving in wave form - in relatively discrete quantal form that bears (perhaps)
possibility of further inner-processual quantization possibly of a rela
tively
extended nature at troughs and a less extended nature at cusps -,
and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (2)re
sulting in the cumulative wave distribution on the film emulsion. Particles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 movi
ng in wave form do not have to destroy each other to give a no-light situa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
, but they need only to hit at specific fringe areas due to the tangential natur
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh8117 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of h
it when measured from the trough or cusp of the wave shape. \par
}
307 Johansson, "Realism and Wave-Particle Duality", 329-330.
{\fs17 296 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 What I would term quick-minded conclusion in QM used to be that of
"dual\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity"
and "complementarity" somehow brought together, or a fickle alternatio
n
een the pure (mathematically ideal) wave- and particle- properties against
ctive circumstances and apparatus-based instrumentalistic needs. If the last
hese - as is often asserted - is the case, we should find a way to conclude that
first two solutions are contradictions in terms, however well 'duality
' and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'com
plementarity' are explained, because a real physical energy quantum can
be two mutually exclusive things at the same time. Realism and empiricism
both at stake here. What I present is not the old idea of realism (where the
g described exists with the same properties as described), but a realism with
east the minimum objectual-ness of whatever has caused the hits and where
cts as processes are really there as whatever they really are.
26 Only if the wavicle is purely non-physical, i.e., dimensionless in
extension
its infinitesimal geometrical parts and involving no motion measurable
in
, could it be defined to be absolutely uni-dimensional in the path of motion
pure in nature without physical content. A mathematical wave can trac
e
paths absolutely well, but not a physical propagation. Insofar as it is four\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dime
nsional, the extensional trail traced out has to be three-dimensional. Now,
we can save the realism of objectual-ness (1) by conceiving discrete
quanta
ng in spatially three-dimensional (i.e., in sinusoidally spiral) wave form and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in m
ovemental time, for the above reason of impossibility of uni-dimensionality
hysical (not mathematical) waves, and (2) by assuming that what we empiri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y have in the probability wave formation is merely the only possible statistical
of measurement of the effect of a great number of quantons on the screen
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 - t
hen it is possible to think that the movement of quantons is causal
and no
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 noncausal or acausal stuff or non-stuff is emerging from nowhere.
26 Thus, the so-called observer- / source-independence of electrom
agnetic
agation and the probabilistic observability of the QM object in both
the
- and particle states, together, are to be interpreted as parts of o
ne and
same realist causal process. Pure particle and wave being parts of one and the
physical wavicle is more than complementarity of the two shapes. To con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clud
e the wave shape of individual quantons merely from the probability distri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 buti
on on the target plane is unwarranted. Each particle hit at random o
n the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plat
e shows that each wave path of particles is tangentially deflected (according
he spot in the wave shape of the specific wavicle that has arrived at the emul\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sion
) in such a way that it looks as if one were to go through one of the slits and
other were to go through the other when the waves were deflected as straight
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 line
motions and not deflected at the vicinity of either of the slits due to the wav
e
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7240\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tang
ent achieved at the moment of approach.
\fi6061 297 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 We cannot pronounce outright that the physical wave is nothing but
a pure
that can in the mathematical sense yield perfect curvilinear continuity of
gy flow. A mathematical wave does not actually allow tacit substitution for
physical and extensionally (spatially) partially discontinuous spiral wa
ve
of motion of wavicles. We must somehow explain why and how wavicles
named waves and/or particles at some or other moment of the experiment,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 and,
if not (and in fact in general), explain why they are taken together as wavi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cles
. In the latter case we must explain the meaning of 'wavicle' and distinguish
een mathematical continuity and causal continuity (continuous presence of
causes that there are) in one and the same wavicle.
26 Take the case where we say (1) it is a geometrically defined wave at some tim
e
a classically physical but geometrically non-extended particle at some other
, even without our observing these geometrical shapes. Without observation

he geometrical wave and particle we cannot term the situation 'complemen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tari
ty' of wave- and particle natures. Simply terming both the natures physical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (sin
ce "they" are empirically investigated) does not guarantee reduction of
the
ematically ideal wave- and particle motions together into a physical wavicle.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 For
the two to be dual and complementary in reality, (2) the wavicle cannot be
different from each (dually, wave and particle) when we observe, and one and
same when we do not observe (how?), or even vice versa. Therefore, physical
cle cannot be another term for the alleged geometrical wave-particle duality
complementarity. To say that it is experimentally speaking something else
we do not observe it is anti-realism about just one moment of physical real\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity
without concern for other moments in extension-motion of the same wavicle.
26 Case (1) is clearly impossible. Case (2) is just a subject- / observation-bas
ed
ept of QM results of the original probabilistic interpretation, which is a for\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mula
tion in terms of mesoscopic phenomena and can thus suit QM results to the
ination of classical physics - especially in regard to the concepts of duality
complementarity. This case is not duality alone or complementarity and du\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alit
y together. Observer-based mesoscopic interpretation of everything we ob
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 serv
ationally take to be real and causal cannot be denied, at least in its minimal
logical commitment, about the micro-world by the probabilistic description
the micro-world on the unrealistic and extremely instrumentalistic groun
d
prolonged intervention by apparatus for the sake of (the humanly only pos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7352\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e) statistical observation of the micro-reality is equivalent to non-causal or
sal intervention by subjectivity or not an intervention at all.
26 The next possibility is: (3) really they are simultaneously the mat
hematical
and the physical particle. This is impossible. What I find most acceptable is:
wavicles are the amalgamation of an extended physical particle (extended in
298 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 all directions but much elongated at spots) into an extended physical wave
path
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (sin
usoidal spiral, due to its non-circular and non-spherical but extended motion)
ther into just one physical wavicle in extension-motion in three spatial and
temporal dimensions at the same time, for they can be real only as one insofar
wavicle travels in sinusoidal pulses, which involves the four dimensions. In
(4), a certain region (trough) of the sinusoidal wave motion is dense and the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 next
region (cusp, which is an elongated transition region) of the wave is rarefied,
so on, as in wave-pulses. But these pulses can only be treated theoretically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by u
se of idealizing sort of mathematical tools which take it as a mixture of pure
and dimensionless particle for the sake of mathematical description in spa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ceti
me. All except the fourth are impossible by the Principle of Sufficient Reason:
e is no sufficient reason why a physical wavicle should be purely idealized\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 math
ematical and thus non-physical, and then, as a mixture of wave and particle,
in one spatiotemporally partially dual and partially complementary reality.
26 If the wavicles are not really objectual all through the experiment, as in th
e
al implications of QM in some weird interpretations, one must say also that
causal experiment and the causal interference by the experiment that have
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 led
to this result have also not been. The physical objectual nature vouchsafes for
extension-motion (spatiotemporal) sloth (finitude of velocity) of propag
a\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
, yielding that no infinite or zero velocity or mass or momentum can obtain.
ensures finite but total causality in every wavicle - finite because the whole
idean space is not filled with extended matter-energy, and total becau
se
ever is, is continuously causal (without non-causality surging in). Thi
s is
realism concerning the existence of the particle in the form of a non-circular,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 non-
spherical, but sinusoidally elongated wave-pulse, and (2) realism concern\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
the state of a particle in wave (sinusoidal spiral) form of motion. Whereas,
singular objectual wavicle (that stands in place of a physical object, however
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 diss
ipated in extension-motion) is usually (unavoidably) statistically presented
(due to instrumentalism) probabilistic-causally misrepresented. The con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
of the singular wavicle is thus mistaken (1) as being a unit, representative
he whole group of statistically conceived hits by many wavicles on the plate
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7220\absh7442 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 emul
sion, and (2) as the "Schrdinger time-evolution of the wavefunction of a
icle, initially localized closely at one point and subsequently spreads out in \
par
}
{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9104\absw1404\absh467 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a
ll directions."{\up006 \fs10 308 }
istically. \par
}
{\phpg\posx2355\pvpg\posy9104\absw5461\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 U
nit-nature and spreading out in all directions may be had only \par
}
308 Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Con
scious\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10144\absw7222\absh972 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 ness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 332.
\fi6061 {\fs17 299 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 This so-called local realization of the statistical in case (2) jus
t above is experi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
al or phenomenal realism, but lacks ontological commitment to objectual-ness
r the one point-locus mentioned, and then resumes ontological commitment at
her point of localization, then lacks it {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbo
l }}. If thought through clearly, case (1) is
one such in that the exact "points" of surety as actual hits in the probabilist
ic
rpretation are considered to be most probable and the others are not - and the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unav
oidable statistics is not related in description to real wavicles hitting the pl
ate.
26 The two above aspects of statistical interpretation conveniently forget the f
acts:
that the statistical delineation of the generalized case (as a wavicle) is a sub
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stit
ution for the mean individual case of a photon or electron from the
actual
istically interpretable case of the train of hits on the emulsion, an
d (2) that
statistical wavicle is not the same as the physical-ontologically real wavicle,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 i.e.
, particle in real sinusoidal wave path. That is, it is the antagonism to the nav
e
sical realism that Bohr and others accused Einstein of. This was done in a very
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 roun
daboutfashion,expressingitfromthemeso-world-basedexperimentandthe
istical meso-world interpretation of the subatomic (and today perhaps even of
nano-world) that does not purportedly admit the imperfections meso-world
rpretation. This antagonism to the classical alleged the classical in Einstein.
In
r words, Bohr and others are here superimposing the meso-world idealized
ematical representation of the waves in the micro-world and saying that for
meso-world the micro-world situation (real wavicles) looks such and su
ch
n probabilities for one instance). This, in my opinion, amounts to a
valid
ment against the Copenhagen acausal probabilism in their coin.
26 The main reason for the distinction between the classical and quantum no\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s of a particle is the exact parallelism drawn between (1) the relat
ionship
the classical particle-concept to its Euclidean geometry and (2) that
of the
tum particle-concept to the statistical tools used to elucidate it. In the clas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sica
l system the mathematical tools are such that a certain variety of conceptual
espondence and direct representation were advised. There the particle and
tool were supposed to have the meso-world status, though geometrical ob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ject
s were akin to pure ideal non-entities. In the quantum system the statistical
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tool
s have been the choice due to our meso-world status, and the micro-world

us of subatomic entities remained to be described by statistics. The concep\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tual
difference from the classical to the quantum particle-concepts can never be
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 brid
ged if they are distinguished based on the differences between the respective
ematical tools, since the basic geometrical concepts of particle and wave are
same in both Euclidean geometry and statistics. Therefore, we need to take
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7323\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a c
omparative look at possible spatiotemporal (physical) values of differen
ces
een the big variety of infinitesimally small spatial dimensions of extension
300 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 in mathematics, before comparing the results of mathematical tools with th
eir
ical counterparts.
26 The odd man here is the mathematical description without explicitly mention\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
causality. If existence and causation are dispensable after the descriptive suc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es of QM, STR and GTR, then why do we speak of partial causality in QM?
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 If t
he spectrum of values of differences between instances of observation of par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
es or waves can be spread out from near-infinitesimals to ever higher values,
there is no reason why reasonably small wavicle sizes or values on the space\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 time
scale, that are highly involving for human-built apparatuses to observe with
inctness, must be described merely statistically without using the concept of
ation that is applicable in meso- and macroscopic objects. To one such group
alues in the spectrum belong subatomic particles. The whole issue is thus re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 duce
d to the epistemological in that the limits of our epistemic capacity to obser\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vati
on and conclusion-formation favour statistics and hinder causal description.
26 The epistemological problem of comparison of sizes resists the paral
lelism
QM wavicles being taken to be ontologically "probabilistic" and not
Eu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clid
ean geometric. The "pronounced" clarity available about mesoscopic objects

etrically should have been ever better heightened when we consider mac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 roco
smic objects, but their extensional distances and durations of motion
are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stil
l being experimentally adjusted to the macroscopic mathematical tools too.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 We k
now we do not ascribe an ontologically causal-probabilistic explanation to
very macrocosmic particles, though the nature of results of our observation
hem is highly statistical. That is, the actual wavicles are not of the same di\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mens
ions as the measured quantities or dimensions of them. This shows the
icable difference between the different branches of mathematics of wavicles
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to v
arious branches of physics.
{\b \fs21 13.3.}{\b \fs21 Falkenburg}{\b \fs21 on}{\b \fs21 Physics}{\b \fs2
1 and}{\b \fs21 Mathematics}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Wavicles }
Brigitte Falkenburg summarizes the notion of particle by positing local
izable
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 coll
ections of mass-energy, like what I have introduced through ontological
itment for QM and by expressing her reservation against non-interacting
effect, non-causal) fields / particles: "Surely subatomic physics deals
with
ontinuous, independent, localizable collections of mass-energy, spin, par
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7285\absh8042 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ity,
and some generalized charges. The underlying entity (if there is one
) has
hallmarks of a field rather than a particle. But one should also be very cau- \p
ar
}
ious with regard to any ontology of non-interacting quantum fields."{\up006 \fs1
0 309 }
{\fs16 309}{\fs16 Falkenburg,}{\fs16 Particle}{\fs16 Metaphysics}{\fs16 ,}{\
fs16 262. }\par
}
field \par
}
01 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 is in the final analysis a statistical entity that absorbs the temporal ex
posure of
riments to the spatial aspect over the cases of many particles in experimen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tal
measurement process. The actual particles can only be roughly spatiotempo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rall
y (i.e., in extension-motion) four-dimensionally extended physical particles
ng in roughly sinusoidal spiral wave form. The four-dimensionality of this
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fiel
d shows again generalization over one temporal and three spatial directions,
ver minute. This can in fact be considered as the realistic-commonsensical
ept of any physical or astronomical body on a very small to large scale, since
only remaining different possibility is that of a non-extended point instance.
26 With this background as to how possibly to reconcile the various concepts of
icle, let us cursorily see the possible QM-determined attributes of the vari\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ous
mathematical, virtual and actual concepts of a particle, without going into
technical or mathematical details of meanings of the terms being used
to
acterize particles. The general characteristics of any particle-concept
are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "ind
ependence, discontinuity, and localizability of a collection of conserved quanti
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
.{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} But in a strict sense this only hol
ds for the non-relativistic domain. The
rlying entity has the hallmarks of a field."{\up006 \fs10 310} I would add that
these charac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 teri
stics are more or less relative according as the particle is macroscopic, meso\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scop
ic or microscopic - not merely for the non-relativistic domain. These do not
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 belo
ng exclusively to the classical or quantum or nano particles, but are common
he spectrum of values of velocities and masses mentioned earlier. These can
hown (as earlier) to be the general case with respect to the classical, quantum
other concepts of particles.
26 Further, according to Falkenburg, classical particles are "carriers o
f mass m
charge q", "independent of each other", "pointlike in interactions", "subject to

ervation laws", "localized", "completely determined by the laws of mechanics",
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "mov
ing on trajectories in phase space", "spatio-temporally individuated", a
nd
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "abl
e to form bound systems".{\up006 \fs10 311} By independence is meant th
at particles "may
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 be n
on-interacting or ucoupled states", and "their initial conditions are statistica
lly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unco
rrelated".{\up006 \fs10 312} Quantum mechanical particles are "carriers of mass
m, electric
ge q, and spin s", "independent of each other", "pointlike in interactions", "su
b\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7262\absh7667 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ject
to conservation laws", "localizable by a particle detector", "probabil
istically
rmined by the Schrdinger equation", considered to be waves "in states that
rpose and interfere", "unsharp in momentum p and position q according
\par
}
{\fs17 302 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 to the uncertainty relation {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}p{\f
ield{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 68 \\f Symbol }}q {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 179 \\f Symbo
l }} h/2", "not spatio-temporally individuated but
distinguished by their quantum states, according to Pauli's exclusion princi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ple"
, and "able to form bound systems".{\up006 \fs10 313 }
26 My arguments in the present work have been in favour of their dis
tinction
individuation, though as ultimately interrelated processes, but from the lim\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ited
vantage of very short measuremental spacetimes and without reference to
r spacetimes, but yet making the causal coupling clear. Individuation
and
inction have been operationally profusely verified. And if we go for longer

etime durations, the connections between QM wavicles are spatiotempo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rall
y a bit rarefied, yet there are connections, and these should be cau
sal con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nect
ions, since there exist no other manners of physical-ontological connection.
26 In QM, due to STR, light quanta are supposed to be "massless quanta of energy
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 E =
h{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\f Symbol }}", "discontinuous, i.e., they come i
n quanta", "independent of each other",
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "poi
ntlike in intractions", "subject to conservation laws", "indistinguishable, givi
ng
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rise
to Bose-Einstein statistics", "probabilistically determined by classical
radia\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
theory", "in states that superpose and interfere", "non-local", and "localizabl
e
particle detector".{\up006 \fs10 314} Additionally, "any quantized property {\f
ield{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} in multiples of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 {\f6
3 \u295\'3f} may count as particle, whether {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Sy
mbol }} localizable or not{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}. Bohr does
not differen\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tiat
e between the integer and half-integer multiples of {\f63 \u295\'3f} in terms of
which angu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lar
momentum and spin are expressed {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} and
the quantization of energy quanta
erms of h{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 110 \\f Symbol }}. Perhaps this is {\field{\*
\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }} the most general modern particle concept."{\up
006 \fs10 315 }
26 Now, operationally particles could be conceived as "collections of m
ass m,
gy E, spin s, charge q", "localizable by a particle detector", and "independent
ach other".{\up006 \fs10 316} 'Operationally' means here 'while experimenting fr
om within
ly delimited spacetime durations'. Field quanta are generally "collections of
m, energy E, spin s, and charge q", "discontinuous, i.e., they come in quanta",
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "ind
ependent of each other", "pointlike in interactions", "probabilistically
deter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mine
d by a quantized field equation", "in states that superpose and inter
fere",
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "non
-local", "localizable by a particle detector", "subject to certain commutation

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rule
s for anticommutators (fermions) or commutators (bosons)", "only numeri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y distinguishable, giving rise to Fermi or Bose statistics (depending
on the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7281\absh7220 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spin
)", "subject to conservation laws", and "able to form bound systems".{\up006 \fs
10 317 }\par
}
Falkenburg, Particle Metaphysics, 227. \par
}
03 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Each of these citations holds basically that a (classical) particle
is in some way
pendent. Defining independence of particles by their main characteristics,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Falk
enburg says that particles "may be in non-interacting states" and "their ini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tial
conditions are statistically uncorrelated".{\up006 \fs10 318} How to rec
oncile such classical
icle-independence - however meager it is - with causal continuity in them
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as Q
M wavicles? I have concluded in the initial chapters that causal continuity is
fact that whatever happens (in a specific extension-motion region) is causal.
is, causation, and not non-causation, is continuously present in it,
to the
nt that a specific extension-motion region is definable (at least) by physical
esses. From this point of view, we may hold a QM wavicle as causal without
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 detr
iment to the tools of statistical handling.
{\b \fs21 13.4.}{\b \fs21 Physical}{\b \fs21 Wavicle}{\b \fs21 vs.}{\b \fs21
Mathematical}{\b \fs21 Wave}{\b \fs21 /}{\b \fs21 Particle }
We need now to ask what 'wave' and 'particle' mean at the interface of mathemat-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ics

and physics, i.e., pinpoint what the actuality about the mathematical wave is,
then show what the so-called "probability" given by the target region in the
ographic film could possibly be, so that the doctrine of causal conti
nuity
that the whole Euclidean spacetime is causal, but that whatever is in pro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
is in causal process) can be enunciated and reconciled with clarity with the
pendent-nature of particles.
26 Mathematically, a pure wave is the ideal path of forward movement of a di\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mens
ionless infinitesimal point instance in absolute space and time. Howeve
r
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nonEuclidean the definition of the point instance is, this absolute case is a limit
of all possible physically applicable geometries (except perhaps of s
tring
ries where the final building block is a loop). Though mathematics can ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 comm
odate also finite velocities in wave paths, there is no reason why an ideal
on should not have a finite velocity with a wavy path when physical motion
nvolved. Therefore, it should be roughly sinusoidal spiral forward motion for
ical consumption, which defines well the physical reality of finite ve
loci\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
in time through three spatial dimensions. On the other hand, an absolutely
ed loop is a description for absolute space unjustifiably brought into physical
ination without real-time future motion, since it is reducible in Euclidean
etry only into an unreal ideal point instance. That is, an absolutely closed
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 loop
too is capable of infinite motion as in the case of movement of a
non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7285\absh8045 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 phys
ical point instance, if closed loops are reduced to point instances. \par
}
{\fs17 304 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 As measuremental space and time are involved together in actuality
in their
logical extension-motion nature, the absoluteness of Euclidean space and
disappears, i.e., absolute standstill point, absolute circularity, etc.
are out
the question due to the facts that otherwise they have to be simulta
neously
nded and non-extended physically Euclidean point instances of different
ly spatial dimensions, with absolute lack of motion into temporal futu
re.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 As a
result, the straight-line path of ideal motion stands to be substituted with
three-dimensional spiral form in the measuremental spacetime of physical\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 onto
logical extension-motion. By being physically real, thus, the point instance
he spatially three-dimensional representation of a particle with extensionally
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nonzero dimensions in forward sinusoidal wave motion. It is sinusoidal ev
en
the forward motion is not compromised by temporal forward extension of
wave. Sinusoidal motion is extended also in (with respect to) motion, and it
patial and temporal insofar as represented measurementally. This makes it a
tive spacetime event of the micro-world.
26 Einstein's spacetime continuum of matter-energy in a given spacetime loca\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
had to take the unavoidable mathematical navet of the Euclidean infini\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tesi
mal point instance at the level of geometrical primitive concepts, the point
ance being able only to be spread out in spacetime absolutely continuously.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 We m
ay not have a closed loop as the basic point instance, if the basic concept of
nition of a closed loop will remain a point instance. Insofar as the whole of
idean space is not filled with matter, discreteness of quanta will have to be
case. But in QM the need for statistical measurement at the level of energy in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a gi
ven extension-motion under the measuremental name of spacetime reduces
point instances at question, when devoid of the longer temporal dimension
ffects upon them, into discrete quanta without causal effects from the past.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Unde
r all circumstances, wavicles are quanta in their limited spatiotempora
l
ure, but, under statistics, continuity in causality
f
causes and the resulting statistical discontinuity
\sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 meas

is cut off from the realms o
\sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 past
is considered to be the sign

ausal discontinuity. I do not mean that quanta are not discrete, but that the
esses within them as causal can still be continuous, though each quantum is
rete from others.
26 It cannot be maintained that in extension-motion reality the discrete nature
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of q
uantons outside of our statistical measurement at the level of wavicle propa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gati
on is the reason why quantons seem to have discrete causality, with
some
rent lack of detection of causality in the process. The discrete nature is not
to statistics but due to the real nature of the particles in relatively wavy elo
n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7192\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gate
d form of temporal motion. Even within and between these wavicles there
d be causation. And the whole causation within and without them are not to
\fi6061 305 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 be traced just to their actual spacetime but to the whole past of these an
d other
cles. To clarify further, even "[t]he quark-parton model is a static model, as\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh7799 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sumi
ng free (non-interacting), point-like, partons (quarks) inside the proton."{\up0
06 \fs10 319 }
staticity is not causal staticity or discontinuity, or unchangeability
of the
ton and the quark (or for that matter any nano- or sub-nano or other level
ty), but the very sign of the circumscriptive nature of the concept of mathe\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh7799 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cal point instances - which is the case also about quantons. To show that the
t about causal continuity is probably a defect in mathematization, I quote
following from John Rigden:
\fi226 {\fs15 The}{\fs15 elementary}{\fs15 particles}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 usual
ly}{\fs15 thought}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 unextended}{\fs15 points}{\fs1
5 (this}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 modified }

26 {\fs15 in}{\fs15 string}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 be}{
\fs15 ignored}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 present}{\fs15 purposes).}{\fs15
Considered}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 point}{\fs15 par- }
26 {\fs15 ticles,}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 should}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 precise}{\fs1
5 spatial}{\fs15 locations.}{\fs15 But}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 apparently}{\fs15
innocuous}{\fs15 condi- }
26 {\fs15 tion}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 if}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 is}{\f
s15 spatialized}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 spatial}{\fs15 point}{\fs15 th
ere}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 zero}{\fs15 probability}{\fs15 for }
26 {\fs15 finding}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 very}{\fs15 moment
}{\fs15 located}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 different}{\fs15 point}{\fs15 tu
rns}{\fs15 out}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 inconsistent }
26 {\fs15 in}{\fs15 relativistic}{\fs15 theories}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs
15 objectivity}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 localizations}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15
sense}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 observers}{\fs15 in }
26 {\fs15 different}{\fs15 states}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 uniform}{\fs15 relative}{
\fs15 motion}{\fs15 will}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 agree}{\fs15 on}{\fs15 whether}
{\fs15 the}{\fs15 particles}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 in }
26 {\fs15 fact}{\fs15 localized}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 all!}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 is
}{\fs15 closely}{\fs15 related}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 fact}{\fs15 tha
t}{\fs15 relativistic}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 packets}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 are }
26 {\fs15 sharply}{\fs15 localized}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 reference}{\f
s15 frame}{\fs15 disperse}{\fs15 superluminally}{\fs15 relative}{\fs15 to}{
\fs15 that}{\fs15 frame. }
26 {\fs15 These}{\fs15 unpleasant}{\fs15 features}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 unpleasan
t}{\fs15 particle}{\fs15 localization}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 generally}{\fs15 m
ilitated }
26 {\fs15 after}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 favour}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\f
s15 quantum}{\fs15 field}{\fs15 approach.}{\up006 \fs8 320 }
The superluminality mentioned here refers unpleasantly to the difficult
EPR
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh7799 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scen
ario where, if some effect has to be there, it has to be only superluminal \par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh7799 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wher
e superluminal velocities are considered somehow supernatural due to the
mption of limit-character of the luminal velocity. This problem is sol
ved
if wave packets are localized not only with respect to one frame of reference
to others too. When wavicles are thus theoretically allowed to have super\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh7799 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 lumi
nal velocities, the reason for this phenomenon has to be referred to causes
existed prior to the production of each state in Nature. This is feasible only
if
ation is continuous in Nature wherever processes exist in (Euclidean) spatial

nsion. Hence, geometrical point instances carry the disadvantage of non
ality non-localization and absolute continuity at some points.
26 That is, a real physical wavicle's discreteness may be a proof (1) of the def
ec\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh7799 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tive
applicability of the mathematical QM theory to the real, geometrically dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7201\absh7799 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cont
inuous but causally continuous spacetime point instances to be describe
d
eby, and (2) of the circumstantial inadequacies of the experimental ac
t of \par
}
319 Tuning, Proton Structure Functions at HERA, 6.
John S. Rigden, Ed., Building Blocks of Matter: A Supplement to the Macmillan
Encyclo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy9924\absw7313\absh1170 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
343 pedia of Physics (New York: Thomson Gale (Macmillan Reference USA), 2003), 3
69.
{\fs17 306 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 measurement. This need not be a disproof of realist causation yielded by C
ausal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Hori
zonalResearch.Bohr'sworktellsusonlythat,ifthewave solutionisadeeper\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 than
classical mechanical solution that does not lend itself to understanding via
sical measurement techniques, then the particle solution is a classical
one
lends itself to such understanding. This is probably the unconscious reason
Born famously assumed that what is possible, from the longer probability
ribution of hits on the photographic plate, is to calculate the probability for
a
ain experiment to facilitate a certain conclusion of the two results (wave and
icle) concerning one wavicle, by averaging out what is available by classical
ods for many wavicle hits. Instead of addressing these questions, groups of
icists with the Copenhagen mentality simply argue off causality as unscien\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tifi
c. This then is again begging the theoretically partially justifiable assumption

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 (lim
it-velocity of light) to prove that the assumption is absolutely true.
26 We take a direct route to a probable settlement, keeping in mind the fact tha
t
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Bohr
's and other's versions of the Copenhagen interpretation, very much al
so
t wave-particle duality, was a "pragmatic approach to physics, welding to\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 geth
er different ideas to make a workable package without any real underlying
ry to explain everything [in Quantum Physics] in a coherent fashion."{\up006 \fs
10 321} The
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cent
ral problem of the tug between Bohr (and others) who represented the Co\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 penh
agen interpretation, and Einstein (and others) who attacked them in favour
their version of realism, is that of an unwarranted muddle in physics
due to
conceptual substitution by classicism and classical causality for genuine Causal
ism or the Law of Causality, without regard to the implications of the so-called
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 maxi
mal causal realism we need in physics.
26 Philosophies and sciences come to the firm conviction that there are causal
esses in Nature. It is difficult to define realism in apposition with the follow
cognate theories of phenomenalism, instrumentalism, probabilism, acau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
sm, non-causalism, etc. in the Copenhagen interpretation. Einstein's sort of
ism had at least the following central claim: What we speak of must somehow
t, and not be something and another at the same time. This can be taken to
lassicism or anything else. A realism that says that objectual existence is as
thing, and that such realism cannot mean that what the measured proper\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
tell is what exists - this is not classicism but the bare minimum purely onto\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh7892 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cal presupposition of any scientific ontology and ends up in universalization
he Law of Causality. This is enough ground to transcend the above sorts of \par
}
321 John Gribbin, Q Is for Quantum, s. v. "Copenhagen Interpretation." (Square
brackets
349 mine).
\fi6061 {\fs17 307 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 theories, including the possibly classical Einsteinian realism. Hence the
impor\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tanc
e of the following quote from Mario Bunge:
\fi226 {\fs15 In}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 view}{\fs15 Einstein}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 h
is}{\fs15 coworkers}{\fs15 were}{\fs15 right}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 asserting}{\f
s15 the}{\fs15 realistic}{\fs15 thesis}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the }
26 {\fs15 world}{\fs15 exists}{\fs15 without}{\fs15 our}{\fs15 assistance.}{
\fs15 But}{\fs15 they}{\fs15 were}{\fs15 wrong}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 supposing}
{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 world}{\fs15 is }
26 {\fs15 composed}{\fs15 exclusively}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 things}{\fs15 all}{\f
s15 the}{\fs15 properties}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 which}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 sharp}
{\fs15 values}{\fs15 (i.e.}{\fs15 eigen- }
26 {\fs15 values)}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 times.}{\fs15 This}{\fs15 hyp
othesis}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 realist}{\fs15 but}{\fs15 classicist}{\
fs15 .}{\fs15 It}{\fs15 amounts}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 claiming }
26 {\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 world}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 composed}{\fs15 of}
{\fs15 classons,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 therefore}{\fs15 must}{\fs15 be}{\fs15
describable}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 classical }
26 {\fs15 (or}{\fs15 neoclassical)}{\fs15 theories.}{\up006 \fs8 322 }
This is a pointer to the continuity between things classical and quantum, to the
ct that these two cannot be taken as separate worlds, i.e., anything ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
y or epistemologically fundamental in the one world is not absolutely absent
he other.
{\b \fs21 13.5.}{\b \fs21 Causal}{\b \fs21 Realism}{\b \fs21 of}{\b \fs21 Q
uantons }
James Cushing cites Pascual Jordan's anti-classicism, where he discusses reason\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 able
well the individual photons passing through a polarizer: "Denial of the clas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sica
l concept of causality is not to be understood as a temporary imperfection of
knowledge, but is inherent in the nature of the thing - again showing how
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inco
rrect our previous, classical concepts were."{\up006 \fs10 323} But the fact is
partially that he
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 too

was fighting primarily the classical realism of Einstein, by which sharp val\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ues
are to be the case, which may be called epistemological determinism, which
s things are as we measure them.
26 It is perfectly realistic to say that it is inherent in the nature of things
that wav\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 icle
s are at times in some physical-ontological states and at times in others. If, a
s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Jord
an seems to indicate, it is inherent in the nature of things that wavicles are
imes in a physical-ontological state and at times in no state, it is irrationali
sm
non-causalism, which wants to explain some things but refuses to explain
connection between physical-ontological state and non-state. If wavicles are
imes in some measuremental state and at times in no such state, we need only
ifferentiate between measuremental state and non-state, and cause and non\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 caus
e. We may safely say that it is in the combined nature of the micro-structure
hings and the meso- and macro-structures of our capabilities that it is impos\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e to interventionally (i.e., by causal intenvention by quantons) measure QM
{\fs16 322}{\fs16 Bunge,}{\fs16 Treatise}{\fs16 on}{\fs16 Basic}{\fs16 Phi
losophy,}{\fs16 Volume}{\fs16 7,}{\fs16 Part}{\fs16 I}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 175.
}
16 323}{\fs16 Pascual}{\fs16 Jordan,}{\fs16 Physics}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 t
he}{\fs16 20}{\up006 \fs9 th}{\fs16 Century}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 cited}{\fs16
without}{\fs16 further}{\fs16 details}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 James }
49 {\fs16 T.}{\fs16 Cushing,}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics:}{\fs16 His
torical}{\fs16 Contingency}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Copenhagen}{\fs1
6 He- }
49 {\fs16 gemony}{\fs16 (Chicago:}{\fs16 The}{\fs16 University}{\fs16 of}{\f
s16 Chicago}{\fs16 Press,}{\fs16 1994),}{\fs16 131-132. }
308 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 physical ontological states with certainty - which is a safe repetition of
the Un\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cert
ainty Principle via causal intervention, but it is trans-classical and realist i
n

(1) its mode of knowledge is causal intervention everywhere and (2) it yields
epistemic probabilities of the truth about classons and quantons.
26 In that case, the uncertainty is more due to our capacities with respect to m
icro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quan
tal objects and in the very micro-nature of quantal and sub-quantal worlds
er than merely in the ontological nature of things to be dual and c
omple\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
ary. Ontologically things are what they are, causal everywhere and rea
lly
ctual everywhere. We too form part of things / processes in the world, and
knowing process does only approximate, with the absolute surety that things
what they processually are outside of the knowing minds. There is, therefore,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 no e
scaping the realist belief that things are in process even without our minds.
presupposes ontological commitment to there being generally speaking
thing as tokens outside our minds rather than just specific measured proper\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ties
called "states". Everything is ontologically something in theoretical priority
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 befo
re it is some thing with measured properties or states. The sense in which it
rimarily something rather than some thing is its that-ness. Even at this level
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 a th
ing is causal by implication, and whatever happens in extension-motion is
to the processual nature of matter energy in extension-motion, namely, the
al-processual nature of anything that is.
26 What is possible and imperative in physics is to explain the causal "how" of
is mathematically concluded by commonsense about measurements in an
logically tenable integral whole that presupposes its causal nature primarily
omething processually existing. This is so although this is statistically being
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 done
in QM (1) as at times possessing sharp values and at times not possessing
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 shar
p values in QM's variety of trans-realist and near-sighted classicist ontology,
(2) in terms of wave-particle duality, wave-particle complementarity, etc. It
o virtue to keep away from causal explanations that deal physical-ontolog\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ical
ly in general and to keep on to particularist descriptions that yield
highly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inad
equate understanding or give rise to endlessly irreconcilable conceptual

lexities and renormalizations. Any thought that disputes causal ontological
itment in the most general sense is therefore a passing fad. In the
same
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 way,
perhaps also the Fuzzy Logics that seem to work in QM{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
188 \\f Symbol }}!
26 Accordingly, I believe that realism in physics may be defined as the fundamen
tal
retical attitude to justified but falsifiable true belief in terms of ontologica
lly
epistemologically compatible results of any or the entirety of theories about
there are in causal processes and what is the case in causal processes - how\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7254\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ever
deeply macro-, or meso-, or micro-, or nano-scopic, or still more minute the
al processes may be in their theoretical and experimental distance from our
\fi6061 309 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 epistemically meso-scopic and macro-scopic agency and apparatuses of obser
va\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
- through a relatively very high a priori causal ontological commitment (in
arison to what is had in mathematical explications of science) to (1)
the
thing-ness of processual objects, (2) to the theoretical-experimental medi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 aten
ess of our experience of processual objects, (3) to the empirically cognitive
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 and/
or immediately perceptual approach to them via experiments, etc., as being
beyond the instrumental nature of measurements, or as being implied in the
al perceptions or measurements.
26 Here the epistemological aspect of apriority in ontological commitmen
t to
ally real processes is that of commitment to truth probabilities as i
n QM,
facts of physically and experimentally mediate experience, based on t
he
logical factuality or that-ness of objects or processes. The ontological aspect

t is the commitment to the factuality of physical objects or processes within
ically and perceptually mediated experience, which is irreducibly mediated
by their theoretical necessity. In short, even the empirical aposteriority of
fact has its indirect basis on the a priori ontological commitment to the that\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ness
of phenomena, facts and processes, in their non-variegated immediacy in
perceptual act and in their givenness to theoretical perception based on ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 peri
mentally decidable facts. Realistic empirical aposteriority is thus base
d on
logical commitment to things-in-themselves, theoretically developed from
mediateness in the perceptual-experimental act and in the givenness of these
gs or processes.
26 The former without the latter yields empiricism, empiricist idealism,
solip\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sism
, relativism, phenomenalism, transcendental conceptualism, non-causalism,
salism and so on. The latter, without the former, results in fixated particular\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 isti
c realism without care for the ever broader totalities and their say in the par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticu
lar (as in the logical-positivistic and nominalistic fixations of discrete thing
s,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 or i
n semantic fixations of Reality-in-total and reality-in-particular in the vari\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ous
analytic ontologies today) or over-fluent realism (as in British naturalism or
in Hegelian realism which confuse whatever conceptual about processes for
processes). Truth in the a posteriori form is always conditioned upon realis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tic
apriority, namely, thus-ness, which I have called also objectual-ness.
26 How do we connect truth derived via such empirical realistic aposte
riority
he causal ontology of physical processes? Truth in causal realism may be de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fine
d as justified and falsifiable true belief in terms of ontologically and episte\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 molo
gically compatible logical results of any or the entirety of theories
about
there are and what is the case, through a priori commitment to causal ob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7356\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ject
s / causal processes as something-s and to our empirically cognitive approach

hem which epistemically yields measured properties about something-s.
310 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Classical realism is the via media between phenomenalism an
d our sort of
al realism. It isolates entities (implying solipsism of the entity or phenom\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 enon
) based on the immediate measurement and discovery of properties (im\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 plyi
ng empiricism and analysis), based on pragmatic theorization of the nearest
out full access to the Universal Law of Causality through Causal Horizonal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Rese
arch (implying analytical particularism) and based on crass ontological
itment in favour of things in isolation from the causal horizon witho
ut
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ulti
mate generalisation unto something-s.
26 In QM, if an ontological commitment is implied in any probability
distri\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 buti
on or in anything of its kind, we need to also account for the pro
bability
ribution by an ontological commitment of the physical-ontological sort,
by an absence of ontological commitment as in instrumentalist-probabilist
interpretations. Ontological commitment points always to causality
d on the very meaning of extension-motion processes. More clearly, if the
ribution is something, then it should also have been caused by some things,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alth
ough both are not too evident to the "experimental" application of ma
th\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 emat
ical calculations for a convenience that is satisfied with mere probabilities
measured eigenvalues (sharp own values) at the given measured space\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 time
of a somewhat specific extension-motion region. That is to say, irreducibly
thing is caused by something prior everywhere in physics, even in QM.
is ontological commitment to causation yielding the Universal Law of Cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty (that all are through and through causal) and yielding realism.

26 Now, due to our ontological commitment to something-s in causation,
we
in a position to speak also of ontological commitment to something beyond
epistemic "reality" of the measured epistemologically statistical quantity of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 eige
nstates{\up006 \fs10 324} characterised by measurement. An eigenstate or eigenfu
nction is a
ly measured quantum state given by a unique state vector or wave function.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Quan
tum systems are mostly in superposition of states. Ontological commit\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ment
to causation cannot be merely to the immediate in perception from meas\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7195\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 urem
ent, including the exact measured value of an eigenstate which restricts it to
immediate causal past to determine the specific quantities. That is, by reason
ausal horizonal research, there is nothing that restricts it to the immediate
al past and cuts it off from the distantly causal past. Every specific quantum
e can have a relatively fixed value only if it is cut off from its distant causa
l past
restricted to the present. Superposition of states is an epistemically restricte
d
on of the immediate causal state regarding a process or a physical state that
ally affects other physical states behind the superposed (measured) states.
{\fs16 324}{\fs16 John}{\fs16 Gribbin,}{\fs16 Q}{\fs16 Is}{\fs16 for}{\fs1
6 Quantum}{\fs16 ,}{\fs16 s.}{\fs16 v.}{\fs16 "Eigenstate." }
\fi6061 311 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Concerning the real meaning of the state vector according to Bohr,
Penrose
a critique:
\fi226 {\fs15 Those}{\fs15 who}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 most}{\fs15 vehement}{\fs15
about}{\fs15 accepting}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 being}{\
fs15 in}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 way}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 need }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 modification}{\fs15 tend}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 th
ink}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 represents}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 actual}{\fs15
behaviour}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 'real'}{\fs15 quan- }
26 {\fs15 tum-level}{\fs15 world.}{\fs15 Niels}{\fs15 Bohr,}{\fs15 who}{\fs1
5 was}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 leading}{\fs15 figure}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 d

evelopment}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 inter- }
26 {\fs15 pretation}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 theory,}{\fs15 was}{\fs1
5 one}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 most}{\fs15 extreme}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 th
is}{\fs15 respect.}{\fs15 He}{\fs15 seems}{\fs15 to }
26 {\fs15 have}{\fs15 regarded}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 vector}{\fs15
as}{\fs15 no}{\fs15 more}{\fs15 than}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 convenience,}{\fs15
useful}{\fs15 only}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 calculating }
26 {\fs15 probabilities}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 results}{\fs15 of}{\fs1
5 'measurements'}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 might}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 performed}{\fs15
on}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 system.}{\fs15 The }
26 {\fs15 state}{\fs15 vector}{\fs15 itself}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 to
}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 thought}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 providing}{\fs15 an}{
\fs15 objective}{\fs15 description}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 any }
26 {\fs15 kind}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 quantum-level}{\fs15 reality}{\fs15 ,}{\fs15
but}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 representing}{\fs15 merely}{\fs15 'our}{\fs15 knowled
ge'}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 system. }
26 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 Bohr}{\fs15 was}{
\fs15 certainly}{\fs15 someone}{\fs15 who}{\fs15 'really}{\fs15 believed}{\
fs15 in}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 mechanics',}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 his }
26 {\fs15 view}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 vector}{\fs15 seeme
d,}{\fs15 indeed,}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 it}{\fs15 should}
{\fs15 not}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 'taken}{\fs15 seriously'}{\fs15 as }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 description}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 physical}{\fs15
reality}{\fs15 at}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 level.}{\up006 \fs8 325 }
The need to build up causalism from the already repudiated QM instrum
en\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tali
sm about the quantum results, but which is applied in fact everywhere
in
instrumentalist explanations, is the motive of my argument. There must
a realistic causal strain behind the superposition of states (state ei
genfunc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s), the probability distribution and the process of formation and inte
rnal
iotemporal-physical constitution of quantons, causing the probability dis
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 trib
ution. Bohr seems to admit the epistemic aspect of QM without too much
espondence-level reference to reality outside. Bohr has also resisted the fact
the same QM measuremental theories and their instrumentalistic interpre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tati
ons do point to a real and ubiquitously causal world.
{\b \fs21 13.6.}{\b \fs21 Micro-causal}{\b \fs21 Solution}{\b \fs21 to}{\b \
fs21 the}{\b \fs21 Many}{\b \fs21 Worlds}{\b \fs21 Interpretation }

Something that goes somewhat in the direction of instrumentalist explanation \par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 but
is difficult to understand in terms of realism - is Hugh Everett III's QM many
ds explanation. It is important to evaluate it so that we can evaluate its con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cept
of causality. I begin with a quote on the realistic idea of the place of proba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
ties and human consciousness in QM experiments from Bernard d'Espagnat's
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7169\absh7934 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 expo
sition of Everett:
\fi226 {\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs15 consists}{\fs1
5 in}{\fs15 not}{\fs15 resorting}{\fs15 explicitly}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 collap
se}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 considering}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15
states }
26 {\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 measuring}{\fs15 instruments}{\fs1
5 instead.}{\fs15 When}{\fs15 both}{\fs15 measurements}{\fs15 have}{\fs15
been}{\fs15 per- }
26 {\fs15 formed,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 overall}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 state}{\fs
15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 system}{\fs15 plus}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 two}{\fs15 i
nstruments}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 general }
26 {\fs15 a}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 superposition}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 states}
{\fs15 that}{\fs15 are}{\fs15 eigenstates}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15
measured}{\fs15 quantity }\par
}
325 Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Con
scious\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy10144\absw7222\absh972 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi
349 ness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 309.
{\fs17 312 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs15 \cf0 corresponding to different eigenvalues, but in each of these states
the two instruments
26 are in the corresponding eigenstates of their respective "pointer coordinates
," so that
26 these eigenstates are strictly correlated. Under these conditions the probabi
lity is zero
26 that, when each observer looks at his instrument (i.e., measures its pointer
coordinate)
26 the outcome they read should differ.{\up006 \fs8 326 }
{\fs17 Not}{\fs17 taking}{\fs17 quantum}{\fs17 state}{\fs17 collapsing}{\fs1

7 as}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 but}{\fs17 merely}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 good}
{\fs17 explanation}{\fs17 for }
17 QM}{\fs17 probabilities}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 lead}{\fs17 one}{\fs17 also}{\
fs17 to}{\fs17 dealing}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 measurements}{\fs17 separately}{\
fs17 and }
17 seeing}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 happens}{\fs17 realistically}{\fs17 by}{\fs
17 explaining}{\fs17 what}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 attained}{\fs17 probabilit
ies }
17 mean.}{\fs17 One}{\fs17 can}{\fs17 elaborate}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 this}{\fs1
7 manner}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 solution}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 connection
}{\fs17 between }
17 probabilities}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 causation.}{\fs17 But}{\fs17 includin
g}{\fs17 consciousness}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 measurement }
17 leads}{\fs17 us}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 finding}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 of}
{\fs17 no}{\fs17 realistic}{\fs17 consequence}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 the}{\fs17
processes}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 measure- }
17 ment.}{\fs17 I}{\fs17 quote}{\fs17 d'Espagnat}{\fs17 further:}{\fs17 "{\
field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 variant}{\fs17 of}{
\fs17 this}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 Everett's}{\fs17 "relative}{\fs17 state" }
17 conception,}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 even}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 observe
rs'}{\fs17 consciousnesses}{\fs17 are}{\fs17 included}{\fs17 into}{\fs17 th
e }
17 overall}{\fs17 quantum}{\fs17 system.}{\fs17 Again,}{\fs17 there}{\fs17
is}{\fs17 zero}{\fs17 probability}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 states}{\fs
17 of}{\fs17 con- }
17 sciousness}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 observers}{\fs17 -}{\f
s17 here}{\fs17 identified}{\fs17 with}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 eigenstates}{\fs17
of}{\fs17 these}{\fs17 two }
17 consciousnesses}{\fs17 -}{\fs17 should}{\fs17 differ}{\fs17 from}{\fs17
one}{\fs17 another."}{\up006 \fs10 327 }
26 {\fs17 Under}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 impression}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 consciousnes
s}{\fs17 directly}{\fs17 interferes}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 measurements }
17 in}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 real}{\fs17 way}{\fs17 beyond}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 natu
ral}{\fs17 influence}{\fs17 that}{\fs17 it}{\fs17 exerts}{\fs17 in}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 planning}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 exe- }
17 cution}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 experiment,}{\fs17 Everett}{\fs17 con
siders}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 consciousnesses}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 observ
ers }
17 on}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 two}{\fs17 sides}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 EPR}{
\fs17 entanglement}{\fs17 experiment}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 equivalent}{\fs17 to}
{\fs17 each}{\fs17 other }
17 and}{\fs17 takes}{\fs17 them}{\fs17 as}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 no}{\fs17 relev
ance}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 process}{\fs17 at}{\fs17 issue,}{\fs17 bu
t}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 understand- }

17 ing}{\fs17 of}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 process,}{\fs17 which}{\fs17 is}{\fs17
normal}{\fs17 for}{\fs17 an}{\fs17 understanding}{\fs17 in}{\fs17 which}{\f
s17 there}{\fs17 is}{\fs17 con- }
17 tinuity}{\fs17 between}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 classical}{\fs17 and}{\fs17 the
}{\fs17 quantum.}{\fs17 He}{\fs17 suggests}{\fs17 a}{\fs17 no-collapse}{\fs
17 theory }
17 that}{\fs17 obeys}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 following}{\fs17 rules}{\fs17 of}{\f
s17 dynamics}{\fs17 under}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 assumption}{\fs17 that}{\fs17
the}{\fs17 alleged }
17 determination}{\fs17 by}{\fs17 consciousness}{\fs17 does}{\fs17 not}{\fs1
7 matter}{\fs17 due}{\fs17 to}{\fs17 its}{\fs17 alleged}{\fs17 equivalence
}{\fs17 of }
17 determinations}{\fs17 on}{\fs17 both}{\fs17 the}{\fs17 sides: }
\fi226 {\b Dynamics}:{\b (a)}Ifnomeasurementismade,thenasystemSevolvescontinuous
lyaccording
26 to the linear, deterministic dynamics, which depends only on the en
ergy properties
26 of the system.{\b (b)} If a measurement is made, then the system S instantan
eously and
26 randomly jumps to a state where it either determinately has or determinately
does not
26 have the property being measured. The probability of each possible post-measu
rement
26 state is determined by the system's initial state. More specifically
, the probability of
26 ending up in a particular final state is equal to the norm squared of the pro
jection of the
26 initial state on the final state.{\up006 \fs8 328 }\par
}
326 d'Espagnat, Veiled Reality, 340.
d'Espagnat, Veiled Reality, 340.
Jeffrey Barrett, "Everett's Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics",
URL:
349 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/ (Accessed on 17 June 2011).
\fi6061 {\fs17 313 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 In spite of this facilitation of a dynamics without the mind, it is hard t

o call it cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sati
on where his determinations end abruptly at the immediate causal vicinity.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 A dy
namical explanation can work normally only in a broader universal causal
anation where all possible causes that have contributed to the process are put
ther as the causal horizon; but his concept of determination seems to depend
an alleged ontological causal-probabilistic reality of QM objects. It i
s thus
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 famo
us that it is difficult to get at how his no-collapse theory works:
\fi226 {\fs15 Everett}{\fs15 then}{\fs15 wanted}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 recapture}{
\fs15 the}{\fs15 predictions}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 standard}{\fs15 c
ollapse}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 ex- }
26 {\fs15 plaining}{\fs15 why}{\fs15 observers}{\fs15 nevertheless}{\fs15 ge
t}{\fs15 determinate}{\fs15 measurement}{\fs15 records}{\fs15 (or}{\fs15 at
}{\fs15 least }
26 {\fs15 appear}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 do}{\fs15 so)}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 by}{\fs15
accounting}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 probabilities.}{\fs15 It}{\fs1
5 is,}{\fs15 however,}{\fs15 unclear }
26 {\fs15 precisely}{\fs15 how}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 was}{\fs15 supposed}{\fs15
to}{\fs15 work.}{\fs15 There}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 been}{\fs15 several}{\fs1
5 attempts}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 recon- }
26 {\fs15 struct}{\fs15 Everett's}{\fs15 no-collapse}{\fs15 theory}{\fs15 in
}{\fs15 order}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 account}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 determinate}{\fs15
measurement }
26 {\fs15 records}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 probabilities.}{\up006 \fs
8 329 }
Everett's version has been interpreted variously "as the many-worlds, m
any\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mind
s, many-histories, relative-fact, and bare theories. Each of these capt
ures
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 at
least part of what Everett claimed for his theory, but each also enc
ounters
lems."{\up006 \fs10 330} I find Everett sounding somewhat more realistic,
except for his
-drawn and far-fetched many-worlds interpretation that bases itself on
al probabilism and is devoid of ontological commitment to real existence of
e many worlds. Since ontological commitment is absent in Everett, I suggest
its concept of causality too is that of causal probabilism in practice, which
ds criticised in the foregoing chapters already. Hence, the concept of wavicle

I propose need not find a sort of enemy in Everett different from traditional
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Cope
nhagen QM physicist. Moreover, if his many worlds are real, I believe the
ept of causal continuity in a causally real multiple universe will be applicable
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 to E
verett's many worlds.
{\b \fs21 13.7.}{\b \fs21 Causal-Realistic}{\b \fs21 Sinusoidal}{\b \fs21 Wa
vicle}{\b \fs21 Path }
The statistical identification of the specific properties of a radiatio
n, when re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 flec
ted physical-ontologically and physical-epistemologically for a settlement
,
aspects that can relativize every path that a radiation is understood to take on
route in such identification of properties - whether it is at the meso-, micro-,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7171\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nano
-, or any other deeper level of wavicle size. The two important choices were
{\fs16 329}{\fs16 Barrett,}{\fs16 "Everett's}{\fs16 Relative-State}{\fs16 F
ormulation}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics",}{\fs16 URL:}{\fs16 h
ttp:// }
49 {\fs16 plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/}{\fs16 (Accessed}{\fs16 on}{\
fs16 17}{\fs16 June}{\fs16 2011). }
16 330}{\fs16 Barrett,}{\fs16 "Everett's}{\fs16 Relative-State}{\fs16 Formu
lation}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 Mechanics",}{\fs16 URL:}{\fs16 http:
// }
49 {\fs16 plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/}{\fs16 (Accessed}{\fs16 on}{\
fs16 17}{\fs16 June}{\fs16 2011). }
314 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 found to be the phenomena of reflection and refraction. The question here
is of
two substantive definitions found to be naturally suitable as ideals: corpus\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cle
and wave, and the corresponding paths and properties. These two model
s
derived from the instinctive imagination proper to geometry and is only a
ely Euclidean representation of the real physical extension-motion model of

wavicle. One does not seem to have asked if an ideal reflection and an ideal re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 frac
tion in the geometrical aspect could be actually in the variously mixed states
mutual proportions of the geometrical ideals of the allegedly purely l
inear
on of physical corpuscles and the allegedly purely wavy motion of physical
s. A corpuscle is physically speaking inadequately assigned to reflection \par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 this
inadequate assignment has its only reason in the meso-world imagination of
icles or balls reflecting upon a surface because they seem to the meso-world
ination to travel in straight lines.
26 Similarly, an exactly wavy path was assigned to refraction. This has the rea\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 son
in the meso-world imagination of the geometrical ideal of wave-shape
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 assi
gned to a real wave. Both these are physical-ontologically and physica
l\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 epis
temologically inadequate, since there is no physically exact proof so far that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 anyt
hing corpuscular should propagate in a geometrically exact straight lin
e
or anything wavy must take a geometrically wavy path. In any case, any\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thin
g physically wavy has to be wavy or, better, spiral, in general - but not purely
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 so in three dimensions due to its three-dimensional extension; and in motion
its one dimension of time. That is, the concept of a physical spiral is causall
y
flexible with regard to its extent of curvature in various directions, whereas
geometrical concepts of pure wave and straight line are inflexible. Hence, the
etrical wave must be made a geometrically non-pure spiral and thus take
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 on c
ausal interventions from the past and allow for the finite velocity; but the
etrical wave and straight line are never to be the physical one. Therefore,
only roughly permissible path is an imperfectly sinusoidal spiral, into which
straight line direction of particle nature is accommodated. This permits us
feasible interpretations:
26 (1) An allegedly hard and rigid (if without inner causal motions!)
physical

icle can be conceived to propagate spirally. This gives rise to refraction (and
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 pola
rization) of the particles of various energy levels (defining the wave lengths)
r reflecting (as an object of purely particle shape) at the appropria
te point
is the case in rigid particles, or else at least at each hit) in accordance with
combined effect of the general direction of the propagation, the particular
ction of the tangent of the point of the spiral at the point of hi
t, and the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 spin
of the particles. Here too the alleged rigidity (absolutely spherical, but ab\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7178\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 solu
tely rigid if it has no inner causal motions) of the particle allows itself to b
e
\fi6061 315 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 taken only as idealization{\up006 \fs10 331 }\par
}
{\phpg\posx3268\pvpg\posy854\absw4506\absh242 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of
the physical particle by geometrical imagination. \par
}
This makes the purely wavy and particle interpretations improbable, but makes
sinusoidal spiral motion of wavicles real via polarization and refraction that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 alw
ays include reflection. Here there is no more dichotomy between refraction
reflection.
226 (2) The physical particle, however small, has to be dynamic within
, as, for
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exa
mple, an electron is composed and has therefore its interior processes
too.
dynamic of motion in sinusoidal wave form allows it to pulsate in
all the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dir
ections as and when the external and internal causes behind its motions allow.
facilitates all causally allowable sinusoidal shapes in its temporally
measur\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abl
e course, which facilitates reflection, refraction and polarization. It
propa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 gat
es in the spiral wave form. Since the inner-particle pulsation is not rigid, the
pagation path too is a dynamic, forward-sinusoidal spiral wave. This yields
actual physical energy propagation of tenable description, which, due to its
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 non
-rigidity, is actualized in its continuous pulsation in the various spatial dire
c\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tio
ns due to inner causal motions. In this case there is no duality between wave
particle. A complementarity in the sense of the improbable case in (1)will
be possible. Therefore, the only possible complementarity is that in
type
. Here it must be kept in mind that the complementarity is not a mix of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ext
ended geometrical spiral wave motion and straight line motion of parti
cles
hout extension, and instead it is of the physical sinusoidal-spiral wave motion
a side-ways and forwards pulsating particle. The real physical motion of the
pagation differs from both the ideal paths.
226 This is already a way of diffraction and polarization (both together constit
ut\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ing
wave-nature) via reflection (constituting particle-nature). Here is not
pre\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sen
t the Aristotelian or Newtonian realism, but a causal realism that unites the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 wav
e- and particle natures into one combined explanation without incurring an
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ont
ology of "probabilistic causation" described in the initial chapters. Only when
prove the one or the other in the purely mathematical shape does the actually
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy1104\absw7229\absh9108 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 non
-complementary but alleged "complementarity" arise. The "inaccuracies"
"uncertainties" of pinpointing an energy propagation into the wave mod
el
into the corpuscular model should now be alleged to the inaccuracies
and
{\fs16 331}{\fs16 By}{\fs16 idealisation}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 concep
t}{\fs16 (say,}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 a}{\fs16 particle)}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 meant}
{\fs16 making}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 concept}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 much }
349 {\fs16 accorded}{\fs16 to}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 purity}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the
}{\fs16 most}{\fs16 unrealistically}{\fs16 spatialized}{\fs16 theory}{\fs16
about}{\fs16 it}{\fs16 as}{\fs16 pos- }
349 {\fs16 sible,}{\fs16 but}{\fs16 still}{\fs16 capable}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 m
athematically}{\fs16 abstractly}{\fs16 representing}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 object
}{\fs16 denoted. }
349 {\fs16 Theory}{\fs16 is}{\fs16 very}{\fs16 much}{\fs16 the}{\i \f20 \fs1
6 {\f63 \u7763\'3f}}{\fs16 ria}{\fs16 (Greek),}{\fs16 i.e.,}{\fs16 contemplat
ive}{\fs16 visualization}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 something }
349 {\fs16 against}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 context}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 mo
st}{\fs16 general}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 total.}{\fs16 Idealization}{\fs16 has}{
\fs16 to}{\fs16 do}{\fs16 with}{\fs16 spatial- }
349 {\fs16 izing}{\fs16 purity,}{\fs16 where}{\fs16 all}{\fs16 that}{\fs16
have}{\fs16 processually}{\fs16 gone}{\fs16 into}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 object}{
\fs16 need}{\fs16 not}{\fs16 find}{\fs16 place. }
316 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 inadequacies existing in the experimental and theoretical ascription of on
e form
esult to the spiral wave model and the other to the corpuscular linear model.
mistakes here could only be: (1) the ascription of the ideal geometrical mod\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7282\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 els
to one or other entity-shape naturally derivable from these very two
geo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7282\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 metr
ical models, and (2) the absence of a model that can possibly integrate both.
26 I hold it remarkable that an admixture of the semblances of the ideals of spi
ral
and linear corpuscle in a causally physical sinusoidal spiral wave can over\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7282\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 come
the "inaccuracies" and "probabilistic causality" that are supposed to exist
he very ontological nature of the propagations. Only in our ways of measuring
otherwise physical sinusoidal wavicle in terms of geometrical wave- and
par\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7282\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ticl
e forms can inadequacies and probabilities exist. Nature goes as it does. Any
iotemporal property in Nature cannot be given measured values of absolute
re. We can relativise its forms from the pure to the non-pure, which can be
elatively different but mutually akin nature in each natural kind and token.
26 Only if the alleged duality and incomplete "complementarity" between
the
geometrical ideals (wave motion and linear motion) are truly of two differ\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7282\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ent
physical entities and not of one and the same phenomenon, can there be any

non-causality in the propagations, since in that case one and the same real
ical wavicle will have to be simultaneously dual and simply complementary.
complementarity is capable of being only epistemologically justifiable if the
abilities are not epistemic but ontologically existent in the nature of things.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7282\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 What
ever the obtained probabilities are, they can only be the probabilitie
s of
temological access to the causal processes by the help of the current
level
chievable accuracy of measurements in experiments from the meso-cosmic
e of apparatuses. Hence, the causal probabilities we grapple with in QM are
ical-ontologically explainable as purely causal, and only merely epistem
o\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7282\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 logi
cally as probabilities.
26 This ontological interpretation may be considered to be a settlement
of the
owing statements about QM statistical behaviour:
\fi226 {\fs15 Among}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 properties}{\fs15 were}{\fs15 the}{\f
s15 energy}{\fs15 discontinuity}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 radiation}{\fs15 and}{\fs1
5 of}{\fs15 atomic}{\fs15 lev- }
26 {\fs15 els,}{\fs15 dual}{\fs15 wave-particle}{\fs15 aspects}{\fs15 for}{\
fs15 light,}{\fs15 and}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 statistical}{\fs15 behaviour}{
\fs15 (for}{\fs15 bosons, }
26 {\fs15 revealed}{\fs15 also}{\fs15 for}{\fs15 fermions}{\fs15 with}{\fs15
Dirac)}{\fs15 referred}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 indistinguishability}{\
fs15 of}{\fs15 identical }
26 {\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 systems.}{\fs15 All}{\fs15 three}{\fs15 appeared}{\
fs15 to}{\fs15 be}{\fs15 fundamental}{\fs15 properties}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 th
e}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 sys- }
26 {\fs15 tems,}{\fs15 interconnected}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 each}{\fs15 other.}
{\fs15 The}{\fs15 latter,}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 particular,}{\fs15 entailed}{\fs
15 powerful}{\fs15 con- }
26 {\fs15 sequences}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 have}{\fs15 all}{\fs15 been}{\fs15 v
erified}{\fs15 afterwards}{\fs15 (explanation}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 p
eriodical}{\fs15 table}{\fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 the}{\fs15 chemical}{\fs15 elements,}{\fs15 constitution}{\fs15 of
}{\fs15 degenerate}{\fs15 stars,}{\fs15 Bose-Einstein}{\fs15 condensation}{\
fs15 of }
26 {\fs15 many}{\fs15 identical}{\fs15 atoms}{\fs15 falling}{\fs15 into}{\fs
15 the}{\fs15 same}{\fs15 "zero}{\fs15 energy}{\fs15 point"}{\fs15 ground}
{\fs15 state,}{\fs15 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f Symbol }}).}{\up006 \fs
8 332 }
{\fs16 332}{\fs16 Paty,}{\fs16 "Physical}{\fs16 Quantum}{\fs16 States}{\fs1
6 and}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 Meaning}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 Probability",}{\fs16 240.
}
\fi6061 317 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 The discontinuity of exchange of energy between matter particles and incom
ing
utgoing energy propagations has a constant unit of multiplication, namely,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Plan
ck's constant. This is the reason for particularization of each quantu
m of
gy. But spatial elongation to all directions in wavicle motion is due
to the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 inne
r and external causally influenced motions upon the very constitution
of
ta - which shows non-absoluteness of quanta themselves. Hence, there i
s
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 no s
candal here against genuine physical-ontological causalism, but only against
sicism. Given the initial concept of continuity of radiation in wave motion in
history of electromagnetic theory, it was difficult to understand the spatial
ontinuity in the wave path.
26 Against the continuity-discreteness concepts of QM prevalent even today is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 my s
uggestion as follows: The causal probability in QM is not probability of cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty but the probability of discovering the cause (for definitions, see Chapter3).
is to be well distinguished from the cumulative measure of hits of q
uantum
es (of many wavicles) on the thin film, which yields a probability distribution.
o, the probability distribution can only be a cumulative result of individual
al strikes of particle-like states of quanta on the film - and this
can yield
ality immediately from the strikes and mediately from the internal cau
sal
esses of the extension-motion- and physical structure of the individual reg-
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 istr

ation of hits by quanta. Despite the fact that these individual hits are admis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sibl
e statistically, ontological commitment yields these to be causal-processual.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 What
if there is causality also just before the hits? This can lead us to an under\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7176\absh5195 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stan
ding of causal continuity not disturbed by the discrete nature of quanta. \par
}
18 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\fs28 \cf0 Chapter 14. Conclusion: Causal Ubiquity
i1716 in the Micro-World \par
}
\cf0 14.1. Causal Extent in Ultra-quantal Causal Wavicle Realism
cf0 {\b0 \fs17 Section}{\b0 \fs17 13.4}{\b0 \fs17 above}{\b0 \fs17 cites}{\b0
\fs17 Mario}{\b0 \fs17 Bunge}{\b0 \fs17 on}{\b0 \fs17 classical}{\b0 \fs17
realism.}{\b0 \fs17 We}{\b0 \fs17 resume}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 discus}
{\b0 \fs17 sion}{\b0 \fs17 further.}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 suggest}{\b0 \fs1
7 that}{\b0 \fs17 classicism}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 microphysics}{\b0 \fs1
7 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 cognitive}{\b0 \fs17 attitude}{\b0 \fs17 to}
{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 objects}{\b0 \fs17 /}{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 physical}{\b0 \fs17 world}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 which,}{
\b0 \fs17 without}{\b0 \fs17 justification}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 mediate
}
{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 immediate}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \fs17 commi
tment}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0 \fs17 in
}{\b0 \fs17 microphysics,}{\b0 \fs17 one }
{\b0 \fs17 takes}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 granted}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 classical}{\b0 \fs17 manner}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM:}{\b0
\fs17 (1)}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 current}{\b0 \fs17 lev
el}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 obser- }
{\b0 \fs17 vation,}{\b0 \fs17 theoretical}{\b0 \fs17 circumscription}{\b0 \fs1
7 of}{\b0 \fs17 distant}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 ever-more}{\b0 \fs17 minu
te}{\b0 \fs17 causation,}{\b0 \fs17 and }
{\b0 \fs17 mathematical}{\b0 \fs17 tools}{\b0 \fs17 for}{\b0 \fs17 descriptio
n}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 entities}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 processes,}{\b
0 \fs17 etc.}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 most}{\b0 \fs17 adequate, }
{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 (2)}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 objects}{\b0 \fs17
/}{\b0 \fs17 processes}{\b0 \fs17 possess}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 sharp}{\
b0 \fs17 values}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 measurement}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \f
s17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 scientific}{\b0 \fs17 experiments}{\b0 \fs17 attach}{\b0 \fs17 to}
{\b0 \fs17 them}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 viewpoint}{\b0 \fs
17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 mesoscopic,}{\b0 \fs17 micro- }
{\b0 \fs17 scopic,}{\b0 \fs17 nanoscopic}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 any}{\b0 \f
s17 other}{\b0 \fs17 level}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 depth}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b
0 \fs17 apparatus-based}{\b0 \fs17 perception,}{\b0 \fs17 cog- }
{\b0 \fs17 nition}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 judgment,}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \f
s17 points}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 view}{\b0 \fs17 achieved}{\b0 \fs17 as}
{\b0 \fs17 ready-to-hand}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 ever}{\b0 \fs17 higher }
{\b0 \fs17 infinitesimality}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 real}{\b0 \fs17 wavicles
.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 classicism}{\b0 \fs17 has}{\b0 \fs17 been}{\b0
\fs17 eschewed}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 this}{\b0 \fs17 work. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 epistemologica
l}{\b0 \fs17 variety}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 merely}{\b0 \fs17 empirical,}{
\b0 \fs17 merely}{\b0 \fs17 experiment- }
{\b0 \fs17 based,}{\b0 \fs17 instrumentalistic}{\b0 \fs17 determinism}{\b0 \
fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 defeats}{\b0 \fs17 theoretical}{\b0 \fs17 acceptanc
e}{\b0 \fs17 of }
{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 more}{\b0 \fs17 than}{\b0 \fs17 apparent}{\b0 \fs17
and}{\b0 \fs17 evident}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 determinations}{\b0 \fs
17 (influences)}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the }
{\b0 \fs17 past,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 infinitesimal}{\b0 \fs17 determ
inations}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 within}{\b0 \fs17 every}{\b0 \fs17 s
uch}{\b0 \fs17 past}{\b0 \fs17 process. }
{\b0 \fs17 These}{\b0 \fs17
determinations}{\b0 \fs17
have}{\b0 \fs17
i
ngressed}{\b0 \fs17
from}{\b0 \fs17
beyond}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17
object's}{\b0 \fs17
own}{\b0 \fs17
near- }
{\b0 \fs17 infinitesimal}{\b0 \fs17 determinations}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs1
7 beyond}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 also}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 the
}{\b0 \fs17 object's}{\b0 \fs17 inner }
{\b0 \fs17 near-}{\b0 \fs17 infinitesimal}{\b0 \fs17 depths.}{\b0 \fs17 These}
{\b0 \fs17 have}{\b0 \fs17 ingressed}{\b0 \fs17 into}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs
17 ontologically}{\b0 \fs17 objectual }
{\b0 \fs17 level}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 present}{\b0 \fs17 action}{\b0 \
fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causality}{\b0 \fs17 within}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17
quanton}{\b0 \fs17 that}{\b0 \fs17 exists}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 exte
nsion- }
{\b0 \fs17 motion}{\b0 \fs17 order}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 causally}{\b0 \f
s17 as}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 wavicle.}{\b0 \fs17 This}{\b0 \fs17 theoreti
cal}{\b0 \fs17 subsuming}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 roots }
{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 ontological}{\b0 \f
s17 study}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 quanton}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0
\fs17 termed}{\b0 \fs17 Causal}{\b0 \fs17 Horizonal}{\b0 \fs17 Research. }
\fi226 {\b0 \fs17 As}{\b0 \fs17 already}{\b0 \fs17 said,}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \
fs17 'objectual'}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17 mean}{\b0 \fs17 'ideally}{\b0 \fs17

implying}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 existence}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 some
- }
{\b0 \fs17 thing}{\b0 \fs17 (without}{\b0 \fs17 specifying}{\b0 \fs17 the}
{\b0 \fs17 empirical}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b0 \fs17 measured}{\b0 \fs17 or}{\b
0 \fs17 sensed}{\b0 \fs17 particularities }
{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 a}{\b0 \fs17 token}{\b0 \fs17 entity,}{\b0 \fs17
but}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 general}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 somethin
g)}{\b0 \fs17 by}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 causal}{\b0 \fs17 ontological
}{\b0 \fs17 com- }
{\b0 \fs17 mitment}{\b0 \fs17 behind}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 natural}{\b0 \
fs17 kind}{\b0 \fs17 terms}{\b0 \fs17 used'.}{\b0 \fs17 The}{\b0 \fs17 vari
ety}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 classicism}{\b0 \fs17 in}{\b0 \fs17 QM, }
{\b0 \fs17 namely,}{\b0 \fs17 instrumentalistic}{\b0 \fs17 determinism,}{\b0
\fs17 which}{\b0 \fs17 does}{\b0 \fs17 not}{\b0 \fs17 accept}{\b0 \fs17
this}{\b0 \fs17 possibility }
{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 'objectual',}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b0 \fs17
suggest,}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 an}{\b0 \fs17 enemy}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \f
s17 genuine}{\b0 \fs17 Causal}{\b0 \fs17 Realism}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 h
eld}{\b0 \fs17 out }
{\b0 \fs17 with}{\b0 \fs17 arguments}{\b0 \fs17 from}{\b0 \fs17 various}{\b0
\fs17 sides.}{\b0 \fs17 In}{\b0 \fs17 short,}{\b0 \fs17 classicism}{\b0 \fs1
7 in}{\b0 \fs17 physics}{\b0 \fs17 is}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17 much}{\b0 \f
s17 an }
{\b0 \fs17 enemy}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 Realism,}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17
of}{\b0 \fs17 the}{\b0 \fs17 Universal}{\b0 \fs17 Causalism}{\b0 \fs17 that
}{\b0 \fs17 pertains}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17 it,}{\b0 \fs17 as}{\b0 \fs17
the}{\b0 \fs17 QM }
{\b0 \fs17 non-causalism,}{\b0 \fs17 acausalism}{\b0 \fs17 and}{\b0 \fs17 mat
hematical}{\b0 \fs17 instrumentalism}{\b0 \fs17 are}{\b0 \fs17 to}{\b0 \fs17
Realism. }
cf0 \fi6061 {\b0 \fs17 319 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
0 \fs17 \cf0 Generally, the double slit experiment allegedly requires at the mos
t that what
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stri
kes the thin film through either or "both" the slits should be either a particle
wave or a probabilistic "wave pattern"! This stand I have critiqued, which
be summarized as follows. Classicism with respect to the Schrdinger
ability distribution in the thin film should mean that classons - being in\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stru
mentalistically circumscribed and determined from the realm of the imme\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 diat
ely available background - are understood to strike the film, since the causal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 leve
l of the apparatus and of the whole experiment are the same. A classon (say,
particle electron) can do so only if, in the double slit experiment, the classon
es in straight line through any one slit and moves directly into
rd a hit.
26 The reason why it would be only a straight line path is that,
\fs17 \cf0 pass

the plate to
\fs17 \cf0 reco
\fs17 \cf0 \fi2
mathematically,

sons are just dimensionless point instances which, if they have to continue to
o, have to travel in absolutely ideal straight lines and with infinite velocity,
by
on of the very concept of a straight line as a geometrical extension of an ideal
ematical point instance without the presence of matter-energy to retard its
d. It is therefore also safe to assume that only a purely mathematical point\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 like
classon (recall that in classical physics energy particles are pure, unlike mat
e\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rial
particles, and without extension) does not possess internal causal activities
extension-motion, not infinite amount of causal activities but finite), without
h its motion had to be in a straight line and with infinite velocity. Every bit
uch a path is an instance of infinite velocity since it is infinite speed with o
nly
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unidirectional and hence straight line motion and without any matter-energy to
ude spatial extensions. The mathematical classon, it should be recalled, is in
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM a
rtificially made to carry physical properties and a wave path, without being
itted to carry also external and internal causal perturbations which alone
make them carry physically finite velocity and sinusoidal wave path. This,
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Iwoul
d suggest, is a mathematical and physical scandal.
26 This leads me to make the following statements. From the point of view of the
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250
lutely infinite velocity and lack of extension of classical
a\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250
s, the concept of a wave propagation in classical mechanics
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7237\absh9333 \sl-250
\f50 \fs17 \cf0 abso

straight line propag
\f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
is in fact already
\f50 \fs17 \cf0 the
proof of involvement of extension-motion and causation in the case of the

son, reducing the classon somehow to a wavicle in general. Moreover, a finite
city will have at any sufficiently minute extent of its path a gener
al speed
a general direction, and not an absolutely exact speed and direction
(but
stable in vacuo). The reason is that the minute, even deeper than nano-level,
al perturbations within the wavicle and also such influences from outside of
lf are neither circumscribable together into the apparent sharp value of velocit
y
he wavicle, nor necessary for determination of the velocity from a given layer o
f
320 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 observation. The particular geometrical directions of action of these inne
rmost
vities are to be taken into consideration as a sure theoretical possibility that
egates the velocity of a quantum object at a depth that we do not today reach.
is, (1) physically, the path of the wavicle has to be anything other than an
l straight line, unless it has infinite speed, but infinite speed is impossible
in
re because matter-energy content that makes objects spatiotemporal delim\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 its
the behaviour of the objects into finite speeds, and (2) the generalization of
velocity of a specific quanton cannot be absolutely and ubiquitously the same
ughout the wave, since the inner causal fluctuations can vary from time to
for various reasons.
26 From this simple fact one is not authorized to conclude that a single quanton
rds a wave pattern of hits. Even before it records a hit, it is extensionally a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 thre
e-dimensional wavicle by the very fact that it has a finite velocity. If we are
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 read
y to speak with ontological commitment to there being something extended
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 call
ed a wavicle quanton and not merely an effect of a purely dimensionless geo\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 metr
ical wave, we may say only that a quanton that is discrete from other quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tons
within the immediate extension-motion circumscription travels in spirally
path in four dimensions and, at its entry through any one of the slits, is de\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 flec
ted a bit in some direction slightly different from its relatively regular, meso
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 scop
ically measured wave path (as when it were a classon), and then hits the thin
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 film
at a spot other than where a classon had to, and the next is deflected in some
r direction since certain other wave-portion of it is the point of deflection,
so on. Thus, the many wavicles form a probabilistic pattern of hits according
he direction to which they have deflected while reflecting, as if at least many
cles had entered through two slits.
26 That is, it is ontologically unnecessary to identity the probabilistic wave p
at\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tern
of many hits (of course, by many wavicles) on the film with the wave nature
he individual quanton and call the latter (rather than the pattern of hits by
quantons) as probabilistic, from the same statistical level as that
of the
pattern, because the cumulative case of many quantons / wavicles averaged
for the probability of one wavicle is not the same as the actuality of one dis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cret
e wavicle in an extension-motion region with a minutely circumscribed on\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tolo
gical commitment of its own (i.e., yielding "realism"). If the individuality of
a
cle were to be questioned, the very probability pattern of individual electron
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 hits
by single photons of a specific energy / wavelength in the experiment behind
Uncertainty Principle would be suspect.
26 In fact the probabilistic wave pattern of the many hits is only arithmeticall
y
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 aver
aged out into the case of one hit, by the mesoscopic eyes of experiments that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7283\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 use
atoms, molecules, apparatuses, etc. That is not what the individual wavicle
\fi6061 321 \par
}

ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 deserves to be conceptualized as its wave nature. It traces an
actual sinusoidal
path due to its spatiotemporal nature, which shows spatiotemporal ex\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tens
ion and therefore, most probably, also inner perturbations, which are only
eased by similar external influences upon its inner constitution. The proba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
stic averaging out of the many hits has nothing to do with the wave nature of
individual wavicles, but with the micro-status of the results over many wavi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cle
hits. That is, concluding to the wave nature of energy particles and of other
sufficiently fast particles merely from any of the probabilistic results from
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 QM e
xperiments is not sufficiently warranted.
26 Similarly, it is not reasonable to adduce this result to the allegedly mutual
ly
usive nature of waves and particles, too. Their mutual exclusion takes origin
from the classical treatment of the geometry of the absolutely contin
uous
of the phenomenon of a wave, (2) from its mutually exclusive definition of
-nature and particle-nature (classon), and (3) from its failure in sufficiently
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 well
binding these two notions within the notion of a physically real wavicle. The
on of a classon is only a causally near-sighted and mechanistically causal and
rministic circumscription, because it is constructed merely from considera\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
s of the immediate extension-motion vicinity of causal origination of
the
icle, and not from general considerations of all possible infinitesimal inner
urbations within and external influences upon the wavicle, as generated by
al Horizonal Research in physics and philosophy of physics.
26 If point instances are to be substituted by physically extended energy quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tons
with non-zero energy, then they have to be finite in their speed, which can
ractice assume only a generally singular vector direction in the extension\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti
on order. Why only one generally singular vector direction? Because, a
ny
nsioned quanton will be extended in extension-motion - however meagrely

e-like (and thus, comparatively, however largely time-like) its measured spa\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tiot
emporal path is - and this makes it a "matter" particle, which is essentially th
e
as energy particle. The vector direction makes it also resistant of backward
ation. It should have its inner causal activities, caused from both within and
out (the causal past inclusive), and so also from the walls of the slits. These
ld determine the wave path of the quanton in the one vector direction.
26 This argument cannot be countered by saying this is a form of the
hidden
ables suggestion. Instead of hidden variables, it insists on hidden ca
uses,
h may be treated mathematically as involving hidden variables. The inner
outer causal influences express themselves in various directions within the
ess of motion of the quanton, all of which combine to one resultant direc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7193\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
of velocity. The more minute causal processes within it will still go on. These
their real spatiotemporal extent or measure in the process, not detected in
322 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 the quantum experiments, since the level of action we speak about is far s
maller
how up significantly at that level. Therefore, a quanton can never assume a
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stra
ight line in all its parts of physical length and breadth, but more
generally
a mathematical wave path (QM) with non-linear idealised parts, and only
generally a straight line path (classical mechanics) with Euclidean geomet\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 rica
l idealised parts.
26 The comparatively higher uniformity of the internal causal movements
of
quanton further ensures relatively high regularity in the deviations f
rom
ideal path. Thus, regularity of deviations ensures probabilistic summat
ion
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 of d
eviations and their averaging over large distances of motion of the quanton.
seems to me to be a good reason for us to determine the extensional path
a wavicle as a three-dimensional wave-path. This is circumscribed as p
rag\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 mati
cally and extensionally three-dimensional, but at the same time measure
ally as spatiotemporally discrete. By 'circumscribed pragmatically' I mean
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 'det
ermined causally from the immediately accessible extensional, motion-leve
l
extension-motion level extents and levels of appropriation of influences of
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 root
s of causal processes'. Add to the extensional path also the fourth dimension
ovemental path. Such is a real physical wave motion. That is, the probabilis\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tic
interpretation of the photographic hits is not the reason why the quanta have
motion. Causation has it that they are wavicles.
26 Compare the above-said probabilities of spiral wave motion with the proba\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 bili
stic wave distribution on the thin film in the double slit experiment. I would
argue (1) that the probability distribution is such from the classical consid\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 erat
ion of the particle - i.e., taking quantons basically as classons - and (2) that
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 it w
ould then be merely on the basis of a near-sighted version of Laplacean cau\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sali
ty that goes without an important desideratum, i.e., it should have desisted
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 asse
rting the merely epistemological probability customary in QM: (a) based on
fact that there is no final, absolute vantage for observation, judgme
nt and
ry, (b) without any reference to the causal ontological extension-motion re\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cess
es of the quanton that should have resulted in an ontologically defen
sible
ability distribution, and (c) without any reference to the epistemologi
cal
ct of our state as meso-beings unable to have a more minute vantage
for
rvation as of now.
26 The ontological aspect of causality insists on the existence of the endless a
nd

uitous chains of what we may call "something causing something else" with
ect to all that is in process. One can then only unwarrantedly generalize - as
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in L
aplacean epistemological determinism - from the working success of macro\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7184\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 meas
urements from the human meso-world status, and say that it is possibl
e
rinciple to measure every causal event of every vantage of minuteness and
\fi6061 323 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 extensiveness from the human macro- and meso- worlds of apparatus
es. The
lt of this in QM has been the explanation that the probability distribution is
only possible thing we can say about the particles.
26 The near-sighted version of the Laplacean determinism that some attr
ibute
he determination of what is called the probability distribution has nothing to
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7231\absh8192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 do w
ith the sinusoidal spiral wave motion of a real wavicle, since the wave-like
istical distribution of the many hits on the thin film is made to substitute the
ible causal explanation of the wave motion of the particle, from the point of
of Laplacean determinism. And the real, ontologically committable wavicle
on, which resists being classified at the Laplacean level of epistemological
rminism, is in fact considered by orthodox QM specialists as it takes place at
epistemological level of probability, which they allege to be the real ontologi\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7231\absh8192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cal
nature of it all and as not necessarily causal. That is, one tends to withdraw i
n\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7231\absh8192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stin
ctively from the question whether in this system the aspect of indeterminateness
t wavicle motion in our observation has an ontologically committable causal
on or not. Thus, one begins to term the epistemological indeterminateness
causal or non-causal. This, I believe, is because the ontological commitment
ll scientific reasoning, inclusive of statistical, is not taken as a must in QM.

26 Clarity between the concepts of the spiral wave paths of quantons
and the
ability wave nature of the distribution recorded by long exposure of hits by
tons entering through the slit/s, is absent in the QM acausal or non-causal
rstanding of probability distributions. Due to this lack, one tends to say that
the probability waves (caused by disoriented hits) in the thin film show the
nature of the quantons, and (2) this probability of hits and the discreteness
hem show the dual nature of the quanton. One forgets that wave functions are
the same as waves. The causal ontological probabilities that go to form the
cle motion of a single quanton are confused with the epistemological prob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7231\absh8192 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 abil
ities that stare at us from the distribution of hits. As Gribbin says:
\fi226 {\fs15 Schrdinger's}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 equation,}{\fs15 originally}{\fs
15 intended}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 mathematical}{\fs15 description}{\f
s15 of}{\fs15 a }
26 {\fs15 real}{\fs15 physical}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 describing}{\fs15 entities
}{\fs15 such}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 electrons,}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 reinterpreted}{\f
s15 as}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 math- }
26 {\fs15 ematical}{\fs15 description}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 probabilit
y}{\fs15 that}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 electron}{\fs15 (or}{\fs15 whatever)}{\fs15
is}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 particular }
26 {\fs15 state.}{\fs15 All}{\fs15 possible}{\fs15 wave}{\fs15 functions}{\f
s15 (all}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 possible}{\fs15 probabilities)}{\fs15 are}{\fs15
intermingled}{\fs15 into }
26 {\fs15 what}{\fs15 is}{\fs15 called}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 superposition}{\fs1
5 of}{\fs15 states,}{\fs15 until}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 measurement}{\fs15 is}{\f
s15 made.}{\fs15 The}{\fs15 act}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 meas- }
26 {\fs15 urement}{\fs15 forces}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 entity}{\fs
15 into}{\fs15 one}{\fs15 state}{\fs15 (chosen}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 accordance
}{\fs15 with}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 statisti- }
26 {\fs15 cal}{\fs15 rules}{\fs15 of}{\fs15 chance),}{\fs15 giving}{\fs15 u
s}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 unique}{\fs15 answer}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 questio
n}{\fs15 posed}{\fs15 by}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 experiment. }
26 {\fs15 But}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 soon}{\fs15 as}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 measurement
}{\fs15 has}{\fs15 been}{\fs15 made,}{\fs15 the}{\fs15 quantum}{\fs15 enti
ty}{\fs15 begins}{\fs15 to}{\fs15 dissolve }
26 {\fs15 again}{\fs15 into}{\fs15 a}{\fs15 superposition}{\fs15 of}{\fs15
states.}{\up006 \fs8 333 }\par
}
333 John Gribbin, Q Is for Quantum, s. v. "Copenhagen Interpretation."

{\fs17 324 }\par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 For any sort of realistic concept of causality it is not difficult now to
admit that
moment we attempt a measurement of an individual quanton, the expecta\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
for an exact value for all the parameters gets futile by reason of the causal
esses behind the Uncertainty Principle. And the same involvement of exter\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 nal
intervention is available in the double slit experiment in the following: The
al comparability of the wavelength of the wavicle and the distance between
two slits in the apparatus shows that one of the particles on the wave path
d enter via the one slit and another particle could enter via the second ac\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 cord
ing to the point of incidence of the slit and the position of the particle in th
e
path. But this means causal intervention of some forces of the one slit on
one particle and of the other slit on the other particle - the causes remaining
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 unid
entified but real from the causal horizon of the particle (wavicle).
26 The actual probabilistic expectancy of the real wave of the individual quan\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ton
(which is thoroughly causal if we take the antecedents of the consti
tution
ts extension-motion parts) is not that of the probabilistic wave of sustained
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 expo
sure - the cumulative-probabilistic solution of which happens to be th
e
acceptable solution due to our meso-world epistemological and statistically
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "ave
raging out" predicament, as determined by the uncertainty relation. Thi
s
ot a causal explanation, but the statistics of our attempts to see and predict.
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Henc
e, we should always explain the wave-particle nature of the quanton, and
probabilistic wave nature of the distribution of measurement results, in terms
ausality and theoretical existence of causes. That is, the causal wave motion of
quanton should be more fundamental than the probabilistic interpretation

their distribution which is considered to be acausal or non-causal by
many
icists and philosophers till date.
26 With the help of all the causal discussions in the present work, we are prob\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ably
in a position to bring together the ontological-causal underpinnings of the
temological-probabilistic, acausal and non-causal understandings and the
ical-ontological causal reality of the wave-particle unity. The problem
of
-particle duality can be resolved from a realistic understanding of the con\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fusi
on between epistemological and ontological determinisms (which have to do
causation), as I have already attempted to show. A causal-acausal-noncausal
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 stud
y of wave-particle duality in QM showed that epistemological determinism
instrumentalism, without admitting the ontological causal commitment al\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7177\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 read
y present at the origin of QM, have vitiated the concept of causality at the
e number of levels or layers of causal activity and measurement approaching
near-infinitesimal, in physical objects or events.
26 Instrumentalistic overemphasis on the epistemological in QM is by no
w
r. For example, take the concept of the eigenvalue ("own [sharp] valu
e")
\fi6061 325 \par
}
ffd8ffe000104a46494600010100000100010000ffdb004300010101010101010101010101010101
01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
010101010101010101ffdb0043010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101ffc0
001108025301a403012200021101031101ffc4001f00000105010101010101000000000000000001
02030405060708090a0bffc400b5100002010303020403050504040000017d010203000411051221
31410613516107227114328191a1082342b1c11552d1f02433627282090a161718191a2526272829
2a3435363738393a434445464748494a535455565758595a636465666768696a737475767778797a
0101010101010101010000000000000102030405060708090a0bffc400b511000201020404030407
05040400010277000102031104052131061241510761711322328108144291a1b1c109233352f015
6272d10a162434e125f11718191a262728292a35363738393a434445464748494a53545556575859
5a636465666768696a737475767778797a82838485868788898a92939495969798999aa2a3a4a5a6
0028a28a0028a28a00ffd9
\cf0 as the absolutely determined or determinable state of attributes of an ele
ctron
cle at a particular energy level in an atom, and as what the wavicl
e actu\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally
possesses at any given time when it is describable by a certain eigenfunc\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 tion
. Instead of considering it as fully determinable with the current le
vel of
rumentation and vantage, it should have been considered as a value that is
\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7196\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 irre
ducibly incomplete in exactness of measurement by reason of its inabil

ity
ircumscribe all possible near-infinitesimal internal causal effects within the
al structure of an electron wavicle in extension-motion. Had we, ideal
ly,
able to measure all such causal contours (all that have gone causal
ly in
past to contribute to the actual wave), then we should in the course of time
\par}{\phpg\pos

Neelamkavil Contents Print

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Neelamkavil Contents Print

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

{\rtf \ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\viewkind1\margt750\margb620

{\fonttbl{\f11\fswiss\fcharset0 Arial Narrow;}{\f10\fswiss\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f1

ativity (STR) and particularly the experimental solutions of the Einste

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy2439\absw7204\absh7217 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 dev

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7138\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 Phil

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7175\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ics

he categorial foundations of Physics.

{\b0 \fs18 1.7.}{\b0 \fs18 Methodology}{\b0 \fs18 of}{\b0 \fs18 Causal}{\b0 \

ommitment,}{\b0 \fs17 Subjectivity,}{\b0 \fs17 Objectivity}{\b0 \fs17 .......

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw6930\absh9333 \sl-240 \f50 \fs18 \cf0 11.4

}{\b0 \fs17 qualities}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 all}{\b0 \fs17 that }

o}{\b0 \fs17 denote}{\b0 \fs17 a }

involved}{\fs16 -}{\fs16 'denotation',}{\fs16 'matter}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 fact

g (uni\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7360\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 vers

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 sati

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 quen

ct proper in their ultimate exactness can ever be absolutely simultaneous. We

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy6404\absw7222\absh4338 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7340\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 moti

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 in c

in the body that cause a transfer of elements even in a 'tending to change',

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy852\absw7222\absh9336 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 form

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \fi2

gy impacts - particularly between any two processes and generally between

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-219 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 {\fs

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7359\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 by e

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 ally

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7181\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \fi2

ng inclusion, in theory, of the causes of an effect in far distant past events

}}\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy835\absw7214\absh9350 \b \f50 \fs21 \cf0 \b \f50

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy835\absw7214\absh9350 \sl-252 \b \f50 \fs21 \cf0 {

\fs17 formulation}{\b0 \fs17 of}{\b0 \fs17 causation}{\b0 \fs17 that }

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7264\absh7232 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 fian

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7326\absh9333 \sl-300 \par\f50 \fs17 \cf0

262 Greek Einai, which I define as "the pure To Be of Reality-in-total". It keep

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 clai

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7351\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 exte

\fi6157 {\fs17 37 }\par

rtion has some ground.

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7203\absh8342 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \fi2

Newton,}{\b0 \fs17 Norman}{\b0 \fs17 Robert}{\b0 \fs17 Campbell,}{\b0 \f

es}{\b0 \fs17 QM}{\b0 \fs17 causalism.}{\b0 \fs17 Since}{\b0 \fs17 I}{\b

f0 \fi226 {\f0\fs19 \bullet }{\b0 \fs15

\fs17 (Riggs}{\b0 \fs17 6.) }\par

}}\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh7217 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 \f50 \fs17

e emphasis here being on experimental physics and not on the categori

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-321 \par\f50 \fs18 \cf0

nt}{\fs16 describing}{\fs16 the}{\fs16 explanandum-event;}{\fs16 let}{\fs16

26 {\fs16 the}{\fs16 kind}{\fs16 in}{\fs16 question}{\fs16 occur,}{\fs16 an

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy4866\absw7369\absh5722 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy4866\absw7369\absh5722 \sl-220 \f50 \fs16 \cf0 \fi

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7290\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 as t

26 {\fs15 state}{\fs15 labeled}{\fs15 in}{\fs15 this}{\fs15 way,}{\fs15 the

Georg}{\fs16 Schuster}{\fs16 and}{\fs16 Wolfram}{\fs16 Just,}{\fs16 Determi

26 {\fs17 6.}{\fs17 William}{\fs17 A.}{\fs17 Wallace,}{\fs17 Causality}{\fs1

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7191\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 20 {

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7194\absh5867 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 part

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-249 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 and

}{\fs16 need}{\fs16 for}{\fs16 finding}{\fs16 ways }

by involvement of mind makes the thing liable to be real as empiri

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7273\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 need

\par}{\phpg\posx1020\pvpg\posy854\absw7222\absh9333 \sl-250 \f50 \fs17 \cf0 "hav

67 {\fs16 joint}{\fs16 produce}{\fs16 of}{\fs16 'system'}{\fs16 and}{\fs16