Smashter wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 3:17 pm
This is where we differ. It still seems to me that
something caused those spins to be how they are, ...
No. That's the whole beauty of this argument. There's no need for an original cause for the sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ... like, nothing causes the next number after 1 to be 2, nothing causes the number after that to be 3. It's pretty much just filling in the blanks.
Recall, that spins being 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, ... is simply counting (the inverse of) rotations, specifically how many times do you need to "walk around" the particle to see the same configuration again. If you take a coin, for example, you have to rotate it 360 degrees to see the same side. Such a coin would have spin 1. If the coin had the same face on both sides, it would have spin 2. Nothing causes this---it's just a consequence of how it is, it's symmetry. What modern physics derives from these very simple assumptions about space, time, and spin is that the [4] forces of nature can be no other way than they are. They are basically the physical manifestations of the allowed solutions under the constraints of causality, locality, and "symmetry".
Add: What you're basically saying is the equivalent of insisting that the sequence 0, 1, 2, ... and the numbers after that should have a cause. Philosophically, one can argue (as philosophers have done for at least a couple of thousand years) whether the number, e.g. 4, has existence outside the mind. IOW, if I (my mind) perceives 4 apples, is there a '4' that exists independent of my mind or is '4' something that is specifically
constructed by my mind. Realists claim that 4 has independent existence. Idealists claim that '4' is a mental construct. (Nondualists claim that '4' only comes about through connecting the mind to those apples of which there happen to be 4 or '4'.
You might also ponder whether mathematics is "invented" or "discovered"? IOW, is 1+1=2 something that exists in the human mind (invented) or is it something that humans discovered out there, e.g. by bunching together a couple of apples and inventing a short hand for counting them.
So if you have 3 apples in a group ... and you add another one ... is there "a cause" for why you will now count 4? Note, I said count 4, not have 4. To me, 4 is just a word that describes some abstract itemization of the new group of apples. There's no particular cause for why I would call it '4'. OTOH, if I bunch together 4 oranges, I am extremely confident that each apple can be paired with an orange. IOW, 4 is something both respective groups of apples and oranges have in common.
The spin-statistics theorem (all of the above) essentially says that the whole of reality is a mathematical construct. You can now decide whether that construct exists in your mind (idealist) or out there (realist). Personally, I think the realist position should be easier to accept given that the universe works even if most humans don't understand the math.
In terms of understanding the math .. consider when numbers where invented. In all likelihood (archeology suggests as much), people would mark the contents on clay containers with a symbol. If the container contained 7 coins, they would put 7 coin symbols on it like this: CCCCCCC. Developing this idea further, people figured out a shorthand so instead of stamping C seven times, they would go 1111111C ... and then later figure out clever ways to not having to make so many 1 signs... using Roman numerals like VII C. Insofar the container was known to hold coins, they could just mark it with VII or 7. Congrats, counting has now been doubly abstracted, first from the actual contents (coins), and then from the C-symbols signifying the content.
What was noted was that one could do "math" without involving the coins. E.g. 3+4=7. Children over 7 can do this, but younger ones typically need something concrete like their fingers for counting them out.
Similarly, spins have been completely abstracted and very very complicated mathematical physics has been ... invented (or discovered, ha!) ... and so whether you "count out the physics" on your "fingers" ... or you just do the math, it comes to the same thing. But it's basically the analogous idea. Just waaaaaay more abstract and complicated than coins in a jar.
Smashter wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 3:17 pm
I dunno, maybe I have a hopeless case of Humanity Degree Brain, but simply saying it has to be like that, there is no other way, is not quite satisfying. I'm fascinated by the mystery!
What [the physics] is saying as that the laws of nature
have to have the structure they have. This in turn says something about how more complex groups of particles will form (e.g. nuclei, atoms, molecules, proteins, ...) It says nothing about what kind of lifeforms would ultimately come into existence. There are many millions of such lifeforms possible based on a fairly limited number of possible amino acids. Humans have even created a few new lifeforms in the lab from [almost] scratch (they didn't live long).
So ... to me there's no mystery. However, I'm also somewhat disappointed that knowing what makes the universe "work" at such a fundamental level doesn't really say much of anything about what makes life meaningful, for example. There's vastly more to understanding the universe than just becoming an expert on the fundamental forces of nature.
. Enjoy your experience and unusual circumstances. I hope both little fellas are born knowing night is for sleeping.