5. Some Problems on Ethics
About my awareness of the problems;
'The Essence of the Theory of Relativity is The Relativity of Simultaneity.'
I explained this on the previous paper that is "The Relativity of Simultaneity as the Essence of the Relativity", with giving demonstration about basic proposition of the special relativity. This idea is valid not only upon the special relativity.
On the general relativity, if it was only pointed out equivalence of a gravitational field and the corresponding acceleration of the reference frame, and it was kept absolute simultaneity, the theory would not derive such strange results. The grounds that gravity field or accelerated frame of reference have remarkable peculiarity of the Relativity compared with inertial frame of reference, is change of Simultaneity. In gravity field, the rate of this change is not equally all around according to unequality of mass distribution, and that is difference against accelerated frame of reference.
By the way, the Relativity of Simultaneity deprives distinction of determination/indetermination between in the Past and in the Future, on the assumption that another person exists in the distance and with different velocity. That is, we must adopt preposterous view that "In the past, all affairs are not determined as well as in the future" or fateful view that "In the future, all affairs are determined as well as in the past". We can derive this conclusion with simple logic as I wrote on the previous paper.
When I got this logic and conclusion, I was 23 years old. At that time, I was grappling with Space-Time problems from philosophical interest, then I was thinking about interpretation of the theory of relativity. I chose this as theme of graduation thesis. But I had no confidence as I'm not a specialist of physics, therefore I might misunderstand? Still more, I couldn't like this conclusion because it may bring some nihilism or pessimism, then my thesis was something evasive. Afterward, more than ten years have passed, my job and life had been out of any physics. But this logic have weighed on my mind. I cannot find any misunderstanding on the logic, at least inner the Relativity. Therefore I have to consider this matter on the quantum theory. Quantum theory is not easy, but I can merely understand that quantum theory doesn't deny the Relativity of Simultaneity in spite of my shallow learning. We cannot solve the problem inner physics only, I supposed.
On the premise that "The past is not determined" or on the premise that "The future is completely determined", do we have to construct a view of the world radically? It brought to me such bold idea. Standing on the formar, we must solve why we judge the past was determined in our consciousness, it may too much difficult. But standing on the latter, it may be easier to us by searching some attitude that avoids falling into pessimism. There is my basic awareness of the problems.
Summary of subjects to consider.
I will grapple with this problem by dividing the following themes.
(1) To show that the essence of the theory of Relativity is the relativity of simultaneity.
(2) The proof of the Reality of the four-dimensional space-time, and the proof of phenomenon of movig three-dimensional space in our consciousness.
(3) About Causal determinism and Spatio-temporal determinism.
(consideration of our paradigm about inevitability)
(4) To understand 'the relativity of simultaneity' in the quantum theory.
(About the observation problem and the non-local connection)
(5) Some Problems on Ethics
(with consideration of the self-consciousness)
On this paper, I will touch on the essentials of several these themes. Detailed description may be given on another paper if I can.
1. The Essence of the Theory of Relativity
While I was a student of University, we were sometimes discussing problems on 'freedom and inevitability', or what is the dialectic and so on. As a clue to research, I aimed at the explanation of the Zenon's paradox of movement that was taken up as a case of Dialectical Contradiction by GWF Hegel (later, by F. Engels etc.). For me, I could not understand easily why 'Contradiction' which is a concept on logic can be treated as a cause of movement of an object.
On the other hand, I was interested in the problems on space and time. On this field, it is necessary to know the interpretation by modern physics. For the time being, I thought I had to understand the theory of Relativity. When I knew there is an idea of 'four-dimensional space-time', I thought if a movement of an object is regarded as a world line in the four-dimensional space-time (that is a line which connects each event of a particle inner space-time), the Zenon's paradox will be broken away. A moving object is located at a position and is not located at this position at a time, for this contradiction, Zenon denied motion itself, and on the contrary, Hegel explained that essence of motion is contradiction itself. But considering on the four-dimensional space-time, the existence of moving object means only a world line exists there, and there is no contradiction.
However, new problems sprang up what is the four-dimensional space-time which we cannot even image, is there reality? or why the Relativity had to assume such the four-dimensional space-time.
Generally, when philosophers research the essence of the Relativity, they are going to follow the way of Albert Einstein's thinking. Then, the influences of Ernst Mach or Jules Henri Poincare etc.
upon him were taken up, and they emphasized the relativity of the subject's observation. But, I could't get clearness for it seemed that these interpretations are merely saying in other words. By the relativity of the subject's observation, we cannot understand the theory of Relativity. On the other hand, most of explanations by physicists didn't bring me vivid clearness. For example, in "The intuitive method of the general relativity" written by Shinichro Naganuma which is energetic work with giving visual explanations, it says that
"I have some difficulty when the question is given that 'why' the clock is slow in actuality. To begin with, the theory of Relativity itself does not answer the question. the relativity explains only 'how' the clock is slow. Actually, stating about the way of the establishment of the relativity, we can only say that the theory which was made with removing any contradictions as possible, and the results of many experiments with something dubious, both of them support themselves each other completely, even modern physicist answers as so." (page 29).
Yet, I cannot get enough clearness with such admonition.
Nonetheless, I can get an awareness that we can clearly understand the relativity on the diagram of space-time. But what is the 'space-time'? Why do we have to unite space and time? that is the question. I had thought for a while, then I found that what makes this unity inevitable is none other than "the Relativity of Simultaneity".
"The Relativity of Simultaneity" can be derived from the light speed constancy principle immediately, most of explanations of the relativity deal with it very fundamentally. But generally, this is placed as merely one of the strange conclusions, I didin't know any works which expands the theory from this as essence clearly, then I wished to do the work.
To begin with, I thought methods which derive the Time Dilation, the Length Contraction, and the Lorentz Transformation from the Relativity of Simultaneity. That is the contents of my previous paper.
Then, I have to expand it to the subject of mass and energy-momentum, dynamics in Relativity. For this, it is necessary to introduce the idea of four-dimensional vector. A unit tangent vector of a world line (called four-dimensional velocity) multiplied by the rest mass of the particle is what is represented as a momentum vector in the four-dimensional space-time. Energy means essentially, the (increased) time component of the vector, and the traditional momentum means the space component of the vector. (The famous formula; E = m c 2 can be derived from these ideas.)
Here the most important concept is the idea of 'four-dimension'. Merely expanding theory without making clearness on the issue of what the four-dimensional space-time is, and whether it really exists or not, not a few suspicious minds will remain. Then the greatest keyword for this four-dimensional issue is "the Relativity of Simultaneity". It will be said in detail on the next section.
The next step of the development of the relativity is about the acceleration. If an accelerated frame of reference is regarded as a frame which move from an inertial frame of reference to another one in succession, as each simultaneity of inertial frame is different from one another, we can say that an accelerated frame is a frame which is gradually shifting simultaneity. We have to take notice. That's why the time in the inertial frame of reference will progress rapidly than the time in the accelerated frame of reference which is accelerated to the direction of the inertia from long distance, therefore the well-known Twin Paradox is concluded. Though this is pointed out by most explanatory materials, I would rather pay attention to the time progress in the inertial frame located in the opposite direction to the direction which accelerates in the considerable (It exceeds the radius of "curvature" of the world line.) distance. If it thinks based on the accelerated frame of reference, the time progress of inertia is decided to be reversed. As for this, it is difficult to understand that it isn't based on the existence of the four-dimensional space-time.
Then, it proceeds to the general theory of relativity. As for the basic concept here, a free fall is no different from the inertia locally. A falling object is only in inertia, and what approaches increasingly to the object is rather the huge wall of the surface of the earth. Or, we can express that gravitational field is no different from the accelerated frame of reference locally. You may think a frame standing on the surface of the earth as an accelerated frame which is pushed from the surface of the earth in the sky direction. In this way, the inertia force of the name of "the gravity" occurs. However, it can be said only from the local viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of big stage, the gravity field have various acceleration directions and so on, and this is one of the characteristics of the gravity field. In other words, the true nature of the gravity becomes a thing in the spatio-temporal distortion. This distortion is four-dimensional, and the Simultaneity complicatedly becomes relativity all the more. Then, the very advanced technique of tensor analysis of the four dimensions is required by a general mathematical expression.
2. The Reality of the Four-Dimensional Space-Time, and Our consciousness
The four-dimensional space-time is a fundamental expression form for the theory of relativity indeed. But, this is a mere expression form in itself. We cannot judge only from the utility in logic development or in expression whether the four-dimensional space-time is reality or it is mere logic form for convenience' sake. But not to make this point clear will be one of a big factor which makes the theory hard to understand.
The four-dimensional space-time which Herman Minkowski proposed, is not the simple formal expansion from the three-dimensional Euclidean space, but it has peculiar measurement structure in the time direction corresponding to Lorentz transformation. As for this, it becomes linear foundation in even a general relativity.
By the way, to prove the existence of the four-dimensional space-time is to prove that the past space and the future space exist as well as the present space. Let's pay attention to "the relativity of simultaneity" here. The present space for the person who comes to me from some distance contains my future, and the present space for the person who goes away from some distance contains my past. Now, present I exist, and it exists by the thing which exists at the same time with the thing that it exists. If such a proposition is true, it is decided that all points (events) of space-time exist to the future from the past. It is very difficult to deny this proposition which becomes a premise here, I think. Therefore, nothing can be thought except all points of space-time covering the future from the past have real existence as well as the present points of space-time (for me now). In other words, as for the four-dimensional space-time, it exists.
Can I prove it completely with such a simple logic? I investigated some mistakes of this logic in the negative posture for a while. One of the thoughtway was about the Light Cone. Some time ago, I thought under the proposition that it exists by the thing which exists at the same time with the thing that it exists. But we cannot always recognize at a time what exist at the same time each other. Because each information from various distance comes to us at a speed of light at most, therefore far information reaches later than near one. If it only exist by events that is on the past Light Cone "surface", the Logic on the relativity of simultaneity will terminate. It is because a Light Cone "surface" will be solid against changing frame of reference. However, it is understood that this idea will fail at once. Because, the Light Cone could be absolute only under the base point of "present I", and if we think about separated others' existence, we will find that Light Cones are here and there innumerably. This thoughtway is impossible without philosophy that "present time of me" exists alone as the center of the universe. After all, as for the four dimensions, it exists. This conviction got strong more.
But, the problem is from now. In the view of the four-dimensional space-time, the presentation of "motion" dies out. Here is only the four dimensions solid at rest absolutely. There isn't a moving particle, but there is a world line at rest. As for the velocity of a certain world line, it means inclination to the world line (time axis) which becomes a standard. The presentation of "motion" ever appears nowhere. Nevertheless, as for our consciousness, it is the moving three-dimensional flow as an undeniable fact in our world. It doesn't become the handled space on the theory of relativity, but it is caught for us as a kind of measurement which exists as a backbone of "the flow of consciousness" as for the time. How is the fact of this consciousness explained? Although I have thought about this problem very well, but no believable perfect answers have been found yet. But, it also can be said that consciousness doesn't exist outside of the four-dimensional space-time. Consciousness is existence in the four-dimensional space-time as well as all various things. After this was understood, I resolved this problem into the following questions, and I decided to approach them gradually.
(a) As for our consciousness, why is the same time unique absolutely?
(b) As for our consciousness, why is it impossible to have the idea of the extent (extension) in the time direction?
(c) As for our consciousness, why is it impossible to experience the four dimensions of the world like geometrical nature?
(d) As for our consciousness, why is the direction of time flow unilateral? (from past to the future)
(e) As for our consciousness, why does it cause the continuous motion of three-dimensional section of "4D-world" ?
(f) Then, "now", something?
As for (a); I would think and pay attention to the scale of our mind and body. Our minds feel the time in which light passes through distance of several hundred million times our stature as nothing but a mere instant time. Our consciousness process is as slow as that. Therefore, in daily life, we use the measure of meter-and-second that is very far from the measure of space-time where the speed of light becomes 1, though this measure is natural from the viewpoint of relative argument. And we cannot almost experience any effects of the Relativity under that usual measure scale. The simultaneity is almost absolute to anyone who has the scale of such mind and body.
As for (b),(c); I would try to answer from the feature of the structure of Minkowski's four-dimensional space-time.
As for (d); Some cosmological considerations will be necessary. (We would also have to refer to the problem of entropy.)
As for (e),(f); It will be necessary even mataphysical stand to answer the question that quest for a question itself. It seems certainly difficult.
But I hope to argue these problems on another paper someday. I want to proceed to the next here.
3. Causal determinism and Spatio-temporal determinism
"The Relativity of Simultaneity" proves the existence of the four-dimensional space-time. In other words, both the past and the future are to exist always. If so, of course it is worried whether the future which exists has been decided or not.
Even if this problem is concerned, "The Relativity of Simultaneity" provides definite proof. That is what I mentioned at the end of the the previous thesis. In other words, as long as simultaneity is relative, both the past and a future have to have the same attribute which means that all things are decided or is un-decided. If we stand on the premise that the past has been perfectly decided, (This premise is hard to deny ordinarily.) a future also has been perfectly decided. That would be proved by the existence of another person who comes to me from some distance. It is because a present for him is a future for me. It has to be said that if my future is un-decided, some part of the past is also un-decided for him who exists in the present with me by my frame of reference. (Figure 1)
If we stand at the viewpoint that only the events which are located past zone from the past Light Cone "surface" have been decided, we could be liberated from the logic of "The Relativity of Simultaneity", but then we have to think that only present time of me is the center of the universe absolutely.
After all, only the following three ideas of the world determination are permitted by the theory of relativity.
(1) Both the past and the future are perfectly decided.
(2) Neither a past nor a future is decided together.
(3) Nothing exists except this present consciousness of mine (solipsism), and the past was decided, and a future isn't decided.
It is requested that simultaneity must be absolute to carry through the idea that the past was decided and a future is not decided, under requirement of excluding solipsism. We have to stand on the position that the theory of relativity is wrong, and we should return to Newton's physics.
Actually, sometimes this position has been insisted. But I guess that it is extremely difficult to find such a theory that is free from any misunderstandings about relativity, as a lot of professional physicists have pointed out. Then I will proceed with the premise that the theory of relativity is not wrong about those propositions.
There might be few people who insist on the position of the (3) (solipsism) in the absolute form. However, there may be not a few people standing in this position without expressing for other people by reason why it is asked what is the meaning of insisting that to other people. But, very strong will might be necessary to carry through this position in the absolute form. Here, physics is science about "the objective law" of my consciousness phenomenon.
On the position of the (2) (whole indeterminism), the problem of "Why does the past do a phenomenon in our consciousness so that it would be decided uniquely?" will hang over heavily. Why does my recognition be identical with others' recognition about the past event?
As the other person whom I know is nothing but other person for me, there are many other other people whom I don't know as well, and another I whom I don't know exist for the other person, don't they?
The innumerable universe exists in parallel to each other in the number of every cases. It seems that this thoughtway will lead to the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" of Hugh Everett that is one of positions over the observation problem of quantum theory. This interpretation gives us contradictionless solutions against the difficult problems of quantum phenomenon in spite of their grotesque insistence. (At least it seems to be so.) Therefore the supporters of this interpretation are increasing lately. Although we can interpret the observation problem of quantum theory, it would be left with a big heavy problem as the following; Why this universe have been such a sole world that I know, and is going to be such a sole world that I guess? It may be as a problem of metaphysics, I know. For the Many-Worlds Interpretation, "others" are others for this no less a person than me by chance. I have a remark that multi-worlds theory is to be called as "multi-solipsism", am I misunderstanding? At any rate, this is one of the influential positions over modern quantum theory.
By the way, on the quantum mechanics interpretation, the position of the (3) (solipsism) may be said as the most radical position in the Copenhagen interpretation which is standard. In other words, my consciousness (observation) creates the world! However, such radical interpretation won't be mainstream in this position. The physicists of the majority are keeping position as "Leave what is unknown unknown." moderately, and they are satisfied by the position of "If we can get a result in utility, that is all right for the time being.". They won't poke their nose unnecessarily in the metaphysics and will avoid disturbing the peace of the mind. Naturally it is difficult to criticize such a position from logical side. However, as for me, I cannot be satisfied with such a clever position by all means.
Incidentally, the position of (1) (whole determinism) seems to make a head-on collision with quantum theory at first sight, while both the position of (2) and (3) seem to go together somehow with quantum theory. It is because the position of (1) is an exorbitant determinism whereas it is said that quantum theory has collapsed the deterministic conception of the world.
However, the position of (1) is easy to accept most when we deal with the space-time of the relativity frankly without thinking of quantum theory. In other words, it can be rather said that the development of the dynamic contents of relativity will become very complicated if we go without the position (1). I will proceed with the consideration on the position of (1) although it may be given complete reversal opposition someday.
Well, supposing that we stand on the position of (1), but it brings about a problem why it seems that a future isn't decided actually in our consciousness. However, we can settle it with an explanation that any information has to be transmited from the past to the future in one-way direction in the actual four-dimensional space-time, so that it is impossible for our general consciousness to know something in the future. A matter of "the aim of the time" is being involved here. This problem may have to be argued separately again.
Anyway, any information is transmited at a speed of light or under in the direction from the past to the future. In other words, it is conveyed only to the inside of the future light-cone. Therefore, the actual four-dimensional space-time has the structure which doesn't convey any information from the future events to the past. (These future events include events which are present or past on the current coordinates but can be future on another coordinates.) No cases which are contrary to this have been found at least in authorized modern physics.
( In quantum theory, super light velocity is argued around instantaneous nonlocal connection, but also in this case the limit of light velocity isn't broken yet as an information transmission. Now, I feel some difficulty in meditating about what "the transmission of the information" strictly means, but here, I make a definition of this as the following; it means a transmission of a certain physical state by which we can judge whether a certain thing is A or B. )
Therefore we cannot know the future directly, then we have to know them by information from the past and by predictions from the knowledges of the law which have been gained by stacked experiences. Moreover, that prediction is not in the guarantee to be completely right.
By the way, as for the determinism derived from "the relativity of simultaneity", it is very short to say about the prediction possibility. This determinism is based on the following reasoning; We can't distinguish a future from the past about each point of the space-time as a difference in the attribute value of the decision or the un-decision. As we want to think that the past is decided, then we derive the conclusion that the future is decided as well. We can only say that a future is decided but we cannot refer to how it is decided at all. This is greatly different from the traditional determinism.
The typical model of the traditional determinism is the view of world which the successors of Newton imagined. That is the view of world that all the futures must be able to be predicted completely, if we could grasp mass and states of movement about every material of the world in a moment as an initial value completely, because all things follow dynamics law of Newton completely. However practically, no physicists have resolved the subject giving a perfect prediction about dynamics that the three heavenly bodies exert gravitation on each other. (and it can't be done even now.) That reason has been understood with mankind's technical immaturity. It wasn't upset by their belief that it was because all is supposed to be decided in accordance with the law of Newton from the viewpoint of principle. It is inseparable from the decision and the prediction possibility here. Then, the decision of the world is told by a certain cause and effect connection.
Now, I call such a classical determinism by the name of "causal determinism". In contrast to this, I am going to call the determinism derived from the relativity of simultaneity by the name of "Spatio-temporal determinism". This thoughtway of "Spatio-temporal determinism" has appeared by the theory of relativity (with the interpretation which I show) for the first time, but almost all of determinisms that have appeared until now have been causal determinism in the substantial meaning.
Otherwise, it is probably the theological determinism which makes everything out as results of God's will that is transcendent from material causality. But I don't mean to expand the arguments here even into God's problem for example with reading Augustine and so on. And, it is also suspenseful about the relation with issues of the Buddhism because the Oriental idea of "the cause and effect" was received from the Buddhism. But here, I am going to limit problems of the determinism into natural science because I am afraid of losing my way without controls beyond my ability.
Of course, I don't think that there are no concerns about issues of religion against this theme, but it won't be able to argue together because a level in question is too different. Is "Spatio-temporal determinism" flatly opposed to the religion? Or great compromise will be done, and it will unite to religious view of life? Or will it be left only and ignored? Well, what is the destiny of "spatio-temporal determinism"? Incidentally, according to "spatio-temporal determinism", this destiny is supposed to be decided. But, present I cannot know that.
As for causal determinism on natural science, it was noticed sooner or later that it is impossible to resolve into Newton's dynamics mechanically about all the decisions. The cause and effect Necessity must be analyzed concretely by corresponding to the natural complex layered structure. The laws of nature appear as the individual structure that cannot be resolved into the lower layer that is base of each natural class. We have to research these structure steadily, to build up theories and to predict natural phenomenon. They are almost qualitative, probabilistic and conditional, then it is rather rare that we can get it in the perfect form. But it is usually enough practically, therefore it has been used for the production and the life skillfully, and mankind's history formation has been influenced by it.
Causal determinism has been formed through such mankind's long history, it is always in state of progression, and it's decision level is not always sufficient. Moreover it makes us feel indeterminate because human free will is involved if we proceed into the fields of high level human behavior. Therefore, this has been "soft determinism" and "hard determinism" corresponding to the liking of owner of view of life.
Anyway, it seems that it is impossible to have thoroughgoing hard causal determinism by the development of the scientific theory in recent years. In the first, by quantum theory, more, by the chaology. Quantum mechanics is essentially probabilistic system as for the contact point with our recognition fact. And chaology revealed the unknown natural feature that small unessential difference which has been ignored from usual scientific common sense does not always fade out into equilibrium state but occasionally it may be brought into a big serious stage. Today, I feel that we must ask the meaning of the paradigm of nature from deep foundation. That paradigm is a belief that nature has been made up by the law which has been established by modern natural science.
On the other hand, another form of determinism ---- spatio-temporal determinism had appeared under such conditions. Moreover, this determinism is absolute, and this is neither "somewhat soft" nor "somewhat hard". If we suppose that a future point of space-time has the attribute value of "mostly decided", then all past points of space-time must be supposed that they are also only "mostly decided" according to the inference of the Relativity of Simultaneity. However, on our consciousness, all the past events have been completely decided, then after all, we have to hold the same problem as the case of the position of (2).
Though it is said that determinism has collapsed by quantum theory, but that is causal determinism for the time being. Then, is a compromise concluded in spatio-temporal determinism and quantum theory? It is my essential question concerned with the quantum theory.
4. The quantum theory and the Relativity of Simultaneity
In the quantum theory, it is the EPR problem that I want to pay attention most. That is the paradox which three of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen presented by the joint signature against Copenhagen school of the authority of quantum theory. They tried to insist on imperfection of quantum mechanics by this. There is a problem about instantaneous nonlocal connection as one of them.
Let us think that there are two particles A and B. And suppose that their certain attribute takes only two kinds of values of 'a' or 'b'. (For example, the direction of the spin axis of an elementary particle, or photon polarization attribute or so on.) And in addition, suppose that the two particles form a dynamics like following; if one side has the attribute-'a' then the other side has another attribute-'b' inevitably, or reversely, if one side has 'b', then the other has 'a'. This is the supposition which it can be in the reality. Let us suppose that whether each particle is 'a' or is 'b' is dependent on 1/2 of the probability. According to quantum theory, these particles are in state of superposition of the two attributes unless it is observed.
However, if one particle A is observed, the collapse of the wave function happens, and whether it is 'a' or is 'b' is decided. At the same time with that, another particle B is also decided as 'b' or 'a' even if it isn't observed. This decision comes into being even if A and B are many billions light-year away. Then, the information of the reduction of wave packets of A is transmitted at super-light velocity to B. But, nothing can travel at super-light speed. Any instantaneous nonlocal connections (remote actions) are not forgiven. This has been long physicist's firm belief. Therefore something must be imperfect as for the quantum theory which contradicts against this. This argument was the last resistance of Albert Einstein in his later years who had kept resisting against the probability interpretation of quantum theory with saying "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world.".
But, as for the result, a victory was given to quantum theory by reversing that belief itself. John S. Bell derived an inequality with an assumption of Locality. If this was contrary to the experiment fact, it could be decided that assumption of Locality was wrong. Soon, John Crowther and Alain Aspect showed that this inequality wasn't suitable for the experiment fact. Finally, we have had to recognize the instantaneous nonlocal connections.
"Reduction of wave packets is conveyed at the same time!" A question has come to my mind while I have been interested in the Relativity of Simultaneity. That question is like following; "as for this 'same time', in which coordinates it is simultaneous?" So, I tried to think about the following thought experiment. (Figure 2)
Let us think about the two particles A and B correlational system. Then, supposing that there are three observers of S1, S2, and S3 who are at different velocity to each other, these three people and a particle A are supposed to meet together at one place at a time. When they met, they measured particle A, and they got its attribute value 'a'. At that moment, it is considered that the reduction of wave packets (collapse of the wave function) happened. By the way, the reduction of wave packets happened not only to A but also to B, then it must be considered that B's attribute value has been determined as 'b'. However, what time did the B's reduction happen at on the world line of particle B ?
Let us suppose that each observer sent a light-speed message of the B's reduction time which was judged as same time of A's reduction by each one's coordinates to another observer S4 who stands still against the particle B, by attaching to the message of the observation result of B's attribute value. S4 receives the reports from that three person at time t4 and knows B's attribute value 'b' and its time of the reduction. Each reports from everyone have no differences as for the attribute value, but the time of the reduction (wave function collapse) of B is different from each other among them. When should I think the reduction has happened on earth? Or, should I think that the time of the reduction is t4 because S4 has observed the value at time t4 by his coordinates.
If it was true, it could be said conversely that the reduction of A occurred after observation was carried out and it passed for a while. There is a time interval in which the collapse of the wave function doesn't happen yet though it has been observed and decided. It seems something wrong.
Of course I don't intend to object to the contents of quantum mechanics at all, but I cannot make sense out of the interpretation such as the collapse of the wave function on the observation problem.
Meanwhile, the Relativity of Simultaneity is offering the completely deterministic world view (spatio-temporal determinism) to us as shown with a preceding paragraph. I think it is possible that this world view and quantum theory go together, and the thoughtway which doesn't need the interpretation of the collapse of the wave function can go except for the Many-Worlds Interpretation (though it is mere instinctive thought). My fundamental point of view is that both the theory of quantum mechanics and its conceptions are one of the form of consciousness as an existence in the four-dimensional space-time. Especially, how to grasp the conception of the probability from this point of view is important.
To make it clear, we may have to consider fundamentally how conceptions of quantum theory have been formed. For the present, I intend to propound these problems by this thesis. I hope to try to grapple with these problems someday.
5. Some Problems on Ethics
(----- several notes -----)
(1) Getting along with ...
It seems that we are usually living in premise of "The past is decided, and a future isn't decided". Then, various laws, agreements and the considerable part of the ethical standards are based on that belief. However, this premise must be denied unless we are completely into the solipsism if these considerations are right. In other words, we must adopt either the former of followings, or the latter as for our view of life; "Both the past and a future are decided together." or "Neither the past nor a future is decided together." Do we have to reconsider mankind's law and ethical standards all, and must we change them if it is so?
This is a serious matter! I don't want to make it worse so much because I am kind of conservative(?). So, just as Relativity and quantum theory kept the utility of classical dynamics as an approximate law, so I expected that the view of life of "the past is decided, and a future isn't decided" can become based upon the contradictive whole deterministic position as a value standard with the utility. If that is made, first of all it is relieved and we may be able to be getting along with the determinism. But, because ethical values want the ultimate straightly, it may not become like physics. However, I showed it as one subject for the present.
(2) A Choice
"The past isn't decided as well as the future"; I don't know the perfect evidence by which this position is denied. If we choose the Many-Worlds Interpretation, it seems that it will be possible.
And, on a certain case, this may bring us more comfortable feeling. However, I want to make a point of the undeniable fact that the past is decided as a single case, at least in my consciousness.
It will be the renunciation of philosophy if we don't note it. Therefore, I take the position of "The future is perfectly decided as well as the past". This is not proof. It is a choice.
(3) About Self-consciousness
I sometimes think as follows. If each consciousness was liberated from its onlyness and there was a system which is dispatching one after another passing through various people's consciousness by the time-sharing, most of mankind's distress would disappear. (... Although anyone may stop working earnestly in one's life, probably.)
("mankind's distress".....such as hate, jealousy, inferiority complex, discrimination and so on or love... of course it is, however it is not only in such mental matter, but it is in each one's physical matter in essence, I think.)
But as for self-consciousness, it is the root of the various tragicomedies by holding its absolute onlyness. There is a concept which is very similar to this self-consciousness. That is the concept of "now".
What is "Now", and what is "Me"? Isn't this the question which have to sit at the base bottom of the consideration of ethics? I have been thinking so.
Why can't most people often prefer to have the thought "the future is perfectly decided"? But, a person takes such a thoughtway actively as a occasion. A fatalism doesn't necessarily always become pessimism. Rather, there are much cases which are contrary to that. What happens to their consciousness at that time? Will they reach to anatman as well as self-consciousness is into the universe and is united?
It may seem rambling, but my concern beginning from "the Relativity of Simultaneity" cannot avoid expanding to such area.