This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Science - Physics / quantum physics
English term or phrase:commitment
Dear colleagues, I’m not sure about the meaning of “commitment” in the following passages about quantum physics: The passages are taken from a book about intraconnection by Daniel Siegel and is aimed at a general public. I feel there may be different interpretations of the term "commitment" according to the passage, although it seems that "commitment" or "committed" might often mean "limitation" or "constraint" in many of the following contexts. Thank you very much for any hint!
***********
And consider that mass – like this book you might be holding in your hand or the floor beneath your feet – is actually very dense energy. In the world of probability, “dense energy” means a commitment, a flow, of possibility into actuality. (Here it seems to me that “commitment” may mean “transformation”...) ***********
This means that even before our bodies were conceived, even before complex life forms evolved, there was the emergence of probability and certainty from possibility and uncertainty – form formed from a formless space of being, the sea of potential, into *** higher degrees of commitment, *** into form as certainty.
***************** As we move forward from the space of potential into atomic form and then form as living beings, we move *** into ever more committed probabilities *** toward actuality in the world.
Explanation: What "commitment" means IN THIS TEXT:
You have a dice. That makes for 6 possible numbers. You throw the dice. When it stops rolling, the dice has been "committed" to ONE number of the possible six.
OR you could made a rough comparison with: When you're approaching a bifurcation, you have "turned 50% to the left and 50% to the right". After the bifurcation your car has been "committed" either to 100% "turning left" or 100% "turning right".
Another famous example the Schrödinger's cat. Inside the closed box, the cat is in a "probabilistic" state = half dead half alive Once an observer opens the box the cat gets entirely "committed" to either the state of "being alive" or "being dead".
Schrödinger intended his thought experiment as a discussion of the EPR article—named after its authors Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen—in 1935.[3][4] The EPR article highlighted the counterintuitive nature of quantum superpositions, in which a quantum system such as an atom or photon can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes.
The prevailing theory, called the Copenhagen interpretation, says that a quantum system remains in superposition until it interacts with, or is observed by, the external world. When this happens, the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states [***what is called "commitment" in this ST***]. The EPR experiment shows that a system with multiple particles separated by large distances can be in such a superposition. Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.[4]
Absolutely NOTHING to do with "commitment" in human behaviour.
a.k.a. "collapse of the wave function"
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 17 hrs (2023-04-30 10:41:28 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Mass is actually very dense energy. In the world of probability, “dense energy” means a commitment, a flow, of possibility into actuality.
That could be roughly translated as:
there is nothing "probabilistic" about the mass we perceive around us. The mass we perceive has very defined characteristics as what we see is the result of a multitude of possible states "committing" themselves to only one.
As opposed to the level of particles, that are not in any "determined" space-time positions but somewhere in their "probability clouds".
BTW this text makes perfect sense - within the weirdness of quantum physics.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 days 4 hrs (2023-05-01 22:06:47 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Point of method:
A whole contract might well be "legal", but the part describing in details what is being sold will usually NOT be "legal" - if some machinery is being sold, that bit will have as "context" mechanical engineering or s.t. similar.
A kind of variation on "un train peut en cacher un autre": one context might be hiding nested within another context.
In the same way, whatever the whole book is about, any sentence where "mass = energy" MUST be related to quantum physics (see e=m*c2 etc ...).
The author tried to make some parallels between concepts used in psychology and concepts of "probability/indetermination" vs "determination (when an observer takes a reading)" as used in quantum physics.
A very brave thing to do - the idea of a half-dead/half-alive cat, or of a particle and a wave being two sides of the same thing, are rather hard to digest - too counterintuitive.
To make things worst, using "committing" when talking of energy coalescing into mass is a very unfortunate choice of words, as in physics - be it Newtonian or quantum - there is NO concept whatsoever of "will / intention / planning".
The explanation for the apple falling on Newton's head was in the law of gravity, not any "will" of the apple to do so. Neither subatomic particles have any "will" as understood in psychology.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 days 4 hrs (2023-05-01 22:19:00 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
yes
..."dense energy" means turning (flowing from... to... / changing from... into...) the state of probabilistic indetermination into a single actual "state of definiteness"
would be a good rewording to use as starting point for a translation.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 days 4 hrs (2023-05-01 22:21:47 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
I hope that resorting to quantum physics for comparisons will soon be a forgotten fad - it usually only increases confusion.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 days 5 hrs (2023-05-01 23:02:14 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
where you have ".... higher degrees of commitment ..." it would also make it easier to understand if you replace the highly error-inducing "commitment" by "higher degrees of definiteness" (= mieux défini, moins de flou/incertitude)
Thank you so much, Daryo, for your contribution and explanations!
As you also said, I feel I'll have to use some slightly different terms according to the various context:
in the first occurrence, I think it is "transformation"
in the second, "high degrees of definiteness" (I've found in Italian: "collasso della funzione d'onda , ossia nel passaggio dall'indeterminazione quantistica alla determinatezza")
in the third: "more committed probabilities", I guess he means: "higher degrees of probability"....
The concept, I think, is "going from no certainty, no form, the "sea of potential" (which my author compares with "pure awareness") to higher degrees of probability (for example, the activity of thinking or of remembering) to certainty, to a specific form, to actuality - as Kourosh Fallah says (for instance, a specific thought, memory...) 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
After reading your contribution and re-reading the text, I feel I'll have to use some slightly different terms according to the various context: in the first occurrence, I think it is "transformation" in the second, "high degrees of definiteness" (I've found in Italian: "collasso della funzione d'onda , ossia nel passaggio dall'indeterminazione quantistica alla determinatezza") in the third: "more committed probabilities", I guess he means: "higher degrees of probability".... The concept, I think, is "going from no certainty, no form, the "sea of potential" (which my author compares with "pure awareness") to higher degrees of probability (for example, the activity of thinking or of remembering) to certainty, to a specific form, to actuality - as Kourosh Fallah says (for instance, a specific thought, memory...) I really would like to give points to many of view, because I'll draw on many of your contributions. In the end, I've chosen Daryo's contribution, because he has helped me understand this strange use of "commitment".
actually this author has dealt with the subject of "quantum physics" in more detail in his previous books, where he also described the collapse of the wave function, the microstate vs macrostate reigns, the arrow of time etc.. The problem is that I haven't found any occurrence of "commitment" in his other works... Anyway I feel I'll have to use some slightly different terms according to the various context: in the first occurrence, I think it is "transformation" in the second, "high degrees of definiteness" (I've found in Italian: "collasso della funzione d'onda , ossia nel passaggio dall'indeterminazione quantistica alla determinatezza") in the third: "more committed probabilities", I guess he means: "higher degrees of probability".... The concept, I think, is "going from no certainty, no form, the "sea of potential" (which my author compares with "pure awareness") to higher degrees of probability (for example, the activity of thinking or of remembering) to certainty, to a specific form, to actuality - as Kourosh Fallah says (for instance, a specific thought, memory...)
But now I have another problem: how can I give points, if many of you have helped me?
As for intention, intentionality, directedness etc... there are two issues.
In the usual sense as someone proposed, intention means of coure will, commitment or similar ideas. I don't feel comfortable with a literal usage here because it would imply this 'energy' , this 'actualized energy' has will, consciousness. If we see this as a metaphor, on the other hand, of what's being represent by literal physical notions (energy etc...) then the notion may well apply to the figurative term of the metaphor (mind/psychology).
On the other hand intentionality as referenced from Stanford's Encyclopedia, doesn't seem to have much to do with this. These intentionality and directedness in the sense used in philosophy of mind and language, don't involve a flow, a transition or a will to do anything. Intentionality it's used e.g. by Searle to distinguish semantic ('real') minds from AI which is a purely syntactical processing program.
NEITHER are concepts used in quantum physics , certainly not strictly speaking applied to quantum systems.
from the point of view of physics the texts simply doesn't make much sense (even without much).
'Dense' energy is NOT matter and doesn't necessarily transforms, flows or evolves into matter. You can have an enormous density of energy and never any matter. Matter (e.g. electrons, muons,...) can "turn into" radiation (photons) and viceversa but BOTH have energy (which is a property rather than a state of being) and they're BOTH equally ACTUAL. Matter and energy are not dual concepts, meaning that they're not to be viewed as two ways to see the same thing. MASS and energy are. Energy is mass and viceversa, that is your mass is tantamount to the whole energy content of your body.
Then, the oft quoted wave-particle duality and superposition in quantum mechanics, the fact that from probability the system 'falls' into a defined state, does NOT depend on the energy density/contents.
Whatever the guy means, if it's a metaphor from physics it's not well crafted, because to represent the figurative the literal must be clear. Assuming the literal is physics and the figurative is psychology/neuroscience, it's difficult to make sense of the literal (hence of the figurative).
Second of all, the term is defined in the first paragraph in the first use which is the standard practice. Maybe we can use the author's definition.
"In the world of probability, “dense energy” means a commitment, [i.e.] A FLOW, OF POSSIBILITY INTO ACTUALITY."
Is it so far-fetched to say that "a FLOW of possibility INTO ACTUALITY' means 'actualization'? The definition is clear and does not need QM interpretaions.
Also, when the authros define a term of special importance in the first use, the standard practice, they do not change the meaning in later uses shortly after, without explicity redefining the term, which would be counterintuitive.
This is a question about Daryo's analogies. The first one is about a dice with 6 faces and 6 numbers. The rolled dice shows one face and one number from its commitment to stop at that number. The dice has no choice really, but does the one who throws the dice have a real choice or an element of control to commit the dice to show one number instead of 5 others? The second analogy involves bifurcation. I checked the word and I understand it's about a road which forks both ways to the left and the right hand side. Is it a T-junction, at which drivers must turn either left or right? In any case the driver commits to a decision to turn left or right and so the wheels of the car follow the driver's conscious decision. The choice is with the driver not the car. The final analogy is of a cat who lies inside a box or a cage at the threshold between a state of life or death. The cat develops a commitment to either life or death, but does the cat have a choice to commit to either state, or is the commitment to either state an obligation which was pre-destined or imposed by a power greater than that of the cat, by leaving it abandoned in a box?
for the general public, but the "context/subject matter" is very specifically "quantum physics".
Not the "ordinary / Newtonian" physics that is good enough for everyday use and is easy to understand intuitively. You don't get "distributions of probabilities collapsing in one single state" anywhere else than in quantum physics.
"physics"? I know the terms may not be so accurate as in physics, but in this passage the author really refers to quantum physics... So maybe he is trying to "translate" some technical concepts into more common words... and an expert in physics may possibly find a parallel in scientific language.. perhaps... Thank you so much for your understanding"
Dear FPC, yes I've tried to post the question here
18:54 Apr 29, 2023
in the monolingual section, to see whether maybe English-speaking colleagues have already found this term in similar contexts... but it seems they are giving a different interpretation...
This text is so nebulous as to be almost unreadable, but commitment seems to mean a halfway point between potential and certainty.
I've changed the subject of the question because although the text uses some terms from physics, it's anything but scientific. It sounds more like a self-help book.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
39 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
Transformation into something tangible, real, solid, stable
peer agreement (net): +1
