Regarding Franko...

[wraith]

Where have I ever claimed that there was any such thing?

Sorry, youre a fatalist?

Just because anything is possible...doesn't mean everything is sufficiently probable to actually happen.

It doesnt have to be "everything."
At least 1 is sufficient

Logic remains as it is. The problem comes when you attempt to apply omnivalent or Aristotlean logic to the real world. Logic you see is a synthetic system. It does it's job extremely well, because it was designed to do exactly that. What it doesn't necessarily do is transfer absolutely to the physical world. This is the value of multivalent logic in my opinion...it more closely resembles how things actually seem to work in reality. It's the same thing with math, with any abstract system. To use an actually relevant Einstein quote...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

Sorry, I dont follow.

As for the rest...yikes...you need to work on your ability to convey your ideas more clearly (or work on more clearly defining what the hell your ideas really are). However, if all this is an attempt to ask could an event actually turn out differently than it actually did...the Copenhagen Interpretation says yes.

What are you trying to argue exactly? Are you a believer in Fate or mr free-will?

 

[wraith]

Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

The probability distribution would be exactly the same, but the whole point is that this does not necessarily gaurantee the same outcome. If you have a pair of dice and roll them twice, the probabilities are exactly the same both times for the possible combinations, but you are very likely to get different outcomes. It all depends on how the probabilities are distributed.[/B]

Thats not the same thing as going back in time. In the system above, you have two different events. Regardless of which, TLOP controls the outcome.

I agree, I've never said anything in support of free will being real. I do not have conclusive evidence either way, therefore my default position is that it doesn't exist. However, this is not a problem for me as Franko/wraith seems to like to claim without providing proof. I also continue to operate in everyday life with the assumption that I do indeed have free will because the idea, independent of truth, is useful.

Do you obey TLOP?

 

[wraith]

I'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but if quantum mechanics is right, then you are wrong. So either offer sufficient evidence to disprove quantum mechanics, or abandon this opinion. Those are your logical options at this point. By the way, I find your "rewind" thought experiment unnecessarily confusing. It would be better just to say if you had two universes operating under identical laws, with identical initial conditions they would turn out exactly the same...of course that is also untrue if those laws are the same as they appear to be in our universe.

Just a second ago you said in relation to the "ball going through the wall" scenario

"If it's just a replay the same exact thing will happen of course..."

So which one is it?

 

[Mordred]

Sorry, youre a fatalist?

No, as that implies determinism.

It doesnt have to be "everything."
At least 1 is sufficient

You're going to have to elaborate on this. It is unclear to me what you are attempting to say.

Sorry, I dont follow.

Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence. An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A). This violates a basic assumption of omnivalent logic. Where there is a contradiction between logic and our observations of how the universe works, if the observations are not flawed (which they do not appear to be), we must conclude that it is our logic which is in error.

What are you trying to argue exactly? Are you a believer in Fate or mr free-will?

I believe I already addresed this a few posts back. The portion of my post that this is in reply to by the way has absolutely nothing to do with it though...

 

[Mordred]

Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

Thats not the same thing as going back in time. In the system above, you have two different events. Regardless of which, TLOP controls the outcome.

It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.

Do you obey TLOP?

I believe I've already covered this ground before with a different poster who behaves quite eerily similar to you. My actions are governed by the laws of physics. However, the laws of physics are not deterministic, and there is no reason to believe that they themselves are a consciousness of any kind. It is demonstratable that the laws of physics aren't deterministic. So far your assertion that the laws of physics are conscious is completely unfounded.

 

[Mordred]

Just a second ago you said in relation to the "ball going through the wall" scenario

"If it's just a replay the same exact thing will happen of course..."

So which one is it?

I clarified my position once I understood exactly what the hell you were trying to say with your "rewind" thought experiment. Which is why I commented that it is unnecessarily confusing. My first answer was dependent on a condition, a condition which your thought experiment does not include. This has to do with the difference between an "instant replay" vs. a unique event with exactly the same initial conditions. You are using language that implies the former, but reaching your conclusion using the latter.

 

[wraith]

You're going to have to elaborate on this. It is unclear to me what you are attempting to say.

Show at least one example of something doing something without reason and you can kiss logic good bye

Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence. An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A). This violates a basic assumption of omnivalent logic. Where there is a contradiction between logic and our observations of how the universe works, if the observations are not flawed (which they do not appear to be), we must conclude that it is our logic which is in error.

Good question...
With more info, then maybe it will become logical

 

[wraith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.[/B]

So are you saying that throwing some dice twice is the same as throwing some dice once then rewind time and play when you throw the dice?

No Im affraid not. Conditions change when you throw the dice a second time. The way you throw, how much force you release, the angle in which you throw etc all add up to give you a different outcome

However, the laws of physics are not deterministic,

Still waiting for you to show me

and there is no reason to believe that they themselves are a consciousness of any kind.

true, my car controls me
so does the pencil that I write with

 

[wraith]

I clarified my position once I understood exactly what the hell you were trying to say with your "rewind" thought experiment. Which is why I commented that it is unnecessarily confusing. My first answer was dependent on a condition, a condition which your thought experiment does not include. This has to do with the difference between an "instant replay" vs. a unique event with exactly the same initial conditions. You are using language that implies the former, but reaching your conclusion using the latter.

No I dont think so...
Both examples are the same...clear as day if you will

 

[Mordred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

So are you saying that throwing some dice twice is the same as throwing some dice once then rewind time and play when you throw the dice?

The dice throwing is what some people on this planet call an a-n-a-l-o-g-y.

No Im affraid not. Conditions change when you throw the dice a second time. The way you throw, how much force you release, the angle in which you throw etc all add up to give you a different outcome

This is exactly why your "rewind" scenario is exactly analogous to observing two events in identical universes with identical initial conditions.

Still waiting for you to show me

Look back a little in this thread. It seemed quite obvious to everyone else that quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic. Can you give me a valid explanation for the phenomenon of quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model?

true, my car controls me
so does the pencil that I write with

Your idea that this strawman is actually necessitated by a universe where the laws of physics do not constitute a consciousness is still another unfounded assumption on your part.

 

[Mordred]

No I dont think so...
Both examples are the same...clear as day if you will

They are not. If you are merely "replaying" what has already happened...then of course what has already happened will happen again. If you are not doing this, but merely starting from the same exact initial conditions, then the outcomes will not necessarily be the same.

 

[CWL]

Logic and math are abstract systems created by human beings. They are based on certain assumptions, such as A!=~A. The universe does not necessarily follow these assumptions. To assume that it does would be to ignore the evidence.

THANK YOU Mordred!

This is one of the main points I have been trying to get across to Franko for quite some time.

Notwithstanding I am convinced that our very own computer programming A-ristotle will go on claiming that the non-existence of "free will" and the existence of his Goddess can be proven by means of a simple syllogsim. For some people it is just so hard to understand that the difference between the map and the land...

 

[MRC_Hans]

and there is no reason to believe that they themselves are a consciousness of any kind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

true, my car controls me
so does the pencil that I write with

No, it only shows that your claim of a hierachy is wrong. It is a straw man, and it has been refuted. Now, try to think of something new.

Hans

 

[Mordred]

THANK YOU Mordred!

This is one of the main points I have been trying to get across to Franko for quite some time.

Notwithstanding I am convinced that our very own computer programming A-ristotle will go on claiming that the non-existence of "free will" and the existence of his Goddess can be proven by means of a simple syllogsim. For some people it is just so hard to understand that the difference between the map and the land...

I've noticed that people have tried basically to impart the difference between validity and truth to him in past discussions. Obviously it still hasn't made a dent. Pure logic can only tell you whether or not your conclusion is valid based on your premises...it cannot be used to divine what is and is not actually true about the universe...but just try telling some people that.

 

[CWL]

We are in complete agreement. Again, thank you and welcome to the forum.

 

[Franko]

Mildred claimed:
Look back a little in this thread. It seemed quite obvious to everyone else that quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic. Can you give me a valid explanation for the phenomenon of quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model?

Wraith he's claiming that QM is magical. Standard John Bell tripe. In the next breathe he will tell you that his beliefs are not based on supernatural or mystical concepts ... go figure ... ?

 

[Mordred]

Wraith he's claiming that QM is magical. Standard John Bell tripe. In the next breathe he will tell you that his beliefs are not based on supernatural or mystical concepts ... go figure ... ?

So it is your contention that probability is a supernatural phenomenon?

Still waiting for you to answer buki's question about Einstein's Nobel prize...

 

[Franko]

Mildred ... explain the difference between something being Supernatural or Magic, and it being Truely random or indeterminate?

 

[Mordred]

Mildred ... explain the difference between something being Supernatural or Magic, and it being Truely random or indeterminate?

Since there isn't anyone named Mildred here, I might as well field this one (paranoid schizophrenia surfacing again Franko?).

supernatural

adj : not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings" [ant: natural]

I've never said anything about "true randomness". I mentioned something about a true random number generator somewhere in this or another thread, but that is not what we are talking about...there is a difference between random and probabilistic. As for indeterminancy, such as that of a particle as described in quantum mechanics. It exists in nature, is subject to explanation according to natural laws, and is related to the physical and material. It occurs in nature and is therefore natural, and by definition therefore not supernatural.

By the by...what did Einstein win his Nobel for?

 

[Franko]

As for indeterminancy, such as that of a particle as described in quantum mechanics. It exists in nature, is subject to explanation according to natural laws, and is related to the physical and material. It occurs in nature and is therefore natural, and by definition therefore not supernatural.

So what you are claiming is that when YOU say something is magical its not really magical, but if any other religion says something is magical … then it is magical. NICE double standard A-Theist.

Mildred ... explain the difference between something being Supernatural or Magic, and it being Truely random or indeterminate?

Do you want to take another crack at this, or are you going to stand by your previous non-answer?

The fact is, if your can’t comprehend it Mildred – it’s magic. And you are only fooling yourself if you try and claim otherwise. Now, lets see how much of a fool you are willing to be …