Regarding Franko...

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Mordred
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.

My only quibble with this - there is some risk that it might be taken to mean that logic can be abandoned for trivial reasons - if a formal fallacy is pointed out, someone may argue that the concept of formalism is nonsense. The overwhelming burden of proof (if proof is the right word) is on the person arguing that the rules of logic do not apply in such a case.

It's not as if logic or mathematics is static, after all. Of course those who cannot grasp the principles of syllogism are not in a position to contribute much to more advanced concepts, in my view.

 

[Mordred]

My only quibble with this - there is some risk that it might be taken to mean that logic can be abandoned for trivial reasons - if a formal fallacy is pointed out, someone may argue that the concept of formalism is nonsense. The overwhelming burden of proof (if proof is the right word) is on the person arguing that the rules of logic do not apply in such a case.

I agree completely. It wasn't exactly easy for me to let go of the idea that the universe obeyed an omnivalent system of logic. The burden of proof is on those making the claim, but if quantum mechanics hasn't met that burden of proof yet, then I don't see how anything ever will.

It's not as if logic or mathematics is static, after all. Of course those who cannot grasp the principles of syllogism are not in a position to contribute much to more advanced concepts, in my view.

I am also in complete agreement. That is why I specifically brought up omnivalent logic. Multivalent systems of logic don't necessarily rest on the same assumptions, they don't have the same problem dealing with A=~A. Since omnivalent logic can also be seen as a special case within a multivalent logical system, it makes me start to think of the relationship as not unlike that of relativity and Newtonian mechanics.

 

[whitefork]

No question that QM has met that burden of proof. Philosophy is always playing catch-up to science. By the time it assimilates QM, physics will be at some other mindbending point.

Victor posted a nice link to alternate logic systems: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/11/2/123247/073

So many developments in the last 25 years. Who can stay on top of everything?

 

[Franko]

Loki,

Mildred:

[QM]… not to mention easily repeatable.

Franko:
If you are claiming that it is “RANDOM”, then how can it be “predictable”. I believe those two words are opposites once you exit “the pessimistic never-neverland of A-Theism” and enter the real world (a skeptics forum).

Loki:
Nice attempt to subtly rephrase what was actually said into something that was not said (or implied), but which you can ridicule.

Explain how I “subtly rephrased” what he said?

I QUOTED exactly what he said – You didn’t.

Mildred said the phenomenon was observable, and that the observation can be repeated.

QM phenomena is NOT directly observable. And since the outcome is RANDOM, it cannot be REPEATED EXACTLY THE SAME. That is what Random means Loki …

The observation is that the phenomenon has a probabilistic nature.

So does flipping a coin. Do you consider coin tosses magical?

Here’s the thing Loki this was hashed out ages ago – YOU were there!

Unless you are going to claim that occasionally you uncontrollable and unpredictable run red lights, or kick your father in the nuts, then QM is not a solution for “free will”. How many times do you have to be shown the same thing before you acknowledge the obvious???

The fact of the matter is Loki, that in the same way you whine that a Christian is scared of death, and so he makes up an afterlife … YOU are terrified of the idea that you do not control your own destiny, so you make up a fantasy about having “free will” and you build the Religion of A-Theism around yourself and your insane worldview so you don’t have to deal with reality as it really is (that goes for Mildred, and buki, and the rest as well) …

 

[Mordred]

Explain how I “subtly rephrased” what he said?

I QUOTED exactly what he said – You didn’t.

Find me exactly where I have ever referred to quantum mechanics as being random. Again, probabilistic and random are not the same thing.

QM phenomena is NOT directly observable. And since the outcome is RANDOM, it cannot be REPEATED EXACTLY THE SAME. That is what Random means Loki …

I can directly observe quantum tunneling, for instance. I can directly observe that particles have spins. I can directly observe a great many things having to do with quantum mechanics. Can I directly observe that a particles spin is both zero and one simultaneously until it's wave function collapses...no...because I cannot measure without collapsing the wave function. However, I can deduce that this is seemingly the only possible explanation for my observations. If you have an alternate, superior explanation...offer it. I'm listening. Until then I have no choice to believe the ONLY explanation that fits all the facts.

So does flipping a coin. Do you consider coin tosses magical?

No, probability isn't magical.

Unless you are going to claim that occasionally you uncontrollable and unpredictable run red lights, or kick your father in the nuts, then QM is not a solution for “free will”. How many times do you have to be shown the same thing before you acknowledge the obvious???

Where has anyone here ever claimed that quantum mechanics was somehow a solution for free will? Show me. Otherwise you are just arguing against arguments that no one has made...

The fact of the matter is Loki, that in the same way you whine that a Christian is scared of death, and so he makes up an afterlife … YOU are terrified of the idea that you do not control your own destiny, so you make up a fantasy about having “free will” and you build the Religion of A-Theism around yourself and your insane worldview so you don’t have to deal with reality as it really is (that goes for Mildred, and buki, and the rest as well) …

Heh. I have never claimed to have free will. Atheism is not my religion, I have none. My worldview is based on rationalism and empiricism. If that isn't dealing solely with reality, then I don't know what is.

I've answered plenty of your questions as best I can Franko...why can you not answer me just one. What did Einstein win his Nobel prize for?

 

[Mordred]

Mildred,

What's the specific difference?

It would be nice if you actually bothered to read the thread you are posting in...

Originally posted by BillyJoe
RANDOM is an instance of the class PROBABILITY.

RANDOM is when the probabilities of all the possible outcomes are equal.


Does this help?.....


regards,
BillyJoe

IS a coin toss "random" or "probabilistic"?

Anything that is random is probabilistic, so this is not a good question.

If you idealize a coin toss and say that it can ONLY result in heads or tails...then it is random. However, in reality, there are more possible outcomes than this. The coin could come to rest on its side for instance (highly improbable, but possible). This makes the cointoss nonrandom overall, but random in the case of whether it will be heads or tails. It is always probabilistic.

How about Human Behavior?

Good question. If human behavior is solely the result of the laws of physics, then it is probabilistic, but not random.

How about QM?

Probabilistic, but not random (as I have been repeatedly saying).

Any chance you will answer the question you have been repeatedly asked now?

 

[whitefork]

All Squares are rectangles.

All rectangles are squares.

good one, A-ristotle.

 

[Ipecac]

Mildred:

If anything “random” IS “probabilistic” then they are the same thing. Why can’t you A-Theists ever just say what you mean? Why all of the double-talk? Is this how you believe you will get honest answers about the universe? You certainly have a whacky religion.

Uh, perhaps all things random are probabilistic but all things probabilistic are not necessarily random. Thus, they are not the same thing.

 

[Mordred]

If anything “random” IS “probabilistic” then they are the same thing. Why can’t you A-Theists ever just say what you mean? Why all of the double-talk? Is this how you believe you will get honest answers about the universe? You certainly have a whacky religion.

Once again, it seems everyone managed to understand exactly what I was saying except for you. Everything random is probabilistic. Everything probabilistic is not necessarily random. Perhaps it would be more evident if someone gave it to you in Venn diagram form...

I said exactly what I meant. There was no double talk. I have no religion.

Einstein won his Nobel prize for?

 

[Franko]

Mildred:

First you claim …

probabilistic and random are not the same thing.

… then you claim …

Anything that is random is probabilistic, so this is not a good question.

If anything “random” IS “probabilistic” then they are the same thing. Why can’t you A-Theists ever just say what you mean? Why all of the double-talk? Is this how you believe you will get honest answers about the universe? You certainly have a whacky religion.

 

[whitefork]

Franko, I pity your keyboard.

(Or maybe your keyboard is controlling you?)

DILLIGAF?

 

[Mordred]

Reposting things which have already been replied to...the obvious sign of a superior debater...

Franko, are all rectangles squares?

What did Einstein win his Nobel prize for?

 

[Franko]

Mildred,

probabilistic and random are not the same thing.

What's the specific difference?

IS a coin toss "random" or "probabilistic"?

How about Human Behavior?

How about QM?

 

[Mordred]

Franko...you have already made that EXACT same post above. I have already replied to it. Are you attempting to put your whole "rewind" thought experiment into practice? Or are you just being idiotic?

For my answers to those questions you can merely look above. Now, for a question that hasn't been answered yet...what did Einstein win his Nobel prize for?

 

[Franko]

Franko:
How about Human Behavior?

Mildred:
Good question. If human behavior is solely the result of the laws of physics, then it is probabilistic, but not random.

If it’s not solely the results of Physics then what is it the result of? Do you have ANY evidence that indicates human behavior is NOT solely the result of TLOP?

Are you claiming that the Behaviorists are wrong? If so, specifically where and why are they wrong?

Do you agree with Trixy that selecting a card at random from a deck occurs “beyond the scope or influence of TLOP”?

 

[wraith]

Perhaps I can help.

Make a video of an event.
Play the video.
Replay the video.
The play and replay are identical.

Take two identical universes, Universe A and Universe B.
Let Universe A play itself out.
Let Universe B play itself out.
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out differently.

See the difference?

If the outcome is different then it wasnt 100% identical

 

[wraith]

No, if you are "replaying" it, it has the exact same conditions...and has already happened, so will happen as it already has.[/B]

yes yes

What I am saying does not contradict itself...it is only what you are saying I am saying which does. Get it sport?

I think BillyJoe does, maybe you should reread his post until you understand. [/B]

ahh, youre the one saying that if time wound back to the big bang, things would be different...

great stuff here

 

[wraith]

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

I never claimed they were exactly the same...I was using an everyday, macroscopic event governed by probability to illustrate a concept. Obviously that managed to elude you.[/B]

Hence saying that events that happen one after the other is not the same as playing them twice

Wait, is this a claim that if you were to "rewind" time to a certain previous time, that the conditions at that time would not be what they were previously at that time? Or is it a claim that two perfectly identical universes with perfectly identical initial conditions (by definition because this is a hypothetical thought experiment and that is how they are defined)...somehow do not have identical conditions?

Im not saying that at all. Are you reading whats actually been said?
Read the above reply slick

Merely stating that other people didn't seem to have a problem with the proof that I offered...wondering what your problem with it was.

So your argument is that quantum mechanics must be wrong...but you cannot provide an alternate model to explain one of the observable phenomenon that quantum mechanics readily explains? Why should I take you seriously then?

Im looking at the logic behind it.
You dont have to seriously if you really dont want too
haha

Whenever you understand that trite crap like this doesn't prove that a set of rules is conscious...let me know. Furthermore, when you actually understand what the laws of physics really say...let me know...

It's ok for TLOP to control you but is less conscious than you.
Youre on a fire...

 

[Mordred]

If it’s not solely the results of Physics then what is it the result of? Do you have ANY evidence that indicates human behavior is NOT solely the result of TLOP?

No, nor have I ever claimed anything of the sort.

Are you claiming that the Behaviorists are wrong? If so, specifically where and why are they wrong?

I fail to see specifically where behaviorism applies to this. Could you be more specific?

Do you agree with Trixy that selecting a card at random from a deck occurs “beyond the scope or influence of TLOP”?

I don't agree with that statement...of course that is a misrepresentation of his position, and I also disagree with your position because you fail to see that the laws of physics are not deterministic.

 

[Mordred]

If the outcome is different then it wasnt 100% identical

That assumes determinism...which is exactly what the whole scenario was supposed to prove. I'm afraid if you actually apply quantum mechanics to this situation, the initial conditions can be 100% identical, and the outcomes can still be different.