Regarding Franko...

The Goddess is subtle, but She is NOT malevolent.
Mmmm, that must be a matter of standards. Her steering Hitler and such people seems rather malevolent to me. Are you saying that the sum of the LG's actions, malevolent and benevolent balance on the benevolent side? From the POV of whom?

Hans
 
Mordred said:


No, it's my way of saying the event has already occurred. Is English your native language?[/B]

Yeah Bro
;)

That might be a valid excuse if tomorrow has already happened. To my knowledge it has not. Do you have proof to the contrary?

It might be a valid excuse hey? So why did you war a dress then? Let me guess, it was just random? Just as random as you deciding to take a crapper with the seat down or walking into a womans clothing store to buy a bra?
YEAH RIGHT!
But in your case, Im willing to make an exception ;)


Again, I suggest we just drop this. Thinking of time in a linear fashion seems to be enough to confuse things with you...thinking of it in a nonlinear fashion does not seem to be something you even want to consider.

If anyone is confused, it is you
;)
 
Mordred said:
You will notice that whenever Einstein refers to God in his writings or speech, he is referring to Nature and not an actual conscious entity...as he himself stated on more than one occasion.

Those quotes again (posted earlier on) by Einstein on the God question:


"Strange is our situation here on earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men -- above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends. "

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. "

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. "

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. "

"It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being. "

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. "

"I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

regards,
BillyJoe.
 
wraith said:
100% same conditions will yield the same outcome....
Well, okay, Mordred says "different outcome" because of quantum probability.

You say "same outcome" because.....

(1) You don't believe in quantum probability or....
(2) You believe quantum probability has no macroscopic effects or....
(3) You believe quantum probability is determined by "hidden variables".

Or do you have some other reason to say "same outcome"?
 
I believe in determination.....Fate if you will...

Quantum mechanics as I see it, is not probabilistic. WE label it as being probabilistic because WE dont have the full info. That means jack squat!

If the system that Mordred is describing was the case, then the "replay" has the potential to yield a different outcome. Yet he and I both agree that it will only have 1 set outcome.

Then he applies full thrust and pulls a 9g turn, breaking the formation, bound for wonderland or some other place of a mythical nature...
:rolleyes:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

wraith said:
Id be crazy to believe in what youre saying...
;)


I see. So you believe that the universe must conform to a system of rules created by humans, based on fundamental assumptions which are not necessarily true?

I see that the implications of speech is beyond your scope?
:rolleyes:


I see actually interpreting something in the context that it was said is beyond yours. Einstein was talking about mathematical representations being generally imperfect models for physical events. This is because math is a system of rules created by humans, based on some fundamental assumptions which aren't necessarily true. It's usually when someone modifies the mathematical landscape with a new technique that a new physical theory pops up. Revolutions in math are almost without exception followed by revolutions in physics.

Show me one that that is not conscious that controls something conscious...
:eek:


Wow...been down this road before. I can't. If something controls something else (whether that something else is conscious or not) it implies conscious action. I can give you plenty of examples of the structure of something dictating the actions of something else. So can you prove to me that you are justified in using the term control when referring to the interaction between the laws of physics and you? Or is this just an assumption you have made which cannot be supported?
 
whitefork said:
I'd like to know in what scientific endeavors determinism is still the prevailing orthodoxy. Deterministic psychology, sure.
Certain schools of philosophy. Marxism? (I wouldn't know about that). Economics (maybe some versions).

Anyone help me out here?

I can tell you that in Economics ALL the hypotheses about socieconomic facts are tested under the assumption that they all have a probability distribution.

So, at least in this area determinism is less than zero as a way to explain reality.
 
wraith said:
I believe in determination.....Fate if you will...

Quantum mechanics as I see it, is not probabilistic. WE label it as being probabilistic because WE dont have the full info. That means jack squat!


So you support a hidden variable interpretation? What is your proof that these hidden variables must exist? Can you explain why quantum mechanics in its present state works so well without taking these variables into account? Can you account for all the experimental evidence built up since the inception of the Copenhagen Interpretation with a new, coherent model containing hidden variables?

If the system that Mordred is describing was the case, then the "replay" has the potential to yield a different outcome. Yet he and I both agree that it will only have 1 set outcome.


For very different reasons. My problem is that of a possible temporaly paradox. A paradox that could have been explained away quite easily at the beginning of this whole hypothetical. My requests for this however were blown off. Therefore, I had no choice but to assume the potential of a paradox. If that possibility is taken away, then my answer would change...as I have already said.

Then he applies full thrust and pulls a 9g turn, breaking the formation, bound for wonderland or some other place of a mythical nature...
:rolleyes:

Nothing mythical about it. You may perceive it to be through the looking glass so to speak...but the important thing is this...it is consistant with what we have actually observed of the universe. That and that alone is the true test of a theory.
 
So as far as I know the real Laplacean determinism (given the position, mass, and velocity of every particle in the universe, the future is absolutely determined) is no longer held by anyone outside of the philosophical community, and even there appears to be merely a position to argue against.

If "determinism" is being used with some other meaning, we need a strict definition. To say that our actions are governed by our past experience is either obvious and trivial (past experience is a rough indicator of future action) or false (the present state absolutely without exception determines the future).
 
whitefork said:
So as far as I know the real Laplacean determinism (given the position, mass, and velocity of every particle in the universe, the future is absolutely determined) is no longer held by anyone outside of the philosophical community, and even there appears to be merely a position to argue against.


Yes, that is dead for any number of reasons. First, we can never have all those measurements with absolute certainty in the first place. Furthermore, even in the hypothetical situation that we do, there is always the chance of an event such as quantum tunneling taking place at the subatomic level. And in addition, if the universe is a chaotic system (which it appears to be) then even a very small deviation in conditions can result in a very large change in outcome down the road. So the farther you get from the initial conditions, the greater the likelihood that you are going to be waaaaay off.
 
Frank,

posted by Franko

… but for me A-Theism is definitely NOT science.

I believe the same, Science is absolutely neutral and objective.

Franko said:

A-Theism does make use of some Science, but for the most part A-Theism is just a whacky evil religion that brainwashes people into believing that an inevitable and horrible Fate awaits them no matter what they do.

(the emphasis is mine)

Wasn't it FATE which holds exactly what you say atheists do??? :confused:

You have said hundred of times that everything is predetermined by Fate, that you don't believe in Free Will.
Why would an atheist preach an horrible Fate to others?, unless you are talking about the "cease to exist" thing.

Atheists hold that TLOP are probabilistic instead of deterministic. So, it seems a contradiction to hear that.


Franko said:

What Determinism says in a nutshell sounds like nothing more than common sense – that’s exactly what it is. Determinism says: People do things for Logical Reasons (based on past experiences).

What you say is that people behave in a way that is 100% predictable. I would need to read something about Skinner's writings to understand more about this.
What I want to know is if you find this to be the most important obstacle to understand how the Universe behaves according to the LD?

BTW, probabilities are based on past experiences too.

posted by Franko

Besides … the Necromancer has a big problem on his hands that he doesn’t know about. He thinks that because he doesn’t understand QM that it must be magic.

So, what you propose is to get rid of QM as an approach to understand and explain the Universe. But, what to do with the tons of evidence that support this theory's predictions?.

Do you propose to go back to classical mechanics?. I see this as a solution to comprehend your philosophy and therefore to believe in God. I know that there are more implications that follow after that, but this is what you perceive to be the most important obstacle?

Q-S

BTW. Welcome back to the forum :)
 
Q-Source,

I believe the same, Science is absolutely neutral and objective.

Right! Exactly, which is why NO TRUE scientist would EVER call himself an A-Theist unless he knew and could prove that there was No God. Anyone who calls themselves an A-Theist and can’t prove the nonexistence of God is no Scientist. They are not being neutral or objective. They are demonstrating an obvious bias.

They have an a priori conclusion. They are not open-minded.

True Scientists are ALWAYS open minded.

Franko:
A-Theism does make use of some Science, but for the most part A-Theism is just a whacky evil religion that brainwashes people into believing that an inevitable and horrible Fate awaits them no matter what they do.


Q-Source:
Wasn't it FATE which holds exactly what you say atheists do???

You have said hundred of times that everything is predetermined by Fate, that you don't believe in Free Will.
Why would an atheist preach an horrible Fate to others?, unless you are talking about the "cease to exist" thing.

That is exactly what I am talking about.

As well as the idea that there are no ultimate answers, and no ultimate consequences for actions. Both of those are equally horrible in their own way.

Atheists hold that TLOP are probabilistic instead of deterministic. So, it seems a contradiction to hear that.

When you approach a “red” traffic light are YOUR actions probabilistic, or Deterministic?

Honestly Q-Source, how often do you uncontrollably and randomly run “red” lights? If Human action were Truly probabilistic instead of deterministic then that is exactly what would happen – does it?

Besides it’s a moot point. There is no matter anyway. All there is are patterns in the Energy. If they are not objective, and logical then you (and Mordred) are claiming that they are magical and supernatural. Think about it.

Franko:
What Determinism says in a nutshell sounds like nothing more than common sense – that’s exactly what it is. Determinism says: People do things for Logical Reasons (based on past experiences).

Q-Source:
What you say is that people behave in a way that is 100% predictable. I would need to read something about Skinner's writings to understand more about this.
What I want to know is if you find this to be the most important obstacle to understand how the Universe behaves according to the LD?

Forget me and everyone else for a moment.

Can You predict what You will do in a given situation?

Say I describe a situation to you, and I describe it in perfect detail accounting for every variable you would consider. Can you predict with 100% accuracy what you will do in that situation?

If you answer yes, then what happened to probability? How can You know for certain what you will do? Aren’t you made of Atoms which are effected by Quantum mechanical states?

The fact is that QM is only random when you don’t know the past history of the particle in question. Know the relevant history, and QM ceases to be random.

BTW, probabilities are based on past experiences too.

Darling I propose that I could build a machine that would flip a specific coin, and I coud set that machine so that it would always flip the coin and make it land “Heads” up, or “Tails” up as I desired.

Know all of the parameters involved, and you can compute the future with 100% accuracy.

Franko:
Besides … the Necromancer has a big problem on his hands that he doesn’t know about. He thinks that because he doesn’t understand QM that it must be magic.

Q-Source:
So, what you propose is to get rid of QM as an approach to understand and explain the Universe. But, what to do with the tons of evidence that support this theory's predictions?.

Do you propose to go back to classical mechanics?. I see this as a solution to comprehend your philosophy and therefore to believe in God. I know that there are more implications that follow after that, but this is what you perceive to be the most important obstacle?

Particles look like they have “free will” (are random) because we don’t understand (know) their histories. When you know the relevant history, you can predict which slit the particle will go through, and you can predict it accurately 100% of the time.

You and I are also particles. We are gravitons. You don’t know all of my relevant history, so to you my behavior will often appear random and unpredictable, but when you do understand my history, (assuming you understand my algorithm as well) you will be able to predict my actions with a high degree of accuracy.

For your own self, You always know your relevant history, so your own actions are entirely predictable to you 100% of the time. You are the source of your actions. You had better know what you are going to do. If not, who does?

You have to try and think of things in terms of Energy.

Imagine Reality as it really is. All that exist is a sea of Energy. Within this sea of Energy you are simply a pattern stored within the Energy. But you are a pattern of Energy which is capable of perceiving other patterns in the Energy.

That is your “matter”. It is nothing more then patterns within the Energy. You are a disembodied self-awareness. Your mind is what makes “matter” hard. Your mind is what gives it substance, and makes it tangible.

BTW. Welcome back to the forum

Ohhh, Thank you Sweetheart! :)

Honestly, I don’t like the “kiddie pool” that much, but I think I made my point. ;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

Mordred said:
I see. So you believe that the universe must conform to a system of rules created by humans, based on fundamental assumptions which are not necessarily true?

What assumptions are they?
Your claim of magic is meant to hold the key?

I see actually interpreting something in the context that it was said is beyond yours. Einstein was talking about mathematical representations being generally imperfect models for physical events. This is because math is a system of rules created by humans, based on some fundamental assumptions which aren't necessarily true. It's usually when someone modifies the mathematical landscape with a new technique that a new physical theory pops up. Revolutions in math are almost without exception followed by revolutions in physics.

Einy: "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."

I could take his quote as follows:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain..."
He was talking to the atheist in terms of science ruling out religion. This could mean that there is something greater that science cant explain. The real reality. (the belief that science rules out religion)

"as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
He could of meant that as far as they are certain IN THE CONFINES OF THIS UNIVERSE, they do not refer to the REAL REALITY...(the belief that science rules out religion)



I can give you plenty of examples of the structure of something dictating the actions of something else.

These structures wernt made by a consciousness by any chance?
:rolleyes:


So can you prove to me that you are justified in using the term control when referring to the interaction between the laws of physics and you? Or is this just an assumption you have made which cannot be supported?

Yeah, I defy TLOP on a daily bases...
 
Mordred said:


So you support a hidden variable interpretation? What is your proof that these hidden variables must exist?

Youre saying that things are magical. I say that they are not.



Can you explain why quantum mechanics in its present state works so well without taking these variables into account? Can you account for all the experimental evidence built up since the inception of the Copenhagen Interpretation with a new, coherent model containing hidden variables?

ahhh, Ill give it a shot
LOL



For very different reasons. My problem is that of a possible temporaly paradox. A paradox that could have been explained away quite easily at the beginning of this whole hypothetical. My requests for this however were blown off. Therefore, I had no choice but to assume the potential of a paradox. If that possibility is taken away, then my answer would change...as I have already said.

Youre in wonderland
;)



Nothing mythical about it. You may perceive it to be through the looking glass so to speak...but the important thing is this...it is consistant with what we have actually observed of the universe. That and that alone is the true test of a theory.

What have I said that is inconsistant?
 
Franko said:
Right! Exactly, which is why NO TRUE scientist would EVER call himself an A-Theist unless he knew and could prove that there was No God. Anyone who calls themselves an A-Theist and can’t prove the nonexistence of God is no Scientist. They are not being neutral or objective. They are demonstrating an obvious bias.

They have an a priori conclusion. They are not open-minded.

True Scientists are ALWAYS open minded.


Your definition of atheist differs from mine (and likely a great number of other atheists). I do not claim to know that no gods exist. I have no good reason to believe that a god exists. Lacking that reason, I do not hold a belief in a god. If evidence which would provide me with a good reason to believe is produced. Then I would consequently hold a belief in god. I have not made any a priori conclusions.

Honestly Q-Source, how often do you uncontrollably and randomly run “red” lights? If Human action were Truly probabilistic instead of deterministic then that is exactly what would happen – does it?


Ask yourself how many interactions at the quantum level are necessary for such events. How many would have to differ from the expected classical result in order to affect the macroscopic outcome in the way you have detailed? Quite a large number. What is the probability of a sufficient number of the quantum events that make up such a macroscopic event differing from the expected classical outcome? Incredibly small. That is why you don't see people "randomly" running red lights...or tennis balls going through brick walls...

Besides it’s a moot point. There is no matter anyway. All there is are patterns in the Energy. If they are not objective, and logical then you (and Mordred) are claiming that they are magical and supernatural. Think about it.


I claim nothing of the sort. They are in fact quite natural. It's just that they are subjective not objective, and they obey a different system of logic than you think they do.

The fact is that QM is only random when you don’t know the past history of the particle in question. Know the relevant history, and QM ceases to be random.


First, not random. Second, have we forgotten the uncertainty principle suddenly? One of the big points is that you CAN'T know the precise past history of any particle. There will always be uncertainty in your measurements and those uncertainties obey the inequalities laid down by Heisenberg. If you do measure, say position, exactly your uncertainty in regards to that particles momentum (and hence velocity) will be infinite. You will have no clue as to what direction it is moving, or how fast it is doing so. Likewise, if you measure a particles velocity precisely your uncertainty in its position is now infinite...you will have no idea as to where it actually is.

Darling I propose that I could build a machine that would flip a specific coin, and I coud set that machine so that it would always flip the coin and make it land “Heads” up, or “Tails” up as I desired.

Know all of the parameters involved, and you can compute the future with 100% accuracy.


Making such a machine wouldn't be very hard. How many quantum events go into making up the macroscopic event of the coin flip? How many of them would have to deviate from the accepted classical outcome for the macroscopic event to do the same? How likely is that to happen given the shape of the probability distribution?

Let's play another game. I'm going to make a machine that will shoot particles at an energy potential that they don't have enough energy to penetrate. If determinism holds, I should be able to predict with 100% accuracy that none of the particles will ever cross that energy barrier. Care to guess what will actually happen?

Particles look like they have “free will” (are random) because we don’t understand (know) their histories. When you know the relevant history, you can predict which slit the particle will go through, and you can predict it accurately 100% of the time.


This would be a neat trick. Have you bothered to tell any particle physicists that you can do this so easily? Can you explain why you get an interference pattern from the double slit experiment if the particle is only going through one of the slits as you claim?

You and I are also particles. We are gravitons.


I'd like to politely ask you once again to stop bastardizing that word.

Your mind is what makes “matter” hard. Your mind is what gives it substance, and makes it tangible.


Matter isn't really hard...you could pass right through it in fact...if it wasn't for the forces that matter tends to create. It is the forces that give matter this property, and your brain interprets those forces as hardness. Hardness is a perception, not a reality.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

wraith said:
What assumptions are they?
Your claim of magic is meant to hold the key?


I've never claimed magic...and one of the assumptions has been discussed already. You did read the little bit of this thread about A!=~A right?

I could take his quote as follows:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain..."
He was talking to the atheist in terms of science ruling out religion. This could mean that there is something greater that science cant explain. The real reality. (the belief that science rules out religion)


He was actually talking to mathematicians who think math is an absolutely perfect representation of reality in all cases. It's not so much that Einstein didn't hold this belief that aggravates me, but the fact that the belief you are trying to pin on this particular quote...has absolutely nothing to do with what Einstein was saying in this instance.

If your knowledge of Einstein's work and writings is so great...why did you not just say...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" --Albert Einstein

That at least would have something to do with what you are talking about.

These structures wernt made by a consciousness by any chance?
:rolleyes:


And if I found a watch on a beach somewhere...I would run for fear of being snuck up on by an argument from design...
 
wraith said:
Youre saying that things are magical. I say that they are not.


I've never said anything of the sort. I have said that particles obey laws based on probability distributions. That's not magic, that is math describing experimental results.

ahhh, Ill give it a shot
LOL


Great. When you come up with something and explain it to me, I will take a hidden variable interpretation seriously.

What have I said that is inconsistant?

My claim had nothing to do with internal consistancy. It had to do with being consistant with observation. Quantum mechanics is consistant with what we have observed. What you are saying is not.
 
I've never said anything of the sort. I have said that particles obey laws based on probability distributions. That's not magic, that is math describing experimental results.

Unless you can define "probability distributions" without reference to the term "random", and unless you can explain the specific diference between "random" and "magical", then you are claiming a Magical Answer whether you want to pretend that you are or NOT.
 

Back
Top Bottom