• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Regarding Franko...

Franko said:


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.

A probability distribution assigns to every interval of the real numbers a probability, so that the probability axioms are satisfied. In technical terms, a probability distribution is a probability space whose underlying ó-algebra is the Borel algebra on the reals.

random

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements.

2. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely

magical

1. Of, relating to, or produced by magic.

2. Pertaining to the hidden wisdom supposed to be possessed by the Magi; relating to the occult powers of nature, and the producing of effects by their agency.

3. Performed by, or proceeding from, occult and superhuman agencies; done by, or seemingly done by, enchantment or sorcery. Hence: Seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary; having extraordinary properties; as, a magic lantern; a magic square or circle.
 
Franko said:


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.
Well, Mordred did it, Franko. Now for once, will you show that you have a spine and admit you were wrong?

I thought not.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

Mordred said:


I've never claimed magic...and one of the assumptions has been discussed already.[/B]

You have actually
:rolleyes:

You did read the little bit of this thread about A!=~A right?

roger that



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.

He told you personally did he?
:eek:

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

I never said that it was...

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...

good on ya
;)
 
Mordred said:


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.[/B]

So why doesnt the "replay" have a potential to change?



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.

How so?
 
wraith,

wraith said:
I believe in determination......Quantum mechanics as I see it, is not probabilistic.
So your answer is...
(1) You don't believe in quantum probability.

wraith said:
WE label it as being probabilistic because WE dont have the full info.
Or perhaps.....
(2) You believe quantum probability has no macroscopic effects or....
(3) You believe quantum probability is determined by "hidden variables".

wraith said:
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.
Mordred's interpretation of the "replay" scenario is as follows.....

Make a video.
Play the video.
Replay the video.
The play and the replay are the same.....obviously!

He agrees with you only because......hey, I thought we were going to forget the "replay" scenario???

wraith 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...
I think this is a little unfair. He was merely trying to cover a second possible interpretation of your original scenario.

BillyJoe.
 
BillyJoe said:
wraith,

So your answer is...
(1) You don't believe in quantum probability.

I dont believe in his magic
:)

Sure, you could flick a coin and I couldnt tell you with 100% certainty what the outcome is. I dont have the info. However, TLOP controls the whole event.

Or perhaps.....
(2) You believe quantum probability has no macroscopic effects or....
(3) You believe quantum probability is determined by "hidden variables".

I like to use "not enough info"

Mordred's interpretation of the "replay" scenario is as follows.....

Make a video.
Play the video.
Replay the video.
The play and the replay are the same.....obviously!

Yes! Because they have the exact same conditions. If it was completely random, then the replays should have the potential to be different (magic)

He agrees with you only because......hey, I thought we were going to forget the "replay" scenario???

na
;)

I think this is a little unfair. He was merely trying to cover a second possible interpretation of your original scenario.

But he got it all wrong!

Was only trying to be witty haha
:cool:
 
:rolleyes: The exploits of a master debater, heheh. I took 20 mins to run through Wraiths statements here in this 12 page thread running over a couple of weeks. They are all below.

Join me in a game of "spot the logic argument";) :

Can you create something more conscious than yourself?
Do you control TLOP?

Come on churchy, it's not hard!

Im just saying that you need to use logic

How old are you?
12?

it was almost midnight from memory

Would you fight a friend of yours that you saw on the street and claim that it was your free-will to do so?

You would fight him if your brain was wired in away (ie your algorithm) to think "smack up friends that you see on the street."

Is this still free will? Do you deny that youre brain goes through a series of steps based on how you interpret past experiences?

How often do you jump out of planes?
Do you wear a bra when you go out?

show-off

LOL
HAHAHA
now THATS a hoot!

HAHAHA!
Another one for the books

WOAH, slow down there Turbo, this is starting to get interesting!

Dont play Mr Innocent TP. It doesnt suit you.

Lets say that I actually did throw a tennis ball at a wall and it passed through it, if someone wound back time to the point where Im just about to through the ball, would the ball go through the wall again or not?

it kinda does actually
lol

So much for free-will?

If it was truly a system based on probability, then things will be doing stuff for absolute no reason......

There would be no such thing as logic...

For sure, but it's not unique. If you go back in time, how would you gain information? How would the system change? It would only change if you brought the information from the future back to the past, then it would be unique.

Yet it did

point being?

If you won the lotto 10 mins ago, would your actions be different than it is now?

Going back into time: losing information / regress...
along those lines

Rewind it all the way back to the big bang if you want...
nothing would change

Sorry, youre a fatalist?

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

Sorry, I dont follow.

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

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.

Do you obey TLOP?

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?

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

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

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

Still waiting for you to show me

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

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

Too bad that it's not an analogy, unless youre claim that two things happening one after the other is the same as doing it once, then going back in time and replaying it as the same thing. Eh, whatever makes you sleep easier at night...

Yeah, only the conditions arnt 100% identical

So the majority = true? Sorry, not in my books bub.

Quantum tunneling without a probabilistic model? Buggered if I know lol

Whenever you break TLOP, just let me know...

ahhh, if youre replaying it, then it has the EXACT conditions, hence the same outcome.

Then you say that if you have the exact same conditions then it will not necessarily have the same outcome.

Again, which one is it sport?

one born every minute

HAHAHAHHHHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
WOO!

classic
just classic

na

the key word is "Fate"

If the outcome is different then it wasnt 100% identical

yes yes

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

great stuff here

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

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

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

So why are you saying that if you wound back time, the outcome WILL be the same?

It had to do with the WAY in which it was originally stated. I asked for clarification on this point, but it was never given. Are we rewinding time and then playing it forward back to the original point (a kind of instant replay)...or are we merely going back to a known set of initial conditions and letting things play out as a unique event. How things will play out will be dependent on which of these things the whole "rewind" scenario is actually referring to. If we are just playing back an event that has already happened...it will of course happen as it already has. If we are traveling back to a point with known initial conditions, and letting the universe evolve forward from that point, then the exact same outcome is not gauranteed.

“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.”

Well, take a stance, then we will talk. Im getting mumbo-jumbo talk from you at the moment

Of course not! You control TLOP. Im not real. Everyone is controlled by you. YOU is all that there is....

Youre asking me because......
lol

Yes

Doesnt matter. If you say that if you had the EXACT same conditions as you had in the replay, then the outcome will be the same. If you say that the outcome will be different, then the outcome in the replay has the potential to also be different.

Why is that?
Is it because the conditions are exactly the same?

Why is that?
Were the conditions exactly the same?

In other words, if you went back in time and pressed play (having the exact same coditions) you and I say that it WILL yield the same outcome.

Then you say that if you had identical conditions (im assuming that you mean 100% exect conditions) REGARDLESS of when it happened, it's possible to get a different result. ie if you had the EXACT same conditions for both events, regardless of when they were performed (have them be performed one after the other if you want) it is possible to have different outcomes.

I ask again

which one is it?

Na, youre still in jumbo-land at the moment

Then change your logic

You know, he could have been talking to those who had the mindset that science opposes religion and vice versa. Not to those who see sciencë and religion as "allies." Get it?

Think he won the prize for baking a cake...not sure on that one though....

HAHA
my my, how quickly we forget
"TLOP does not control me"

eh
I only have one personality that I am aware of...
muhahaha

Already happened?
Is this your way of saying
"It had the exact same conditions"?

Translation: It had the exact same conditions, but I dont want to admit it.

So in saying this, how can you say that the replay will be the same?
The best that you can say is that "it already happened."

LOL! You can rock up to work tomorrow wearing a dress and say "dont blame me, it already happened"

BillyJoe

It depends on the conditions of those universes

I told you....
he baked one hell of a cake

Id be crazy to believe in what youre saying...

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

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

HAH
I wonder why...

anyway
ILL DO NO SUCH THING
muhaha

Yeah Bro

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

If anyone is confused, it is you

100% same conditions will yield the 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...

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

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)

These structures wernt made by a consciousness by any chance?

Yeah, I defy TLOP on a daily bases...

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

ahhh, Ill give it a shot
LOL

Youre in wonderland

What have I said that is inconsistant?

You have actually

roger that

He told you personally did he?

I never said that it was...

good on ya

So why doesnt the "replay" have a potential to change?

How so?

I dont believe in his magic

Sure, you could flick a coin and I couldnt tell you with 100% certainty what the outcome is. I dont have the info. However, TLOP controls the whole event.

I like to use "not enough info"

Yes! Because they have the exact same conditions. If it was completely random, then the replays should have the potential to be different (magic)

na

But he got it all wrong!

Was only trying to be witty haha


Hans
 
I usually do, I usually do :). Anyhow its nothing compared to all the time you used to say so little.

Hans
 
wraith,

wraith said:
I dont believe in his magic.
Probability = Magic?

wraith said:
Sure, you could flick a coin and I couldnt tell you with 100% certainty what the outcome is. I dont have the info. However, TLOP controls the whole event.
And TLOP doesn't include quantum probability?

wraith said:
I like to use "not enough info"
There is "not enough info" to accept quantum probability as valid?

wraith said:
Yes! Because they have the exact same conditions. If it was completely random, then the replays should have the potential to be different (magic)
Two questions.....

You still don't accept that random = probability but probability != random?
(ie that random is a subset of probability - specifically, when the probabilities of all outcomes are the same)

Are you saying that quantum probability means that when we replay a video, the outcome should be different?

wraith said:
But he got it all wrong!
Maybe you just misunderstood him, wraith.

BillyJoe.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

wraith said:
He told you personally did he?
:eek:

He told everyone who actually cares enough to pay attention to a little thing called CONTEXT.
 
wraith said:
Sure, you could flick a coin and I couldnt tell you with 100% certainty what the outcome is. I dont have the info. However, TLOP controls the whole event.


The laws of physics will dictate the outcome of the coin flip yes. Did you bother to read my response to Franko's little coin flipping machine idea? Quantum mechanics doesn't conflict with this.

I like to use "not enough info"


AKA hidden variables

Yes! Because they have the exact same conditions. If it was completely random, then the replays should have the potential to be different (magic)


For the eight hundred billionth time...not completely random...and it has to do with a potential temporal paradox which you seem unwilling to take into account, or to merely remove from possibility in this hypothetical. If you did either, this conflict would be resolved immediately.
 
Mordred:

Franko:
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.

Mordred:
A probability distribution assigns to every interval of the real numbers a probability, so that the probability axioms are satisfied.

Meaning there is a percent chance for each outcome. (i.e. random)

In technical terms, a probability distribution is a probability space whose underlying ó-algebra is the Borel algebra on the reals.

(A-Theist standard operating procedure) Insert a little extra confusion in. It will make you sound “smart”, so maybe no one will question you and simply assume you know what you are talking about.

random

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements.

i.e. NOT OBJECTIVE – MAGICAL.

2. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely

Like a coin toss?

If you KNOW all the variables on a coin toss, then you KNOW which way the coin will come up. The key element to TRUE RANDOMNESS (like QM) is NOT KNOWING.

Remember what Verner Heisenberg and John Bell said THERE ARE NO HIDDEN VARIABLES!!!

Are the outcomes equally likely Mordred? You have no phucking clue!

magical

1. Of, relating to, or produced by magic.

i.e. random or unpredictable.

2. Pertaining to the hidden wisdom supposed to be possessed by the Magi;

YEAH … like Verner Heisenberg and John Bell’s Non-existent Hidden Variables – Magic.

…relating to the occult powers of nature, and the producing of effects by their agency.

So once again you are defining TLOP as a supernatural Agency.

3. Performed by, or proceeding from, occult and superhuman agencies; done by, or seemingly done by, enchantment or sorcery.

Okay Mordred, so other than the fact that You don’t use the terms “OCCULT”, “SUPERHUMAN”, “ENCHANTMENT”, or “SORCERY” what is the real difference between what you are describing and QM? There is no difference other than your creative semantics!!!

Hence: Seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary

Read this again Mordred … What you are describing here sounds EXACTLY like the way you’d describe QM or the Origin of the Universe … Seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary.

If not, then explaining EXACTLY what is different. There is NO difference!

-------------------------------------------------------

Trixy,

You stupid Twit! Maybe you should see if you can get a copy of the Bible?
 
BillyJoe said:
wraith,

Probability = Magic?

I prefer to say that randomness is magic

And TLOP doesn't include quantum probability?

In absolute terms, no. But to US it appears probable (not enough info)



You still don't accept that random = probability but probability != random?
(ie that random is a subset of probability - specifically, when the probabilities of all outcomes are the same)

(read above)

Are you saying that quantum probability means that when we replay a video, the outcome should be different?

yeah, still I prefer to use randomness than probability

Maybe you just misunderstood him, wraith.

maybe
;)
but....
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIE

Mordred said:


He told everyone who actually cares enough to pay attention to a little thing called CONTEXT.

point being....
;)
 
Mordred said:


The laws of physics will dictate the outcome of the coin flip yes. Did you bother to read my response to Franko's little coin flipping machine idea? Quantum mechanics doesn't conflict with this.[/B]

Mind repeating it? Dont remember
:eek:


AKA hidden variables

Whatever takes your fancy



For the eight hundred billionth time...not completely random...and it has to do with a potential temporal paradox which you seem unwilling to take into account, or to merely remove from possibility in this hypothetical. If you did either, this conflict would be resolved immediately.

mmm
please explain it again....
;)
 

Back
Top Bottom