Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hyper evolution in the bible
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 256 of 317 (236274)
08-23-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by simple
08-23-2005 10:39 AM


Re: simple math
False, I don't have the time now to explain.
no, of course you don't. the math is pretty clear. you have been MATHEMATICALLY disproven. there is no stronger proof.
Peleg was born 101 years after the flood. I have read this, as well as looked it up in the bible, if you are right, I will be very surprised.
my math confirms that. i'm not debating it. the thing is that, as per your ORIGINAL statement that the split occured 19 years into his life, this is out of the time-frame of the 120 years. if noah took 120 years to build his ark and wait for the waters, as YOUR OWN SOURCES SAY, then peleg was born 221 years after that decree. if noah took the minimum of 98, he'd still be over the 120 mark. meaning that the 120 cannot refer to peleg, period.
if you really want to know, i suspect your source is right, and that it was 120 years from the decree of limit on man's life (ie: as a species) until the flood. that reading make sense. that means god gave that command 20-22 years before noah was born. it then took noah 98-100 years to find favor with god and then build the ark. a little out of sequence, since noah is introduced in chapter 5, but he's reintroduced in 6 and the bible is funny like that.
in other words, the "limit on man's life" of genesis 6 cannot refer to the "world divided" in genesis 11. it does not add up. period. qed.
As for lifespans, the trnd was clear, and some did live longer than others, it isn't a rigid thing here, just an emmerging pattern. As you say, his great gtreat grandson was already at our levels!
and the trend IS clear. the largest decrease statistically is terah. the largest decrease total was shem. peleg is just a member of a steadily declining line of descendants. no one special, and not a point for your split.
no one is arguing that the bible does not say people lived longer and now they don't. they're arguing that the verse in genesis 6 can't have anything to do with that, and it's not a result of a split or anything in peleg's time.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by simple, posted 08-23-2005 10:39 AM simple has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 257 of 317 (236275)
08-23-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by simple
08-23-2005 10:33 AM


crackpots
Because I can, because the ones on offer are absurd, because to God, even the merged universe is natural, and because I feel like it.
you know, i've read some pretty unrealistic stuff in the bible, i will agree. but let's just be clear that that's what you're knocking here. you're knocking the actual content of the bible.
god speaking it, and it being so is just not enough for you. if you're ok with that, i am too. i suspect god does operate through various mechanisms and natural law.
but of all the preposterous and UNNECCESSARY explanations i've heard for things, this "sandwich" thing is by far the worst yet. if you want my advice, study science. understand it. if you don't like that, study the bible, and understanding. if you can't pick one, do both.
but this game of reading whatever crackpot idea you want into whatever you feel like just isn't flying. it doesn't line up with anything in the real world, or even the biblical texts. to the rest of us, you just look like a nutter. at least the creationists have the balls to say they believe the bible, and that god acts supernaturally and in a sometimes decpetive and mysterious way.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by simple, posted 08-23-2005 10:33 AM simple has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 258 of 317 (236281)
08-23-2005 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by John
08-23-2005 8:15 PM


Re: One more time
I am happy to elaborate, but could be reprimanded for being off-topic, which is why I was bried and did not provide full details. But let's dig into it a little more.
On the time issue, remember when I referred to the earth as a streak through space-time than a ball in space travelling through time. The image I propose to use is a long pole or rod. What if, for example, a sound resonates the rod and causes it to vibrate some?
What you would have then is a changing time-line, the past, present, and future all changing at once.
My hypothesis is we will discover that the past is changing, slowly, but as more time passes, the changes add up and create significantly more changes. It's sort of a multi-verse idea except not that all states exist in reality, although that could be, but that several states interact to form one single state. In other words, there is a bleed-over effect.
To get into all the reasons why I think science is heading in that direction would entail a larger explanation on a different thread, but it is possible that when we look at, say, evidence of what has been past, that parts of the past have changed, or slipped together with other parts such that we are not accounting for this expansion and shift in the time-line in our evaluations.
My prediction is science will discover the past is not staic.
But that is not well-established. What is well-established, imo,is the nature of what we call reality consists of information. We see that in QM, and we see that in General Relativity, as I have pointed out.
So physical form is derived from a design that exists outside of what we once considered normal space-time. What brings matter into form is something beyond matter, an information and energy pattern.
We see the same idea when we in a thought experiment measure the universe from the photon's perspective. There is no time and space from the photon's perspective.
Does that mean time and space do not exist? It means time and space exists from our vantage point, but are not fundamental to reality in the sense that time and space do not exist from every perspective within the universe. They are products of a perspective, and not an absolute quality or property, but a derived property.
So when we speak of the "material world" then in reference to the natural world, reality, the realm science can discover, we are now in the awkward position of having shown fairly conclusively that what is fundamental to the "material world" is not "material" or something occupying time and space, but rather information that can exist occupying time and space or not, and at the same time.
So QM and GR both indicate information or design as the fundamental property of all things which gives rise to a definite physical form in time and space.
Why is this important?
First, it changes our concept of what reality is, or what the natural world is. For example, the concepts of things being rooted in a world outside normal space, but real nonetheless is very similar if not identical to what religious traditions call "spiritual." So dismissing any spiritual claims as outside of the purview of science may be a moot point if our science has already begun to delve into researching the spiritual world and spiritual principles, which seem odd to the scientist or did initially, but are quite normal from a spiritual perspective. In other words, for the spiritual man, QM is not so odd as it was for scientists trying to understand the principles involved.
But let's get past that. Imo, from a scientific perspective, we don't really know for sure how the design, the information, that is the fundamental root of all things came to be. We do know the physical is an immediate by-product and manifestation of the design, not the other way around.
Where does the information program come from and can it be directly altered and engineered?
My hypothesis is that the mechanism for design (ID mechanism) by the Creator/Designer is probably a created process embedded within reality, and that we will learn aspects of this ID mechanism and learn how to directly engineer reality in some fashion, that we can figure out how to provide direct input to the information root program of a thing and change it, not by going through the physical form, which is nothing but a derived characteristic of what the real thing is, which is an information/design, but we learn, maybe through manipulating energy within the vacuum which could be where this design is since it has no definite form but has energy, how to provide input and produce direct engineering effects, and tap into the ID mechanism used to produce and affect reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by John, posted 08-23-2005 8:15 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by John, posted 08-24-2005 9:11 AM randman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 317 (236351)
08-24-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by randman
08-23-2005 10:13 PM


Re: One more time
quote:
I am happy to elaborate, but could be reprimanded for being off-topic
That is a possibility.
quote:
My hypothesis is we will discover that the past is changing, slowly, but as more time passes, the changes add up and create significantly more changes. It's sort of a multi-verse idea except not that all states exist in reality, although that could be, but that several states interact to form one single state.
Well, could be. But where is the math? Right now, to be honest, I don't think you really have a hypothesis. You have a guess or a wish or something that sounds cool.
quote:
But that is not well-established.
Keep things in perspective. This isn't established at all. I am not aware of any theorist who is working on the jiggly-pole-in-spacetime idea.
quote:
What is well-established, imo,is the nature of what we call reality consists of information. We see that in QM, and we see that in General Relativity, as I have pointed out.
You've mentioned this before. I'd say the idea is far from well-established, even going so far as to call it pretty iffy. But 'information' has become such a jargon word, I am always afraid to even try to guess what it means to someone.
quote:
What brings matter into form is something beyond matter, an information and energy pattern.
This is why I am not sure what you mean. QM strongly suggests that at the smallest levels, things are pretty random and it is hard to call random a 'pattern'. Remember Einstein's "God does not play dice quip?"
Your next two paragraphs kinda fall flat with the randomness of QM in mind.
quote:
For example, the concepts of things being rooted in a world outside normal space, but real nonetheless is very similar if not identical to what religious traditions call "spiritual."
Invalid inference at both steps, but I am seriously out of time.
Must go to work.
I'll finish tonight.

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by randman, posted 08-23-2005 10:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 9:17 AM John has not replied
 Message 261 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:03 PM John has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 260 of 317 (236355)
08-24-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by John
08-24-2005 9:11 AM


Re: One more time
I'll be working as well, but will look for more a little later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by John, posted 08-24-2005 9:11 AM John has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 261 of 317 (236540)
08-24-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by John
08-24-2005 9:11 AM


Re: One more time
QM strongly suggests that at the smallest levels, things are pretty random and it is hard to call random a 'pattern'.
This is where you make a fundamental mistake. First, some aspects of explaining QM have been eclipsed since it's inception. For example, I think the principle of entanglement largely has overshadowed the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, but let's don't go there because it would involve a whole new tangent.
Suffice for this argument is that the randomness is within set parameters of the non-observed design. That's the point. The design and pattern exists, is fundamental, but the appearance and form is secondary or what you call "random" here. The "random" element was just an indication of exactly what I am talking about, not a contradiction. The physical form is secondary and derivative of a design pattern that exists even when the form is changing, or if not present (if you accept the contention of some quantum physicists that the particle does not exist in a form at all until observed).
Either way, the information pattern is what the thing is. The physical appearance as matter is merely a derived manifestation of the pattern, which exists the same regardless of which form is manifested,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by John, posted 08-24-2005 9:11 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by John, posted 08-24-2005 8:14 PM randman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 317 (236614)
08-24-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by randman
08-24-2005 5:03 PM


Re: One more time
quote:
For example, I think the principle of entanglement largely has overshadowed the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, but let's don't go there because it would involve a whole new tangent.
Sorry. No. The random components of QM have not been eclipsed by entanglement or by anything else, whatever you might think. That is, this view is not expressed by any qualified physicist of whom I am aware. Nor am I aware of any research that suggests it. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.
Nor is this a tangent. Your argument rested, and still rests, upon this idea of your that there is a pattern in the randomness. You cannot dismiss a criticism of a primary premise of your argument and still expect me to care what you say next.
quote:
Suffice for this argument is that the randomness is within set parameters of the non-observed design.
It is most definitely not sufficient to say that. This is a keystone of your argument and what you are asking me to do is swallow it whole because you say so. It doesn't work that way. I object to your premise. Now defend it or the argument is over.
What I think is happening is that you need this component of the argument, and you are hoping that you can slip it in and get me to concede the point by acting as if my objection were really to other anciliary point and then asking me to swallow a slightly reworded version of the point to which I objected. That is not a savory debate tactic.
quote:
The "random" element was just an indication of exactly what I am talking about, not a contradiction.
Pure sophistry.
quote:
Either way, the information pattern is what the thing is. The physical appearance as matter is merely a derived manifestation of the pattern, which exists the same regardless of which form is manifested,
Yes, but you've pulled this out of thin air. IE., you've just made it up.

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:03 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 10:20 PM John has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 263 of 317 (236633)
08-24-2005 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by John
08-24-2005 8:14 PM


Re: One more time
Your argument rested, and still rests, upon this idea of your that there is a pattern in the randomness.
Wrong. You are not listening. The pattern is not in the randomness. You are not following the point at all.
What is random?
What part is non-random?
If you take some time to think about and answer that, you'd get an idea of what I am talking about. You seem to have a big problem with this, and I am not sure exactly what you know and don't know, and am less sure then how to explain it to you.
The particle may or may not exist in a form until it is observed. Some argue it does not exist in a form at all until observation.
The fallacy giving rise to such speculations,Wheeler explains, is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
I gather some others have a problem with this and would say it does exist in one form or the other, but the act of observation causes it to take on one specific state. Still others argue all the possible states occur in an ever-expanding, or perhaps permanent or pre-existing, multi-verse.
Whatever the case (I put a lot of stock in Wheeler's ideas, at least as far as I've read him), the particle is, in fact, a probability pattern. It can exist as either wave-like or particle-like, superpositionally or unipositionally, or according to Wheeler can exist without having physical form at all!
It's root existence is information, the design, which is where the potential for certain forms and states come from. The act of observation does not create the particle, but rather it causes a selection to take place from among the potentials already there. The potential, the information, is the thing itself, and it's form is a derived property whether considered random or controlled by some other process.
So the thing itself, the information of it's potential, has never been considered random. Only predicting what part of that potential will appear has been considered random.
Edit to add a quote that highlights the "information" concept as fundamental, but you will need to read the article to get a better idea of why he says this.
Finally an experiment on the teleportation of an entangled photon demonstrates that the decision whether or not two photons are entangled or not again can be made at a time long after these photons have already been observed. More precisely, the quantum state we assign two photons for a time period before they have been registered depends on our future choice whether or not we then implement the Bell state measurement these two photons are entangled with. This experiment lends support to the idea that the quantum state is just a representation of our knowledge and that this knowledge changes when an observation is made. Thus the reduction of the wave packet is just a reflection of the fact that the representation of our information has to change whenever the information itself changes as a consequence of an observation.
In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word".
Page not found - Metanexus
also interesting overview (not sure if I follow all it though)
http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/zeilinger/philosop.html
Note: Maybe you could take back the following now.
Yes, but you've pulled this out of thin air. IE., you've just made it up.
This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 10:38 PM
This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 10:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John, posted 08-24-2005 8:14 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by John, posted 08-25-2005 9:21 AM randman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 317 (236729)
08-25-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by randman
08-24-2005 10:20 PM


Re: One more time
quote:
Wrong. You are not listening.
Wrong. I am listening. Is it not true that most of my posts have been attempts to squeeze information-- he he -- out of you? Reread. You are not very forthcoming. I am still trying to figure out exactly how your reasoning works. It is starting to make some sense, and I have to say, it may be the best ID argument I've ever seen. But that remains to be seen.
quote:
The pattern is not in the randomness. You are not following the point at all.
Layer one: 'waves' of energy and/or information
Layer two: observable data, ie. the not mechanically predictable results of particle experiments.
Layer three: The universe we see.
Layer one 'collapses' into layer two. Right? I'm not so sure. Take a look at your own quote.
quote:
Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.
Neither waves nor particles. Intrinsically undefined. The reason Wheeler can say this is that the wave and particle ideas are mathatical tricks. Also from one of your links.
quote:
It turns out that very naturally the referent of quantum physics is not reality per se but, as Niels Bohr said, it is "what can be said about the world", or in modern words, it is information.
Note, very importantly, that quantum physics is talking about not 'reality' but about what we can say about it-- that is, about how we can describe it. The math, the wave functions, the sum over histories are language. They are not the world as it is, at least, not any more than my describing a beach ball is the beach ball. That's why there are different ways to do it-- ie. Feynman's sum over histories vs. Schodinger's wave function. Its like speaking French vs. German, but the language isn't the world. What you've got with quantum mechanics right now is what we had with Newton and gravity. Newton's math could describe the effects of gravity, but they did not explain it. Einstein gave us the explaination-- gravity is a curve in spacetime.
The real foundation as far as observable effects is the irritating unpredictable results in the experiments.
You can't reverse the foundation and the language. That is part of why I have been saying 'pattern in the randomness'. Those results are what count. Eventually, perhaps, there will be something deeper, which can be tested, but right now there isn't.
Time for work.
--- Unsuspectingly, I made it home in time to continue before your reply --
Another reason I say 'pattern in the randomness' is that if one were to find a formula that predicts the apparently random effects observed, one has also automatically proven that the effects had not been random after all but that they were a very complicated pattern-- that is, there was a pattern in the randomness. One of the links you posted suggests that the effects will always appear random because we will never know enough to solve the problem.
Now lets assume that there is a pattern in the randomness, or 'under' it. The two statements seem functionally equivalent to me. But we don't know what it is. Now, where do you go from there?
This message has been edited by John, 08-25-2005 11:52 AM

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 10:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by randman, posted 08-25-2005 4:52 PM John has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 265 of 317 (236956)
08-25-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by John
08-25-2005 9:21 AM


Re: One more time
John,
I feel like we are talking past one another. I understand that there were concerns in QM over just describing what we can observe and ignoring the more philosophical implications. Is that what you are referring to by saying it's a matter of language?
Note, very importantly, that quantum physics is talking about not 'reality' but about what we can say about it-- that is, about how we can describe it. The math, the wave functions, the sum over histories are language. They are not the world as it is, at least, not any more than my describing a beach ball is the beach ball.
I disgree with that. From what I have read Bohr and others went that direction to avoid speculating too much, as Planck did in openly calling it the manifestation of a Universal and Intelligent Mind.
QM is about reality, not just how we describe it. It's not just "a trick" as you suggest.
Neither waves nor particles. Intrinsically undefined. The reason Wheeler can say this is that the wave and particle ideas are mathatical tricks.
Wheeler is not saying it's a mathematical trick. He is actually saying, in reality, that they are "intrinsically undefined." He is not talking about just how we describe them. He is saying they are neither a wave, nor a particle, in reality, but in reality, are intrinsically undefined.
I don't think then what I am talking about is a matter of langauge at all. I'd like to go further and get into consciousness-based models to explain QM as Wheeler and Zeilinger get into, but really my first point on this is much simpler.
The fact is there is a probability pattern existing, which exists whether the particle is in an undefined state, a wave-like state, or a particle-like state in a discrete position. The only thing random is what potential the particle would form from moment to moment.
The appearance of the particle in a definite state is not wholly random, as if no pattern exists, which seems to be what you are claiming. No, the probability pattern exists, and the particle is only random within the scope of that probability pattern, which is why things don't just dissolve and fly apart.
The nature of this randomness is actually evidence for what I am talking about, that the physical appearance of matter is a derived and secondary function to it's root existence, which is an information state of probilities. It's evidence for, not against my claims.
The pattern exists regardless of what state the particle is in, and the pattern dictates the potential for appearance and form that the particle can appear in and does so even within certain governing probibilities. The physical appearance of the particle does not change the probability pattern.
What is therefore more fleeting and less certain is the actual physical form, and what is more permanent and the root state of the particle is the pattern, the information, which is manifested in different states according to the potential within the information design.
Even if the particle exists in no definite state, as Wheeler claims, the pattern still exists, which is why information is the root feature of what something is, and physical form is a secondary feature.
According to Wheeler, the particle exists even when it does not exist in a definite state of matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by John, posted 08-25-2005 9:21 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by John, posted 08-26-2005 2:16 PM randman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 317 (237385)
08-26-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by randman
08-25-2005 4:52 PM


Re: One more time
quote:
I feel like we are talking past one another.
Certainly. That is colloquially called 'communication' but, then, I have been accused of being cynical.
quote:
QM is about reality, not just how we describe it. It's not just "a trick" as you suggest.
QM is about reality, certainly. But the math isn't the reality. It is possible to construct charts and graphs plotting the likely number of deaths from a gunshot wound per year. You can plot deaths through time, etc. and you can get predictive results within a range. What you cannot do is conclude that the charts and graphs and numbers somehow form an 'underpinning' of information from which the results emerge. That seems to be the stance you are taking.
quote:
The fact is there is a probability pattern existing, which exists whether the particle is in an undefined state, a wave-like state, or a particle-like state in a discrete position.
The results are what they are. The statistical descriptions of them don't somehow 'make' those results be what they are. It just doesn't make sense to say that a probability pattern 'exists'. There are zillions of probability patterns for various things. You don't really believe that the probability patterns of murders across the United States somehow causes those murders?
QM has the data and the math, several versions of it, to create the graphs and charts. You cannot, however, infer that these charts are anything more than descriptions-- language.
The rest of what you write just reiterates the idea that probability patterns somehow exist, which makes no sense. That point should be obvious when you apply the same reasoning to other probability calculations, like wheat harvests and weather patterns. Something causes these fluctuations, the math describes them. The math is not the cause. Something may cause the behavior observed in particles, but that something is not the language used to describe the behavior.

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by randman, posted 08-25-2005 4:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 2:36 PM John has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 267 of 317 (237394)
08-26-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by John
08-26-2005 2:16 PM


Re: One more time
You can plot deaths through time, etc. and you can get predictive results within a range. What you cannot do is conclude that the charts and graphs and numbers somehow form an 'underpinning' of information from which the results emerge. That seems to be the stance you are taking.
No, and here is why. The particle is one thing, not many as are the players in your example. Moreover, we are talking about the physical properties of the particle, how it comes to be, not wills of human beings. It has a governing mechanism within itself. Are you claiming that the particle is recreated every momement or something? If not, your claim doesn't make sense. We are talking about the properties of a single object, not behaviour patterns of multiple people.
The results are what they are. The statistical descriptions of them don't somehow 'make' those results be what they are.
Completely wrong. The information about what a particle or thing is does indeed cause it to be or is one determinative factor. When the particle is not apparent, when it is intrinsincly undefined physically, it still exists within the well-defined probability pattern.
It just doesn't make sense to say that a probability pattern 'exists'.
Why? Just because you think it doesn't make sense is not evidence this isn't so. The fact is the thing is a probability pattern. The probility pattern exists regardless of the physical state of the particle. The pattern is not therefore a description of the physical state of the particle. No, the pattern is the particle, and the physical state of the particle is an aspect of the pattern. The pattern exists even when the particle is not in a definite physical state, and when it appears to pop in and out of physical existence.
There are zillions of probability patterns for various things. You don't really believe that the probability patterns of murders across the United States somehow causes those murders?
I already showed where that was not germane. Now, if we observed a murdering particle, for sake of argument, as a single entity, that appeared in various spots, murdered someone, and then disappeared and appeared somewhere else, repeating the pattern, and if we were able to deduce that at times, prior to observation, it had no definition single existence at all, then maybe you would have a point, and maybe we could say this thing indeed is a probability pattern with a derived physical function.
But discussing probability patterns for behaviour instead of for both physical appearance, form and behaviour, as you are doing, is not germane to the discussion.
In other words, we are talking about the nature of physical existence, and what QM has discovered is that physical states are derived from a probability pattern that exists regardless of the physical state, and as such, the pattern is the more permanent and non-random feature of which the less permanent and random appearance of matter is derived from.
It doesn't make sense to you because you have a false and outdated concept of what physical reality consists of. Your concept "works" for many applications because statistically a classical perspective has a high incidence of accuracy for most of what we do here on earth, but it's nonetheless incorrect as QM shows.
This message has been edited by randman, 08-26-2005 02:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by John, posted 08-26-2005 2:16 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by John, posted 08-26-2005 8:13 PM randman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 317 (237542)
08-26-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by randman
08-26-2005 2:36 PM


Re: One more time
quote:
The particle is one thing...
That is kind of a bizarre thing to say about a particle, as they tend to do very un-thing-like things as appear in two places at once. I'd be careful with this track, though it isn't relevant to this discussion for reasons I am about to present.
quote:
...not many as are the players in your example.
But you are talking about many players. One particle == one result. One result gives you one result. You need hundreds or thousands of results to figure out the probability of getting a result the next time. In other words, the data is obtained precisely as it is in my analogy-- via compiling numerous observations.
quote:
We are talking about the properties of a single object, not behaviour patterns of multiple people.
You aren't making sense. How about another analogy?
What are the chances that you will commit suicide after having had this discussion with me? Well, we gather data about the suicide rates of those who've spoken with me extensively and work out a probability. Lets say its 1 in ten people off themselves. Now, we apply the data to you. You have a 1 in ten chance of offing yourself. Notice, we are talking about a single object-- you--, not multiple objects yet the math is still valid.
Perhaps of interest...
quote:
Due to the interpretation of the wave function, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory. It does not tell us with certainty what happens to a particular particle. Instead, it tells us, for instance, the probabilities for the particle to be detected in certain locations. If many experiments are done, with one particle per experiment, the numbers of experiments with particles being detected in the various possible locations are in proportion to the quantum mechanical probabilities.
Page not found | Department of Physics
quote:
Why? Just because you think it doesn't make sense is not evidence this isn't so.
I gave you ample reasons for this statement. Don't pretend that I asked you to accept it on my word alone. I find that terribly offensive.
quote:
The fact is the thing is a probability pattern.
Especially when in the very next sentence you make precisely the error for which you've just chastised me.
quote:
The probility pattern exists regardless of the physical state of the particle.
The probability pattern is math. Like all probability formula it is an average, of sorts, of the results of multiple observations. It is not a thing in itself. If you insist on calling these probability patterns things-in-themself you are obligated to accept all probability calculations as things-in-themself. This you are wont to do. Because it makes no sense.
quote:
But discussing probability patterns for behaviour instead of for both physical appearance, form and behaviour, as you are doing, is not germane to the discussion.
I think perhaps you are forgetting where the data for these calculations originate. One does not measure 'probability patterns'. One observes hundreds and thousands of discrete events and then makes up the math that describes the results. This, like it or not, is how the hard science works. Please tell me how this is not the case? And assuming it is the case, my analogies are relevant, like them or not. Those analogies are one-to-one analogous.
quote:
In other words, we are talking about the nature of physical existence...
Well, yes. But you grossly overstate the state of the arts.
quote:
and what QM has discovered is that physical states are derived from a probability pattern that exists regardless of the physical state
Again you forget the origen of the data. Having observed thousands of events and written a formula to describe them, you elevate the formula above the data.
quote:
and as such, the pattern is the more permanent and non-random feature of which the less permanent and random appearance of matter is derived from.
Thought experiment. Juxtapose the conception I describe and the one you describe. The two are identical as far as I can tell except that in your case the mathematical description has become the reality.
Chronologically...
1)Countless observations stretching back a hundred years or so.
2)Construction of formula which describe the results of #1.
3)In your case, #2 is considered more fundamental than #1
How is step three justified? Do you object to #1 or #2?
quote:
It doesn't make sense to you because you have a false and outdated concept of what physical reality consists of.
awwwww... cute. Does randman feel like mud-slinging now?

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 2:36 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 1:22 AM John has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 269 of 317 (237607)
08-27-2005 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by John
08-26-2005 8:13 PM


Re: One more time
That is kind of a bizarre thing to say about a particle, as they tend to do very un-thing-like things as appear in two places at once.
Not if the thing is a probability pattern at it's root. That's the point. What constitutes the world is not very thing-like because our concept of what a thing is, was wrong.
One particle == one result.
I don't know what you are talking about. One particle can give more than one result. That's part of the point here.
You need hundreds or thousands of results to figure out the probability of getting a result the next time. In other words, the data is obtained precisely as it is in my analogy-- via compiling numerous observations.
So? What does that matter to this discussion at all? In fact, I am not even sure with millions of results, you can ever figure out the probability of getting the exact same result "the next time", whatever that means. The point is not determining the probability, but that it exists at all.
I think you are greatly misreading or not understanding QM. The probabilistic nature, if you want to call it that, of particles, is merely that it can appear in various forms and places in a highly non-linear fashion unless there are extra dimensions such as in string theory, but irregardless, even when the particle does not exist in a form at all, it is still existing as a probability to appear according to a set design.
In other words, the data is obtained precisely as it is in my analogy-- via compiling numerous observations.
Not really. Two measurements, via the 2-slit experiment, is sufficient to show what I am talking about. There is no need for numerous observations.
The probability pattern is math.
No, it's not. That's totally wrong. Math is merely a description of the existing design, not the other way around. Really, I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. It's a basic elementary principle.
If you insist on calling these probability patterns things-in-themself you are obligated to accept all probability calculations as things-in-themself.
Why? You insist on this, but no where make any sense at all. You seem to miss entirely the whole point of the nature of what a particle is at it's root. Probability patterns of the nature of physical matter are relevant to matter because it has been shown that the matter exists first and foremost as a potential for appearing somewhere according to a probability pattern.
Maybe we should use the term "potential" to make it clearer. The particle is a potential for various forms, more wave-like or more particle-like, superpositional or not superpositional, or to exist in undefined state, and to appear in different places.
does not measure 'probability patterns'. One observes hundreds and thousands of discrete events and then makes up the math that describes the results.
No, there need not be hundreds or thousands of discrete events at all, and just 2 events in the 2-slit experiment is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of particles in wave/particle duality.
Again you forget the origen of the data. Having observed thousands of events and written a formula to describe them, you elevate the formula above the data.
It sounds to me like you just don't know what QM is. Maybe you have a degree or some such in science and even physics, but you miss the boat entirely on this. The event itself, not thousands, but one experiment is sufficient, although it has been duplicated a lot and expanded on, well, this event shows us that the particle can exist either superpositionally or not, hence regardless of the derived, observed form, the particle is a potential for more than that. It can be wave-like and collapse to particle-like and back to wave-like, and according to Wheeler can exist in an undefined state as a potential, but not having any definite form at all.
In other words, it exists as the information for it's potential prior to observation.
The two are identical as far as I can tell except that in your case the mathematical description has become the reality.
I don't know what you are talking about since what I am saying is not dependant on the math at all, but is derived from the observations in experiments.
As an end-note, I am not slinging mud and that's not meant to be an insult. You just have an old definition of what a thing is, a definition which is outdated by QM. The more classical concepts seem right to many, which is why QM seemed so weird, even to Einstein, but what you are failing to realize is that QM is weird to your perspective, and that's because it contradicts pretty much every notion you have expressed on what constitutes physical matter and "things."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by John, posted 08-26-2005 8:13 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by John, posted 08-27-2005 1:05 PM randman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 317 (237701)
08-27-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by randman
08-27-2005 1:22 AM


Re: One more time
quote:
Not if the thing is a probability pattern at it's root. That's the point.
I know your point is that a probability pattern is the 'root', but it is one you haven't supported. That is my point.
quote:
I don't know what you are talking about. One particle can give more than one result. That's part of the point here.
Then you radically-- RADICALLY-- do not understand what is going on in particle experiments. Scientists don't measure the same particle over and over. Particles are destroyed or radically altered when measured, thus fire one particle through a cyclotron and get one result. You can't grab the same particle and try again. You have to get a new particle. Its not like pool where you can bounce the same ball around the table.
quote:
So? What does that matter to this discussion at all?
It matters because this describes precisely how the data, upon which your argument-- well, at least the science-- rests, has been and is accumulated. Do you honestly not understand the basic-nose-to-the-grindstone-guy-in-white-lab-coat science?
quote:
In fact, I am not even sure with millions of results, you can ever figure out the probability of getting the exact same result "the next time", whatever that means. The point is not determining the probability, but that it exists at all.
????? Do you not know what 'probability' means? This statement suggests that you haven't a clue. How many sides are on a die? Six. How many ones are on a die? One. The probability, assuming a fair die, in one in six that you will roll a one 'next time'. The same works with repeated events. Throw a dart at a dart board. Count the times you throw-- say, 100. Count the times you hit the pie-shaped section labeled '18'-- say six. The probability of hitting the 18 section 'next time' is six in one-hundred, or three in fifty. That little calculation right there is your 'probability pattern', though QM uses much more complicated formulas.
quote:
No, it's not. That's totally wrong.
Having just discovered that you don't know what probability means, I repeat. The probability pattern is math.
quote:
Math is merely a description of the existing design, not the other way around.
Can one see the 'probability pattern' and thus measure it and describe it? Nope. Has any scientist ever seen such a thing? Nope. What, then, have scientists seen? Thousands of individual results which, they have discovered, can be described by certain mathematical formulas. The math is secondary to the results. How else would you get the math? You can't measure the 'probability pattern'. You can't detect it directly at all. All you have is thousands of results, which can be described via some very complicated math. That math is generated in exactly the same way as one would generate a probability for the roll of a die, for the toss of dart, or for the chance of rainfall in London. You are loath to admit that these 'probability patterns' are the 'root' of rain in London, for example, yet they are generated in precisely the same way as are the patterns in QM. How is the one different from the other?
It is a very simple concept but you are stubbornly ignoring the source of the data and you don't know what probability means.
quote:
quote:
If you insist on calling these probability patterns things-in-themself you are obligated to accept all probability calculations as things-in-themself.
Why?
Because if you do not so remain consistent you are guilty of a logical fallacy know as special pleading-- that is, insisting that an argument works just fine in one case but does not work at all in a sufficiently similar case.
quote:
No, there need not be hundreds or thousands of discrete events at all, and just 2 events in the 2-slit experiment is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of particles in wave/particle duality.
Rand, you should step back from the theory and take a look at how scientists actually get the data.
quote:
The event itself, not thousands, but one experiment is sufficient...
This shows how little grasp you have of the hard science, and of probability. I dare you to construct, or derive, a probability formula that gets even close from one toss of a dart. It cannot be done. Like it or not, the formulas of QM came from thousands of tosses of the dart, so to speak. You cannot get around that point. One hundred years of experiment are against you. The formulas of QM were not derived from anything but those thousands of experiments. That is as factual as factual gets. I don't know why you can't understand that. Do you claim that the formulas were not derived from the experiments?
quote:
No, there need not be hundreds or thousands of discrete events at all
Take a few minutes to learn what 'probability' means, and how it is calculated.
quote:
hence regardless of the derived, observed form
Here is your problem. The observed form is not derived. The observed form is observed. Regardless of how things exist in unknown reality, we have to start with the observed. And that is just what QM has done. It has started with the observed and made math to describe it. That math takes the form of probabilities. You can't reasonably deny that. History is against you. What you have to do is justify claiming that those derived-from-experiment probabilities are somehow primary-- causal in some sense-- and not secondary description as all other probabilities happen to be.
quote:
I don't know what you are talking about since what I am saying is not dependant on the math at all, but is derived from the observations in experiments.
Lol! What do you think is derived BUT the math? That is a serious question. What does the math point to besides itself?
Now think about relativity. Einstein took a few observations-- very few, quite amazing-- and made a formula that described them. Einstein accepted the math on faith as describing reality. However, not everyone did. Fortunately for relativity some years later, came a chance to test the math against the real world and the math matched. Wow! What do you know, the math describes something tangible. In this case also, you see, the math is descriptive. With QM, right now, you have that untested and untestable, as far as anyone knows, math. Sure, it describes the results, but what makes it become more than a description? What do scientists derive besides mathematical formulae? That is something you don't seem to get. What one derives from the experiments are mathematical formulae, and those formulae are derived in precisely the same way as are dart throwing probabilities, murder statistics, and craps odds. What is the justification for making those formulae primary, rather than secondary-- that is, they describe not create-- as in all other statistics applications?
quote:
You just have an old definition of what a thing is, a definition which is outdated by QM. The more classical concepts seem right to many, which is why QM seemed so weird, even to Einstein, but what you are failing to realize is that QM is weird to your perspective, and that's because it contradicts pretty much every notion you have expressed on what constitutes physical matter and "things."
I haven't argued against any of the weird results of QM, but only against the leap from math as descriptive to math as proscriptive. And that is the way the inference runs. Quantum physicists went from observations of odd results in cyclotrons, to math that describes it, and now you, and some others perhaps, to the reification of that math (calling it 'derived' doesn't really change anything). You do not accept that reification in other contexts. What makes this case different?
You can object to my statement that scientists looked at the observations and created the math to describe it, but this seems rather silly. If there were no observations, what would have been the basis of the math? What does the math describe if not the observations? In other words, eliminate all of the experimental results and what does the math describe? Well... nothing observable, nothing testable, nothing verifiable. All you've got is a formula. You have a statistical distribution like any other. What makes this particular statistical distribution different? So far you have not answered that question. The entire discussion can be concluded if you answer the following questions:
1) Scientists observe the results of particle experiments? I am assuming you'll answer 'yes'.
2) Scientists make, or derive formulas to describe the experiments? Again, I assume you'll answer 'yes'.
3) Now, you have math that is descriptive of the results of particle experiments. If you do, in fact, answer yes to the two preceeding questions you are locked into accepting the opening statement of #3.
4) What makes the math go from descriptive as in #3 to proscriptive or to somehow being the underpinning of reality instead of just the language used to describe it? What is the justification for claiming the formula become, somehow, reality?
#4 is the question you need to answer. You can claim that the math is derived from the experiments, and it is. No argument, but lots and lots of math is derived from other experiments and yet that math is not considered to be, by you or anyone else, to be causal or substantial, but merely descriptive. Why is it different in this case?
There is perhaps an analogy with electromagnetic waves. The math for those was derived from experiment. However, they can be directly measured, or detected, with something as simple as iron filings or a compass. How does one detect a 'probability wave' other than by running lots of experiments and, well, making up the math? Consequently claiming that the math is primary is circular.
Anyway, chew on that. I'd prefer you just answer question #4, listed above.

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 1:22 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:13 PM John has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024