Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 9:17 AM
395 online now:
AZPaul3, Davidjay, Dr Adequate, Faith, frako, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, vimesey (11 members, 384 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,710 Year: 10,316/21,208 Month: 3,403/2,674 Week: 819/961 Day: 22/109 Hour: 3/14

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Is the future inevitable?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 16 of 109 (773805)
12-09-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by YellowJay
12-08-2015 10:33 AM


In a deterministic universe yes. Otherwise no.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by YellowJay, posted 12-08-2015 10:33 AM YellowJay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-09-2015 5:38 PM Larni has responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1701
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 17 of 109 (773831)
12-09-2015 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Larni
12-09-2015 12:21 PM


In a deterministic universe yes. Otherwise no.

What I cannot fathom is how any event can happen without a preceding event.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 12-09-2015 12:21 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 12-09-2015 7:51 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 12-09-2015 8:02 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 18 of 109 (773840)
12-09-2015 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ProtoTypical
12-09-2015 5:38 PM


I guess that before causality was invented lots of things just 'happened'.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-09-2015 5:38 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 19 of 109 (773841)
12-09-2015 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ProtoTypical
12-09-2015 5:38 PM


What I cannot fathom is how any event can happen without a preceding event.

Yes, events do have preceding events. No one is saying otherwise. But, in a probabilistic universe, if you wind the clock back far enough from that event and start over the play out of the probabilities on the second run may not produce the same event from the first run. Whatever different event does happen on the second run will, of course, have had a different set of preceding events.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-09-2015 5:38 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-10-2015 7:44 AM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 12-12-2015 9:39 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12592
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 20 of 109 (773857)
12-10-2015 1:01 AM


I think that the point of chaos is that it magnifies the effects of random events. Small chance fluctuations in a non-chaotic universe would take much longer to have a significant effect.

It would also magnify the effects of very small differences, so an apparently but not exactly identical universe would also tend to diverge from ours.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by caffeine, posted 12-10-2015 3:28 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1701
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 21 of 109 (773862)
12-10-2015 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AZPaul3
12-09-2015 8:02 PM


But, in a probabilistic universe, if you wind the clock back far enough from that event and start over the play out of the probabilities on the second run may not produce the same event from the first run.

Clockworks always play out the same way and so we can predict the position of the clock at some future time with precision. We use probabilities to predict outcomes for events that we do not have all of the variables for like nuclear decay.

quote:
So, for example, according to QM the fullest description possible of a radium atom (or a chunk of radium, for that matter), does not suffice to determine when a given atom will decay, nor how many atoms in the chunk will have decayed at any given time. The theory gives only the probabilities for a decay (or a number of decays) to happen within a given span of time. Einstein and others perhaps thought that this was a defect of the theory that should eventually be removed, by a supplemental hidden variable theory[6] that restores determinism; but subsequent work showed that no such hidden variables account could exist. At the microscopic level the world is ultimately mysterious and chancy. Source

I guess my question is how do you prove that no hidden variables exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 12-09-2015 8:02 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2015 10:38 PM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 12-10-2015 11:50 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 22 of 109 (773869)
12-10-2015 9:20 AM


Quantum Effects
I would think that quantum effects would cause the states of two universes that began in identical states to diverge. At the quantum level particles will flit in and out of existence, but not identically in the two universes. Eventually and inevitably these quantum differences will manifest themselves at the macro observable level.

--Percy


    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1252
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 23 of 109 (773913)
12-10-2015 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
12-10-2015 1:01 AM


I think that the point of chaos is that it magnifies the effects of random events. Small chance fluctuations in a non-chaotic universe would take much longer to have a significant effect.

It would also magnify the effects of very small differences, so an apparently but not exactly identical universe would also tend to diverge from ours.

Not necessarily. It's possible to make certain small changes to a chaotic system without altering the outcome at all. A slightly different small change, however, could have dramatic effects, but it is theoretically possible to have two slightly different universes which are indistinguishable (once again, I'm ignoring quantumness (quantumity?)).

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2015 1:01 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9452
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 24 of 109 (773927)
12-10-2015 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ProtoTypical
12-10-2015 7:44 AM


protypical writes:

I guess my question is how do you prove that no hidden variables exist?

This question has come up before and we got some answers back when cavediver and Son Goku used to post here regularly. Here is a partial answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

quote:
Bell's theorem states that any physical theory that incorporates local realism cannot reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanical theory. Because numerous experiments agree with the predictions of quantum mechanical theory, and show differences between correlations that could not be explained by local hidden variables, the experimental results have been taken by many as refuting the concept of local realism as an explanation of the physical phenomena under test. For a hidden variable theory, if Bell's conditions are correct, the results that agree with quantum mechanical theory appear to indicate superluminal effects, in contradiction to the principle of locality.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-10-2015 7:44 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-11-2015 6:48 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 25 of 109 (773929)
12-10-2015 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ProtoTypical
12-10-2015 7:44 AM


Clockworks always play out the same way and so we can predict the position of the clock at some future time with precision.

Are you sure about that? QM and GR might disagree.

I guess my question is how do you prove that no hidden variables exist?

Hidden variables has been a contentious point with QM since Einstein and the EPR paradox. But, the worm has turned, as they say, and the present consensus is hidden variables do not exist. The Bell Inequities, Alain Aspect's and Nicolas Gisin's experiments show that hidden variables has some fatal flaws that preclude their reality.

One does not prove that hidden variables do not or cannot exist. One can only show the preponderance of the evidence is against such things.

IMO one of the best, comprehensive and lay-friendly write ups on whole controversy is here


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-10-2015 7:44 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1701
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 26 of 109 (773984)
12-11-2015 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
12-10-2015 10:38 PM


This question has come up before...

Yes I know. In my defense, the answers are described as counter-intuitive even by those who provide them. Causality seems so necessary. An object at rest will remain at rest.

I find it easier to accept the idea that distance is an illusion as opposed to the idea that things happen without cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2015 10:38 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 27 of 109 (774006)
12-12-2015 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AZPaul3
12-09-2015 8:02 PM


Is Truth Unavoidable or is it random?
Whatever different event does happen on the second run will, of course, have had a different set of preceding events.
Im still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of determinism versus random probability. I dont think I believe in an either/or throw of the dice. I believe that the throw has been determined by a hypothetical observer.

Please help me.

inevitable

adjective
1.
certain to happen; unavoidable.
"war was inevitable"
synonyms: unavoidable, inescapable, inexorable, ineluctable; More
noun
1.
a situation that is unavoidable.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 12-09-2015 8:02 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 12-12-2015 10:37 AM Phat has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4547
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 28 of 109 (774007)
12-12-2015 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
12-12-2015 9:39 AM


Re: Is Truth Unavoidable or is it random?
Im still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of determinism versus random probability. I dont think I believe in an either/or throw of the dice. I believe that the throw has been determined by a hypothetical observer.

You know the seeds of sychamore trees have little wings on them? They allow the tree to spread its seeds a distance from the mother tree. They get dispersed by the wind sometimes for hundreds of yards. Some of them land in roof gutters, car parks and roads, some get eaten by squirrels, some of them drown in lakes. Some of them get carried down river miles away from the tree.

Do you believe that where each individual seed lands has been preditermined?

Or do you think it more likely that that can not be true given the enormous number of variables involved - almost all of which are random and/or chaotic.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 12-12-2015 9:39 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 12-12-2015 10:43 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 35 by caffeine, posted 12-13-2015 12:41 PM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 29 of 109 (774009)
12-12-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
12-12-2015 10:37 AM


Re: Is Truth Unavoidable or is it random?
only if any one variable is no more or less influential than any other variable.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 12-12-2015 10:37 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 12-12-2015 10:48 AM Phat has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4547
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 30 of 109 (774011)
12-12-2015 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
12-12-2015 10:43 AM


Re: Is Truth Unavoidable or is it random?
Phat writes:

only if any one variable is no more or less influential than any other variable.

Eh?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 12-12-2015 10:43 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 12-12-2015 10:50 AM Tangle has responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017