Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Chance moves in mysterious ways.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 99 (442024)
12-19-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
12-19-2007 1:12 PM


quote:
Should god choosing to consistently intervene be treated any differently from god being governed by the consistent pattern? I am arguing that consistency of results builds confidence that some law or consistent pattern is governing the experiment.
But it is an assumption, The point is, that to falsify the idea that God is doing something you have to know what God will do (and show that it doesn't happen). If God does intervene in experiments (and why would He ?) then why wouldn't He intervene consistently ? It's not as if it takes any significant effort on His part.
quote:
That is the line with which I am more familiar. It would be interesting to hear exactly how this "smearing" affects repeatability of measurement, and what any single physical measurement for a particle, in a bubble chamber say, actually represents.
That isn't really random - it's just a deviation from the classical behaviour. So far as I know the bubble chamber rack is the after-effects of interactions with a particle, scaled up to the macroscopic level and the measurement uncertainties of the apparatus mask the uncertainty effects that we're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 12-19-2007 1:12 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by sinequanon, posted 12-20-2007 6:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 17 of 99 (442103)
12-20-2007 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
12-19-2007 5:55 PM


But it is an assumption, The point is, that to falsify the idea that God is doing something you have to know what God will do (and show that it doesn't happen). If God does intervene in experiments (and why would He ?) then why wouldn't He intervene consistently ? It's not as if it takes any significant effort on His part.
Yes, I have stated as an assumption that, by God, we mean an entity not governed by any law. Perhaps a believer in God could disagree with this assumption. I would then ask them which laws control God. It would be a very interesting discussion.
That isn't really random - it's just a deviation from the classical behaviour. So far as I know the bubble chamber rack is the after-effects of interactions with a particle, scaled up to the macroscopic level and the measurement uncertainties of the apparatus mask the uncertainty effects that we're talking about.
Yes, I understand we are talking about a refinement of classical behaviour observable at nuclear scales, and which tends to classical behaviour at ordinary scales.
The point I am making is that single measurements exist but clearly do not fully describe the observable. The observable is in some way represented by the full set of measurements, which follows a random distribution.
The random distribution becomes an intrinsic part of the full measurement. If a mechanism existed whereby you could obtain a repeatable value for a single measurement wouldn't the whole concept fall apart?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2007 5:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 4:53 AM sinequanon has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 18 of 99 (442203)
12-20-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sinequanon
12-17-2007 3:54 PM


sinquanon writes:
"Randomness done it" is as rigorous as "God done it".
Hi Sinquanon. Not really sure what the thrust of your post is but "randomness" has its own branch of mathematics.
Random processes can be modeled and described with detail. Therefore I can't buy "Randomness done it" is like saying "God done it".
sinquanon writes:
Is the existence of randomness verified and falsifiable?
Sure. You can conduct your own experiments with a coin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sinequanon, posted 12-17-2007 3:54 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 12-20-2007 4:37 PM iceage has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 19 of 99 (442251)
12-20-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by iceage
12-20-2007 3:25 PM


Hi Sinquanon. Not really sure what the thrust of your post is but "randomness" has its own branch of mathematics.
Hi, iceage. When something unexplained happens science does not accept the explanation "God done it". This thread is to examine why science accepts the explanation "Randomness done it".
Random processes can be modeled and described with detail. Therefore I can't buy "Randomness done it" is like saying "God done it".
Take the very simple quantum physics example of bound states of a particle in a square potential well. Quantum theory predicts a probability distribution for the particle's position in the well, and this is supported by experiment.
I perform an experiment and get a value for the particle's position.
I repeat the experiment and get a different value, any value in the range of the well.
There is no way of determining what the next value will be.
Several repeats may reveal a pattern, but there is no model for the order in which the pattern of values arises. So we have an unexplained phenomenon with consequence.
What caused the values to be different? God or randomness? Is "randomness" a backdoor by which God can work his magic unscrutinized?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by iceage, posted 12-20-2007 3:25 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2007 4:42 AM sinequanon has replied
 Message 58 by iceage, posted 12-22-2007 5:02 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 99 (442413)
12-21-2007 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by sinequanon
12-20-2007 4:37 PM


When something unexplained happens science does not accept the explanation "God done it". This thread is to examine why science accepts the explanation "Randomness done it".
Well, you're just about to answer your own question.
Quantum theory predicts a probability distribution for the particle's position in the well, and this is supported by experiment.
That would be why.
Is "randomness" a backdoor by which God can work his magic unscrutinized?
Well, I guess we all wondered what exactly has been keeping God so busy lately. Now we know. He's fooling physicists by making quantum mechanics look non-deterministic.
I guess everyone needs a hobby.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 12-20-2007 4:37 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 9:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 99 (442414)
12-21-2007 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by sinequanon
12-20-2007 6:47 AM


quote:
Yes, I have stated as an assumption that, by God, we mean an entity not governed by any law. Perhaps a believer in God could disagree with this assumption. I would then ask them which laws control God. It would be a very interesting discussion.
That really doesn't deal with the point. Indeed since there's no "law" forbidding God from intervening consistently you're still back to having to predict what God would do.
quote:
The point I am making is that single measurements exist but clearly do not fully describe the observable. The observable is in some way represented by the full set of measurements, which follows a random distribution.
Not exactly, because there are limits on the measurements. All we can do is narrow down the measurements to a limited range - which represents the "smearing".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by sinequanon, posted 12-20-2007 6:47 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 9:39 AM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 22 of 99 (442432)
12-21-2007 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
12-21-2007 4:42 AM


That would be why.
Preference of one form of non-repeatable "magic" over another?
He's fooling physicists by making quantum mechanics look non-deterministic.
Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is deterministic? Have you found a way of making repeatable single measurements?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2007 4:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2007 2:33 PM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 23 of 99 (442437)
12-21-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
12-21-2007 4:53 AM


That really doesn't deal with the point. Indeed since there's no "law" forbidding God from intervening consistently you're still back to having to predict what God would do.
You are making a separate point. My point makes the assumption. I am making a valid argument, not necessarily a sound one.
In the absence of the assumption, the corollary would be that, if god exists, a scientifically proven law demonstrates that god is consistent with that law. You can then pose the question, "is god consistent with any law?"
Not exactly, because there are limits on the measurements. All we can do is narrow down the measurements to a limited range - which represents the "smearing".
I'm not completely sure what you are saying here, but I do not think it is what the principles of quantum mechanics are saying. It is not a question of accuracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 4:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 10:46 AM sinequanon has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 99 (442453)
12-21-2007 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by sinequanon
12-21-2007 9:39 AM


quote:
You are making a separate point. My point makes the assumption. I am making a valid argument, not necessarily a sound one.
No, we're talking about the same thing - how to rule out "goddunit". Your argument assumes that God would not consistently intervene in an experiment to produce an appearance of a regularity. But there's no more reason to assume that than there is to assume that God would intervene just once.
quote:
In the absence of the assumption, the corollary would be that, if god exists, a scientifically proven law demonstrates that god is consistent with that law. You can then pose the question, "is god consistent with any law?"
You would have to assume that God exists to reach that "corollary". Which rather spoils the point of a "God of the Gaps" argument.
But given that assumption it's up to you to show that we can say that God would not create the appearance of that "law". That's exactly my point when I say that you have to work out what God would do to falsify a God-hypothesis.
quote:
I'm not completely sure what you are saying here, but I do not think it is what the principles of quantum mechanics are saying. It is not a question of accuracy.
Well that's odd, because it agrees with your understanding of the Uncertainty Principle - as you've expressed it here. The Uncertainty Principle is all about precision (the more correct term than accuracy).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 9:39 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 11:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 25 of 99 (442457)
12-21-2007 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
12-21-2007 10:46 AM


No, we're talking about the same thing - how to rule out "goddunit".
Now you are confusing a specific point with the overall argument.
The specific point is a valid argument with a clearly stated premise.
The truth of the premise is a separate point about the soundness of the argument.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
You would have to assume that God exists to reach that "corollary". Which rather spoils the point of a "God of the Gaps" argument.
I think you have a preconceived argument in your head and you are trying to match it to this one.
Well that's odd, because it agrees with your understanding of the Uncertainty Principle - as you've expressed it here. The Uncertainty Principle is all about precision (the more correct term than accuracy).
You've misunderstood my understanding and, it would appear, the uncertainty principle.
Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 10:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 11:49 AM sinequanon has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 99 (442464)
12-21-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by sinequanon
12-21-2007 11:15 AM


quote:
Now you are confusing a specific point with the overall argument.
I don't think so.
quote:
The specific point is a valid argument with a clearly stated premise.
Not really. I had to point out that you were relying on the assumption that God would not consistently intervene.
quote:
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
So you cant support your position ?
quote:
I think you have a preconceived argument in your head and you are trying to match it to this one.
No, you were the one who made a comparison between chance hypothesis and "God of the Gaps" arguments right back in the OP. And it's quite correct that you can't assume that a scientific law is consistent with God's existence simply on the grounds that it appears to be true. THat does require an additional assumption.
quote:
You've misunderstood my understanding and, it would appear, the uncertainty principle.
I'm not the one who misunderstands the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle is a limit on the precision with which position and momentum can be simultaneously determined. If you don't understand that then you simply don't have a clue about the Uncertainty Principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 11:15 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 12:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 27 of 99 (442468)
12-21-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
12-21-2007 11:49 AM


Not really. I had to point out that you were relying on the assumption that God would not consistently intervene.
Then, for whatever reason, you were pointing out the premise I made in the OP. Do you understand what a premise is?
I'm not the one who misunderstands the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle is a limit on the precision with which position and momentum can be simultaneously determined. If you don't understand that then you simply don't have a clue about the Uncertainty Principle.
Unfortunately, it's a bit more subtle than that. Even though you are able to state the principle, you still seem to have a classical concept of what is meant by precision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 11:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 2:39 PM sinequanon has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 99 (442515)
12-21-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by sinequanon
12-21-2007 9:18 AM


Preference of one form of non-repeatable "magic" over another?
No, for the reason which I actually gave, namely that the predictions of the theory are confirmed by experiments which are, in fact, repeatable.
How you got it into your head that I was talking about non-repeatable magic when I was talking about repeatable science is one of life's little mysteries.
Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is deterministic?
I thought that's what you were doing. I was being sarcastic.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 9:18 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 3:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 99 (442517)
12-21-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by sinequanon
12-21-2007 12:15 PM


quote:
Then, for whatever reason, you were pointing out the premise I made in the OP. Do you understand what a premise is?
It's not mentioned in the OP.
quote:
Unfortunately, it's a bit more subtle than that. Even though you are able to state the principle, you still seem to have a classical concept of what is meant by precision.
Now you really are talking nonsense. I'm using the mathematical concept of precision. Whether there is a precise value that cannot be discovered or - as we've been agreeing on this thread no precise value to discovered makes no difference to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 12:15 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 3:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 30 of 99 (442528)
12-21-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
12-21-2007 2:33 PM


No, for the reason which I actually gave, namely that the predictions of the theory are confirmed by experiments which are, in fact, repeatable.
Fire a single particle through a slit at a sensitive screen. It makes a dot on the screen. In what sense can you repeat that experiment and get the same single result?
I thought that's what you were doing. I was being sarcastic.
Best understand the issue before getting sarcastic, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2007 2:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024