|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Chance moves in mysterious ways. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I don't think so.
quote: Not really. I had to point out that you were relying on the assumption that God would not consistently intervene.
quote: So you cant support your position ?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It's not mentioned in the OP.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024