Chance moves in mysterious ways.

quote:

---

Obviously, you have no logical reason for you position.

---

Obviously I do, since I laid out my explanation. Obviously you are unable to produce a valid response to it - since you have not done so.The fact is that your position has been shown to be an incoherent mess. You've given up even the pretence of honestly discussing the issues.

It's not saying much for you that you need it explained again when you haven't dealt with the initial answer.

quote:

---

1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).

​

2. B was caused. Call the cause A.

​

3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B.

​

4. Therefore A is an insufficient cause of B.

​

5. So A caused B but was not sufficient to cause B.

---

The example in point 1 is bad. We are not interested in the immediate cause of the dot on the film. What we are interested in is how the photon came to hit that spot rather than somewhere else.Point 2 is also bad, it should say "partially caused". The causal factors available are insufficient to dictate the location at which the photon arrives. Insisting on a single cause is also questionable.Point 3 is true as explained above. Assuming that the photon's location is genuinely random (your assumption) then the relevant causal factors are not sufficient to dictate the location at which the photon arrives.Point 4 is your choice of terminology. I've not seen anyone else use it.Point 5 is only a contradiction if you assume that "cause" applies only to a sufficient cause. If you do make that assumption then point 2 is incorrect. With the correct understanding that the causal factors only partially dictate the outcome point 5 becomes "A is a partial cause of B, but not sufficient" which is not contradictory at all. Assuming that you intended 5 to be a genuine contradiction then you begged the question at point 2.

quote:

---

1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).

​

It happens or it doesn't happen, whether or not you think the example is "bad" or "uninteresting".
Are you disputing that an experiment can be conducted where effect B happens?

---

I didn't say that the effect was bad.. I said that the example was bad because it wasn't the effect we were discussing and it has an immediate cause that IS sufficient (as I alreafy explained).

quote:

---

2. B was caused. Call the cause A.

​

So you are saying the effect, B was not caused.

​

You are saying a dot on a film was only partially caused.

---

How else would you describe a situation where the causal factors do NOT fully account for the outcome ? It seems that you are determined to beg the question.And as I stated above, I say that the arrival of the photon at that point of the film IS a sufficient cause for the dot to appear. That's the reaaon WHY it is a bad example.

quote:

---

Please concentrate on the five points and stop messing up by second guessing or confusing them with anything else. Start again.

---

You mean that I should stop pointing out facts that undermine your argument ?

quote:

---

Is point 3 the first point you disagree with?

---

As I've already stated, if point 2 means that 'A' is a sufficient cause of 'B' it begs the question. If it allows for 'A' to only partially cause B - leaving some aspects undetermined then your argument is invalid.

quote:

---

3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B.

---

I only disagree with it in the case of the example you have NOW chosen. In the original case - as I have explained it is valid. Although it should be better phrased "sinequanon states that there is no sufficient cause of B" since you were the one who insisted that there was a random factor.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So now that you have got your aberration, which appears nowhere in the five points, out of your head we may continue.

---

You mean that you don't intend to deal with the very real problems with your five points.

quote:

---

1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).

​

2. B was caused. Call the cause A.

​

We are agreed up to here. So, with your aberration out of the way...

​

UPDATE

​

3. PaulK says A is sufficient cause of B.

​

4. B is not a random effect of A.

​

Agreed so far?

---

OK so we've agreed that you've changed to the subject to an irrelevant example which doesn't address the issues under discussion.Why don't we actually go back to discussing something relevant - something which DOES involve a chance element ?

Agreed. But it's still an irrelevant diversion.

quote:

---

7. The property for which B is a measure is the position of the particle.

​

8. The accuracy of B is nothing to do with the uncertainty principle of the particle, but depends on the accuracy of our instruments.

---

7 By the tiem we see it, it is a measure of a PAST position of the particle.8 I disagree. It may be that the inaccuracy of our instruments overwhelms the inherent limits imposed by the Uncertainty Principle. However by the Uncertainty Principle absolute precision in position is only attainable by maximum uncertainty in momentum, which I don't believe applies.

I am saying that the Uncertainty Principle represents a limit on the precision of measurement that is possible (for location and momentum, simultaneously). That's what it IS.

To repeat the answer, absolute accuracy of measurement of posiiton is only possible with complete loss of precision of any possible measurement of momentum. I'm not familiar enough with the physics to say with certainty if that applies in this instance.Now are you going to get to the point ? I'm getting bored with having to repeat everything.

I gave you a simple answer. And if your really objecting that I simply referred to the position of the photon rather than calling that position 'B' then obviously you don't have any substantive points to make.Here's the simple answer again. I am not certain of the appliation of the Uncertainty Principle in this precise case. You don't seem to know any better, so I can't see how it helps you. However IF the situation provides information about momentum, then the Uncertainty Principle WILL limit the precision of measurement of the position.So are you going to get to the point of this diversion ?

quote:

---

8. The accuracy of B is nothing to do with the uncertainty principle of the particle, but depends on the accuracy of our instruments.

​

The reason you can't answer 8. is because you are applying a classical understanding of position to a particle. Your acceptance of 4., 5. and 6. are all incorrect.

---

Unfortunately for you, I gave my reason and that's not it. I know that your original point has been refuted but do you have to indulge in such blatant dishonesty ?And if you bother to check back, you will see that your "example" did not include location, and I objected to it on that ground. The causal property I agreed to is the property of causing dots on the film. THat IS repeatable (although not with that specific photon, but with photons of the same energy).So your "argument " relies on confusing the issue. Very illogical.

quote:

---

In the classical concept B is the measurement of the classical property of position. In the quantum concept it is only part of the measurement. The full measurement is the whole probability distribution which gets randomly sampled to give B.

---

That's badly confused. According to your current argument 'B' is the arrival of a single photon at a specific location and the ONLY element of uncertainty is in the instruments measuring it. (Originally it was just a dot appearing on the film). THAT measurement would be identical to your "classical" property - according to your own assumptions. The probability distribution simply doesn't enter into it.

quote:

---

Then, of course, you got stuck on 8. after calling an argument you lacked the knowledge to follow through "irrelevant".

---

Actually I have been following it through - the only problem you can point to is not an obstacle - as shown by the fact that you haven't even addressed that issue. And you've yet to show any relevance to the initial point being argued.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Unless you quote where I claim it is, "the arrival of a single photon at a specific location" then accept that as your own flawed assumption based on your classical understanding of position

---

Here you are: It doesn't mention multiple particles. It doesn't indicate ANY other source of uncertainty.

quote:

---

B is a non-deterministic outcome of an experiment which quantum physics predicts has NO deterministic model. Therefore, truly random phenomena exist, not just deterministic phenomena for which we choose probabalistic models.

---

Unfortunately for you, as I point out above we WERE talking about position and I stated that it included a random element - and YOU objected to my points.See Message 36 where I point out that the location of the photons includes a statistical element. You change to just "a dot on the film" in Message 38. In Message 46 I specifically point out the distinction between simply causing a dot and the arrival of the photon at a particular point. Which I repeat in Message 48
So the only deterministc element that I recognise does NOT include the specific location.In Message 53 you change to arguing that the dot IS caused, rejecting the random element. This confirms that you are NOT including the location as part of the event at that point.I agree that I should have realised that you were changing your argument AGAIN, earlier on, recognising your continued reliance on dishonesty and trickery. But that's all.

quote:

---

I define B in point 1) as a dot on a film. You have confused yourself by applying your classical interpretation of how the dot got there.

---

My interpretation of "how it got there' involves QM in so far as it describes WHERE the photon hits (and it describes that as a probability distribution). So make your mind up. Is B the simple effect of the photon happening to cause a dot wherever it happens to hit the film or are you including the question of where the photon hits, too ?

quote:

---

Nice try. Now try again. Show where I claim (not where you "point out") that B is "the arrival of a single photon at a specific location".

---

I DIDN'T "point out" any such thing. However it is clear that you have (re-)introduced the question of location since you insist that the probability distribution describing the arrival of the photons is relevant.

quote:

---

Where precisely did you think I accepted your misconception as my "current argument"?

---

It's not my misconception. It IS your point 8.

quote:

---

B is the dot on the film. Is always has been. B happens and you can take the film away and examine it.

​

The rest about "where the photon hits, too" is the confusion coming out of your head.

---

OK. B is just the appearance of a dot on the film, whereever the photon hits. All your talk about "calssical" ideas of position is a complete irrelevance because position is not a factor, just a bit of waffle you insrerted as part of your trickery.

quote:

---

Points 1 to 8 was me showing you where YOUR logic led to. YOU agreed to each point and then came unstuck, proving that your logic was flawed.

---

Except my logic doesn't come unstuck. The only problem is the confusion over whether 'B' includes location or not - a confusion that you introduced.

quote:

---

As I have said, I do not agree with you on point 4...

​

4. B is not a random effect of A.

---

So now you're saying that when the photon hits the film it will randomly either cause a dot or fail to cause a dot. Please explain the basis for this claim that you have suddenly introduced.

quote:

---

Point 4, like the other numbered points, is me recording YOUR logic and asking you to confirm, which you did before your embarrassment of getting stuck.

​

That is how to disprove somebody's argument, not by using a load of rambling waffle

---

Except that MY logic didn't include the confusion over what 'B' was. That was all your doing. So your "proof" fails. My disproof of your arguments, on the other hand does NOT rely on any such confusion and you have yet to offer any answer.I'll stick with a method that actually works honestly, rather than relying on confusion and trickery.

quote:

---

B is B, a dot on the film. B, the dot on the film, has a position. You can take the film away and measure it. I have made no such interpretation of it being "where the photon hits". That avoids YOUR confusion coming from your classical interpretation of what is happening.

---

So now you are asserting that a dot appears on the film, without any relationship to the photon.

quote:

---

See above. B has a position regardless of any interpretation YOU may wish to slip in.

---

The dot on the film has a posiiton. The fact that a dot appears on the film does not have a position. This is not a matter of my interpretation, it is all your confusion.

quote:

---

See above. The position of B is random, regardless of any interpretation YOU may wish to slip in.

---

I'm not trying to slip in any interpetations. YOu keep changing your mind as to what B is. First it's the fact of a dot appearing somewhere on the film because the photon has hit it. Then it's all about where the photon hits the film. Now it's a dot randomly appearing on the film with nothing to do with the photon.

quote:

---

So, you are still stuck at 8. I'm sorry you find logical argument "tricky" and "confusing".

---

No, we're still stuck on what B is, because you keep changing it. It's not that I have a problem with logical argument - it's your inability to clearly present a definition and stick to it.So if we are going to proceed, you need to clearly and unambiguously define what 'B" is and STICK to it. Do you think you can manage that ?