|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Son Goku writes:
But the probabilities for radioactive decay are not unique or mysterious at all; they just follow a simple Poisson distribution, like many classical probabilistic processes. Classical problems, such as the frequency of calls into a call center, have probabilities which follow the same relations and are just as fundamental, with no "deeper truth".
kbertsche writes: Better, but to avoid confusion I recommend completely eliminating the word "uncaused". How about, "The time of decay of any particular nucleus is stochastic"? Well the timing is not stochastic. That's the important thing. The probabilities in quantum mechanics obey relations (e.g. Bell's inequalities, Kochen-Specker, e.t.c.) that mean they are fundamentally different from normal probabilities.Essentially the probabilities you meet in standard probability theory (stochastic processes, probabilities use in betting, e.t.c.) have mathematical properties that imply they result from your lack of knowledge about the system. The probabilities in quantum mechanics break these relations and imply the probabilities are fundamental, that there is no "deeper truth". Son Guku writes:
Exactly. The probabilities of decay are caused by the nuclear details and energetics. The radioactivity, the radioactive decay, has a cause. Hence, it is very misleading (if not outright wrong) to say that radioactive decay is uncaused. This claim relies on a different definition of "causation" than is normally used by scientists who work with radioactivity (see post #212). All that is caused are the probabilities. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Yes, I implied that there is something that causes the probabilities to be what they are.
kbertsche writes:
You picked a very odd way to making this point. Instead of making it directly you seemed to imply some deeper cause above and beyond the probabilities. Exactly. The probabilities of decay are caused by the nuclear details and energetics. PaulK writes:
I would agree that the timing of any individual nuclear decay is non-deterministic and is stochastic.
kbertsche writes:
I would disagree. It is certainly true that there is nothing that causes the atom to decay at one time rather than another.
Hence, it is very misleading (if not outright wrong) to say that radioactive decay is uncaused. PaulK writes:
I don't quite follow what you are saying; can you please expand on your statement?
As a side-note I would point out that the latter part of the kalam argument - at least in William Lane Craig's formulation - denies that this form of causation is possible at all. PaulK writes:
Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. kbertsche writes:
While this is a side issue, I believe that you have misinterpreted the point. In the case of most classical problems a stochastic model is used for convenience, because it captures the important details without going into a huge amount of work. The underlying causes may be disconnected from the points of interest, or simply be unnecessary details. In the case of spontaneous nuclear decay there is no more detailed level at all.
Classical problems, such as the frequency of calls into a call center, have probabilities which follow the same relations and are just as fundamental, with no "deeper truth". 1) In terms of the statistics, all that we need to know is the independent nature of events, so that that they follow Poisson statistics. For both problems, nothing deeper is needed to predict the bahavior of the system. 2) In both systems, something deeper is fundamentally driving the behavior. For the caller, it is the individual psychology and all external and internal influences on the individual. For the nuclear decay, it is the details and energy levels of the nucleus. Why does tritium decay so much faster than uranium? Why do they decay with different mechanisms? There are deeper causes for these things. 3)In both systems, we cannot predict the behavior of the individual (nucleus or caller). In the nuclear case, I do not believe that this is possible in principle (no "hidden variables"). In the caller case, this would require knowing all of the details of every individual's psychology and all external and internal influences on each individual. Perhaps this is knowable in principle, but I strongly doubt it. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
No, I responded to the text of TWO of your messages using the reply button on ONE of them.
I note that you replied to the text of one message, but used the reply button on the other, confusing the threading. I have restored the title. PaulK writes:
I don't understand your objection. The physics causes the decay probability (hence the half-life and expected life) to be what it is. The decay probability remains a constant, independent of the age of the nucleus, hence gives rise to a probabilistic Poisson distribution.
kbertsche writes:
No. As I said it looked very much as if you were implying an additional cause of the regularities. Simply arguing that the probabilities were determined would have better been done directly - and much better when considering a single atom than looking at the aggregate behaviour of large numbers.
Yes, I implied that there is something that causes the probabilities to be what they are. PaulK writes:
As I've argued multiple times, using the term "uncaused" for nuclear decay is misleading and disingenuous. Is emission of a fluorescent photon "uncaused"? Is photon emission from an LED "uncaused"? These and many, many other physical processes rely on the probabilistic decay of an excited state. The exact lifetime of any particular atom/nucleus is finite, stochastic, and non-deterministic. Does this mean that its decay and results are "uncaused"?
kbertsche writes:
You seem to be trying very hard to avoid the use of "uncaused" even when it is perfectly appropriate. Still, it is good that you agree that I was correct on this point.
I would agree that the timing of any individual nuclear decay is non-deterministic and is stochastic. PaulK writes:
I'm probably not as familiar with WLC's arguments as you are, and I don't know whether or not you are characterizing him accurately. But as should be obvious to anyone with scientific training, most physical processes are not immediate, but have short, finite (and probabilistic) timing. If nuclear decay is called "uncaused", then to be consistent most other physical processes must also be called "uncaused".
kbertsche writes:
In trying to claim that the cause of our universe was a personal cause, Craig argues that impersonal causes always act immediately when the relevant conditions are present. THis is clearly not the case with spontaneous nuclear decay since we know that it can only be described probabilistically, with no causal element dictating the timing of the decay.
I don't quite follow what you are saying; can you please expand on your statement? PaulK writes:
What about emission of a fluorescent photon? Emission of a photon from an LED? The molecular and solid state physics "only affects the probabilities" here, too. kbertsche writes:
You seem to be missing the point, In the case of classical system there is a deeper causal explanation of the events, in the case of spontaneous nuclear decay the deeper model only affects the probabilities. This is a quite important difference.
2) In both systems, something deeper is fundamentally driving the behavior. For the caller, it is the individual psychology and all external and internal influences on the individual. For the nuclear decay, it is the details and energy levels of the nucleus. Why does tritium decay so much faster than uranium? Why do they decay with different mechanisms? There are deeper causes for these things."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024