Chance moves in mysterious ways.

Any chance hypothesis is falsifiable, In fact a lot of science is dedicated to falsifying chance hypotheses. Every experiment that looks for a causal relationship has to compare the results against those expected by chance.In science what "chance" means is that the best models are statistical, probabilistic models. Find a better, deterministic model - one that links to relevant, measurable, factors and it will be used instead. Mutations are random in that there is no good connection between the factors relevant to biology and the particular mutations that occur.Chance models can also be very good at making predictions - when there are a lot of elements behaving in the same way statistics work out very well. Radioactive half-lives and gas pressures are two examples where the numbers add up to results that appear deterministic.So about the only thing you have about right is that chance is invoked when there is no way to predict the result. Unfortunately you are wrong to suggest that this is a flaw because it is essentially what chance means. Chance IS the absence of a usable non-chance model. (And of course, some chance models DO let us make predictions with a strong degree of confidence, as in the examples above).

quote:

---

Thank you, PaulK. I do agree with this. Equally, a "god hypothesis", which claims that god caused an experimental result, is also falsifiable.

---

The chance hypothesis is falsified by statistical tests. How would you falsify the "God hypothesis" ? Doesn't God "move in mysterious ways" ?

quote:

---

But the existence of god is not. I claim that the existence of randomness is also not falsifiable.

---

That depends on what you mean by "the existence of randomness". If chance is regarded as the absence of any usable deterministic models then it seems silly to say that it does not exist. It will "exist" unless or until we DO have usable deterministic models for everything. (At a deeper philosophical level it is possible that the universe is deterministic, but that's a quite different issue).

quote:

---

Does this mean that science has found no connection or that science has found that there is no connection?

---

It means that science has found no connection, nor any potential signs of a connection nor even a good reason to think that there might be a connection.A few years ago some experiments on bacteria discovered useful mutations appearing faster than might be expected under certain conditions (starvation), and this was interpreted as indicating a casual connection. However, it was discovered that the real reason was an increase in the mutation rate. So it is not as if scientists haven't been looking for evidence.

quote:

---

Does this always mean science is saying, "we don't know how it works precisely, yet"/"we know precisely how it works, but we don't have the processing power"?

---

It can do - although the practicality of measurement is also a major issue. In the case of gas pressure if you could predict the motion of every molecule individually you wouldn't need the gas laws. But until that becomes a trivial task, why would anyone even bother to do it that way ?

quote:

---

OR is science sometimes postulating that no deterministic model could exists in the particular instance.

---

In the case of "random mutations" we're pretty sure that there is no model that would produce a significant connection between selective pressures and the mutations which occur. Nobody has found any evidence of such a thing or any theoretical reason to think that it's a plausible possibility. Even if we discovered that the universe was entirely deterministic we would stick with "random mutations" unless we had a real, usable causal connection between selection pressures and the mutations that do occur.

quote:

---

I take your point, and I refer specifically to scientific falsification. That is to say, you could, and therefore should, dispense with a god hypothesis by demonstrating a scientific model that predicts the phenomenon in question.

---

Surely that only refutes that idea that God specifically intervened in a particular case, but not in others. How could you refute the idea that God consistently intervenes in a particular way ?

quote:

---

I did not want to foreclose, in the title, any debate about the meaning of the word randomness. As you have mentioned, there are cases where a statistical model is preferred to describe complex deterministic phenomena.

---

There is also the question of what it means for chance to "exist".

quote:

---

However, there are other cases in which the phenomenon itself is regarded as non-deterministic, and demands a statistical model. You mention the "connection between selective pressures and the mutations", another that springs to mind is quantum state transitions of a particle.

---

That's a bit confused. We regard mutations as random because there is no identifiable casual connection. We don't model the casual connection because there isn't one (that we can find).

quote:

---

If randomness exists, surely this means the universe cannot be wholly deterministic.

---

Only if you define chance "existing" as requiring non-determinism. As you agree a deterministic system might still be better modelled statistically.

quote:

---

To me, this is about the deeper question of a deterministic universe. However, I do not see this as a philosophical issue at all. Surely, given the examples mentioned above and by implication of the consistency of scientific theory, the universe cannot be deterministic. Why would that fact be consigned to the obscurity of philosophy?

---

Because we can never be sure. We can't tell the difference between a causal factor that is invisible to us and the absence of any causal factors. It's quite easy for something that is not really random to appear random. Consider the shuffle of a deck of cards - if you know the starting states and the movements of the cards the result is entirely determined. But it's still random enough for us.

quote:

---

In the normal way of repeating the experiment until confidence is established. If the necessity of the "god hypothesis" can be disproved within standard scientific confidence margins, I assume the hypothesis to be successfully refuted.

---

But if God consistently intervenes the experiment will reliably produce the same results. So you are arguing that data consistent with the hypothesis actually refutes it.

quote:

---

The problem I am having is that the concept of "identifiable" and "identified" seem to be being used interchangeably. I see a similar ambivalence in your use of brackets round "that we can find". I wonder if you could please spell it out. Are we talking of things that no one has found, or things that we have evidence will never be found?

---

It's only ambivalent if you take a very extreme reading. The point is that science doesn't offer absolute certainty, so if you take any statement about science as meaning an absolute you're making a mistake.

quote:

---

How do you interpret the uncertainty principle in quantum particle physics? It is an inherently probabilistic model that cannot have a deterministic equivalent?

---

You really want to talk to Cavediver about that.The uncertainty principle is about the relationship between the precision with which simultaneous values for momentum and position may be known. If you take the position that these values exist but are probabilistic (rather than simply that there are limits on measurement) then you have indeterminism. But what if you take the view that the values exist but are not measurable or even that they do not exist and the particle is "smeared" across space ?

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.

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".

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).

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.

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.

quote:

---

Is consistency with a law a scientifically recordable property, or not?

---

Since that isn't the issue you confirm my point that the OP doesn't address the issue of God choosing to intervene in a consistent fashion.

quote:

---

Wrong. That is your own conclusion based on your classical understanding of an observable. I have not agreed with you.

---

Just to see you wriggle some more on the hook of self-contradiction, what exactly is wrong with it ?

If you had any familiarity with logic you'd understand that failing to address a claim includes not mentioning it as a premise. But by all means run away - you're only embarassing yourself with your twistings and writhings.

quote:

---

I was right. You don't understand what a premise is.

---

To anyone familiar with logic that is a non-sequitur.

quote:

---

1. A single photon can be projected at a sensitive film through two slits (the famous quantum two slit experiment). The result is a point recorded on the film as a visible mark.

​

2. Theory says there is no way to force the repeat of this outcome, i.e a dot at the same, or approximately the same point. There is a random component in the outcome that is nothing to do with the starting conditions.

​

3. This implies truly non-deterministic behaviour in nature (as distinct from very complex or chaotic behaviour described by a non-deterministic model).

​

4. Several outcomes may fit an overall pattern but the order in which that pattern appears is a random component of the result.

​

5. So we have a phenomenon which science accepts is not only unknowable so far, but is unknowable by nature and which has real physical consequence in nature.

​

6. Isn't that what God is all about? So why doesn't science accept god, too?

---

I'll leave Cavediver to argue the question of determinism.Your "logic" falls over at point 5. As I pointed out early on, we have a statistical model that describes the behaviour of the photon. That is what is meant by "chance". "Chance" is not proposed as a "thing" that actually exists, or actually causes anything. I'll point out again that rather than an unknown cause (which would be a form of determinism, which you are denying) chance is the absence of a sufficient cause.And it falls over again at point 6. The "chance' you refer to is an element of a model that matches the observations. It is tested in the lab. There ARE repeatable experiments, such as the one you describe ! Yet in the OP you assert that there are no equivalent experiments for God. Thus, a clear and obvious difference is present from your own words.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting there is something like an insufficient cause?

---

We'll add "sufficient cause" to the list of things you don't understand. A suffiicent cause would completely dictate the behaviour of the photon. If there is a random element in the behaviour then there is no causal factor or combination of causal factors sufficient to fully explain the photon's behaviour. You may choose to call a causal factor that influences but does not dicated behaviour an "insufficient cause" but I've not seen anyone else use that terminology.

For your information, I was busy with more important things than remedying your ignorance.

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.

---

Remember that this is the situation that YOU described.Now you can describe the dot on the film as being caused by the photon impact. However your argument is about the location of the photon's arrival, so this is not the point. You assert that the location that the photon arrives at is "random", and that the probability distribution for the photon's arrival is that corresponding to the interference pattern expected by the wave model of light. Thus according to your own argument there are causal influences, but they are not sufficient to explain why the photon hit that particular point on the film.You really need to get away from compulsive nay-saying and actually try to understand what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Your tendency to either draw conclusions from questions or to evade them altogether and claim they are "not the point", is the reason logical argument with you is so difficult.

---

I am afraid that your inability to think logically is entirely your own problem.

quote:

---

Now, once again, can you please pinpoint the step in the above (numbers at the side to help you) that you disagree with. No waffle. Just a number and an explanation of why you think the step is illogical.

---

Message 40 above provides a full explanation. No waffle. Take your time to think about it. I'm off for a bit.