|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 12, 2008 06:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is only that way if you have an equal probability of picking any of the tickets. But you don't. You have a 100% chance of picking one certain ticket, and a 0% chance of picking any of the others. It is a 10% probability whenever you don't have all of the data and ability to calculate how exactly the decision-making process is going on inside of you on a molecular level.
Quote from wikipedia:Quote:
At one time, it was assumed in the physical sciences that if the behavior observed in a system cannot be predicted, the problem is due to lack of fine-grained information, so that a sufficiently detailed investigation would eventually result in a deterministic theory ("If you knew exactly all the forces acting on the dice, you would be able to predict which number comes up"). However, the advent of quantum mechanics removed the underpinning from that approach, with the claim that (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter behave indeterministically, in accordance with such properties as the uncertainty principle. Quantum indeterminism was controversial on its introduction, with Einstein among the opposition, but gradually gained ground. Experiments confirmed the correctness of quantum mechanics, with a test of the Bell's theorem by Alain Aspect being particularly important because it showed that determinism and locality cannot both be true. Bohmian quantum mechanics remains the main attempt to preserve determinism (albeit at the expense of locality).
I don't know what you meant, but quantum mechanics is probabilistic, not because of your 'not enough information' beliefs.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 07:22 PM |
|
|
First, quantum mechanics and relativity disagree, so they only apply to their own fields (and to the regular field). However, both are flawed, and we need a new theory.
Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is not agreed upon (indeed, Einstein disagreed with it).
Third, Bohmian quantum mechanics preserve determinism while using the same data as traditional quantum mechanics.
Fourth, it is difficult to talk about determinism when you have something that is both a wave and a particle, that is, you can't really talk about "location" when it is also a wave.
Fifth and finally, all of this discussion about quantum physics is populistic, and it's an attempt to put mathematical results into laymen's terms, something that doesn't always work. It's one thing to work it out mathematically, and another to actually describe what it's like.
For example, try graphing the function u = v + w + x + y + z, where v, w, x, y, and z are all variables. You can solve systems of equations with equations that have more than three variables, but you can't solve them by graphing. It is a similar situation here.
As for Schroedinger's cat, quantum mechanics (if my limited understanding of it is correct) says that the atom may be decayed, not decayed, or in some combined state. This is impossible, as the cat may be dead or not dead, but it can't be both.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 07:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is not agreed upon (indeed, Einstein disagreed with it).
It is the most widely accepted interpretation and the fact that Einstein never accepted it doesn't mean much; he believed (yes, belief) in a deterministic universe.
The theory is obviously flawed, though, since a unification of the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity is needed.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First, quantum mechanics and relativity disagree, so they only apply to their own fields (and to the regular field). However, both are flawed, and we need a new theory.
Certainly, but not going back to the even more flawed deterministic theory 
Quote:
Fourth, it is difficult to talk about determinism when you have something that is both a wave and a particle, that is, you can't really talk about "location" when it is also a wave.
A location does not exist, at least not to our finite 'knowledge'.
Quote:
Fifth and finally, all of this discussion about quantum physics is populistic, and it's an attempt to put mathematical results into laymen's terms, something that doesn't always work. It's one thing to work it out mathematically, and another to actually describe what it's like.
The problem with the 'describe what it's like' is that it's too narrow-minded, to a 3D world with a fourth dimension called time. Mathematics shows other 'world configurations' are equally likely, or even in this world (let's suppose 'teleportation' from a point in a dimension to another, like in quantum tunneling, through a 'space hole' so to speak).
And frankly speaking, it's no wonder most deterministic people (that don't like things that can't be plotted (more dimensions, they can't imagine)) can't grasp the very "basic" idea of what a spiritual plane or other such stuff CAN BE (i'm not saying that it is).
Quote:
For example, try graphing the function u = v + w + x + y + z, where v, w, x, y, and z are all variables. You can solve systems of equations with equations that have more than three variables, but you can't solve them by graphing. It is a similar situation here.
Graphing is only a human* limitation, the inability to visualize a world with a different configuration (more than 3D or a world without time, remember my previous posts?).
* - well actually some humans can imagine 4D worlds, or so they say.. they can't prove it because we would be incapable of understanding it. You know, proof might exist for that, but that doesn't mean we can understand it (monkeys can't understand relativity for example).
However, just because we can't understand something does not mean it can't exist...  (like a world without time)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 07:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Certainly, but not going back to the even more flawed deterministic theory
Why not? Relativity supports determinism, as does classical mechanics. It's 2 out of 3
Quote:
A location does not exist, at least not to our finite 'knowledge'.
Well, you have an electron cloud where the location is, wherever it is.
Quote:
The problem with the 'describe what it's like' is that it's too narrow-minded, to a 3D world with a fourth dimension called time.
The problem is that you can't plot five dimensions in a four-dimensional world.
Quote:
And frankly speaking, it's no wonder most deterministic people (that don't like things that can't be plotted (more dimensions, they can't imagine)) can't grasp the very "basic" idea of what a spiritual plane or other such stuff CAN BE (i'm not saying that it is).
First, determinism has nothing to do with the amount of dimensions. Second, every dimension described in physics is a material dimension. It may be hard or impossible to imagine 5 or 10 dimensions, but there are mathematical ways to demonstrate them, unlike a spiritual plane.
Quote:
well actually some humans can imagine 4D worlds
It's possible to graph in 4D. Just make a 3D graph that changes with time. I can't imagine what a graph in 5D might look like, however.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 07:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why not? Relativity supports determinism, as does classical mechanics. It's 2 out of 3
Classical mechanics is an approximation of relativity, so it is a somewhat more flawed version of relativity (worse). But then these do not represent the same thing as quantum mechanics (they regard different subjects) so they don't rule each other out. But a Universe can't be deterministic even if the tiniest bit of stuff happens probabilistically (the reverse is not true however, as any probabilistic model also works for 'old-skool deterministic models).
Quote:
Quote:
A location does not exist, at least not to our finite 'knowledge'.
Well, you have an electron cloud where the location is, wherever it is.
To picture it with infinite precision, think about motion. If the distance between point A & point B is 20 (meters,doesn't matter), and someone was going to walk from point A to point B, would this even be possible? Suppose the distance is divided in half? It should be self evident that the person walking must get to the halfway mark before they reach the end. But what if we divided each half into quarter, and then each quarter into eights and so on? How could the person walking actually move through an infinite number of points before getting to the end? Just "think" about it rather than look it up in a 'classical mechanics' physics book. That doesn't give you why it's possible, it only gives how speed/motion is calculated.. I ask you, why (not how)?
Does that mean that, if for example, the Universe were a super-giant computer, the storage would be impossible? Since every time-instant, you have to record a given position (location), but since time or distance can be forever divided (at the sub-particle level obviously, since they move without being 'composed' of atoms), then that means it would immediately run out of memory?
So then, a given location is indeed impossible, at least for objects that are permanently in motion (which is indeed the case). You can't know the location of an object, because a given time instant is in fact an illusion. This is a really deep subject and i don't know how to explain it any better.
Quote:
The problem is that you can't plot five dimensions in a four-dimensional world.
But you can, if you imagine it.. computer screens, which are 2D, can plot a 3D world (with animations). But they can ALSO plot a 3D world WITH time as well, and IN YOUR BRAIN, the stuff goes continously (like when you play a computer game), it's not like it goes as a simple 2D screen.
In your mind, yes you can plot.
Quote:
First, determinism has nothing to do with the amount of dimensions. Second, every dimension described in physics is a material dimension. It may be hard or impossible to imagine 5 or 10 dimensions, but there are mathematical ways to demonstrate them, unlike a spiritual plane.
I never said determinism has something to do with the amount of dimensions. I only drew the conclusion that, since you said we can't "describe what it's like" a world with 5 dimensions (for example), then that must be the deterministic people's view (the people, not the theory/model).
Quote:
It's possible to graph in 4D. Just make a 3D graph that changes with time. I can't imagine what a graph in 5D might look like, however.
I meant, a graph in 4D that HAS TIME as the fifth dimension
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 08:04 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 20:04, 12 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
I meant, a graph in 4D that HAS TIME as the fifth dimension
LOL, I actually can imagine 4D objects without using time as 4th dimension  , but those images exist only in my mind, so as the Death said, I can't prove to you what I said  .
Mvass seems to follow Einstein in the belief in fully deterministic universe . He rejects the possiblity that reality, or at least part of it, may be probabilistic.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 08:53 PM |
bonus applied by pandora on 28 Aug 2008. |
Edited by Corribus at 20:54, 12 Jun 2008.
|
@theDeath
Quote:
I was talking about the laws of physics. Why do they even exist?
I don't know, but that's a job for philosophers to chew on, not for physicists to solve. Physicists are trying to figure out what the laws of physics are, not why they are here. Presupposing, of course, there is a why in the first place. The very fact that you'd pose the question belies the fact that you believe there must be a reason. I'm not sure there is any reason to think that that should be an axiomatic assumption.
Quote:
that it follows certain laws you can understand and manipulate?
Have we found an example to the contrary?
Quote:
You may of course state they are more 'useful' but that is also a subjective term.
It is a term that has a very specific meaning. For science. Of course, what's useful for science may not be useful FOR YOU. But I was only referring to useful as it applies to scientific theories.
Quote:
The PROBLEM of course happens when you use a theory to try to 'explain' or 'rule-out' things that are, by definition, not reproducible. This is the PROBLEM that most atheists hang on. They always say God does not exist since there's no [induction-based] evidence. But by definition, God is not 'reproducible' (so to speak).
If an atheist was to do this, then they'd be wrong. It's not a logical argument, whether or not god is involved. The involvement of god in the argument only makes it that much worse of an argument.
Quote:
Maybe not scientists, but atheists (and most not even scientists). They are the ones who usually use their [induction-based] arguments against it, and start discussions around the world.
I can't speak for atheists of course, but I suspect that many of them try to "debunk the bible" because the bible is used in a lot of arguments for certain political agendas. Should abortion be allowed? "Well, the bible says..." Should evolution be taught in schools? "Well, the bible says..." Of course, if you could show that god didn't exist, then those arguments would be based on nothing. It's a flawed approach, of course, because you can't prove that god exists, so I'm not sure why atheists resort to it. They are essentially arguments from belief. Atheists believe god doesn't exist, and they argue from that position.
Quote:
Science by definition, assumes (i.e has the belief) that the world acts on certain laws that can be predicted (with induction). This alone marks it as the first step in being a religion -- faith in something. I still don't get it why people think science is not a religion. Is it because you do not 'worship' something? Not all religions worship (or sub-groups rather), and they're still religions.
A few things here.
(1) Yes, that is an assumption built into science. There's no real way to evaluate that assumption, except that there's never been a situation where that assumption has been logically shown to be faulty. (Of course, that in itself is something of a circular argument.) In any case, science as a discipline is founded on this principle.
(2) There is a subtle difference between assumption and belief. Besides that, I've stated on numerous occasions (in similar but not identical words) that if there is any belief in science, it is as you have stated: that the physical world operates on a set of rules that can, given enough time, be understood through exhaustive experimentation.
(3) This is an aspect of science that is similar to many aspects of religion. But this does not make science a religion. I could be wrong, but I think you and I have had this discussion before. For once thing, science does not make any value/moral judgements. Nor does it draw conclusions based on what it cannot logically show. Science is a method. Religion is not. Science is a tool. Religion is not. Religion is exclusive. Science is not. Science has a practical use. Religion does not.
Quote:
But then again, all too often, atheists use their mechanistic arguments in discussions that concern religion or God.
You can't impugn scientists because of what atheists do or do not do. One has nothing to do with the other.
Quote:
What is WRONG however, is when you use your 'beliefs' (mechanistic, induction, see above) to imply truth.
I think you are improperly distinguishing between science and philosophy. Science is a tool. it is a tool to make logical connections between observations, predict future observations, and invent technology. (Religion does none of these things, btw.) Many people extrapolate (most of them not scientists) beyond the scope of this tool to make metaphysical conclusions about our origins, purpose, or whatever - and while these may be strongly held beliefs, they are not part of science. The Big Bang is a theory to explain a certain set of cosmological observations. That's really the limit of science's involvement in the matter. When a person then makes a conclusion about god, or ultimate truth about our origins, that's no longer science.
Quote:
We make a theory, like you said. PROBLEM: we make a theory based on what we believe in, i.e in a mechanistic world. However, if someone comes and tells you that aliens shaped the light with some special abilities and faked it, by that definition, the "Facts" are not mechanistic (since aliens are unpredictable, like humans, not obey laws of physics).
Well, as long as they are "real" aliens, it's still a mechanistic explanation of the observation. (Btw, Who said humans don't obey the laws of physics, and who said humans are fundamentally unpredictable?) It's not a useful mechanistic theory because it doesn't really make many predictions, other than that, if it's true, the aliens should be observable. It's also not a very good mechanistic theory because it is not simple, and there's no logical reason to hypothesize that aliens are responsible. Theories are constructed around observations - unless there's an observation that suggests that aliens need to be included in the mechanistic model, the addition of aliens is useless, superfluous, and a violation of Occam's Razor. (That doesn't mean the addition of aliens is wrong, by the way. If Newton had added to his version of physics that mass changes as a function of velocity, that would have also been useless and a violation of Occam's Razor, because there was no observation - at the time - to suggest that such an addition to his theory was necessary.) This is, again, the scientific method. And again, this narrative of yours suggests you don't clearly understand how the scientific method works, or where science ends and philosophy begins. (Although to be fair you clearly understand it way better than Mytical.)
If the aliens are not real aliens, by which I mean, they're hypothetical aliens that cannot be observed at all, then they are just a convenient placeholder for god and thus the method of argument is dishonest and the example worthless. Sort of like "intelligent design".
Onward:
Quote:
The problem comes when you dismiss what he says and call him delusional. Why? Because the very definition of what he said meant that the 'facts' are not there mechanistically. In this way, you say he's delusional because your "mechanistic beliefs" contradict his sayings. But by the very definition of what he said, it's obvious it's gonna contradict it, because he implied that aliens (aka non-laws-of-physics-followers unconscious objects) had a part in it.
(1) I don't call him delusional. I call his theory useless. Which it is. And I'll say it again (for the millionth time): useless does not mean wrong. Also, illogical does not mean wrong. Irrational does not mean wrong.
(2) Science is a method. To function, it needs a set of rules. Science cannot be productive if ideas were pursued randomly. For any observation, there are an infinite array of possible explanations, even if you reject the nonscientific ones (ghosts, god, invisible unicorns). You honestly expect that science could get anywhere if it was required to consider each one of them to be equally legitimate? Sure, silicon in Earth's crust may be semiconducting because aliens came down to earth 1 million years ago and used some obscure technology to make electrons flow at certain temperatures. It's technically a falsifiable theory, but it's also useless, and certainly modern computing microchips would have never resulted from such a "theory". Excluding unnecessarily complicated theories and explanations is not a PROBLEM of science. It's a VIRTUE. Technological development would come to a virtual stand-still if science was nondescriminatory. This is also another reason why science is NOT a religion.
Quote:
Is he truly delusional? Not at all, you CAN'T KNOW THAT. You can only speculate and make formulations, based on what you believe.
Science isn't about what we know absolutely. It's not about proof (which is just another way of phrasing what you're after). It's about arriving at the simplest explanation for something based on the observations at hand. As observations change, so do the explanations. Could aliens have made a giant ruse to fool us all about the expanding universe? Sure. But arriving at that conclusion before we have the observations to make it necessary is illogical, and violates just about every principle of scientific method. Conducting scientific inquiry in that fashion would be counterproductive and useless, and we'd still be in the dark ages if we did.
Quote:
Mechanistic determination, then, is not, nor ever was, based on scientific observation, but on some other a priori idea.
You are completely incorrect. What idea is it based upon?
Regarding my explosion analogy:
Quote:
Aliens are obviously, outside most people's beliefs,
Science really has only a tangential relationship (at best) to personal belief. The fact that you'd include this statement again reinforces the fact that you are falsely characterizing the scientific method, either deliberately or out of ignorance.
Quote:
so when your prediction fails (with the explosion), you DO NOT TAKE THE ALIEN theory into account, rather you come up with a different theory. Since the alien theory is out of your beliefs, there's absolutely no way you will ever go to it.
No, that's an incorrect analysis. Aliens are not excluded from the theory because the scientist doesn't believe in aliens (for that matter, you are making an assumption about the scientist's beliefs - he may very well believe in aliens, OR GOD). Aliens are excluded because there's no logical reason to include them. When the crime scene investigator concludes that an explosion caused the accident, and excludes dinosaurs from the explanation, is it because the scientist doesn't believe in dinosaurs? There are lots of things the investigator doesn't include. Dinosaurs, laser beams, popsickles, earthquakes, vodka tonics. Does their exclusion as possible causes for the accident mean the scientist doesn't believe they exist?
It's really quite a silly argument. Dinosaurs and popsickles aren't included as possible causes (even though, technically, they COULD cause a lot of damage if the conditions were right) because they either don't fit the evidence, or because there's no reason to include them in the explanation. Could aliens have caused the explosion. Sure. But if it's not necessary to include them in a theory, you don't do it. The reasons have nothing to do with belief - they have to do with the scientific method.
Quote:
When your predictions fail, you just try out a different theory that fits with your beliefs (i.e is 'sound' to you).
No, you try out a different theory that fits with the data. If an alien footprint was found at the scene, then maybe you incorporate aliens into the theory. Of course, if a strange footprint was found at the scene, it is certainly possible that the scientist may doubt the evidence. Belief CAN play a roll in interpretation of evidence. That's a human failing (or, sometimes, a virtue) - not a scientific one. But not formulating a random theory even though it's a possibility that hasn't been excluded is NOT caused by belief.
Quote:
If someone said he saw the aliens, will you believe him, even after your theory failed?
Eye witness accounts (and interpretations of evidence) are not typically considered good evidence because they're filtered by the interpretation of a second party. People also don't often like to stake their careers on the trust of a random stranger.
Quote:
That's what scientists do. When their mechanistic theory does not predict a certain fact, they change their theory, which is fine, but they DO NOT EVER take into account stuff said by people with different beliefs (i.e they do not take into account non-mechanistic theories, or those that are not reproducible, but do explain the current facts).
So your criticism of science is that it is too scientific? You would have preferred if, when semiconductors were first discovered, scientists would have adopted the theory that aliens were involved and thus the phenomenon of semiconductance was not worth looking into further? I mean, I don't get it. You want scientists to randomly look into any crazy, useless theory that comes along, just for the sake of being "open minded"? Should we just throw out the scientific method? It's useless, right? Let's just assume every possible explanation for anything is equally valid, and rely on technology to invent itself.
Quote:
Could aliens come and use a bomb and make the explosion? Sure, it explains the facts (i.e the scattered debris). Is that predictable? Nope. But remember: by it's definition it is not reproducible/predictable, so you can't reasonably be asking for it to be, since it's definition states otherwise.
If aliens are responsible for explosions on Earth, why are they doing it?
Anyway, I could go on with this part of your post, but it's really more of the same argument. Aside from the fact that you are writing about scientists and atheists as if they are the same group of people, your argument seems basically to be that the scientific method is critically flawed by the inclusion of personal bias and belief, and is therefore absolutely useless (or at least, no more useful than Religion), an argument which is somewhat ironically contradicted by the very fact that you're using the fruits of that method (a computer) to make that argument in the first place. But I get it. Maybe aliens created the internet?
Quote:
How do you know? We don't observe [the universe's] expanding, we observe certain facts that make us assume it is expanding (we don't measure it with a ruler, we assume the light properties, etc).
Well if you're going to use that argument, a ruler wouldn't be much help either. I mean, is there a fundamental difference between using light as a ruler and a wooden stick?
When you fill up your gas tank, when the guy at the pump asks you for payment, do you tell him, "How do you know I used the gas? You assumed chemical properties of gasoline."
When a doctor tells you that you have a blocked artery that needs to be repaired, do you tell him, "How do you know I have a blocked artery? You assumed the physical properties of x-rays."
Maybe we should just not try to learn anything about the universe, if measurement techniques are all subjective? What's the use of doing anything if everything we see and hear and smell and taste is all just a matter of assumption? Do you eat hamburgers? Why? I mean, you're not actually tasting it - you are assuming that your actually tasting it.
How far do you take the allegory of the cave before it starts to get ridiculous?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is subjective, which most people agree with. Unfortunately, the 'delusional' ones are put aside. You call this freedom? Because the majority thinks it's reasonable? Wasn't that the same when religion was the majority (and we criticized it for it's freedom)?
So, should we dump the legal system, too?
Prosecutor. "We have the gun that was used to kill Mrs. Smith right here, you're honor."
Defense Attorny. "Begging your pardon, your honor, but how do we know that aliens didn't shoot Mrs. Smith and then planted the gun to frame Mr. Jones for the murder?"
Since all criminal cases, according to you, are based on flawed belief anyway, why go through all the expense and trouble of collecting evidence? Might as well just let jurors decide based on how the guy looks, or whether they believe in god. Would you like to end up on trial in such a court? Actually, humans had courts like that at one point. During the "Holy" Inquisition.
I'm not just trying to be an ass, by the way. I really want to know - if you can't trust anything, if EVERYTHING is biased irrevocably and irretrievably by belief, if there's no intrinsic value to ANY ASSUMPTION, then why all the fuss over evidence and technology? Don't you think that recent technological advances verify that the scientific method works?
Quote:
Usefulness, of course, means 'practical'.
No, usefulness means "capable of making predictions".
I've already said that useful does not logically equal "the truth" or "right". Nor does useless mean "wrong". Although many people believe that that which is useful is also that which is true - and holding such a belief is no worse than believing in god.
Quote:
In short, they are like the extremists of the religion (science).
That's an outrageously unfair assessment of science. For once thing, it completely ignores the fact that there are a large number of Christian scientists.
Quote:
Likewise, you have faith in induction not the Bible. Therefore, you ask for evidence that is reproducible to explain certain stuff. He asks for evidence that is written in the Bible to explain stuff.
uh... beliefs do not consitute evidence.
@mvass
Quote:
But Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that we can't know both the velocity and location of an electron, because when we hit it with a photon, one of these things changes. It doesn't say that the velocity and location of an electron are not certain values, however.
That's a common misperception of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
The HUP has nothing to do with the act of measurement itself. There *is* a fundamental limit to measurement because of the act of measuring perturbing the system, but this is not an effect of the HUP.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I will repost something I wrote in another forum in response to someone else who was confusing the HUP in this way:
You are confusing the HUP with what is often called the "observer effect". I checked and the wikipedia HUP article has a section about this common mistake, if you are interested. The HUP says nothing about the act of observation disturbing the system and impacting the measurement. The HUP is a natural quantitative limit to the precision with which two observables can be measured simultaneously. It arises naturally out of the fact that moving objects - particularly very small moving objects - are both waves and particles at the same time. The most common two observables that obey this principle are momentum and position, but other important pairs include: energy and time, and angular momentum along two different perpendicular axes. Generally speaking any observable can be represented by a mathematical operator; when the operators of two observables do not commute (or, another way to say it, when they do not share a common set of eigenfunctions), the two observables cannot be measured at the same time with infinite precision (and it's actually more quantitative than that). In the macroscopic world this still holds, but because the bound is scaled by Planck's constant, which is extremely small, you never observe it in your day to day world. The fundamental point here is that quantum states with infinitely precise associated position and momentum values do not exist in quantum mechanics; it is not the act of measuring that is at fault.
An example of the limitations imposed by HUP: when excited, atoms emit light of particular frequencies. Astronomers use these lines to determine the elemental makeup of stars, because different atoms have different lines. Because the frequency of a given line is, in principle, equal to the difference in energy between discreet atomic energy levels, the lines should, in principle, be just that: lines of exactly one frequency. As it turns out, however, even with an instrument that was capable of measuring the frequencies absolutely perfectly, each line is actually a broadened band - that is, each "line" arises from a bunch of photons having a distribution of energy values. This is a consequence of the HUP for time and energy - atoms spend a certain amount of time in their excited-states (lifetime) prior to emission of a photon, and because the system is changing as a function of time, so there is an uncertainty in the value of the photon's frequency associated with the uncertainty in the position of the atom's energy levels. You see this even under ideal conditions - and it has nothing to do with act of observation itself. (Actually the effect is usually washed out by other broadening mechanisms related to imperfect experimental conditions.)
In any case (me speaking the present again), your assertion that, given enough information, you could make perfect predictions about the course of the universe is incorrect according to popular interpretations of QM. You can really only make statistical predictions of what is going to happen, not specific predictions of isolated events. If you want a more involved description of why, I can provide one, but this post is long enough as it is.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 09:59 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:03, 12 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Have we found an example to the contrary?
Depending if you take non-reproducible (i.e people's confessions) examples.
Quote:
A few things here.
(1) Yes, that is an assumption built into science. There's no real way to evaluate that assumption, except that there's never been a situation where that assumption has been logically shown to be faulty. (Of course, that in itself is something of a circular argument.) In any case, science as a discipline is founded on this principle.
Exactly, it is a circular argument.
Quote:
(3) This is an aspect of science that is similar to many aspects of religion. But this does not make science a religion. I could be wrong, but I think you and I have had this discussion before. For once thing, science does not make any value/moral judgements. Nor does it draw conclusions based on what it cannot logically show. Science is a method. Religion is not. Science is a tool. Religion is not. Religion is exclusive. Science is not. Science has a practical use. Religion does not.
I'd only comment on the bolded text. Practical is quite hard-to-define term. Is it the material tools? Or is it what people consider practical/useful? Some people (like me) include thinking (plain just thinking) into a useful approach -- in a way it is similar to computer games, for example. What 'usefulness' does a game have (or for that matter, anything that's "fun")? Apart from being fun, which you can also do by thinking (not really 'fun' but enjoyable for some people).
Then again many people consider religion useful, especially spiritually (but some also materially). It is practical in that sense, obviously going back to the computer game example: for something to be practical (enjoyable) for you does not necessarily mean for others (i.e some people might enjoy a game, others not). Some people think or know prayers are practical (not in a manipulative sense -- that is, treat whoever you pray to with respect much like you would treat your parents).
Quote:
You can't impugn scientists because of what atheists do or do not do. One has nothing to do with the other.
And that's why I used the term atheists instead of scientists.
Quote:
I think you are improperly distinguishing between science and philosophy. Science is a tool. it is a tool to make logical connections between observations, predict future observations, and invent technology. (Religion does none of these things, btw.) Many people extrapolate (most of them not scientists) beyond the scope of this tool to make metaphysical conclusions about our origins, purpose, or whatever - and while these may be strongly held beliefs, they are not part of science. The Big Bang is a theory to explain a certain set of cosmological observations. That's really the limit of science's involvement in the matter. When a person then makes a conclusion about god, or ultimate truth about our origins, that's no longer science.
That may not be science (and I agree on that), but most atheists (again, not scientists) use it as an argument against most of those. While some of their arguments are philosophical (which are acceptable for that) and put you to think, these that use science have no place, like you said, and do not belong to science.
Quote:
Well, as long as they are "real" aliens, it's still a mechanistic explanation of the observation. (Btw, Who said humans don't obey the laws of physics, and who said humans are fundamentally unpredictable?)
I meant to our limited knowledge. Can you predict what your mother will do, at least so easily as to use a SIMPLE mathematical equation to describe that?
Quote:
It's not a useful mechanistic theory because it doesn't really make many predictions, other than that, if it's true, the aliens should be observable.
Indeed, maybe they are observable, but remember that they are not "there when we need them" in experiments for example (which was my point with the 'unpredictable'). Thus, you can't just shout to them and say "Hey aliens, come here so we can observe you!", unlike for example, other kind of 'controllable' experiments. (I hope you get what I mean).
Quote:
It's also not a very good mechanistic theory because it is not simple, and there's no logical reason to hypothesize that aliens are responsible.
It is, because remember some person claimed that he saw them -- if you saw them, would you think there would be no logical reason to hypothesize about them (especially for you)?
Quote:
Theories are constructed around observations - unless there's an observation that suggests that aliens need to be included in the mechanistic model, the addition of aliens is useless, superfluous, and a violation of Occam's Razor.
First my example was that someone saw the aliens obviously.
Second, Occam's Razor is subjective, not in the sense that you need to take it or not (that is also some sort of a commandment for scientists), but in how you measure simplicity. Some people might find the alien theory simpler 
Quote:
(That doesn't mean the addition of aliens is wrong, by the way. If Newton had added to his version of physics that mass changes as a function of velocity, that would have also been useless and a violation of Occam's Razor, because there was no observation - at the time - to suggest that such an addition to his theory was necessary.)
I agree, but most atheists use that as a form of absolute truth. If we were to live back then, I'm sure atheists would have responded with "What's the difference between mass changing as a function of velocity and flying pink unicorns?".
and again, I said atheists, not scientists
Quote:
If the aliens are not real aliens, by which I mean, they're hypothetical aliens that cannot be observed at all, then they are just a convenient placeholder for god and thus the method of argument is dishonest and the example worthless.
Not at all, they were only an example for why science in general takes the more "close-to-its-beliefs" explanation. This is not bad, after all, it makes it unique. What's wrong, however, is when you use it for something that it was not meant to be used on (like atheists do).
It was not meant because it is based on induction, and you can't truly use induction arguments for something that does not obey that belief (see my previous posts).
Quote:
(1) I don't call him delusional. I call his theory useless. Which it is. And I'll say it again (for the millionth time): useless does not mean wrong. Also, illogical does not mean wrong. Irrational does not mean wrong.
You don't, I was again, speaking in general, and besides, I was mostly talking about atheists.
Quote:
(2) Science is a method. To function, it needs a set of rules. Science cannot be productive if ideas were pursued randomly. For any observation, there are an infinite array of possible explanations, even if you reject the nonscientific ones (ghosts, god, invisible unicorns). You honestly expect that science could get anywhere if it was required to consider each one of them to be equally legitimate? Sure, silicon in Earth's crust may be semiconducting because aliens came down to earth 1 million years ago and used some obscure technology to make electrons flow at certain temperatures. It's technically a falsifiable theory, but it's also useless, and certainly modern computing microchips would have never resulted from such a "theory". Excluding unnecessarily complicated theories and explanations is not a PROBLEM of science. It's a VIRTUE. Technological development would come to a virtual stand-still if science was nondescriminatory. This is also another reason why science is NOT a religion.
But that makes it religion, in fact, not that it would be a bad thing, like you said. If it has a certain definition (which is subjective) of "what's simple" or what's more complicated explanation, then it is like a religion that offers some system and does not regard those that disagree with it (when you disagree with the "what's complicated in science" or what's "simple" you'll get flamed easily being called 'irrational' or 'unreasonable' or whatever else.. it's like I insulted their Bible or something!).
Quote:
Science isn't about what we know absolutely. It's not about proof (which is just another way of phrasing what you're after). It's about arriving at the simplest explanation for something based on the observations at hand. As observations change, so do the explanations. Could aliens have made a giant ruse to fool us all about the expanding universe? Sure. But arriving at that conclusion before we have the observations to make it necessary is illogical, and violates just about every principle of scientific method. Conducting scientific inquiry in that fashion would be counterproductive and useless, and we'd still be in the dark ages if we did.
Not that I wouldn't agree with you here (that it would be counter-productive), but that marks it as a religion further -- it precisely says what is productive and what is useless. This is not debatable, similar to a Bible (you can't debate what's written in the Bible for a certain religion, at least not with a priest of that religion, not a 'useful' debate because it will go nowhere). The scientific method is similar to a religion. Obviously, it is different, but I never said that is the same as any one religion, all are different. Some don't even have God(s).
Quote:
You are completely incorrect. What idea is it based upon?
You throw a rock, you see it fall.
You throw another one, you see that one fall as well.
Idea: "What if all rocks fall as well? What if the entire Universe acts on certain laws?"
It is 'priori' because you assume about the Universe stuff that you did not test, or that you do not even know about (you don't have absolute knowledge). I.e you only did a simple observation, that the rock fell everytime you threw it. From this you deducted an idea that ALL objects' properties have the same principle (and by 'properties' I mean everything else beside gravity).
Quote:
No, you try out a different theory that fits with the data. If an alien footprint was found at the scene, then maybe you incorporate aliens into the theory. Of course, if a strange footprint was found at the scene, it is certainly possible that the scientist may doubt the evidence. Belief CAN play a roll in interpretation of evidence. That's a human failing (or, sometimes, a virtue) - not a scientific one. But not formulating a random theory even though it's a possibility that hasn't been excluded is NOT caused by belief.
Like I said, you will try to find out a theory that fits with the data. Obviously, if a non-reproducible theory rises up, most scientists will not accept it, even if it fits with the data.. they will try to find a theory that is reproducible and will fit with the data. It is ok, but if you go on like that, you realize that proving a non-reproducible theory works is impossible since you always prefer alternate routes (even though they are only approximations, most people still say about what they don't know yet, something like: "In time, I will find out a theory without resorting to non-reproducible theories (aliens).." so they're pretty confident they will, even though they did not yet. This stuff will go on until the end of days. It's truly hard to prove something if you turn your head (I hope you get the metaphor).
Quote:
Eye witness accounts (and interpretations of evidence) are not typically considered good evidence because they're filtered by the interpretation of a second party. People also don't often like to stake their careers on the trust of a random stranger.
So you prefer to believe a device/whatever that was built on a theory that could be false (like e.g: classical mechanics)? I'm not saying it's WRONG, it's perfectly valid and what most people do (and I don't disagree). The problem is that this in itself is a preference, a subjective belief/whatever.
Quote:
So your criticism of science is that it is too scientific? You would have preferred if, when semiconductors were first discovered, scientists would have adopted the theory that aliens were involved and thus the phenomenon of semiconductance was not worth looking into further? I mean, I don't get it. You want scientists to randomly look into any crazy, useless theory that comes along, just for the sake of being "open minded"?
Well they sure say they are open minded, so I pointed out why they're false. Besides, I'm not saying that scientists would have adopted that theory with the aliens. If they wanted, they would, it's on a personal level (like religion). I would want that other people (especially atheists), which call themselves open-minded, don't immediately dismiss that. It's a shame on their arguments if they even call themselves something which they think is crazy (open-mindedness). Not to mention that an instant knowledge is also an illusion. Like I said, science is always false, but is often useful.
The problem, I repeat, is when atheists use it to go beyond 'usefulness' and imply 'truth'. (again, I said atheists, not scientists)
Quote:
Should we just throw out the scientific method? It's useless, right? Let's just assume every possible explanation for anything is equally valid, and rely on technology to invent itself.
This is the kind of phrase that makes people think science is not a religion (the fact that science changed their lives so they can't turn their backs to it). No, we shouldn't throw the scientific method. It's perfectly fine if we have certain beliefs about it (simplicity being one of them) and which theories to choose. It makes it a religion in a way, but why is that a bad thing? I mean, I never said that we should throw religions or something, only stating that it's a different kind of religion.
Quote:
Anyway, I could go on with this part of your post, but it's really more of the same argument. Aside from the fact that you are writing about scientists and atheists as if they are the same group of people, your argument seems basically to be that the scientific method is critically flawed by the inclusion of personal bias and belief, and is therefore absolutely useless (or at least, no more useful than Religion), an argument which is somewhat ironically contradicted by the very fact that you're using the fruits of that method (a computer) to make that argument in the first place. But I get it. Maybe aliens created the internet?
Really, I never denied science's usefulness, I don't deny religion 'enlightenments' (that's what they say, don't flame me) either. I never said science is WORSE than a religion, and I hope you did not understand that I am against religions of ANY sort?
But arguments like those above are the thing that people usually take for granted (they take computers for granted, for example). And it is why it's usually easy to brainwash them. This is what makes them think science implies truth, because it's easy once they have been given something. (for ex: give a kid a chocolate and he'll do and believe whatever you say), which also have an impact on us later on.
Quote:
Well if you're going to use that argument, a ruler wouldn't be much help either. I mean, is there a fundamental difference between using light as a ruler and a wooden stick?
Yes, the fact that you use the speed of light in your equations, for example. For the ruler, you need no equations (i.e no assumptions), although I must agree, even in the ruler case, you need to assume that the space-time world is linear and that the ruler follows the same 'curve' or 'line' in space-time.
Quote:
Maybe we should just not try to learn anything about the universe, if measurement techniques are all subjective? What's the use of doing anything if everything we see and hear and smell and taste is all just a matter of assumption? Do you eat hamburgers? Why? I mean, you're not actually tasting it - you are assuming that your actually tasting it.
And all I said was that people should admit that it's based on subjective assumptions (not you of course, but the atheists that usually are not even involved with science). I'm not saying we should throw it away.
Quote:
So, should we dump the legal system, too?
Prosecutor. "We have the gun that was used to kill Mrs. Smith right here, you're honor."
Defense Attorny. "Begging your pardon, your honor, but how do we know that aliens didn't shoot Mrs. Smith and then planted the gun to frame Mr. Jones for the murder?"
Since all criminal cases, according to you, are based on flawed belief anyway, why go through all the expense and trouble of collecting evidence? Might as well just let jurors decide based on how the guy looks, or whether they believe in god. Would you like to end up on trial in such a court? Actually, humans had courts like that at one point. During the "Holy" Inquisition.
Eh, some innocents are still put up in jail. They might have 'got away' otherwise (even though other innocents might have been put to jail), but you go and tell them at the prison that it was 'the best you could do'. I think this is quite sensitive and arguments like "this is for the good of the majority" (i.e lock up most bad guys, a few innocent guys), but that's also subjective, I mean, can you dare to say that to those innocents locked up? I mean, it's like you have to choose between your five children (example), which one should go to jail, all the others live normally. Obviously, if you don't name anyone, they'll all go to jail. Which one do you pick? Do you think about "the good of the majority" in that case? I mean, you have to pick one. Afterwards, go and talk to the one you put to jail. I don't know how to explain this better.
Quote:
No, usefulness means "capable of making predictions".
I've already said that useful does not logically equal "the truth" or "right". Nor does useless mean "wrong". Although many people believe that that which is useful is also that which is true - and holding such a belief is no worse than believing in god.
I never said that those beliefs are 'worse' than believing in God, in any way! I'm only stating the similarities.
Quote:
Quote:
In short, they are like the extremists of the religion (science).
That's an outrageously unfair assessment of science. For once thing, it completely ignores the fact that there are a large number of Christian scientists.
I'm sorry I did not phrase it correctly. I meant that some "atheists" are the extremists of science, that use it for other goals it was 'designed' for.  (well at least, not all atheists, only those that use it for God and miracles and other non-reproducible evidence by definition).
Quote:
uh... beliefs do not consitute evidence.
But evidence is based on beliefs
with certain beliefs (like in the Bible), you can have evidence for God, in the Bible.
with certain beliefs (like in induction and physics), you can have evidence for computer science.
But if you don't believe in induction, the evidence after an experiment is useless. Since you don't believe in induction, you will not assume it happens the same outside the lab, or in future experiments. It's just a piece of useless data, that happens only once (since you don't believe in induction).
Likewise, if you don't believe in the Bible, the evidence written on it's pages (let's just name it evidence, of course don't flame me) will NOT do any good for you, since you don't believe in it, it's just a piece of paper.
That's what I meant with the evidence being based on beliefs.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 11:45 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Classical mechanics is an approximation of relativity
It's also an apporoximation of quantum mechanics. It's like this:
Classical mechanics - speed << c (the speed of light), size >> atomic.
Quantum mechanics - speed << c, size = atomic.
Relativity - speed = c or a little less, size >> atomic.
??? - speed = c or a little less, size = atomic.
We need that fourth theory, and we don't have it yet.
Quote:
But then these do not represent the same thing as quantum mechanics (they regard different subjects) so they don't rule each other out.
There are areas in which they intersect, and neither works.
Quote:
How could the person walking actually move through an infinite number of points before getting to the end?
There isn't an infinite number of points. They just approach infinity. Plus, as the number of points is approaching infinity, the distance between the points is approaching 0.
I don't understand what you're trying to say about the universe.
Quote:
You can't know the location of an object, because a given time instant is in fact an illusion.
Percisely. You can't know. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You can approximate it, however, and if you can approximate it, you know that it has some close value. An instant is defined as (delta)V/(delta)t.
Quote:
But you can, if you imagine it.. computer screens, which are 2D, can plot a 3D world (with animations).
That's because they create the illusion of depth.
Quote:
I meant, a graph in 4D that HAS TIME as the fifth dimension
Then what is the fourth dimension?
Corribus:
OK, I confused the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect. Common mistake.
Quote:
the two observables cannot be measured at the same time with infinite precision (and it's actually more quantitative than that). In the macroscopic world this still holds, but because the bound is scaled by Planck's constant, which is extremely small, you never observe it in your day to day world. The fundamental point here is that quantum states with infinitely precise associated position and momentum values do not exist in quantum mechanics; it is not the act of measuring that is at fault
"They cannot be measured" or "they do not exist"? It's true that you can't measure both of them with infinite percision, but you could measure one or the other, and know that there is some value of both.
Quote:
In any case (me speaking the present again), your assertion that, given enough information, you could make perfect predictions about the course of the universe is incorrect according to popular interpretations of QM.
What I'm saying is that you can't measure every value of every object. But if you were somehow to know the location of every electron and photon, why not?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 12:52 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 00:53, 13 Jun 2008.
|
Theres no getting through with this argument to anyone or is there?
I would like to see a census sometime of pro Creative force, or pro Athieism. Or other
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 12:59 AM |
|
|
Worldwide, there are definitely more theists than atheists.
On HC, who knows?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 01:04 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 01:05, 13 Jun 2008.
|
I am not a theist. Theres a big difference between a creative force, and a God. I probably in the past have refered to my beliefs or "knowledge" as I've said in terms with God but my definition of god is not yours . My bad.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted June 13, 2008 04:10 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 04:22, 13 Jun 2008.
|
E = m*a^2
E = m*b^2
E = m*c^2
Btw, somewhere above there is a variation of Zenon's Paradox on Achilles and the Tortoise. This one is amusing.
____________
The empty set
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 05:55 AM |
|
|
Oh boy, here we go.
@theDeath
Before I go quote crazy, let me say up front that I'm having trouble figuring out whether we're talking about scientists or atheists here. You seem to want to criticize science in general, but you are careful to say you're only criticizing atheists who use scientific arguments to defend their belief. Which is it? If the latter, I agree whole-heartedly that such actions are without logic and the arguments are poor. But if you are criticizing the scientific method itself, then I will have to continue to disagree with you.
Quote:
Depending if you take non-reproducible (i.e people's confessions) examples.
Reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method. If you're going to throw that out, you might as well not even bother investigating anything at all.
Quote:
Practical is quite hard-to-define term. Is it the material tools? Or is it what people consider practical/useful? Some people (like me) include thinking (plain just thinking) into a useful approach -- in a way it is similar to computer games, for example. What 'usefulness' does a game have (or for that matter, anything that's "fun")? Apart from being fun, which you can also do by thinking (not really 'fun' but enjoyable for some people).
What I mean by practical is that it leads to the development of technology. I'm sorry if that was unclear.
Quote:
I meant to our limited knowledge. Can you predict what your mother will do, at least so easily as to use a SIMPLE mathematical equation to describe that?
No, most of the time I don't understand my parents, before OR after the fact.
More seriously, if you believe that humans are nothing more than a (very complicated) set of chemical reactions, and chemical reactions are in principle very predictable, it's possible, if you understood the rules well enough, that you could predict human actions. To some extent we can predict humans actions within a reasonable degree of accuracy. If I punch someone in the mouth, I can be reasonably sure they'd be pretty pissed about it. If I gave someone 1000 dollars, I could be reasonable sure they'd be elated. Predicting with more precision (John will go to the bathroom at 4 pm three weeks from now.) is a little more farfetched obviously, and that would get into the complication of free will, which is a whole new can of worms.
Quote:
It is, because remember some person claimed that he saw them -- if you saw them, would you think there would be no logical reason to hypothesize about them (especially for you)?
That's not the way the scientific method works. An observation has to be reproducible under controlled conditions in order to be scientifically useful. You can't base a rigorous explanation for something around "John's mom's neighbor's brother's dog saw a strange light in the sky. He thinks it was an alien who is faking the Big Bang."
Quote:
Quote:
Theories are constructed around observations - unless there's an observation that suggests that aliens need to be included in the mechanistic model, the addition of aliens is useless, superfluous, and a violation of Occam's Razor.
First my example was that someone saw the aliens obviously.
Second, Occam's Razor is subjective, not in the sense that you need to take it or not (that is also some sort of a commandment for scientists), but in how you measure simplicity. Some people might find the alien theory simpler
That's not a really accurate representation of Occam's Razor. The commonly used word "simple" is a source of great misunderstanding. In the context of scientific theory formulation, "simple" does not mean less complex. In fact, typically more complex theories are more accurate mechanistic predictors of observations. I.e., quantum theory is much more complex than classical theory, AND it is a better model of physics. Simplicity in Occam's Razor is not subjective. Essentially what it means is that you do not add terms to an equation that you do not need. The incorporation of a velocity-dependent mass into Newtonian Theory would have violated Occam's Razor (at the time Newtonian Theory was formulated) because it would have been a superfluous term that was not needed to model the current body of empirical data. Once advances in instrumentation made measuring small differences between "reality" and the current model (Newtonian Physics) possible, only THEN did it become necessary to add complexity to the model to account for these deviations. Adding them prior to that time would have added unnecessary complexity to the model.
It's sort of like this. Let's say you are designing a car that you want to drive from New York to San Francisco. There is a certain set of things the car absolutely must have in order for this to happen. Wheels, obviously; an engine. Gas tank, steering wheel. Etc. Would you also put a retractable rudder on the car? Obviously not. While the rudder doesn't interfere with the car being able to take you from New York to San Francisco, it adds unnecessary complexity to the car that you don't really need in order to solve the problem at hand. The rudder is useless in this situation because it serves no absolute purpose. Of course, if you go to Google Earth and find to your surprise that a massive earthquake has separated California from the rest of the continent, so that a large body of water now blocks your way, THEN it becomes necessary to add a retractable rudder (and a number of other modifications) to your car in order to make the trip. You have to modify your design in order to accomodate changes to the current situation.
This is Occam's Razor. The most successful theory is the simplest one - it's the one that fits the available data with the fewest number of terms, and extra, superfluous terms that aren't needed to solve the problem are discarded. That doesn't mean that this theory is ultimately correct, because new observations are always being made. At that time you modify the theory - again with the fewest terms needed - to accomodate the new information.
In your example, the "alien theory" is discarded for several reasons.
(1) It is based on a single piece of irreproducible "evidence".
(2) It is not useful.
(3) It is superfluous (violates Occam's Razor).
(4) It makes no predictions.
(5) It is not falsifiable.
At some point it certainly may become necessary to incorporate aliens into our current understanding of the observations which have led to the formulation of the Big Bang theory. However, at the present time it fails the litmus test for a good scientific theory. You may not like that, but that's just the way the scientific method works. For reasons I've already explained, the rules of the scientific method are rigorous and must be adhered to if science is to accomplish anything.
Quote:
If we were to live back then, I'm sure atheists would have responded with "What's the difference between mass changing as a function of velocity and flying pink unicorns?".
I'm not really interested in arguing any points for or against atheists. It doesn't really concern the application of the scientific method. You may be right; you may be wrong. My guess is atheists wouldn't care about it.
Quote:
Not at all, they were only an example for why science in general takes the more "close-to-its-beliefs" explanation.
That science rejects aliens (or god) from an explanation isn't because of "closeness to beliefs". It is because the basic principles on which science operates requires it. God fails the litmus test for scientific theory on every single possible level. Aliens fail it on almost every single possible level.
Quote:
Not that I wouldn't agree with you here (that it would be counter-productive), but that marks it as a religion further -- it precisely says what is productive and what is useless.
It has to make rigorous definitions because it is a system of rules. If it didn't make absolute defintions, it wouldn't work. A system of rules is not a religion.
Do you consider mathematics to be a religion?
Quote:
The scientific method is similar to a religion.
Just because two things share some attributes does not mean they belong in the same category.
Quote:
Idea: "What if all rocks fall as well? What if the entire Universe acts on certain laws?"
It is 'priori' because you assume about the Universe stuff that you did not test, or that you do not even know about (you don't have absolute knowledge). I.e you only did a simple observation, that the rock fell everytime you threw it. From this you deducted an idea that ALL objects' properties have the same principle (and by 'properties' I mean everything else beside gravity).
Of course. And as I've stated, we build theories based on assumptions. And then we test those assumptions. Testing assumptions means varying the conditions and seeing if the result changes. For instance, if I drop fifty thousand rocks from the same height at different points all around the earth, and find they all drop in the same amount of time, I would then conclude that rocks always drop at the same rate. That assumption would then be built into a theory of gravity: "g", the acceleration due to gravity, is always the same.
But I don't just assume that I'm correct and the problem is solved. I test that assumption by rigorously studying the conditions under which my experiment was measured. I might try to drop rocks on the moon. I find the rate is different. Ooops, gotta go modify my theory. In science, no assumptions are permanent. They're always being tested because most assumptions turn out to be incorrect or inaccurate. You can't test for every variable simultaneously. As I have said, science is an iterative process.
Quote:
Like I said, you will try to find out a theory that fits with the data. Obviously, if a non-reproducible theory rises up, most scientists will not accept it, even if it fits with the data.
There's no such thing as a non-reproducible theory. Only non-reproducible observations. And no, if the observation cannot be repeated, it cannot be incorporated into a theory, because if it's non-reproducible, it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, it isn't useful as a theory. It cannot make predictions.
I cannot get a sense of whether you just don't understand the scientific method, or you don't like it.
Quote:
So you prefer to believe a device/whatever that was built on a theory that could be false (like e.g: classical mechanics)? I'm not saying it's WRONG, it's perfectly valid and what most people do (and I don't disagree). The problem is that this in itself is a preference, a subjective belief/whatever.
Every theory could be (nay, IS) false under some circumstance, no matter which one you adopt. No theory offers ultimate, perfect truth. So there's no preference here. There's also not belief. A theory isn't something that's believed. It's just a model, one that will eventually be discarded for something better. I fail to see what you think the (scientific) alternative to that is.
Quote:
If they wanted, they would, it's on a personal level (like religion). I would want that other people (especially atheists), which call themselves open-minded, don't immediately dismiss that.
Well, first, you're criticism is of scientists, not science. Second, as I've stated, that's not why the scientific method requires the rejection of aliens or god. It's not as personal as you characterize it. Scientists DO use personal descretion to eliminate potential explanations - but remember that scientific investigation is undertaken by a very diverse crowd of people who do not share a universal set of beliefs and so what one person rejects on a personal level another person may not. If an explanation has scientific validity, most likely somebody will pursue it. Ideas that are universally rejected are rejected because they do not meet the rigorous criteria of the scientific method, not because personal convictions based on belief.
Quote:
Yes, the fact that you use the speed of light in your equations, for example. For the ruler, you need no equations (i.e no assumptions), although I must agree, even in the ruler case, you need to assume that the space-time world is linear and that the ruler follows the same 'curve' or 'line' in space-time.
What about the more fundamental assumption that your eyes are not being fooled by Descartes' Deceiver?
Quote:
I'm not saying we should throw it away.
But if perception of the world is subjective, what's the point in trying to rigorously study anything?
Quote:
Eh, some innocents are still put up in jail.
Of course, the system is not perfect. But, I would hope that you think the current system on logic and reasonable doubt is better than the legal system where, for instance, accused-witches are thrown into water to see if they float or sink.
@mvass
Quote:
"They cannot be measured" or "they do not exist"? It's true that you can't measure both of them with infinite percision, but you could measure one or the other, and know that there is some value of both.
They do not exist. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has a somewhat unfortunate name because the word "uncertainty" means a lot of people think it has to do with a problem with measurement rather than a fundamental feature of nature. In reality, it means you just cannot predict with exact precision what the attributes of a particle are at a given point of time. This arises because at the quantum level particles are described by wavefunctions which are essentially probability distributions for where the particle can be located in space. Thus when we talk about an electron orbiting a proton (in a hydrogen atom), you cannot say that at any given time the electron is in a certain position, moving at a certain speed, as you can with a "classical" particle. This also has nothing to do with the act of measurement itself. It has to do with the fact that position is no longer an absolute attribute of matter - it is probabilistic. A particle does not have an absolute position - it has a continuous statistical distribution of possible positions that are only revealed upon the act of measurement. One might say that the particle is in all places simultaneously, weighted by the amplitude of the probability distribution. It is an idea that is inherently hard to accept because it obviously contrasts the very deterministic nature of classical human experience - a baseball obviously has a very well-defined position and momentum - and it's a matter that physicists are STILL trying to understand. In any case, the HUP falls naturally out of quantum mechanical mathematical formulation and it's a basic problem that all introductory texts on the subject require students to solve. The equations have nothing to do with the act of measurement and thus it should be appreciated that it is a fundamental property of quantum matter.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that you can't measure every value of every object. But if you were somehow to know the location of every electron and photon, why not?
Because under the most common interpretation of QM, the universe is probabilistic, not deterministic. Let me give you a quick example from chemical physics, since it's obviously the field I know well. When you irradiate matter with light, the electrons in atoms (or molecules) absorb photons. The energy of the photon absorbed has to be (in reality, roughly) the same as the difference in energy between two quantized states of the atom/molecule in question. The polarization of light and a lot of other factors (particularly for molecules) go into determining the probability of a photon being absorbed, but it's unimportant for this example unless you are really interested. In any case, electrons in atoms can only have certain energies, and so for an electron to absorb a photon (and hence gain energy), it has to be only a certain energy that would make the electron have one of the allowed energy values. This is called the Bohr condition and "atomic spectra" which consist of only certain frequencies of light being absorbed/emitted by atoms was a main impetus for the development of quantum theory in the first place.
Anyway, so the electrons in atoms and molecules absorb light energy and become excited. However, these excited electrons are metastable and eventually return back to a rest state. In the process, they re-emit photons of the same (in atoms, anyway) energy as the difference between the excited and final resting electronic states. There are lots of rules that govern this process, but the point I want to you follow is that this process is probabilistic, by which I mean, if you define the zero time as the moment the electron arrives in the excited-state, there is a probability per unit time that the electron will spontaneously relax back to the ground state. The probability per unit time is based (again) on a lot of rules, and is characteristic of the material, but the point is that for a single excited atom/molecule, you cannot say exactly WHEN the atom/molecule will relax. You can only say when it PROBABLY will relax. Even if you specify every aspect of the system exactly, there is no way to predict with absolute certainty when the event will occur. This is a fundamental limitation of quantum matter, because the processes and attributes of quantum states/particles are probabilistic. Now, we can mathematically model the behavior of large ensembles of molecules, and in the case of light emission, the process is exponential. And we can understand factors which affect the exponential rates of different systems. We can predict how ensembles will behave, and we can use those predictions for practical purposes (lasers and LEDs, for example). But when it comes to single excited-molecules, we have no absolute predictive power, even with "perfect" information.
Thus it should be clear, hopefully, that if we can't predict with infinite precision when a single excited hydrogen atom will relax and emit a photon, you certainly can't predict the exact state of every particle in the universe some time in the future - or even now for that matter. As a result, the universe is non-deterministic, at least at the quantum level. Of course, whether that translates to the macroscopic level is unclear, as there is still a lot of active study as to how the quantum level relates to the macroscopic level.
(Just FYI, the same sort of argument applies to half-lives of radioactive decay, which are also modeled by exponential statistics. The processes are fundamentally not very different.)
Anyway, it's very late, so I will have to read all that again in the morning to make sure it is coherent and factually correct, but I hope it should give you some idea of why QM changed physicists' view of the universe from a deterministic one to a probabilistic one. There are a lot of attempts to interpret QM in a deterministic way (such as the many-worlds interpretation), but these theories are in most cases formulated for no other reason than that those who formulated them didn't like the non-deterministic implications of QM, and many of them are barely scientific at all.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 02:00 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:04, 13 Jun 2008.
|
@mvassilev:Quote:
It's also an apporoximation of quantum mechanics. It's like this:
Classical mechanics - speed << c (the speed of light), size >> atomic.
Quantum mechanics - speed << c, size = atomic.
Relativity - speed = c or a little less, size >> atomic.
??? - speed = c or a little less, size = atomic.
We need that fourth theory, and we don't have it yet.
See what I mean? We say we don't have it yet, because we always are confident we will find an [induction-based] theory, so that rules out the possibility of a non-induction-based theory (since we will always assume a induction-based one will be found, even if until the end of days).
I mean, if someone shows you a piece of not-really-convincing (for you) explanation that you don't like (because it's not reproducible), then you will reply "I'm sure there's a better reproducible explanation, but we haven't found it yet".. and you can say that no matter what, even until the end of days, therefore that makes it impossible to prove (so much for atheist open-mindedness).
Quote:
There isn't an infinite number of points.
Seriously? Did you measure how many points there are? Because trust me, both mathematically and logically, the number of 'points' between two points is infinite (there are an infinite numbers between 0 and 1, for example). That's the definition of it, and unless you have observed how 'quantized' the space-time-continuum is, then that's the best we have.
Quote:
They just approach infinity. Plus, as the number of points is approaching infinity, the distance between the points is approaching 0.
There you get the paradox. Actually, the distance between the two points is exactly 0, if you use math you can prove it.
It seems that adding an infinite number of zeros will move your 'position'. It's weird, but that's how it is
Quote:
I don't understand what you're trying to say about the universe.
Was it about the motion stuff or what? I don't know what you didn't understand, to be frank.
If it was about the 'probabilistic' vs 'deterministic', if a Universe acts on a certain level as probabilistic, even if 99% is deterministic (or so we think), then it is by definition probabilistic. The reverse is not true. A 100% deterministic Universe can also be described with a probabilistic model (probability of 100%), so even if the tiniest bit of 'particle' acts probabilistically, it becomes probabilistic.
Quote:
Percisely. You can't know. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You can approximate it, however, and if you can approximate it, you know that it has some close value. An instant is defined as (delta)V/(delta)t.
What i meant, is not that you can't know because you can't measure it, but rather because it is impossible, given all the 'magical' stuff you measure with. You can only 'predict' it with a probability.
And yes actually that does mean a given time instant is impossible since you have a problem of 'resolution' (i.e an 'interval' of time, delta like you said).
Now onto the dimensions:Quote:
That's because they create the illusion of depth.
Quote:
Then what is the fourth dimension?
How do you prove imagination exists? We all have it. If someone does not have it, it is impossible (as far as I know) to prove it to that person (prove = let him imagine, not just 'state' that it exists on a piece of paper).
Now suppose some people can imagine 4D worlds (or 5D if you add time). At least that's what they claim (actually I can somewhat imagine it as well but only the first quadrant in the 4D sphere). You call it illusion, call it imagination, it does not matter, as long as you plot the graph and can solve it with your mind's illusion/imagination.
And as for the 'what is in the fourth dimension', I can easily answer that. Whatever you want it to be, or more precisely, the plotted graph (since we were on that subject). But actually you can use it to visualize, for example, quaternions (if you know about 3D programming, you know they are used for rotations and interpolation between rotations). Really, that's the same question as "What is in your mind when you imagine something?". Whatever you imagine it to be.
@Corribus: let me say in advance that I never wanted this 'debate' or 'discussion' (whatever) to be annoying or something, and if I was annoying in some way (like putting you out of sleep for posting  ) I am sorry. But thanks again for a detailed reply.
Quote:
Before I go quote crazy, let me say up front that I'm having trouble figuring out whether we're talking about scientists or atheists here. You seem to want to criticize science in general, but you are careful to say you're only criticizing atheists who use scientific arguments to defend their belief. Which is it? If the latter, I agree whole-heartedly that such actions are without logic and the arguments are poor. But if you are criticizing the scientific method itself, then I will have to continue to disagree with you.
First of all, yes it was about the latter, so you understood what I had to say.
Secondly, I do not criticize the scientific method for it's virtues or it's system directly. If you can call it 'criticize', then I have criticized it only because it is similar to a religion (has an organized system, specific virtues, etc.). This DOES NOT MEAN (especially if it comes from me) that it is BAD. Or worse than religion. All religions are different, and the scientific method is by no means any more 'wrong' (I could say further but then that would be biased, even though I might agree with you however, it just is irrelevant here ).
So basically, I'm not saying that it is bad, or wrong, or full of stupid ideas -- just as I don't do it for other religions, and that does come from knowing it. You truly have to know something in order to hate it, or so they say (this does not mean I hate any religion, it's simply a quote).
Quote:
More seriously, if you believe that humans are nothing more than a (very complicated) set of chemical reactions, and chemical reactions are in principle very predictable, it's possible, if you understood the rules well enough, that you could predict human actions. To some extent we can predict humans actions within a reasonable degree of accuracy. If I punch someone in the mouth, I can be reasonably sure they'd be pretty pissed about it. If I gave someone 1000 dollars, I could be reasonable sure they'd be elated. Predicting with more precision (John will go to the bathroom at 4 pm three weeks from now.) is a little more farfetched obviously, and that would get into the complication of free will, which is a whole new can of worms.
Obviously, you can predict it with a certain degree, and you put this explanation brilliantly. But so can people with, e.g: God. It's likely if you spit in his name he will not be happy for you (at least if you follow the God from Christianity, for example, since that's what was assumed in this example!).
I meant they can't be predicted with a simple equation, but with common sense
Quote:
That's not the way the scientific method works. An observation has to be reproducible under controlled conditions in order to be scientifically useful. You can't base a rigorous explanation for something around "John's mom's neighbor's brother's dog saw a strange light in the sky. He thinks it was an alien who is faking the Big Bang."
You are right again, and I did not say the scientific method needs to change. Heck, it's like I would say a given religion should change. What I meant, again, is not that it needs to be changed. I said that it has a specific system of 'what it takes into account' (e.g: reproducible facts), and that doesn't make it worse or bad. It only marks it as a religion. IMO that is completely fine (obviously it's a religion without deities or such, it's a different kind like the ones we are used to e.g Christianity).
Thanks for the detailed explanation of Occam's Razor, but you see, it is also some form of 'commandment' for science (not that it is bad, again, I'm only stating what it is, not it's purpose).
Quote:
It has to make rigorous definitions because it is a system of rules. If it didn't make absolute defintions, it wouldn't work. A system of rules is not a religion.
Quote:
Do you consider mathematics to be a religion?
It's more like a language, not because it doesn't have rules like 'simplicity' (you can complicate an equation unnecessarily (adding variables that cancel for example) and still represent the idea). Math is like a language. It is used to represent a logical thought. Since math is based on pure thoughts alone (i.e theoretical, like e.g: perfect circles).
I don't think math is a science, at least not based on the scientific method (doesn't involve observations/experiments). I think it's a language for our mathematic thoughts.
Quote:
I cannot get a sense of whether you just don't understand the scientific method, or you don't like it.
What I have stated above, is not that I think it's bad, or that I don't understand it. I'm only saying why it is 'closed' to certain beliefs/system of rules. It is not bad that way, otherwise we would be in chaos. But that's why I categorize it as a religion, and again that IS NOT a bad thing.
Quote:
But if perception of the world is subjective, what's the point in trying to rigorously study anything?
I may have weird definitions (so correct me if so), but for me 'study' is something that makes you think up thoughts in your mind, create assumptions, logical relationships, philosophical arguments, etc. 'Examine' is the one that makes you do experiments.
But then it's like asking "what's the point in having fun" (I'm NOT saying study or examinations means 'having fun', it only means that the question has no definite answer). Maybe it is only answered by common sense
Quote:
Of course, the system is not perfect. But, I would hope that you think the current system on logic and reasonable doubt is better than the legal system where, for instance, accused-witches are thrown into water to see if they float or sink.
Yes of course. I merely said that all have flaws. What is my preference does not mean a thing, because that is only a biased view (even though I agree with you). So it does not matter.
Anyway I think we have finally understood each other so as not to cause any more confusions (I hope)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 03:06 PM |
|
|
Corribus:
Quote:
It has to do with the fact that position is no longer an absolute attribute of matter
It is also a wave.
Quote:
A particle does not have an absolute position - it has a continuous statistical distribution of possible positions that are only revealed upon the act of measurement.
What about Schroedinger's cat, though? It's either alive or dead. It doesn't have a "continuous statistical distribution" of states between alive and dead.
Besides, an atom can't just decide to return to its ground state spontaneously. There has to be something that we don't understand here yet.
TheDeath:
Quote:
that rules out the possibility of a non-induction-based theory
Non-induction based theory is an oxymoron. It's like saying "water that is not H2O".
Quote:
"I'm sure there's a better reproducible explanation, but we haven't found it yet"
Induction has been able to describe everything so far. There's no reason to think that if will fail here.
Quote:
Seriously? Did you measure how many points there are?
The number of points approaches infinity, but you'll have to divide the segments an infinite amount of times for the number of points to also be infinite. Let's say that you're standing 10 feet from a wall. You take a step halfway to the wall - 5 feet. Then you take another step halfway to the wall - 2.5 feet. Then another - 1.25 feet. Will you ever reach the wall? With every step, the distance between you and the wall decreases, but it will never be 0 (but will approach it).
Quote:
There you get the paradox. Actually, the distance between the two points is exactly 0, if you use math you can prove it.
Using basic algebra (x is the number of divisions) the distance can be described by the function f(x) = 20/(x+1). (Since we can't have -1 divisions, we don't need to worry about what will happen when the denominator is 0.) As x approaches infinity, f(x) approaches 0. But can you plug infinity into the equation? No, because it's not a number. So it will never be 0.
Quote:
It seems that adding an infinite number of zeros will move your 'position'.
Actually, it's a nearly infinite amount of near zeroes.
Quote:
I don't know what you didn't understand, to be frank.
No, I meant about the universe running out of space.
Quote:
What i meant, is not that you can't know because you can't measure it, but rather because it is impossible, given all the 'magical' stuff you measure with.
If you can describe the motion of the object with a function, then you can find out its location at any given time.
Quote:
How do you prove imagination exists?
That's not what I asked you. Length, width, height, and ???, then time as the fifth dimension. I can imagine a 4D graph with length, width, and height changing as time passes, but I can't imagine another dimension.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 03:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Non-induction based theory is an oxymoron. It's like saying "water that is not H2O".
So call it whatever you want, i don't know how to say it.. Idea, thought, ???, I don't care
Quote:
Induction has been able to describe everything so far. There's no reason to think that if will fail here.
Ah, but it only described what you wanted it to describe
Quote:
The number of points approaches infinity, but you'll have to divide the segments an infinite amount of times for the number of points to also be infinite. Let's say that you're standing 10 feet from a wall. You take a step halfway to the wall - 5 feet. Then you take another step halfway to the wall - 2.5 feet. Then another - 1.25 feet. Will you ever reach the wall? With every step, the distance between you and the wall decreases, but it will never be 0 (but will approach it).
That's because you are talking about 'atom-defined' objects that are 'quantized' to mini-particles (quantization is the process of dividing a continuous signal or whatever into a discrete one).
However, the 'position' of a particle (not to say a combination of particles - the atom) is not discrete. Simply put, it's similar to math. How many numbers are between 0 and 1 (just two positions for simplicity's sake)?? There are not a 'near-infinite' number of points, there are an infinite number of points. This is the definition. If you argue with it, it's like arguing with an english word. That's the definition of it (supposedly), if you want something else, make up a new system. Obviously one that works (which I doubt, since in math, you are not using 'discrete' quantized sets, unless we are talking about the integer system for example).
And since the 'space' is continuous not discrete, then it behaves as in math (i.e 'perfectly' not 'approximately', like what atoms do to describe an object for example (which is an approximation, the object is divide into a lot of small components)).
Quote:
Using basic algebra (x is the number of divisions) the distance can be described by the function f(x) = 20/(x+1). (Since we can't have -1 divisions, we don't need to worry about what will happen when the denominator is 0.) As x approaches infinity, f(x) approaches 0. But can you plug infinity into the equation? No, because it's not a number. So it will never be 0.
If I ask you "why do objects fall" and you reply with "because of gravity" have you REALLY answered me? Nope.
Now onto this scenario. If I ask you "why is it even possible to 'walk' an infinite number of points" and you reply "because that's the formula we know from classical mechanics" (or whatever), have you REALLY answered me? Nope. You only stated 'how' it is calculated, but I asked you, why is it possible?
To do this, you'll need logical reasoning (that's why it's called a paradox).
Quote:
Actually, it's a nearly infinite amount of near zeroes.
Such a simple question you can't answer.
How many 'points' are between any two numbers (positions on an axis)?
The answer is not 'near infinity'. The definition of the real numbers' set states there are an infinite number of 'points' (points are strange further, because they don't have any 'width' or 'height', in short they do not occupy space, thus are 'ethereal' in a way).
Quote:
No, I meant about the universe running out of space.
Ahh, what I said was that a computer would be running out of space if it would perfectly simulate the Universe. Which means that the Universe is not a conventional computer, because for that, you would need an infinite amount of memory to hold all the infinite data
Quote:
If you can describe the motion of the object with a function, then you can find out its location at any given time.
But you don't understand that the 'function' is a probabilistic function, that's how it works. Maybe you're expecting from the world something which it is not?
Quote:
That's not what I asked you. Length, width, height, and ???, then time as the fifth dimension. I can imagine a 4D graph with length, width, and height changing as time passes, but I can't imagine another dimension.
You don't imagine dimensions with 'length' 'height' and 'width', you imagine them with 'planes'... and because there's no english word for that (???) doesn't mean it is not imaginable.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 05:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How many numbers are between 0 and 1 (just two positions for simplicity's sake)??
But that's not the example you used earlier. You used the example of dividing the distance between two points. In your current example, there is an infinite number. In your original one, there is a near-infinite number.
Quote:
Actually, the distance between the two points is exactly 0, if you use math you can prove it.
Quote:
If I ask you "why do objects fall" and you reply with "because of gravity" have you REALLY answered me?
So I used math and now you're complaining.
Quote:
To do this, you'll need logical reasoning (that's why it's called a paradox).
Hey, I thought you couldn't rely on logic because it's subjective .
Quote:
Ahh, what I said was that a computer would be running out of space if it would perfectly simulate the Universe. Which means that the Universe is not a conventional computer, because for that, you would need an infinite amount of memory to hold all the infinite data
Well, I had not fully accounted for quantum theory when I made my original statement that the world could be predicted. But quantum theory and relativity contradict each other. That still doesn't mean that free will exists, however.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 13, 2008 05:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But that's not the example you used earlier. You used the example of dividing the distance between two points. In your current example, there is an infinite number. In your original one, there is a near-infinite number.
What do you mean? In the original, you can divide the 'space' indefinitely, always coming to a 'smaller' distance. It's really like computing Pi, since it's irrational, you will never get it with decimal digits, but you can continue so until infinity...
so for this one, you have: 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001, and so on (if you divide it by 10 each time), and you CAN divide it infinite times (even if infinity is not a number), if you think about it.
Quote:
So I used math and now you're complaining.
You did not get it. I meant, math says a certain thing. Ok, but you are supposed to answer 'why' is it possible (the fact that you can walk through an infinite number of points, for example).
Quote:
Hey, I thought you couldn't rely on logic because it's subjective .
Well almost everything is subjective but that does not mean we can't have arguments. I mean, yes of course it's a paradox, so it's why it's almost impossible to get a 'straight' answer
Quote:
Well, I had not fully accounted for quantum theory when I made my original statement that the world could be predicted. But quantum theory and relativity contradict each other. That still doesn't mean that free will exists, however.
Who said anything about free will? We were only talking about 'probabilities' of the Universe before and you claimed that they are all 100% since they happened, which is wrong
(btw if the brain is influenced by the tiny 'quantum' particles' movement then the brain is probabilistic (not necessarily free however)).
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
