Normal

Of course QM has predictive power, you are misunderstanding my argument if you think I'm saying otherwise.

No, I just insist on coherent analogies. There has to be considerable overlap between two ideas in order for me to really accept an analogy, that includes the demonstration of a definite cause arising from things that are necessarily uncaused, which is what we have observed in the totality of human science.

That is your interpretation of the forces. They may, in fact, be blind to the human species, I have no problem with that, but are they purposeless? Are they unintentional?

If you take "systematically predictable" to mean "somewhat probablistically predictable", then no, I guess it doesn't. But then that definition doesn't answer the question.

HUP is indeed counter intuitive to many leading scientists, including Einstien. It is the Heseinburg Uncertainty Principle.

Exactly.

I'm going to have to ask you to cite these simulations at this point, so I can investigate.

Chemicals follow deterministic processes.

Normal

It includes sofas, couches, benches, stools, swings, japanese floor mats, exercise bikes, etc. etc. etc.

Care to try again?

Normal

Monod won "for their discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis"

http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1965/index.html

Normal

This continues to be the best answer I have received in this whole thread. Although the treatment of case 1 is using the law of large numbers.

DOLBAC DENIS

aND THE BASIS OF THE WORK IS that genes get organized by chance and necessity so does life at all levels.....:banghead:

Normal

Are electrons alive?

DOLBAC DENIS

All what glitters is not necessarily gold.

All the things in movement are not necessarily alive.
Ex : A rolling stone. which by the way gathers no moss...
:boohoo:

ComestibleVenom

I was positing that the systematic temporal relationships are the sort of thing for which the notion of causality is useful. As it turns out, those relationships are of an unexpected nature - but the reduction of causality to quantum mechanics is patently tenable so long as such relationships hold.

The point being made was directed towards the topic of intertheretic reduction. I was positing that we can speak of high-level objects (like the square or like 'deterministic' systems) in languages that are not useful (like the imaginary world of micro-spheres or the flitting wavefunctions in the real world).

In this context, the overap was purposefully limited to prevent getting distracted by the analogy itself. Evidently the tactic failed.

Ultimatly, my point is quite simple. Your contention that the atheistic materialists' use of inter-theretic reduction is 'unparimonious' betrays a misunderstanding of just what a reduction is.

A road sign is blind to the human spcies, but is purposeful and intentional. It was intended by lawmakers as a means of reinforcing road safety and expediting traffic flow.

I am justified in saying that it has a purpose because I am familar with the organizations who make such decisions. I know the kind of risks and large-scale interactions involved in the machines which travel the roads. I know the governmental structures have been advised to take such actions on the basis of the reasoning and observations of various experts.

The question you are posing to me is whether the structure of the universe is purposeful, since to ask questions of the laws of all that exists is to ask a question about the universe itself.

This does not make sense to me in the same way that asking about the intentionality of a particular object does.

The Laws of the universe are logically prior to the perceptual systems, the cars, the government - in general, the structures requisite FOR intentionality.

That question being discarded, one might ask if there is a meta-universe where the requisite intentional structures exist, that intended our subsequent universe to have it's particular laws and makeup. Some god on his gigantic holographic computer, for instance.

The idea of a meta-universe in which there is an intelligent being that plans and sets out to build the universe in which we exist has a poetic appeal, but is baroque (unparsimonious) to the extreme. It's like explaining that my pool ball went out for a drinking binge, assasnated Oday Hussein and founded a major financial institution in order to explain how it ended up in the corner pocket.

Yes, it's possible, but it's damn near the back of the bus when it comes to the priority of the theories to which we grant serious consideration.

Your question is just what I was attacking, because it misrepresents what is intended by a reduction of causality to a nondeterminstic system.

The use of causality in science is just an example of a reducible concept. You have acknowledged vital similarities between causal concepts and QM, enough in fact to make causation a useful concept.

Counterintuitive it may be, but it clearly does not support the claim to which you assigned to it.

Well pretty much any major work developing prediction for any quantum systems (chemicals, for instance) require computers, since the amount of processing is otherwise unmanageable.


I hope you mean that chemical processes can be approximately described in a large-scale deterministic manner which can be reduced to the non-deterministic quantum mechanics describing ALL chemical interactions.

In that case you aren't objecting at all to what I said.

StillDreaming

What's wrong with that?
Individual outcomes of known random processes are entirely unpredictable, only certain properties of a large number of outcomes are predictable given the characteristics of the random process. The only thing we need to know in order to predict such properties is that the process *does* behave according to a specified random process; it is entirely irrelevant *why* or *how* it does so.

Normal

The notion of casuality might be useful, but it is still illusionary if there is no explanation for it.

But I was exposing an error in logic that if used the same way with the apparent square, could not be used the same way with apparent casuality, and that is: dots are partial lines, we know how dots can form into lines.

So intentionality logically precedes intentionality?

In order for the solution to be unparsimonious, there would have to be a simpler explanation available.

Useful perhaps, but again, it's usefulness does not negate it being an unparsimonious fanatasy.

That QM systems are systematically predictable?

I was asking for some documentation on the systems you described.

I would not object at all to that.