FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-24-2003, 09:46 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default Re: Re: Re: Probability and science

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
Fine, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is not our perception of particle motions as random that MAKE them random. Something does, and we don't know what it is.
Come again? Something makes particle behavior random? Is that your final answer?
Philosoft is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 10:01 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Probability and science

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
Come again? Something makes particle behavior random? Is that your final answer?
Well, it appears to me that there are two possibilities here: either something makes particle behavior random or nothing makes it random. I am unaware of a third alternative. What would YOUR final answer be?
yguy is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 10:08 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probability and science

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
Well, it appears to me that there are two possibilities here: either something makes particle behavior random or nothing makes it random. I am unaware of a third alternative. What would YOUR final answer be?
Whatever it is, it's not that true random behavior is caused by something external to the thing doing the behaving.
Philosoft is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 10:25 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probability and science

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
Whatever it is, it's not that true random behavior is caused by something external to the thing doing the behaving.
I don't know whether that's true or not, but the alternative appears to be that it's caused by the thing itself. You like that better?
yguy is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 06:46 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probability and science

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
I don't know whether that's true or not, but the alternative appears to be that it's caused by the thing itself. You like that better?
I'm not sure what I like has anything to do with this. Consider a computer running a "random" number generator program. The selection is caused by an algorithm in the program. Is this true randomness?
Philosoft is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 07:19 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 6,261
Default

Yguy, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you making a metaphysical claim that the basic workings of the universe cannot, or are unlikely to be probabilistic, therefore scientific theories that incorporate probabilities and randomness are probably wrong? Or are you saying that even if they were probabilistic like QM, it won't make science any more trustworthy method?

Confusing.
Jayjay is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 08:18 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probability and science

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
I'm not sure what I like has anything to do with this. Consider a computer running a "random" number generator program. The selection is caused by an algorithm in the program. Is this true randomness?
I would say not. In fact, it seems to me that randomness is an illusion. There is more to the plan than we look for, so we say there is no plan.
yguy is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 08:23 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,058
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
That may be, but it is NOT what makes a particle behave in an unpredictable manner. That's what I'm getting at.
It's not unpredictable. It's very predicatable, it's just that we can predict with very good precision what the probability is.
Craig is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 08:25 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: hobart,tasmania
Posts: 551
Default

A computer running an algorithm can produce order from chaos
SULPHUR is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 08:25 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probability and science

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
I would say not. In fact, it seems to me that randomness is an illusion. There is more to the plan than we look for, so we say there is no plan.
Well, quantum mechanics suggests that what "seems" to you an illusion is actually fundamentally random. What makes you think you know better?
Philosoft is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:44 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.