Normal

I really like that quote

:notworthy

haverbob

No, and I will apologize for that. Sometimes books can't describe things that can only come from experience. It's like courses on how to sell. Yes they are helpful, but that classroom will never do justice to the real world of selling. However, again, I apologize. It was inappropriate.

Normal

Actually, thats completely understandable. I've noticed a tendancy to put too much emphasis on the knowledge from books too, but rest assured, I respect the lessons learned outside the classroom much more then the ones inside.

StillDreaming

Normal, in your reply to bd-from-kg, you said
and

There are two kinds of unpredictability here:
1. The unpredictability of individual events of a random process that behaves according to a certain probability density function.
2. The unpredictability that a certain process will continue to behave according to a (supposed) probability density function.

In case 1, it is trivial that an apparently deterministic system can arise from unpredictable components. It is clear that the sum of a billion rolls of dice will be close to 3,500,000,000 in virtually all cases, even though the individual outcomes can not be predicted. Given that the process has a uniform probability density function, there are just way more possible outcomes that result in a sum close to 3,500,000,000 than there are outcomes that result in a sum close to 1,000,000,000. In fact, these kind of processes are not *entirely* unpredictable, since we *know* already it will behave according to a certain pdf.

So I guess your problem is with 2. Which is, in fact, the question "why does process X actually behave according to pdf P"? or "how does this process 'know' it should behave according to P?"
Of course, any process can be described by a certain pdf - there is nothing necessarily prescriptive here. So why do we observe the ones we observe? I would say that this is just a 'brute fact'. And I think it is related to the fine-tuning argument, in the sense that if the actual pdfs would have been (very or slighly) different, this universe could not exist, and we wouldn't have been here to observe this apparently deterministic behaviour.

Besides that, maybe one could defend the claim that these pdfs actually are prescriptive, i.e., that for one reason or another, it is necessary that 'process X shall behave according to pdf Y, it cannot be otherwise'. This seems to imply a form of causation, though.

(and of course, I might be missing the point... )

bd-from-kg

Normal:

1. Theories and interpretations

You say of the three most popular interpretations of QM:

But CI, TI, and MWI are not theories in themselves; they�re interpretations of QM. (As I noted earlier, many MWI supporters claim that it�s more than an interpretation; that it can be experimentally distinguished from the other two. If so, it�s really a theory in its worn right. But then your criticism isn�t valid; it is falsifiable, even relative to CI and TI.)

The difference between a theory and an interpretation is precisely that an interpretation cannot be falsified. The reason for this is that it�s simply a way to conceptualize the theory of which it�s an interpretation.

In many cases this distinction is muddied by the fact that there�s only one �plausible� interpretation of a theory that suggests itself to the human mind. A good example is Newton�s gravitational theory. According to this theory, two massive bodies tend to accelerate toward one another in accordance with the inverse-square law. The natural (and pretty much universal) interpretation of this theory is that there is a force (�gravitation�) acting on the bodies to produce the acceleration. But the existence of this force cannot be experimentally verified, either �directly� or �indirectly�. All that experiments can confirm is that the acceleration predicted by the theory does in fact occur. (In fact, according to GR there is no such force. The acceleration is produced by the warping of spacetime by massive bodies. But this is an interpretation of a different theory, not a different interpretation of the same theory.)

But it happens occasionally that there are two (or more) plausible interpretations of the same theory. In this case, while the theory itself makes predictions that can be tested, there�s no way to experimentally test the interpretations themselves, so it�s meaningless to ask which one is �right�.

So it is with QM. QM is unusual in that no interpretation suggests itself intuitively; all of the interpretations are strongly counterintuitive in one way or another. The theory is certainly testable; in fact, it has been subjected to the most rigorous testing imaginable and has emerged with flying colors. But, as always, the interpretations are not testable. If they were, they wouldn�t be interpretations of the same theory; they�d be competing theories.

The point is that interpretations don�t make �claims�. They�re ways of understanding or conceptualizing the theory. The theory is QM, which clearly does make testable claims.

What skeptics are looking for is actual, testable predictions from the God hypothesis. If we ever get any and they turn out to be correct, then it will be time to analyze the interpretation that these effects are being caused by a supernatural, omnimax being, and ask whether there�s a simpler one. But so far the simple, baseline requirement for testable predictions that �prove out� hasn�t even been met.

How could you possibly get �all three interpretations are right� from �neither of them is more right than the other�? And where do you get �they have a remarkable ability to incite wonder� from �it�s just a question of which conceptual framework one happens to be comfortable with�? Do you understand what I�m talking about at all?

It�s too much to ask because we don�t have access to �reality in itself�. We only have access to our perceptions. We construct a conceptual framework for interpreting and understanding our experiences, but we have no way of knowing whether this conceptual framework �corresponds to reality� (in fact, it�s not even clear that this means anything); all that we can know is whether it correctly (or incorrectly) predicts future perceptions. Scientific theories don�t give us any unique kind of insight into, or knowledge of, the �true nature of reality�. All that they do is to allow us to create a more elaborate, sophisticated conceptual framework that allows us to make more accurate predictions. Thus to argue that QM yields extremely accurate predictions, but is somehow unsatisfactory as a scientific theory, is absurd. A theory that makes accurate predictions is a good theory (unless there�s a simpler one that makes equally accurate predictions). There is no other test or criterion to distinguish a �good� theory from a �bad� one.

As I said before, all of this has been well-understood since Kant. Get used to it.

2. Cause/effect relationships, evidence, and scientific theories.

You started off on the wrong track here by saying:

And you�ve stubbornly clung to this mistaken idea ever since, which is not surprising because it�s at the heart of your argument. For example:

All of this can only be understood as a denial that an observable pattern or uniformity constitutes evidence, in and of itself, regardless of whether a cause/effect relationship has been established. Your position is that nothing constitutes evidence unless and until such a relationship is known.

This is confirmed by your otherwise unintelligible remark that:

And more recently, in a reply to Jobar, you spelled out this argument explicitly:

To put this a bit more clearly: QM predicts only statistical patterns (notwithstanding the fact that TI and MWI are deterministic). But what would constitute evidence for such a theory? Why statistical patterns, of course. But QM doesn�t even claim that these statistical patterns are based on strict cause/effect relationships, and in the absence of such relationships statistical patterns don�t constitute evidence at all. Which means that QM entails that there�s no evidence whatsoever for anything at all, including QM itself.

But in fact you have no basis for any of this. You�re just dogmatically insisting that only theories based on cause/effect relationships (of the strictly deterministic kind) are scientifically acceptable. That�s ridiculous; you don�t have a leg to stand on. I�ve said it before, and I�ll say it again: if you really believe this, you don�t have the slightest idea what �evidence� is. You say:

But no one is changing the definition of �evidence� to �mean� probability. What �evidence� has always meant is anything that makes the hypothesis in question more probable. Until you get this through your head, you won�t have even a rudimentary understanding of science.

In fact, this whole notion of evidence as being dependent on known cause/effect relationships refutes itself. We have to have evidence to justify our belief in cause/effect relationships. But if the existence of such evidence depends on prior knowledge of cause/effect relationships, we have a vicious circle: it�s impossible to have evidence without prior knowledge of cause/effect relationships, and it�s impossible to obtain such knowledge without evidence.

3. Randomness and order

You say:

You�ve repeated this theme over and over. Like everyone else on this thread, I really don�t understand what you think the point is here.

The term �apparently deterministic� is highly misleading. The world is not �apparently deterministic�, even at the macroscopic level. Geiger counters, bubble chambers, and other phenomena show clear randomness at the macroscopic level which is directly caused by the randomness at the quantum level. All that can truly be said is that the standard deviation of certain parameters (such as position and momentum) of large aggregates is much, much smaller than the standard deviation of the same parameters for individual particles (or wavicles if you will). Far from being a mystery, this �falls out� of the basic equations. It�s no more mysterious than the fact that one and the same surface might appear very smooth to the naked eye but full of pockmarks and irregularities if examined under a microscope.

In other words, as soon as you state the supposed paradox precisely as �Why are the standard deviations of many macroscopic parameters smaller than the standard deviations of corresponding parameters at the quantum level?�, or �Why can we predict many aspects of macroscopic systems more accurately than corresponding aspects of individual particles?�, the supposed problem disappears. It�s only when you use vague, �hand-waving� terms like �apparently deterministic� that there even seems to be a problem. The real world does not appear to be deterministic at the macroscopic level; it just appears to be more predictable in certain ways.

Finally, you�ve raised the subject of chaos:

This is true for chaotic systems. Chaotic systems arise under certain specific conditions. One of the many things that QM tells us is that many systems are not chaotic systems. In particular, a large group of particles held together by some force does not constitute a chaotic system.

By the way, it�s precisely the fact that some, but hardly all, systems are chaotic in the mathematical sense that causes many of the people on this thread to object to your use of terms like �chaos� and �chaotic� to describe ordinary behavior at the quantum level. This term has a well-defined meaning today, and very small groups of particles do not satisfy the definition.

Finally, �chaos� has nothing to do with �intrinsic randomness�. Chaotic systems can be perfectly deterministic. So raising the subject of chaotic behavior in this context is a red herring.

I think the following exchange sums up your argument nicely:

No, it�s not amazing. It�s commonplace. It�s mundane. It�s easily explained and well understood. The average height of a large group of people picked randomly is much more predictable than the height of any one person picked randomly. The number of aspirin pills that will be sold nationwide in a year is much more predictable than the number that will be bought by a particular customer on a given day. This is called the Law of Large Numbers. It�s explained in Probability 101. If this is all that you�re getting at, you�re wasting everyone�s time.

Shadowy Man

bd-from-kg:

Nice discussion, especially on theories and interpretations.

haverbob

Yes, you can always count on me for a weird question.
If I write a computer program, that uses a random function (it's called "RAND()" is some computer languages), that returns a randomly selected number, then I suppose one could say that there was no reason, cause or origin behind that random number. I disagree. I put that RAND() function in that program for a very specific reason. If there was not a specific reason for having randomness, then why did programmers make this RAND function up? Therefore, even though the micro level is seen as random, who says there is not a reason for that randomness? If one wants to say "there is a reason, but we just don't know it", then I can agree. But as soon as someone says "random", it always seems like the assumption is that this "randomness" always ends the backwards or regressing chain of causation. I don't see why?

haverbob

I love this statement. It's so true, but not totally true (very close though).
There are a few ways to access reality. One is by living in the present moment, moment by moment without our creations of past and future. This is not to be confused with day by day or one day at a time. They both involve time. Moment does not involve time or else we could measure how long a moment is.

Another way is to drop our perceptions because they add to, or takeaway from and generally distort reality. Let me be a little clearer about that by saying "drop our opinions or judgements" and not perception. For the sake of my point, I would like to call perception the mere "taking in" of stimulus from reality. So far, there is still reality, but then we come along and apply opinions and judgements to reality. Now reality has been clouded. Drop those opinions and judgements and you will be in touch with reality. Although we are sure that those opinions and judgements are our own, and that we have no choice but to have them, I would say that most of those judgements are not our own, some would even say none of them are our own. They are our societies opinions, judgements...) Some may still say their judgements are their own. Maybe that's true in their particularly case, but I would urge that person to really examine that notion as closely as possible. If someone also says, "I no longer makes judgements about anything", I would say bravo, because that would be very difficult. although not impossible. A monumental feat of monumental proportions, that's all. That's why people commonly say "we have no choice but to make judgements".

Is that true? We have no choice? Let me try an example. I think alot of us treat reality/life like a dog. A dog trainer will study dogs to learn more about them, so that he/she can *change* the dog to better suit our needs (i.e. "train the dog"). During this process, the trainer observes (actually "judges") good (desireable) behaviors that the dog does like doing the trick correctly, and bad behavior when the dog doesn't meet our needs. And so here we have the advent of the perception of "good" and "bad" in our world which really means "meets our 'perceived' desires, doesn't meet our 'perceived' desires".

Now, at this point, most people say "what other choice could we have?", why bother with the dog if we can't get it to meet our needs?

Answer: Consider the pure scientist who loves to study ants. The scientist isn't trying to understand those ants so that he can change them, he/she is merely fascinated with the behavior of ants, that's all. So during this observation, it is impossible for ants to exhibit good behavior or bad behavior. And actually, one might say that it's ALL good behavior, because it's the behavior of ants, and that is what the scientist likes or wants. Looking at life in this manner will get one in touch with reality. This is what some people mean when they say "it's all good" when they talk about life, and I've been hearing that for so many years and I could never figure that out until recently. So living in the present moment, moment to moment and dropping one's clouding judgements are 2 techniques for getting in touch with reality.

Do we treat reality like the dog or like the ants?? If you really think about, it's far more often like the dog. Why? Because we experience ups and downs, right???

How can I argue with this?? Yes, of course you are correct. Don't get me wrong, constructing frameworks are very useful tools. If I were anti-construction of everything, then I better stop using words. It's when the tool gets confused for reality (truth) that the trouble starts. Best I can say is that there is something else besides "our framework" and we are not as obligated to use "our framework" as most of us commonly think. That framework was given to you and me by somebody else who gave it to somebody else...."Fact" can be obtained through a framework. "Truth" will never ultimately be obtained through use of a framework of any kind. Maybe it will help us get closer (or maybe further). There's an old arab phrase that goes something like this. One needs a donkey (i.e. facts) to travel to a friend's house, but onces he arrives, he must leave the donkey if he is to enter the front door of the friend's house (truth). Often we seem to think that the way to enter the house is to stay on the donkey and if at first we don't succeed, then try, try again. So we travel some more around the friend's house and try to enter again on our more experienced and wiser donkey. Still no good. So we travel around again, again, again but it will never ultimately do. We need to leave the donkey before we can enter through the door.

haverbob

I'm not going to address this quote to anyone because it's not to make fun. This quote I will give illustrates a point perfectly.
I just couldn't leave this alone. This person is not a fool. No more of a fool than any of us. This statement was perfect because it illustrates what we ALL do. So if I go play craps everyday day, and I count on 3.5 or maybe 3 or 4, I'm gonna' come out a winner as long as I play enough, right?? I guess, assuming that one equates numbers with the sides of a dice. But aren't the sides of a dice merely sides with numbers painted on? When they paint those numbers on, how do they know which is the right side of the dice to put a six on??? But somehow it always comes out to 3.5, right??? Next time I can bet, I'll bet 3.5 and I would love to see the look on the dealer's face. I think they would stop serving me shots, in the least. But this is great, watch how somebody takes reality "six sides to a dice" applies a statistical concept, and slaps a label, or even a number on those six sides. That could never equate to reality. They apply a mathematical or statistical principle that gives them the answer "3.5" This is hysterical, but oh so true in a much deeper way then we normally imagine. In our own way, don't we do that with all our theories??? How true to reality are they???

One last mention. Yes casinos can tell you more probable results on a dice then less probable, that's how they get their odds. But don't forget that there are common ways that a human throws a dice on a table, and THAT is what is being measured, even down to how thick the material is on the table should be and the study of how a human most commonly decides to position the dice before they throw it (based on what the casino pays more for or not). THAT'S where the casinos get their stats from. If not, then we have a weight, cheating, or conspiracy theory. That's different. Again, which side of the dice is a six suppposed to be painted on???

P.S. , thanks to the mystery man for the perfect example.

Jobar

Haverbob, you don't need to study Zen, but you *do* need to study probability. On a fair die, it doesn't matter on which side you paint the six.

Ah, this may be your point- but your post does not make that at all clear.