Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Liquidrage · 07-24-2002, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by optimist:
"but there is always the possibility that it only appears to be probablistic and is in fact strictly determined."

I take issue with this statement. It is also a possibility that God exists or 102 green monkeys created the universe. What you say is true, but why did you state it here? That the universe is really deterministic is more likely than 102 green monkeys, but they both seem very unlikely in light of evidence open to us now.

"Does it really matter which is the case? I don't think so."

That is a very important, and I think true, statement. This non-determinism does not affect the issues of freewill, justice, or any other subject. For all intents and purposes people are still deterministic systems, and all the determinist issues we are interested in are involving people. That particles can be non-deterministic when isolate is an interesting fact, but all it shows is how far against commonsense the universe really is.

I take issue with your statement.
You talk as if determinism is just a rather unlikely possibility.
That the universe is strictly determined is a valid conclusion to what so far has been shown by quantum mechanics.

The two slit experiment shows duality.
When a particle is left to itself it is a wave.
When it interacts it collapses. This is duality and does not kill determinism.

The mystery came in with the act of measurement on a slit that was not decided upon until after the photon/atom was released.

What quantum mechanics tells us is that if we treat the universe discretely it can be described using probabilities.

We know QM isn't complete. We know there is a vast amount of space between where we can now probe and the Planck length.
Every event we observe appears caused.
Now you can believe that there is a true randomness to nature. That somehow a mechanism exists that is actually random and make "decisions" at the quantum level.
However, I consider that not just unprobable but absurd.

There are many books and web sites that have great explanations of the 2 slit experiment so I really don't feel a need to spend a vast amount of time doing a write on it.. Perhaps the best brief write up I've read is in the Elegant Universe. Even though the book is an introduction to String Theory it has many great shorts on QM and Relativity.

optimist · 07-24-2002, 03:07 PM

"while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can't explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way.

Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it... I'm going to describe to you how Nature is--and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it... So I hope you can accept Nature as She is--absurd."

- Richard Feynman

I have to work on something for class right now, but I think I'll try explaining this from a new direction later. I just thought this Feynman quote fit well in response to your (incorrect) objection. Not that you should believe me until I can better explaine this though. Funny Feynman quotes aren't arguements, so you'll just have to wait for me to think of a better way of getting this across.

Lentic Catachresis · 07-24-2002, 03:14 PM

Quick point.

Do we not need to explore whether the terms indeterminate and determined are mutually exclusive?

Surely this is a crucial point in the determinism arguement. Surely things can be both indeterminate and determined, and this can be demonstrated by probability. Of course we cannot predict anything "exactly", but patterns do emerge. If things were indeterminate how could we be able predict anything. Of course the more we know about a system or process the more accurate our predictions are.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Lentic Catachresis ]

Liquidrage · 07-24-2002, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by optimist:
"while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can't explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way.

Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it... I'm going to describe to you how Nature is--and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it... So I hope you can accept Nature as She is--absurd."

- Richard Feynman

I have to work on something for class right now, but I think I'll try explaining this from a new direction later. I just thought this Feynman quote fit well in response to your (incorrect) objection. Not that you should believe me until I can better explaine this though. Funny Feynman quotes aren't arguements, so you'll just have to wait for me to think of a better way of getting this across.

I've read the Feynman Lectures On Physics and a few of his more general books.
However much has changed since his time that has direct correlation to this topic. Of note would be EPR experiments and advances in mathematics and computing technology that has allowed for the calculation of more advanced models.

While eveyone interested in physics should read Feynman I don't think you are going to convince anyone of your indeterminism by quoting Feynman or describing his theories(as if they are not well known).

Also, many posts have been made and a definition of determinism is needed.
It is possible you are argueing over what is known as scientific determinism (which isn't really *more* scientific, it is just a term) which includes the ability to predict the future. Or perhaps you are just using an obsure meaning.

edited for typo corrections
sure I've missed some

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

Liquidrage · 07-24-2002, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lentic Catachresis:
Quick point.

Do we not need to explore whether the terms indeterminate and determined are mutually exclusive?

Surely this is a crucial point in the determinism arguement. Surely things can be both indeterminate and determined, and this can be demonstrated by probability. Of course we cannot predict anything "exactly", but patterns do emerge. If things were indeterminate how could we be able predict anything. Of course the more we know about a system or process the more accurate our predictions are.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Lentic Catachresis ]

Not just valid that was very well put.
Determinism and indeterminate are not mutually exclusive.
"Scientific determinism" and indeterminism would be.

----
Newton: Everything follows laws

Consenus: The universe is deterministic

*time passes*

Laplace: So if the universe is deterministic and I know where everything is I can predict the future.

Consensus: Sounds good

*time passes*

Heisenberg: You cannot know where everything is

Consensus: Determinism is false

Me: Say what?
--

Kharakov · 07-24-2002, 06:50 PM

Exactly.

-k

tronvillain · 07-24-2002, 08:58 PM

optomist:

Quote:

tronvillain, I didn't mean to come across as attacking you. But by listing that possibility, out of the infinite number of other possibilities, makes it seem like it is somehow more likely than the others. Would you not think a theist to be psychologically clutching on to their belief if after refuting all their arguments they said, "but it is still possible."

The options seem limited to strict and probablistic determinism. Exactly where do you see an "infinite number of other possibilities"? I see two, and as a result, pointing out the possibility of the alternative is nothing like pointing out the possibility of "God" or "102 Green Monkeys."

Quote:

I don't want to sound like I am accusing you, but I didn't want to let your "its still possible" remark to go without qualification. I would be angered if at the end of an argument against God an atheist said, "but it is still possible." I am sure the atheist who made the comment understands that possibility does not justify belief or even research into the possibility, while a theist reading his argument may not. A theist might use that "possibility" to argue for creationism in schools since it too is a "possibility."

Well, by all means be angry, since I am the first to admit the possibility of God. Mere possibility does not justify belief, and certainly does not justify being taught in schools, but it could potentially justify research into the possibility. Of course, I don't think you could justify doing the research with tax dollars.

Kharakov · 07-24-2002, 11:39 PM

Here is an authority which I disagree with:

<a href="http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html" target="_blank">http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html</a>

Check out the lecture "Does god play dice?"

Hawking's position is that the laws of science break down near a black hole /singularity, therefore the universe is not deterministic. He states that matter behaves randomly near a black hole- that "One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions."

He takes the stance that the lack of scientific determinism means nature is not deterministic.

My position is that the behavior of matter around and within the singularity are a few of the determining factors that influence the universe.

-k

Answerer · 07-25-2002, 09:01 PM

I, personally, think that classical concepts like 'particle', 'momentum' and 'wave' can't applied at quantum level. However, until a new 'quantum concept' is created, I think it is better that we stick to old ones.

Mu · 08-05-2002, 10:24 AM

here is a question

all, and i do mean all, of the above arguments made against strict determinism are based upon the seemingly random actions of subatomic particles.

is it not near universely agreed that the fundamental "smallest" building block of matter is not known by science?

in the absence of knowledge of a variable in a system, the actions of the system can appear to be random.

therefore, how can one reasonably conclude that subatomic particles are acting randomly and therefore the universe is not deterministic?

is it not more reasonable to suspend judgement until more knowledge is adquired?

07-24-2002, 03:14 PM	#13
Lentic Catachresis Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: UK Posts: 26	Quick point. Do we not need to explore whether the terms indeterminate and determined are mutually exclusive? Surely this is a crucial point in the determinism arguement. Surely things can be both indeterminate and determined, and this can be demonstrated by probability. Of course we cannot predict anything "exactly", but patterns do emerge. If things were indeterminate how could we be able predict anything. Of course the more we know about a system or process the more accurate our predictions are. [ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Lentic Catachresis ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2002, 03:07 PM	#12
optimist Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Depending on the week: Miami, Dallas, or Seattle Posts: 101	"while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can't explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way. Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it... I'm going to describe to you how Nature is--and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it... So I hope you can accept Nature as She is--absurd." - Richard Feynman I have to work on something for class right now, but I think I'll try explaining this from a new direction later. I just thought this Feynman quote fit well in response to your (incorrect) objection. Not that you should believe me until I can better explaine this though. Funny Feynman quotes aren't arguements, so you'll just have to wait for me to think of a better way of getting this across.

07-24-2002, 06:50 PM	#16
Kharakov Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Fidel Posts: 3,383	Exactly. -k

07-24-2002, 11:39 PM	#18
Kharakov Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Fidel Posts: 3,383	Here is an authority which I disagree with: <a href="http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html" target="_blank">http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html</a> Check out the lecture "Does god play dice?" Hawking's position is that the laws of science break down near a black hole /singularity, therefore the universe is not deterministic. He states that matter behaves randomly near a black hole- that "One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions." He takes the stance that the lack of scientific determinism means nature is not deterministic. My position is that the behavior of matter around and within the singularity are a few of the determining factors that influence the universe. -k

07-25-2002, 09:01 PM	#19
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	I, personally, think that classical concepts like 'particle', 'momentum' and 'wave' can't applied at quantum level. However, until a new 'quantum concept' is created, I think it is better that we stick to old ones.

08-05-2002, 10:24 AM	#20
Mu Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mu Posts: 8	here is a question all, and i do mean all, of the above arguments made against strict determinism are based upon the seemingly random actions of subatomic particles. is it not near universely agreed that the fundamental "smallest" building block of matter is not known by science? in the absence of knowledge of a variable in a system, the actions of the system can appear to be random. therefore, how can one reasonably conclude that subatomic particles are acting randomly and therefore the universe is not deterministic? is it not more reasonable to suspend judgement until more knowledge is adquired?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.