ex-xian

Isn't University of Waterloo where Shadowy Man teaches? And isn't it associated with what Lee Smolin is doing? Anyway, side issues.

I frutstrated b/c it's been pointed out that QM is probabilistic, not random, but you keep denying the issue w/o any support other than you own (faulty) reasoning.

Also, I don't think I ever scorned you at all. If I did, then I apologize. As for my comments on the inadequacy of language, I stand by that. And I never claimed that I know all there is to know about QM, I said quite the opposite actually.

Let me ask a few questions that, hopefully, will help me understand where you sticking point is.
1) How exactly do you define random?
2) How do you define probabilistic?
3) What events that happen in QM are you saying that are random, per your definition from 1?

Normal

That's news to me, I'm relatively new to the board. Lee Smolin doesn't sound famailiar, but it's possible.

I don't deny they are probabilistic, but I maintain they are random. A coin flip can be considered probabilistic and random, and has been pointed out before.

Let me ask a few questions that, hopefully, will help me understand where you sticking point is.

Uncaused

Outcomes somewhat limited by chance

The path of an electron, for one.

ex-xian

It's not shadowy man, it's someone else. I'll pm you their name...they didn't have a location specified, so I don't feel comfortable posting it.

Also, Smolin does work with your university. He's at the Perimeter Institute in your university's town. It's one of the places I'm considering applying for grad school. Who knows, maybe one day we'll argue in person.

Smolin is doing leading research in quantum gravity. He's written an excellent book by that title. My physics prof worked with him when they were both at Penn State. She has nothing but praise for him, and is encouraging me to try to get into wherever he is when I graduage.

Quote:

I don't deny they are probabilistic, but I maintain they are random. A coin flip can be considered probabilistic and random, and has been pointed out before.

You defined random as uncaused probablistic as "outcomes somewhat limited by change." But you say that coin flips are random and probabilistic. Does that mean that you agree that probability can be uncaused? Or that randomness doesn't have to mean uncaused?
[/quote]
The path of an electron, for one. [/QUOTE]
From the classes you've taken, you know that the path (momentum, since momentum = mass * velocity, and velocity can be considered path) is uncertain. You also know that the precise momentum doesn't exist until a measurement is taken. Up until that point, the momentum remains "fuzzy." But the probability that it will be a certain value can be determined. The act of taking a measurement tells you where the measurement is. So perhaps that cause can be said to be the measurement, but the effect has a "degree" of randomness, determined by the spread of the momentum.

Normal

That would be a very interesting experience indeed. To promote Waterloo a bit, it's a very open minded school, and usually associated with the cutting edge of research

Randomness means uncaused and probability can entail uncaused events.

The "fuzzy" nature of the momentum is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about the random element of quantum events. The measurement cannot be said to be the cause, because the event is considered causeless. The problem is that the electrons path is very much unpredictable, although we can make semi-accurate guesses using ranges and probability.

Jobar

Normal, your professors are giving you the same answers we are.

I want to go back to something you said on page 1, in reply to one of my posts:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobar
Even if we *never* discover precise physical theories which explain the "apparent order from underlying chaos" we know right now that simply falling back on 'goddidit' is not an answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How do you know, your "faith" in naturalism? Which, btw, is based largely on the fictious cause and effect system.

Of course I realize no one knows all the answers. But the thing to realize is that "lack of evidence for god" is based on an unparsimonious system as it is. You aren't being more parsimonious by taking out a system which is based on an already unparsimonious conclusion.

I think this is where you are misunderstanding this issue. Evidence is NOT based on naturalism. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Evidence is something which requires zero faith, but lots of interpretation. It is something presented to your senses; a photo, an instrument trace, a blood sample, a cast of a tire track, a fingerprint, a fossil. Such a physical object becomes 'evidence' when it is coupled with a theory intended to explain some aspect of reality- without evidence, we have no way of distinguishing fantasy from reality. We need evidence to reach naturalism, or any other metaphysic- without evidence we can't tell truth from lies, fact from fancy, dreams from real-life experience.

We need evidence to make our languages something more than senseless babbling. Without it, my claim that the universe was created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn last Thursday is just as valid as the Big Bang theory. In court, my assertion that evil elves killed my hated ex-wife is just as believable as the prosecutor's story that I shot her in front of the courthouse. Evidence tests the validity of our ideas and perceptions- it allows us to reach agreements, to find truth, in spite of fallibility, gullibility and treachery.

Evidence functions at the classical level. What makes QM so mysterious is that the evidence for it, perceived at the classical level of our five senses, appears blurry and inconsistent; it requires us to make theories and interpretations which are themselves blurry, describing realms far beyond those our senses evolved to perceive. This blurriness demonstrates a weakness, not in the notion of evidence itself, but in our senses, and our theories. However fuzzy our understanding of QM, the evidence for it is very clear!

haverbob

I saw that really long post you had that at the end listed all your credentials. You know I had someone else in another thread explain to me about moving to his college campus and the fact that he may not have access to a computer for a while.

HOLY SHIT !!! Are most of the people I'm talking to actually college students on this board??? I may have to re-think how I'm spending my time.

Shadowy Man

A fair number who post in the Science & Skepticism probably are, but I haven't found that to be true of the board on the whole.

Also, I am not a teacher at Waterloo. I don't teach; I'm a research scientist who specializes in astronomical instrumentation. My science research has focused on the interstellar medium, particularly dust and molecules and their interactions with ultraviolet light.

Normal

I must admit Jobar, that was extremely eloquent and well written. My intention in this thread was to point out an inconsistancy in the reasoning that leads to god being eliminated by parsimony. Yes, we need evidence in our daily lives, we are dependant on it to know anything. Without an apparently deterministic system to interact in, any trials/experiments would not be repeatable, and our understanding of the world would be a confused mess. If events weren't somehow connected, the foundations of our knowledge would be built on inconsistancies. But there IS an apparent cause and effect system, and we do know things about our world. Experiments are repeatable without fail, and our trust has come to fall squarely on science for truth. The problem is that science is now leading us down a different path then we presupposed. The evidence we observed at the classical level, the confidence we have to seperate "our dreams from reality", is not so strong anymore. Without knowledge of QM, one can easily say "What I witness is the truth, and from that truth I witness I see no evidence for god". But if you accept QM as correct, you are no longer given that right. What you see is not truth, it is a dream. We cannot trust our 5 senses to give us any kind of truth about the world anymore.

Normal

Is there some kind of stigma against college students around here that I should be aware of?

Shadowy Man

As they say:

"Quantum Mechanics is the dreams that stuff is made of."