Kharakov

[quote]Originally posted by Starboy:
<strong>
You really should read about the history of QM.</strong>[/quotes]

I am familiar with a large portion of the history of QM. Bring something up if you would like to discuss it. I have strong opinions on everything .

You are (unintentionally?) creating a straw man argument that I opposed the validity of quantum mechanics. My argument is against your totally unsubstantiated assertion that on the quantum level events occur randomly.

I know you aren't a theist, but in this matter you seem to be acting like one. You seem to believe that if we don't have evidence of an exact cause of an event then this lack of evidence is evidence that the events are truly random (uncaused). Lack of evidence is not evidence. Evidence that disputes something is evidence.

The events that you claim are happening randomly appear to occur in an organized fashion. Look at the probability density figure for the s1 orbital radius in hydrogen. If we take an average of electron radius detected, it conforms to the exact mathematical results for probability that we calculated with the wavefuntion. We are seing organized behavior- overall, the system displays behavior weighted in a certain direction- towards classical values (in this case the Bohr radius). This propensity towards classical values occurs despite the many unobservable forces that apparently effect electrons on the quantum scale.

Why do I say that there are unobservable forces that apparently effect electrons on the quantum scale instead of just calling the action random?

I say this because all of the credible evidence I have ever seen has been of direct cause and effect relationships at the physical level. We know that we cannot gain direct evidence of cause and effect relationships beyond a certain resolution with the materials and techniques we have available. However, the overwhelming evidence for direct cause and effect relationships that has already been gathered for observable physical phenomena leads me to believe that direct cause and effect relationships permeate the universe on all scales, despite lack of specific evidence on the quantum scale.

Gotta go now... bbs.

Starboy

Kharakov, I do not think I am making a straw man. My comment was based on a perhaps mistaken idea that your knowledge of QM was not what it should be for the purposes of this conversation. Rather then engage in remedial education I thought you would better served if you did some reading and research on your own.

As for dogma, I do admit that I am dogmatic on one thing. As a scientist I maintain that it is the dogma of science to require that explanations of natural phenomena only be made in terms of other observed or hypothesized natural phenomena. Such explanations cannot be accepted as scientific knowledge until they have been tested by experiment on nature by at least two different independent observers. Until that happens such explanations are scientific speculation.

Any natural explanation must take into account other scientific knowledge. If it conflicts with previous knowledge then it, along with the conflicting knowledge must be examined critically and it must be determined what is the cause of the discrepancy. Until it can be explained then it remains an open question.

What you may ask, does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Currently accepted scientific knowledge is that the universe is random at the plank scale. It is based on a very large number of careful experiments and AFAIK it does not conflict with any other currently known scientific knowledge. As a result of this if I am to consider any explanation regarding determinism, I must recognize that at the plank scale the universe is not classically deterministic. The only way I can change my mind on this is if there is conflicting evidence and explanations that throw it into doubt. Unless you can offer such evidence or explanations then I must say that it is you that is proffering an explanation based on phenomena for which there is no basis.

Starboy

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

John Page

This gives me to understand you are making an priori assumption that the above natural phenomena are the result of cause/effect.
From the previous discussion, a "truly random" event has no cause. In this case, the "Currently accepted scientific knowledge" you cite contradicts your stated scientific dogma!
I can't make sense of this. If something appears random it does not follow that it is "not classically deterministic".

I tend to agree with the observation that it is our means of observation and their interaction with the object of the experiment that creates issues. For example, if there is a "fundamental particle" how could we measure it?

Free will? I have the freedom to make certain decisions independent of the wishes of others. I can make efforts to free my decision from internal conscious and subconscious biases. However, at the end of the day something causes my decision to be made one way or the other - even if it appears random to you.

I think we "free will" and "determinism" are compatible bedfellows. Anyone else care to chime in?

Cheers, John

Starboy

John Page, I am beginning to loose patience with philosophers. Many of the arguments presented appear to be purely based on semantics. Apparently the idea of a random outcome is a well established concept for everyone but philosophers. It is most commonly understood by using dice and playing cards. QM is a well accepted scientific theory. I am not making this stuff up. You are welcome to study it on your own if you like.

Good night.

Starboy

PotatoError

"It is most commonly understood by using dice and playing cards"
Right.

Is a computer game of cards random? How can you tell?

Computers generate random numbers using the clock and a seed number. The numbers generated are entirely determined if you know the algorithm, the current tick value and the seed number.

Yet they are also random (on the same level as a dice and cards). Therefore random and determined can coexist.

QM shows behaviour at plank level is random. It does not show that it isn't determined.

John Page

The above statement is not accurate. You appear to have reached your conclusion at random.

To the best of my knowledge, random numbers are generated using a seed i.e. they are unpredictable due to an unknown input.

With respect to the "random outcome" you mention do you believe a random outcome causes anything other than coincidence?

Cheers, John

Liquidrage

Starboy,

Question for you.

Do you believe that QM shows that causality is not true? Or are you just positing that it shows Scientific Determinism is not possible?

I ask because what you seem to be stating is an interpretation.
And your interpretation is a common one, but not one that is pointed to by any evidence but one that fits the evidence.
To steal a word from John Bell, "super-determinism" also fits the evidence.

I'd like to see how you feel about a quote I've posted a few times on these forum
John Bell:
For unfortunately, the presupposition of true free will has heavily influenced the experimental evidence for quantum uncertainty. The whole "act of measurement".
Without this presupposition, one can rightfully claim that the evidence fits a universe which is exactly what one would expect given a minimalist pre-determined universe.

Causality is very much alive in modern physics.
It wasn't 50 or even 25 years ago. But it is today. A few mistakes of the past have been corrected (such as von Neumann's objection to HV's) and some old dogma's have been torn down (such as the Copenhagen Interpretation).
I really don't see how you can so positively put forth what you have so far in this thread when publicly, many of the best minds in modern physics don't agree with you.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Starboy

Where is the evidence? Last time I heard the single and double slit experiment still came out the same way. Radioactive decay was still random and so forth. Where are the experiments? I agree there is causality just not the kind people understand from common knowledge.

If you could point me to the pivotal experiments I would appreciate it.

Starboy

[corrected spelling]

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Kharakov

Where is the evidence for randomness? Lack of evidence for determinism does not equal evidence of randomness. That is the major problem with your argument.

The minor problem with your argument is the fact that the phenomena that you are calling random form specific patterns. Every time we conduct the same experiment we find the same distribution of results- this does not seem like random behavior to me.

John Page

Starkid:

What!!! Radioactive decay is statistically predictable. Some theories provide an explanation by supposing or assuming that the half-life of an atom is random; but that's only a way of saying we don't know what triggers decay at the level of an individual atom.

Somewhat ironically and amusingly, random number generators (actually pseudo-random number generators) use radioactive decay as seeds. Sounds like this could seed a self-fulfilling prophesy!

Again, because we don't know what triggers decay for a specific atom it has the appearance of randomness (see my above post on cognition requiring cause and effect).

I'd be very interested if you have a specific rebuttal (i.e. other than lots of scientists think so).

Cheers, John