last time we talked about it you started to yell at me.. lol better to chose happiness.. learned it from you
I think I was really only asking you to remember where we had got to before you tried to add something else. You can't just criticise others because you've forgotten what they said.
Got it?
Heisenberg's famous 'uncertainty principle' is theoretically traceable to the fact that we are limited to using atoms and fields as ways of getting observations, and that those involve waves that necessarily interact with the thing you wish to measure before you succeed at taking a measurement. Attempts to correct for the aspects of those waves you cannot determine would involve another set of waves, and another set of values impossible to fix. This does not presume any basic underlying randomness of the universe, only effects that can never be measured or known. There are deterministic models of this inequality, although they have undesirable qualities of their own. - copied
The guy who wrote that on philosophy stack exchange appears not to have understand the key facts about quantum mechanics I have mentioned several times. There are no deterministic models that produce the empirically tested behaviour of quantum mechanical systems. Entanglement is the property that such models cannot deal with.
elroch, avoiding my questions doesnt help any. lets try to be productive and get this over with.
Ah. In this case, a degree in philosophy is very different .... like a Diploma in Counselling. It can change you as a person and change the way you think, because it's necessary to understand arguments and discussions rather than merely remember them. I would have thought that might mean something even to you.
Do you ever stop ?
Randomness is more of a tendency than a perfect fact.
Entropy and quantum uncertainty tend towards randomness, but the seeds of their origins remain in any such chaos. For example, the cosmic background radiation appears both chaotic and fractal, i.e. it looks the same on every level and it looks random. Nevertheless, clever and careful observations have revealed subtle hints of the original order.
elroch, avoiding my questions doesnt help any. lets try to be productive and get this over with.
I believe what you are referring to is the vague question about "the philosophical concept of true randomness". Not only do I find this vague, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy only has one reference to this phrase and that is in an article partly about religion. The article fails to clarify what the term means: in my opinion there is an ambiguity whether zero agents or one agent is able to predict the events in question.
If the former, it is necessary that the agent concerned is itself bound by space-time (if the agent had access to future information, prediction is trivial). If the latter it would be necessary for there to be a convoluted "quantum conspiracy" by which the exact observations that are made appear to be freely made, but are in truth predetermined in order to fabricate the appearance of true randomness (in my sense) in quantum behaviour.
If that is not clear, it should suffice to say "true randomness" is not an established term in philosophy. If you want to refer to some such concept, you need to define it.
nice. we can easily troubleshoot this if you keep working with me. but i think it would be best if you allow me to point you in the right direction and make your own discovery.
can you pinpoint the one major difference between your own definition of D and the one bellow?
" all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."
A quite an acceptable definition in my book. A difference I have is in the use of the term “causes”. I’d prefer to use “affects” as it references a broader scope. Finding a cause suggests singular events. Whereas affects suggests anything of influence.
“Causes” easily ends up in circular religious debate as the term instantly (and incorrectly) becomes associated with ID. It’s assumed a designed universe is all predetermined. The opposite is assumed (again incorrectly) for those who do not “believe in ID - that the universe happened by chance and is random in nature.
Neither concept is descriptive. The terms are polarizing and lead nowhere in search of true randomness. We can see and smell stuff that looks random but it’s quite impossible for us to prove it’s existence- outside of satisfying its own definitions.
The world appears differently once the idea of “causes” is discarded. I’m not saying they don’t exist - they absolutely do. It’s the image the term conjures - that a cause or perhaps two through dozens are responsible. Specific, singular events get labeled as a cause or the cause or perhaps no causes exist for some phenomena.
However, everything in the universe to some extent affects everything else. A greater harmony exists. The world does not appear so random and chaotic knowing it’s not this or that causing such and such to happen. The universe is going about it’s business in an orderly fashion today. Same as before.
Would like to have a read ! Love the subtitle.
An ordered universe does not mean a predetermined one. An idea that appears quite difficult to understand much less agree or disagree with. Same as saying a random universe does not mean it wasn’t created 🤗
sabines a TP researching quantum gravity. she got her doctorate dissertating black holes.
There IS some really good theoretical research in physics being done. Not concerned with verifying what’s known. Lee Smolin is a maverick that comes to mind.
Heisenberg's famous 'uncertainty principle' is theoretically traceable to the fact that we are limited to using atoms and fields as ways of getting observations, and that those involve waves that necessarily interact with the thing you wish to measure before you succeed at taking a measurement. Attempts to correct for the aspects of those waves you cannot determine would involve another set of waves, and another set of values impossible to fix. This does not presume any basic underlying randomness of the universe, only effects that can never be measured or known. There are deterministic models of this inequality, although they have undesirable qualities of their own. - copied
That seems right to me too, although I'm pretty sure that the writer is understating the problems in deterministic models.
There IS some really good theoretical research in physics being done. Not concerned with verifying what’s known. Lee Smolin is a maverick that comes to mind.
As I've mentioned previously, my son did some completely original research for his PhD. I think it was about expressing magnetism wrt fermion spin, but it's years back now. Different candidates were given research projects roughly according to their estimated ability and my son struggled. It took him six months to construct the initial equation before any revisions. I think a lot of this kind of research is a matter of luck. I know there's a wide variation in the way my own mind works. If you happen to be completely clear minded at the crucial stage, you probably get a Nobel Prize.
Yes. The author is well aware of the problems in D. His way of saying not convincing.
last time we talked about it you started to yell at me.. lol better to chose happiness.. learned it from you
I think I was really only asking you to remember where we had got to before you tried to add something else. You can't just criticise others because you've forgotten what they said.