Determinism vs chance

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, May 13, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502

    Perhaps not dig further, so much as understand better. Randomness is indeed 'seen' within the quantum context. This is no claim to its applicability to all of reality...
    Again, you're confusing the application of the term to a limited context with that of its application as a descriptor of 'reality'.


    ibid


    Or, to get logical, instead of relying on a 'miracle', this misunderstanding replies upon an incomplete comprehension of the system involved...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    small point of semantics I guess but the use of the word "applies" is not correct.
    using the words "is apparent" or "is observed" would be better.

    I'll quote from the OP.

    essentially you are agreeing with what I have written...uhm

    The whole point of this thread has been to highlight the difference between apparent randomness [ human observational limitations] and actual randomness [that which is present in reality] which I am asserting is impossible in nature, there for asking the question :

    If randomness is not "actual" in nature then what is?
    and the answer can only be determinism.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    If this is the case as you say, why then, do you feel, has determinism [ generally]-been declared an invalid concept by science?

    I am presuming that poster Dinasaur, as usual, is a reliable source of scientific opinion/position

    I'll also note that scientists require credibility to maintain their position of authority in their repsective fields - a political aspect is involved.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    Is saying that randomness applies the same thing as saying that the reasons for something doesn't belong to the particular model and that the frequency of the reasons to apply is basically random (hence it is impossible to model it, also the unknown number of reasons make it impossible to model them sufficiently to describe their effects, also the chaotic behaviour of the reasons, etc.)? (you get the draft?)

    It is possible to understand in one way or another how development of a creature occurs over time, but impossible to know the exact circumstances which affected the development (unless there is a climate change or a big catastrophy), these events would be deemed 'random', right?

    As for quantum uncertainty there should be hidden variables that are not covered by quantum theories that govern the uncertainty principle. Is this the accepted view of science? No? Why, if so? Am I wrong to say that some theories, (particularly, but not limited to) in quantum physics more or less depends on random since there isn't any other model. If random is asserted but debunked at the same time, then how good is science for describing the reality if it doesn't believe even in the words they are using?

    Is it the same thing to assert that something is random, to assert that something is Gods doing? Ignoring the issue? Is it to rule out the political aspects? Random is after all politically neutral.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No. You missed the problem with your setup, which invalidates its point.

    Digits randomly selected from the sequence defining pi are not determined by pi.

    The presentation of numerals randomly selected from anywhere invalidates your whole argument, actually.

    It hasn't. It's perfectly valid within its range of validity, more or less corresponding to the range in which classical mechanics, Newtonian physics, linear feedback amplifications, that sort of thing, are valid.

    As soon as relatavistic or quantum scales come into play, very long or very short times are involved, non-linear feedback amplifications are introduced, and the like, you have probabilities rather than causes, and nothing in the realm of possibility is probable at unity or improbable at zero (those are bounds of an open set).

    So nothing is "determined". No future event has probability one, in other words. (Or past event, for that matter). It has nothing to do with ignorance - with complete information, the statement remains: nothing is determined. Nothing has ever been determined.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I appreciate your comments and am attempting to see how we differ.

    Do you feel the digits generated by Pi are determined or random?

    [ignore the sample I used]
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I am confused?
    first you say this:
    with reference to determinsm.
    then you say this:

    on one hand it is valid and on the other it is absolutely invalid...hmmm

    maybe you are saying that determinism is only an observational qualifier and randomness is the reality? Which is the effectively exact opposite to the contention I made in the OP.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Pi doesn't generate digits. It is a number, and it just sits there being a number.

    Here is a stretch of one of the expressions of that number: 00100100 00111111 01101010 10001000 10000101 10100011 00001000 11010011
    00010011 00011001 10001010 00101110 00000011 01110000 01110011 01000100 10100100 00001001 00111000 00100010 00101001 10011111 00110001 11010000 00001000 00101110 11111010 10011000 11101100 01001110 01101100 10001001 - - - -

    One of the ways of generating the numerals in an expression of pi is by way of the Monte Carlo method - the numerals so generated were generated by chance, randomness.
    You think cause and effect are fundamental, structural elements of the universe. I think they are human abstractions and mental shortcuts, summary approximations, derived from patterns of event. They are similar, perhaps not as deep or reliable but operating at a similar logical level, to concepts such as "chance" or "random".

    My view agrees with experiment and tested hypothesis. Yours does not. My view agrees with known properties of human thought and imagination (such as distinct differences in the degrees of freedom among various people's wills). Yours does not.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Of course you do realise where this is heading don't you?
    A new thread titled:
    "Science has proof of God..." which I find rather amusing to be honest...
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's not heading anywhere.

    Got to get the feet on the ground first, clear out the dead weeds.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Maybe you missed this post about what appears to me and I am sure other readers, to be an obvious contradiction... care to comment now?

     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. Is there some difficulty with concepts being valid within their range of use?

    As long as we are talking about rough approximations and appropriate scales of event, determinism is a reasonable approach. We can set up chains of cause and effect, predict the future development of stuff, all in justified confidence and all valid as the day is long.

    Like Newtonian physics, there's nothing wrong with the approach in its range. It's perfectly valid, and no scientist that I know of would quarrel with the use of it for, say, reconstructing car crashes or designing jackhammer cylinders.

    And like Newtonian physics, it's not useful outside of that range. Its small errors amplify, distort, become visible. It's misconception of the fundamental nature of things starts to ruin predictions and lead discussion into wild error. Because like Newtonian physics, it's fundamentally wrong.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    just that you are mixing context.

    Using randomness as an absolute and then stating that somewhere in that absolute randomness is room for it's opposite determinism....depending on range of application.

    Either randomness is an absolute or it isn't...
    Why claim it as absolute?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I have no idea what you are talking about.
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    no I didn't think you would....
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Do you?

    How about if I promise never to "claim randomness as an absolute", whatever that means, and we can go back to the discussion?
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The irony of it all to me :
    Ages ago I had the question : "How do you prove the non-existance of nothingness or nothing?"
    How do you prove "nothing" no-exists?
    The ironic thing is science is apparently doing that with the notion of randomness.

    So "nothing no-determines everything"
    you are actually providing evidence for the Zero Point Theory ...I've been working on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And as I stated earlier "free will" as a no-physical aspect of our being can only be available from a perspective of "zero" or "nothingness" [ re: the Peter Lynds solution]
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  21. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502

    No, actually that's incorrect.
    Terms, that make no claim to ontology, can always "apply" to a context.
    As for "is apparent" and "is observed", those terms should go without saying, as there's nothing else to work from....


    Not at all.
    You've completely misunderstood a number of concepts here.
    I'm getting tired of repeating myself: these concepts need not, and cannot be "proved".

    Wholly incorrect.
    Illicit assumption :"actual randomess"; as if the recognition that what appears to us implies some other sort of reality. You're making a massive ontological error.

    What's worse, though it has been pointed out to you numerous times, your conclusion is a non sequitur; fallacious based upon an artificial dichotomy.
     
  22. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Well, that's an entirely different issue, but, for now, the determinist position has fallen out of favour predominantly due to its teleological implications.
     
  23. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I get the drift ( I think..), and the short answer is: no.

    There is a significant difference between applying the concept of randomness to a system, and discussing the 'reasons' for something. You seem to be misconstruing randomness with some notion of causality. The two are not remotely similar.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page