"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Tue Sorensen on 7 Mar 2010 21:56 On 8 Mar., 03:00, Mike Ash <m...(a)mikeash.com> wrote: > In article > <01dd8c2f-3bb4-4b2b-9202-c0561fa44...(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, > Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No surprise there. Yes, precision is called for. However, sometimes > > innovations have to come from radically different approaches, because > > current paradigmatic thinking has painted itself into a corner. One of > > the things I'm banking on is that I can present some good ideas (not > > here, of course, but in forthcoming books), and then people who know > > math can translate the substance of the ideas into a mathematically > > useful form. I believe we are at a point where this sort of > > collaboration between different kinds of expertise is necessary for > > significant progress. At least in the areas I'm interested in. And I > > also have enough faith in my ideas to believe that they will cause > > some kind of splash upon publication. But of course I also have grave > > doubts, considering my ignorance of most matters mathematical. > > You sure use a lot of words to say, essentially, nothing at all. Or else you understand very little. > Seriously, I can only find two or three actual things that you stated in > this monster paragraph above: you're not surprised, precision is > important, and you're pretty full of yourself. :-) > > > For example: "what goes up, must come down." Is that correct or not? > > > It's hard to say for sure. It's mostly true, but how do you count things > > > like satellites? You end up getting mired in a semantic debate which > > > tells you absolutely nothing about the world. > > > I don't think that's a very complicated example. It is easily > > answered: the statement is correct in some cases and not in others. > > The point is not that it's hard to answer. The point is that both the > question and the answer are completely useless, because it's extremely > imprecise. Yes, all right. > > But there are multiple ways of working with logical > > relationships. If you understand/have discovered certain overarching > > principles, then it may not be necessary to understand the nitty- > > gritty details in order to see new patterns that are actually there. > > If it's not necessary to understand the details of existing theory to > postulate useful new theory, then please name at least one case where it > has happened in the past. I refuse. Even if there is no antecedent, there is no rule that says that something that hasn't happened before, can't happen now. If you subscribe to "nothing new under the sun", then I am not going to be able to reason with you anyway. > > My ideas, among other things, strike at the heart of our paradigmatic > > assumptions, and some of those may be very wrong. For instance, if the > > laws of nature do not begin on the quantum level, but are in fact > > based on macrocosmic structural principles - in other words, if they > > work from the top-down instead of from the bottom-up - then a lot of > > the alleged foundational, fundamental and basic tenets upon which much > > of physics is based is not really necessary in order to develop a > > broad understanding of the major mechanisms of the laws of the > > universe. Because in that case the quantum world does not give rise to > > the macrocosmic world, but vice versa. > > Another monster paragraph which conveys no meaning. I have not the > slightest idea what you think top-down versus bottom-up would affect in > any way. It would affect everything - I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Among other things, it would affect what I need to understand in order to create a useful theory. But that is happenstance. If the macro-scale governs the micro-scale, everything small is subject to the large. But I am going to decline further elaboration, as it would do neither of us any good. Nothing I could say would convince you I'm not a kook. > Newton's Laws can be written on a napkin with plenty of room left over > for pizza sauce. (Especially if you use that mathematical notation > you're so insistent at avoiding.) Maxwell's equations which describe > electromagnetism are hardly any longer. Why must your ideas take up so > much space? Because my avenue of arriving at them is not mathematical, and I would need a lot of assistance in order to make them so. Can't be helped. > If you need an entire book to describe your "theories", then > that's a bad sign in and of itself. See for example, Wolfram, Stephen, > _A New Kind of Science_. Sounds exhausting. I am using other books. > The established order is so heavily based on mathematics that it is > simply impossible to understand it without understanding the math. If > you go for a physics major, guess what you'll be studying the very first > semester there? Calculus. And the second semester, and the third, and > probably several semesters after that. Mathematics is the foundation > that underlies all of modern physics. You simply *cannot* understand > *anything* significant about modern physics unless you understand the > math involved. Perhaps you're right. We shall see. I shall try a different route. You might be wrong. > If you don't know the math, you don't understand the science, period. > You may grasp concepts, but that's not even remotely similar. >shrugs<. > > Whether it is > > enough to produce some fertile ideas, well, that remains to be seen. > > If it's enough to produce some fertile ideas, it will be the first time > in the history of the world that it has ever happened. Nah, I don't think so. Shakespeare, for instance, produced many fertile ideas in others. You might say that Shakespeare isn't science, but ultimately everything is science. > I'm not going to say that it's impossible Oh, thanks! >, but I sincerely doubt that you'll be the first. Who better than me? :-) And don't be snide. You don't know me. > > > Your understanding, as demonstrated so far, doesn't mean squat. > > > I know. I basically have not demonstrated it. > > So why are you getting into big arguments about your level of knowledge? :-) I don't know! Force of habit? Because people are criticizing it without knowing very much about (the full range of) it? > Put up or shut up. We're not going to take your word for it, so if you > care what we think, then show us that you know what you're talking > about. (This will, however, be impossible because you have admitted that > you don't know the math.) If you don't care what we think, then why > argue about it? Very true. Let's not. > > > If you > > > want us to take you seriously, give us some actual predictions that can > > > be tested, at least in theory. > > > Working on it. It may not be possible without a lengthy (like 100-200 > > pages) description which nobody here is going to sit through anyway. > > Why would a testable prediction take so long to explain? It's the revised world-view on the premise of which the testable experiment is to take place that will take that long to explain. > "Gravity bends > light enough to visibly alter the position of stars near the Sun as > observed during a solar eclipse." "Clocks in orbit run faster than > clocks on the ground." "Particles, such as electrons, will exhibit an > interference pattern when fired through a grating, even when fired one > by one." It should not take so many pages to give a testable prediction, > at least the general outlines of one, especially if you're not going to > be quantitative about it, which you clearly aren't. If I put it like that, it would implicate a lot of previous assumptions that would need to be expounded on first. And without the exposition, I look like a kook. > On the other hand, if your ideas really are as revolutionary as you > claim, then you can bet that every one of us will sit through your 200 > pages to understand them, because revolutionary ideas in science are > extremely rare and exciting. Thanks, that's actually extremely encouraging! :-) Of course, you wouldn't sit through them until established scientists had told you they were good, but that's OK. I'm not asking for more. > Of course, the chances of this actually > being the case are very, very low. I'll take whichever chance I haven't got. Ah'm real special. > > > Until and unless you do that, you're just a crackpot, plain and simple. > > > I have met few people here who neglect the opportunity to tell me so. > > Well, you see.... You come in talking about how your incredible new > ideas will change the world. Hurm, did I? > You exhibit no real understanding of the > current scientific view of the world. Your ideas as presented so far are > simply word games with no actual meaning. When all of these things are > mentioned to you, you start talking about how scientists are > close-minded and require someone from outside the field to break things > open (something which, by the way, has never, ever occurred). > > In short: if you walk like a kook, swim like a kook, and quack like a > kook, we're going to call you a kook. Yeah, I understand that. And it's true (not that I'm a kook, but that I can sound like one). But these are all just tiny snippets of big ideas that I hope to publish at some point, in a very detailed manner. I don't know all the details necessary to connect my ideas with the established ideas, but I don't understand why I should have to. If the ideas have something useful to offer, then surely it is in everyone's interest if different researchers combine their various kinds of expertise to help each other develop new and better theories. That's all I want. Is it really such a great sin to believe that one is capable of advancing human knowledge? Current branches of science are too isolated from each other, and the researchers too over- specialized. In order to advance we need thinkers who can combine the branches, and this is only possible from a more general, less detailed perspective. If I am to combine seven branches, I can't have the same expertise in each one as someone who's specialized in each. Scientists from Schroedinger to Wilson have stressed the importance of confluent thinking and synthesizing different fields of knowledge. That's the path I'm on. But I guess I should shut up and get to work. - Tue
From: Tue Sorensen on 7 Mar 2010 22:11 On 8 Mar., 03:26, Mike Ash <m...(a)mikeash.com> wrote: > In article > <237812cc-e4de-468e-8ad2-c03279d7b...(a)y11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > And I also do believe that it is precisely my lack of training that > > enables me to think outside of the narrow box that trained physicists > > are typically taught to think inside of, though I understand that this > > probably seems silly to a lot of people. > > The sad thing is that this sort of idea does *not* sound silly to a > great many people. But that doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, > extremely silly. Is not. > If it's not silly, then you'll be able to point out at least one > instance in the past where a person who did not understand the > established order was still able to overthrow it. Just one example. > You've been asked repeatedly, and you've yet to provide one. How hard > can it be? If coming from the outside is so important, you'd think that > all the great paradigm shifters would have done so, so it ought to be > super easy for you to give us a name. For the third time, I believe I understand enough, or soon will. Finding a previous example depends on definitions about amounts and types of understanding. I believe I am understanding the universe from a slightly different angle than a traditional physicist. I have been a voracious fan of science all my life, pouring over books in great detail, and there's no shortage of references I can and will make to all sorts of science writers. But I'm understanding things in my own way, and questioning some basic assumptions that really, really need to be questioned. I know it's very, very hard to believe that I have something useful to offer without math, but I have reason to believe that I do. I could be mistaken, I know. But for now I want to press on with my ideas, and eventually see if anybody might find a use for them. I have no doubt that my ideas can find mathematical expression; I just can't do that myself. - Tue
From: Erik Max Francis on 7 Mar 2010 22:18 Tue Sorensen wrote: > On 8 Mar., 03:00, Mike Ash <m...(a)mikeash.com> wrote: >> In article >> <01dd8c2f-3bb4-4b2b-9202-c0561fa44...(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, >> Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Whether it is >>> enough to produce some fertile ideas, well, that remains to be seen. >> If it's enough to produce some fertile ideas, it will be the first time >> in the history of the world that it has ever happened. > > Nah, I don't think so. Shakespeare, for instance, produced many > fertile ideas in others. You might say that Shakespeare isn't science, > but ultimately everything is science. This is a crystal clear example of why you people are quite fairly calling you a crank. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Did you ever love somebody / Did you ever really care -- Cassandra Wilson
From: Tue Sorensen on 7 Mar 2010 22:34 On 8 Mar., 03:41, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 8:04 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On 7 Mar., 01:42, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 4, 8:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... > > Free > > will, in my view, can be explained scientifically once we understand > > the processes in greater detail. > > I keep the word "will" far away from the words "causality" and > "determinism." I can link both causality and determinism to > quantitative discussions. I have seen a mathematical derivation > connecting "causality" to "the Kramers Kronig" relation. No > intelligence, or lack of same, was implied in the derivation. > Moreover, I have seen chaos theory discussed in terms of determinism. > Again, the systems involved had no intelligence. > To me, "free will" is a term related to morals and ethics. "Free > will" has more to do with law and justice than it has to physics. I > conjecture that most physical scientists avoid connecting > "determinism" or "causality" to free will. Still, if we have a scientific world-view, we must accept some kind of scientific basis for free will, or what we have chosen to define as "free will". > In quantitative discussion, the meanings of "determinism" and > "causality" have to be tightened up a bit. Yes - indeed! :-) > The common meaning of the > words is useful as a guide, but special qualifiers are appropriate > when discussing a system. Yes. Which we also find in most serious texts that use the terms. > However, the moral implications do nothing > for understanding the physical reality of what is going on. > I think there is a clear connection between causality and > determinism in physical discussion. In physics, one usually goes hand > in hand with the other. However, there is no real connection between > "causality" and "free will", or "determinism" and "free will". :-) That is how most people feel. They tend to be under the impression that the terms are mutually contradictory, or belonging to different fields. I am bold enough to try and reconcile them. For some time, it probably won't make sense to a lot of people. > I am not a lawyer. Yet, I have read enough and seen enough TV > shows to realize that "cause" and "will" are not related. Legal jargon > are sometimes closer to common use than physics jargon. In legal > jargon, "free will" has a definite meaning. In legal jargon, "sanity" > has a definition. If you look at some court cases, real as well as > fictional, you will see that "determined" has very little to do with > "free will." "Cause" has a legal meaning. However, examination > indicates that "cause" has little to do with "free will." Well, it will be different when you get into neurochemistry. And it will depend entirely on your specific definitions. I don't know if the field of neurology have any kind of definition or description of "free will" - I would guess not. But that's because we do not yet understand consciousness, and free will is a property of consciousness. So these things are tricky to work with at this early point in the history of mind science. > Suppose you decide to murder A by using person B. You grab > person B, knock him out, and drop him on top of person A from a > significant height. Person B was rather fat, so survived the fall even > though person A died. A physicist can make a boring analysis on > whether the fall was determined or not. According to quantum > mechanics, it is not determined. According to classical physics, it > was. It is clear that person B (or is body) is the cause of person A's > demise. > The legal question is whether person B or you get the needle. > However, it seems clear that person B was not acting of his own free > will. Or was he? If he hadn't eaten so much, then he wouldn't have > been heavy enough to kill person B. Were you acting under your own > free will? Maybe you didn't mean to kill A, you just wanted to scare > him. But person B had gained so much weight. LOL! A slightly contrived example, but... :-) > You see, the cause isn't so important. "Will" could have a > cause, but only the context connects "will" and "cause." The ability > to predict is not so important, so determinism is not so important. In law, there is still a great emphasis on personal responsibility for one's actions. If a person is driven into crime by the social circumstances, we do not arrest, punish or do anything else to or about the social circumstances. We say the individual in question is to blame. That way the state or the prevailing ideological establishment is also exerting its will in the case. > This is because "free will" is not a physical property. "Cause" and > "determined" are physical properties. But brain cells and their impulses, where it all happens, are physical things. We have to probe more deeply into them in order to increase our understanding of them. > I have taken courses in philosophy, and partaken in many > discussions of philosophy with other scientists. I think one of the > few things we can agree on is that "free will" is not the opposite of > "determinism." Well, that's a start! :-) > Even if what you say is right, and physics is shown to relate to > "will," the two can't be directly connected. The structure of will is > more complicated than the structure of time. Ultimately, complicated things are based on simple things. The better we know them, the more we become able to see the underlying patterns. This is also true of human mental life. > In any case, I answered your question concerning "determinsim" > and "causality." I hope it helps you solve some interesting physics > problem. However, you are on your own concerning "free will." :-) Thanks. - Tue
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 23:01
: Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> : Well, what he wrote was: "However, sometimes innovations have to come : from radically different approaches, because current paradigmatic : thinking has painted itself into a corner". He said that in the context of replacing QM with no new observations, just because he didn't like (what he mistakes as) the philosophical underpinnings of it. But regardless of that, these examples all point to one thing and one thing only: all these people knew the pre-existing science backwards and forwards, and had *observations* to explain, not philosopical pinings-for-the-fjords. OK, two things, an two things only. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw |