"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Remus Shepherd on 5 Mar 2010 15:27 In rec.arts.sf.science Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'm still having difficulty telling them apart. Surely both causality > and determinism are essentially saying that everything that happens in > the universe is deterministically causal (and causally deterministic)? Let's try this: Determinism says that everything happens for a reason. Causality says that every reason causes something to happen -- but that doesn't mean some things can't happen without reason. > >?In QM, the assertion is that > > there's no additional information to be had; no "hidden variables". > Which is precisely why I claim that QM is bad science. It has just > decided that the rabbit hole doesn't go any deeper, and stopped trying > to go further. I don't know how you can support that statement. The 'hidden variable' rule is a mathematic statement, it's not claming that we know everything. QM theorists *don't* know everything, and they'll be the first to admit it. There are literally hundreds of extensions of QM that are trying to delve deeper into that rabbit hole. We just don't know which one is the best, yet. Look up string theory and Lie group algebra for glimpses of how deep and dark that rabbit hole seems to be. .... ... Remus Shepherd <remus(a)panix.com> Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 15:38 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : Which is precisely why I claim that QM is bad science. It has just : decided that the rabbit hole doesn't go any deeper, and stopped trying : to go further. It's more philosophy and mysticism than science. Which seems to pretty definitively show you don't understand, or haven't heard of, the actual reasons that supposition is made. It has little or nothing to do with "just decided", nor has anybody "stopped trying to go further"; people come up with new hidden variable theories regularly, naict, and aren't really taken all that frivolously. Basically, 1) the mathematics works, no matter what you may say about QM philosopically, and 2) the mathematics rules out any hidden variables (unless you want to give up something even worse). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem Of course, Objectivists and other miscelaneous folks get all huffy about it, and claim it must be bad science because it's not deterministic, and get all up on a philosophical high horse about how unique causes have to have unique effects, dagnabbit, and you kids get off my lawn, but pffft, that's Objectivism for you. "No offense." "Some taken." --- A Girl and Her Fed Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Greg Goss on 5 Mar 2010 15:51 Remus Shepherd <remus(a)panix.com> wrote: > It isn't deterministic when part of the rules say to roll dice and consult >a table in a DM's guide somewhere. You can't predict what's going to happen >in that case. If there is randomness or free will (which, in physics terms, >may as well be randomness) then determinism doesn't exist. I think some of Pournelle's work has generals tossing dice to choose between major strategic plans. If there's one best answer, then the opponent is ready for it. If you're acting at random, you're harder to predict. -- Tomorrow is today already. Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
From: Thomas Heger on 5 Mar 2010 16:20 Tue Sorensen schrieb: > On 5 Mar., 18:36, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Tue Sorensen schrieb: >> >> >> >>> On 5 Mar., 14:00, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >>>> Tue S rensen schrieb:> On 5 Mar., 03:55, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >>>>>> I would guess, that the very idea of fundamental particles is wrong. We >>>>>> have particles, but those are -in my view- certain structures, that we >>>>>> can identify and model, but they are not 'real' in the sense of distinct >>>>>> and separable entities. >>>>> Well, in order to make up a real macroscopic world, they must become >>>>> real at some point... >>>> Now, the question is: what does 'real' mean? Actually, this is not as >>>> easy as you think. 'Real' means something like observable. But >>>> relativity tells us, that observations are depending on the point of >>>> view, hence on the observer. I would guess, this would include the >>>> 'realness' of particles, too. >>> But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, >>> isn't there? Otherwise we're getting into absolute idealism; that >>> reality is created by the observer, which negates objectivity (and >>> hence most science). >> No, it's not that though. I think, that what we usually call 'real' >> depends on our point of view. But it's not created by our observation. >> We observe something, that is the same for all observers. But the >> observations are different. >> Guess, you see me and I see you. Than we have different impressions, but >> don't create each other. >> So we had to build the world out of invariants. That are in GR terms >> intervals. I prefer complex-four-vectors for this purpose. That is a bit >> counter-intuitive, but would make some sense. They are sometimes called >> bi-quaternions. They have a subset called quaternions. These constructs >> are great for intervals. >> Now, believe it or not, it is possible to model atoms and particles with >> these numbers. It's not particularly easy, but possible. >> If you like to learn more about this model, I would recommend Peter >> Rowland: "Zero to Infinity". Or - of course- my own paper. Its a bit >> amateurish, but easier to understand and you may find it here:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > Sorry, I pretty much understand no math at all! :-) > > - Tue Thats why I have made a lot of drawings. Those you could understand. That is the kind of technique, that I use, to describe behavior, not with math, but with pictures. This has some advantages, because it's possible to be understood without understanding the mathematical concept, that is depicted. Actually it's more difficult than that. You describe, what you think, that's happening and sketch it. Than you can try find a mathematical model for this process. But without such a design, you don't know, what you are doing. So, if you want to know, how physicist think the world would work, you had to learn a little bit of their language. A lot of that is math, mainly because the aim is to figure something out, that could be used in one way or the other. TH
From: Erik Max Francis on 5 Mar 2010 17:14
Tue Sorensen wrote: > But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, > isn't there? No, of course there isn't one. -- 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 Exercise is wonderful. I could sit and watch it all day. -- Louis Wu |