Obsidian debates -1

[Tale]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

 

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

Did you miss out on the point of Schrodinger's Cat? Don't blindly apply micro to macro.

[Oblarg]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

 

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

Did you miss out on the point of Schrodinger's Cat? Don't blindly apply micro to macro.

 

I don't think you fully understand Schrodinger's cat. The fact that a cat cannot be in a quantum state does not make the universe deterministic.

 

The rules that govern the macroscopic universe (newtonian mechanics) are nothing more than a limiting behavior of quantum mechanics. This is absolutely essential to our understanding of physics. Things don't suddenly start following different rules when they get below a certain size.

 

The uncertainty principle states in very clear terms that the universe is probabilistic.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Oblarg

[Tale]

I think somebody is missing something here.

 

I fear it might be me.

[Zoraptor]

I always thought the 'point' of Schrodinger's cat was that it was impossible to prove whether it was the act of opening the box (observing) that determined the result (cat alive/ cat dead)- ie impossible to prove whether it was deterministic or not- because you had to observe in order to determine the results.

 

It's a bit of a stupid thought experiment in any case as the cat would be observing itself even if Mr S wasn't.

[Oblarg]

The point of Schrodinger's cat is that you can only have a quantum state if the cross-terms make physical sense. A cat cannot be partially dead, therefore it cannot be in a quantum state. It's a very easily resolved paradox - one only has to know the difference between a cat and a particle.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Oblarg

[Humodour]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

 

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

 

 

Regardless of the universe's actual inner workings, a person (in this case, the Tibetan monk) can have whatever beliefs he wants. I'm positing that the monk believes in a deterministic universe.

 

In any case, it's perfectly possible to argue that there's a deterministic framework hidden behind quantum mechanics. It's pure speculation, of course, and it's not my own opinion, but it's a valid way of seeing things.

 

No, it's not. The universe is quite clearly probabilistic.

 

Um, no. There is nothing 'clear' about it, and you certainly don't know enough about the deep, unknown physics of the universe, nor are providing any proof, to say it is one way or the other.

 

Do you actually believe quantum mechanics is the be-all end-all of physics (if so, that sucks for you, because there are fundamental questions it doesn't and can't answer)? If you're like most scientists out there and instead expect it to be simply a good, reasonably accurate (but quite incomplete) way to model the universe then you have to acknowledge that some even deeper mechanics and maths govern this place. One can easily expect that those mechanics themselves, while appearing to produce some random, probabilistic results on a larger scale (quantum scale), are actually deterministic and ordered. Yep, I'm tying this to chaotic dynamics.

 

If you believe the universe is probabilistic, then you run into a bit of a nasty problem: what is actually causing that random variation? This question is very similar to "who codes the coders?" or "what created god?"

[Humodour]

Let me use an analogy: to the untrained eye, the digits of Pi look random. No two ways about it, you can't look at those digits and see any immediate pattern. But analyse it a bit and one pattern does pop-up: each number is used equally often (which is as odd as it is neat). And if you know enough about the maths behind it, you can calculate nth digits on the fly without calculating the digits that came before. Clearly the distribution of digits of Pi is unpredictable to the human eye, yet is also not random.

 

Edit: Ah, here is something congruent with what I am talking about: hidden variables and the Bohm interpretation of QM.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

 

So I think it is very safe to say that we do not yet know if the universe is deterministic. I personally feel it is deterministic, but anybody who claims that QM settles the matter is incorrect.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Krezack

[Oblarg]

Let me use an analogy: to the untrained eye, the digits of Pi look random. No two ways about it, you can't look at those digits and see any immediate pattern. But analyse it a bit and one pattern does pop-up: each number is used equally often (which is as odd as it is neat). And if you know enough about the maths behind it, you can calculate nth digits on the fly without calculating the digits that came before. Clearly the distribution of digits of Pi is unpredictable to the human eye, yet is also not random.

 

Edit: Ah, here is something congruent with what I am talking about: hidden variables and the Bohm interpretation of QM.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

 

So I think it is very safe to say that we do not yet know if the universe is deterministic. I personally feel it is deterministic, but anybody who claims that QM settles the matter is incorrect.

 

Yes, we do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

 

Non-local hidden variables are pretty meaningless, and local hidden variables don't work. You could believe that there's some supernatural entity governing the behavior of particles within the probabilistic laws set forth by quantum mechanics, but such a thought is untestable and therefore irrelevant - the fact remains that quantum mechanics is only describable with probabilistic laws, not deterministic ones.

 

Quantum mechanics itself is a probabilistic description of the universe.

 

Deterministic (Newtonian) mechanics simply do not describe the universe at a small scale.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Oblarg

[Humodour]

Let me use an analogy: to the untrained eye, the digits of Pi look random. No two ways about it, you can't look at those digits and see any immediate pattern. But analyse it a bit and one pattern does pop-up: each number is used equally often (which is as odd as it is neat). And if you know enough about the maths behind it, you can calculate nth digits on the fly without calculating the digits that came before. Clearly the distribution of digits of Pi is unpredictable to the human eye, yet is also not random.

 

Edit: Ah, here is something congruent with what I am talking about: hidden variables and the Bohm interpretation of QM.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

 

So I think it is very safe to say that we do not yet know if the universe is deterministic. I personally feel it is deterministic, but anybody who claims that QM settles the matter is incorrect.

 

Yes, we do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

 

Non-local hidden variables are pretty meaningless, and local hidden variables don't work. You could believe that there's some supernatural entity governing the behavior of particles within the probabilistic laws set forth by quantum mechanics, but such a thought is untestable and therefore irrelevant - the fact remains that quantum mechanics is only describable with probabilistic laws, not deterministic ones.

 

Quantum mechanics itself is a probabilistic description of the universe.

 

Deterministic (Newtonian) mechanics simply do not describe the universe at a small scale.

 

What a load of ****.

 

I'm sorry, but we do NOT know whether QM is deterministic or probabilistic. What we know is that it APPEARS to us to be probabilistic much like chaotic systems appear to us to be random (but, as it turns out, they aren't). How it appears does not have anything much at all to do with what is actually the case.

 

Saying "QM is deterministic" is untestable only insofar as saying "QM is probabilistic" is untestable. We can't, at this moment test either statement, and may never be able to.

 

So, for now you can go around saying "QM appears to us to be probabilistic", but you can't go around saying "QM is probabilistic", because you don't know that any more than I know QM is deterministic.

 

Global hidden variables do not equate to a 'supernatural hidden entity' (any more than the programming variables dictating the behaviour of your web browser equate to a tiny demon in your computer - in both cases the variables are elements of system's operations which require us to step outside the system to be able to see, whether in this case analysing the programme's binary code, or in the case of the universe... stepping outside it probably isn't possible). Certainly global hidden variables do not equate to a 'supernatural hidden entity' any more than asking the question "Where does the randomness come from?" equates to the existence of one one. It's quite disingenuous of you to imply it does.

[Oblarg]

What a load of ****.

 

I'm sorry, but we do NOT know whether QM is deterministic or probabilistic. What we know is that it APPEARS to us to be probabilistic much like chaotic systems appear to us to be random (but, as it turns out, they aren't).

 

Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics.

 

That's ok - not very many people do.

 

Take some physics classes, then get back to me.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Oblarg

[Raithe]

To throw in one off-the-cuff thing..

 

I'll always remember one of my college physics professors turning around and basically saying "ah, you think you understand quantum physics? Then you really haven't learnt anything yet. The more you study it, the less you'll realise you can understand at the moment."

[Oblarg]

To throw in one off-the-cuff thing..

 

I'll always remember one of my college physics professors turning around and basically saying "ah, you think you understand quantum physics? Then you really haven't learnt anything yet. The more you study it, the less you'll realise you can understand at the moment."

 

I believe it was Feynman who said "anyone who tells you he understands quantum mechanics is lying."

 

But that's not the type of understanding I'm referring to here.

[Tigranes]

For such smart people talking about all these big things my soggy humanities brain cannot comprehend, it sure feels silly to point out something so simple, but...

 

No more calling other people morons one way or the other, please, your e-peen will survive.

[Humodour]

What a load of ****.

 

I'm sorry, but we do NOT know whether QM is deterministic or probabilistic. What we know is that it APPEARS to us to be probabilistic much like chaotic systems appear to us to be random (but, as it turns out, they aren't).

 

Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics.

 

That's ok - not very many people do.

 

Take some physics classes, then get back to me.

 

I find it interesting that you're telling ME I don't understand QM when it is you who is discounting one of the main interpretations of QM (Bohm's) without any logical reason.

[Oblarg]

What a load of ****.

 

I'm sorry, but we do NOT know whether QM is deterministic or probabilistic. What we know is that it APPEARS to us to be probabilistic much like chaotic systems appear to us to be random (but, as it turns out, they aren't).

 

Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics.

 

That's ok - not very many people do.

 

Take some physics classes, then get back to me.

 

I find it interesting that you're telling ME I don't understand QM when it is you who is discounting one of the main interpretations of QM (Bohm's) without any logical reason.

 

It's not one of the "main interpretations" of quantum mechanics. In fact, it hardly qualifies as an "interpretation" at all, as it does nothing to change the fact that the laws which govern quantum mechanics are probabilistic in nature. Baseless speculation about the workings of nature's random number generator doesn't qualify as legitimate determinism.

[Humodour]

What a load of ****.

 

I'm sorry, but we do NOT know whether QM is deterministic or probabilistic. What we know is that it APPEARS to us to be probabilistic much like chaotic systems appear to us to be random (but, as it turns out, they aren't).

 

Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics.

 

That's ok - not very many people do.

 

Take some physics classes, then get back to me.

 

I find it interesting that you're telling ME I don't understand QM when it is you who is discounting one of the main interpretations of QM (Bohm's) without any logical reason.

 

It's not one of the "main interpretations" of quantum mechanics. In fact, it hardly qualifies as an "interpretation" at all, as it does nothing to change the fact that the laws which govern quantum mechanics are probabilistic in nature. Baseless speculation about the workings of nature's random number generator doesn't qualify as legitimate determinism.

 

You're being a tool. The maths (and fit with experimental data) is as sound as that of the probabilistic interpretations, therefore it is as valid as them until new data allows us to rule one or more interpretations out.

 

It's basic science.

[Walsingham]

I'm still loving this debate.

[Raithe]

I'm still loving this debate.

 

You physics-stirrer you.

[Orogun01]

I'm still loving this debate.

Say something about Christianity, it's been a while since I talked Biology.

[Oblarg]

You're being a tool. The maths (and fit with experimental data) is as sound as that of the probabilistic interpretations, therefore it is as valid as them until new data allows us to rule one or more interpretations out.

 

It's basic science.

 

There is no "math" to support it other than simply renaming some of the variables.

 

It's not a theory, it's not even a testable hypothesis. It's simply baseless speculation by people who don't like the fact that all of quantum physics is defined in terms of probabilities, something that you clearly don't understand.

[Humodour]

You're being a tool. The maths (and fit with experimental data) is as sound as that of the probabilistic interpretations, therefore it is as valid as them until new data allows us to rule one or more interpretations out.

 

It's basic science.

 

There is no "math" to support it other than simply renaming some of the variables.

 

It's not a theory, it's not even a testable hypothesis. It's simply baseless speculation by people who don't like the fact that all of quantum physics is defined in terms of probabilities, something that you clearly don't understand.

 

Okay. You know best. Quantum physicists are ignorant jerkoffs who should bow to your infinite wisdom about the universe.

 

Oh, hey, what's this, a journal article from 2009 discussing the viability of de Broglie

[Oblarg]

You're being a tool. The maths (and fit with experimental data) is as sound as that of the probabilistic interpretations, therefore it is as valid as them until new data allows us to rule one or more interpretations out.

 

It's basic science.

 

You're missing the point - it itself is not much more than a baseless, untestable "what-if." The math "what if" doesn't directly conflict with the equations that describe quantum mechanics, but it is still baseless and untestable.

 

It's akin to the belief in a god who decides how nature's random number generator works - there's no way to disprove it, it doesn't directly conflict with the equations, but it is ultimately meaningless. The fact is that the equations are all probabilistic.

 

@Krezack - appeals to authority mean nothing. I can dig up some creationists who've been at very prestigious colleges, yet that would do nothing to validate creationism.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Oblarg

[I want teh kotor 3]

Thread is tl;dr so I'll just say this:

 

Spacetime isn't something that is believed in or not; that's the premise of religion, not science. Spacetime is real, but not necessarily in the sense that the table I'm writing this on is: it can't be seen, or felt. It merely is. We can measure it, and its effects- if that's an illusion, then your monk's right, but as far as I'm concerned he's wrong.

 

As for the probabilistic/deterministic debate, we simply don't know enough about wavefunction-collapse yet to say anything definite. I personally think the notion of a probabilistic universe is a little far-fetched, but **** it, even if the universe is probabilistic, quantum effects go away on the macro scale, so its not all that unrealistic. Bohm (and for that matter, EPR [even if their math doesn't quite work, I'm talking about the idea here]) can't be ignored because Bohr said so- the math itself simply describes probabilities; it doesn't say absolutely that there is no way to determine which outcome will occur given knowledge of initial conditions. Remember, QM describes things as waves which in some sense can be described merely in terms of first-order derivatives and initial positions.

 

Also, since GR correctly describes a larger group of situations [that we know absolutely have come to pass- i.e. star formation] it inherently ought to be given a deep, deep consideration.

[Walsingham]

Well, some of you chaps seem to be stuck on this notion that an 'illusion' means something automatically bad, which is a circular argument. Is bad bad? etc.

 

Replace 'illusion' with 'working simplification' and what do we get?

 

this made me wonder if the whole point is that we don't naturally perceive time most of the er... time. I mean how often are you actually aware of your finite ration trickling away? I've done it a few times in the last few years and it drove me almost mental. It's not healthy.

[Raithe]

Well, some of you chaps seem to be stuck on this notion that an 'illusion' means something automatically bad, which is a circular argument. Is bad bad? etc.

 

Replace 'illusion' with 'working simplification' and what do we get?

 

this made me wonder if the whole point is that we don't naturally perceive time most of the er... time. I mean how often are you actually aware of your finite ration trickling away? I've done it a few times in the last few years and it drove me almost mental. It's not healthy.

 

I still favour Doctor Who's "Timey-Wimey-Stuff" explanation.