Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Please insert "newtonian" into the sentence before "laws of behavior" to qualify the third sentence from the end. Otherwise, the two say the same thing.
"Laws" of physics are just concise descriptions of what we see. Based on the recent postings of Tortoise it seems reasonable to believe there are hidden variables in QM and that we might never be able to discern them.
In other words, indeterminancy could be false, but it could be impossible to detect the falseness.
In either scenerio your concerns are groundless. It is the assumption of randomness and indeterminancy at the quantum level that makes such deterministic things as computers, DVDs and GPS locaters possible.
The assumption that all things have causes is based on experience. It holds true at the ordinary level of perception, but fails at the quantum level. So the shoe is on the other foot. Our very best and most careful observations contradict the assumption of causation. We cannot reasonably assert that causation is axiomatic.
....yet you seem reasonably assured enough of it to respond in this forum....?
I was giving a talk to some kids at Duke (I live in Durham NC) on the reasonableness of Christianity. Afterwards one kid was talking with several of us and was questioning the assumptions of causality and all. He was a dual major in physics and philosophy and a very bright kid. I commended him on rejecting the Western view of reality in favor of the Eastern mystical view of all the world as maya, as I believe it to be more consistent with the assertions of randomness and irrationality at the root of his worldview. I then asked him if he could live on that viewpoint, or did he have to leave it in the lab. He got a confused look, so I asked him to leave the room a second, and then commented on the fact that he used the door, rather than just walking thru the wall. He responded that there was an illusion of order in the observable world, and he wasn't a quark. I was just as confused over his answer as I am at yours. It may be just that I am not a physicist. But then again, it could be something else.
Sorry, missed this question earlier. The question is a good one, but is poorly worded. The reason is that causation is not an empirical entity and we can observe neither its presence nor its absence (again, thanks Dave). We do not "observe" (my word, not yours) causation at all, but rather infer it from experience. The question then becomes what about when we run carefully controlled experiments and the behavior of the observed entities do NOT give us reason to infer causality? This does not "demonstrate an absence of causality" but simply states that the behavior of what we observe here does not give us reason to infer it. Our options then seem to me to be two:
1) Assume that causality itself fails on the level we are observing, or
2) Assume that there are properties in what is being observed that we do not fully understand and assume that when they are more fully comprehended, the principles of causality will be seen to be applicable.
I guess you can tell where I am at present. At any rate, thanks for interacting,and please be assured that I am always open to shifting my perspective, should I be convinced that I need to do so.
What I am discussing is the result of empiricism, not mysticism. You cannot walk through walls, but at the quantum level, particles can move from one location to another without traversing the intervening space. Engineers rely on this phenomenon in designing everyday appliances sold at Walmart.
I am not peddling Star Trek transporters or faster than light travel. I think these are unlikely if not impossible.
I am simply saying that intuitive notions like causation are subject to revision or even contradiction by careful an systematic observation.
Experience at the quantum level diverges from experience at the macro level.
"You cannot walk through walls, but at the quantum level, particles can move from one location to another without being observed traversing the intervening space"
and then going on to the possible revisions of worldviews principles of causation this would birth?
only if you refuse His infinite mercy given in the form of the sacrificial lamb, Jesus of Nazareth. when people voluntarily reject His mercy, then they voluntarily submit themselves to His justice - based on His terms - not their own. there's really no contest between His mercy and His justice. He leaves it up to each person to choose the basis upon that person will be judged. do you want mercy or justice?
again, this may all be a big myth. Jesus may have been the biggest con man who ever lived or maybe He didn't even really live. but i don't think so.
Jesus came out of the grave and His appearance to a small sect of frightened Jews changed them into a band of brothers who brought down the most powerful empire on earth and changed western civilization forever. to those who receive Him, He makes Himself just as real as He did 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem after He came out of Joseph of Arimathea's tomb that was guarded by Rome's finest. God is the most pro choice character in the universe. He leaves everyone's eternal judgment (as well as most other issues in life) up to them.
That would not be a correct statement.
As always, it is a delight to talk with you and thank you for showing me the courtesy of interacting.
I'd like to see such an algorithm. Similarly for Aspect's experiment.
I'm not sure #598 describes nuclear decay exactly. I don't think that there are any micro-states that describe the time of decay. I think that the best one can do is get an expected decay time (or equivalently, a half-life.)
Would you agree that science must be self-consistent?It must not contradict itself? You may say that logical self-consistency has no impact on science..are you sure? I think many scholars would claim that not only have we admitted that there is an abstract supernatural realm within mathematics, but these results are not confined to mathematics. Logical self-consistency is crucial to science. The supernatural can have a testable basis and can be scientific. John Wilson, a anti-creationists, states "it is not surprising that unnatural and supernatural phenomena are not represented in the realm of current science, but that fact does not eliminate them from the PROVINCE of science.
note your use of the word "theoretical" Godel's Theorem is a bludgeon and one who respects honest discussion should admit it. Your examples need to be more specific and not be sending me or others down those illusions of facts .
There are one dimensional problems in our universe, too. There are systems with 1D inversion symmetry. You don't need the second or third dimension, or time, to deal with them.
I was just checking. I don't know the math behind QM and am trusting the consensus on this one. I expect to get out on a limb occasionally and sawed off.
I'm curious what gambling machines use.
By definition of what? Knowledge? Perfection?
...so your assertion to the contrary is invalid. We have no visibility inside the blackbox... If we did have internal visibility...
On the contrary. There is no black box, I have completely described the physical situation. An experimenter could construct this apparatus. What is it you find unclear?
Science is not based on axioms, so contradictions require modifications to definitions and assumpptions. Self-consistency is certainly desirable, but science lives continuously with the unexplained and with apparent contradictions.
Most gambling machines (so I've been told) use a multiply recursive pseudo-random number generator coupled to some mechanical source of noise. For example, the PRNG could be always running, but the results modified by the timimg between button pushes by the player and also modified by some oil-damped-piston coupling. These need be only unpredictable in a reasonable amount of time rather than be exhibit truly random behavior. Getting the statistics correct is trivial. Another choice would be to take a real-time-clock as the plaintext and run it through DES; this makes a slow but pretty good PRNG.
I would guess that in gambling it is more important to eliminate the possibility of cheating than it is to have mathematically perfect randomness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.