This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Determinism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
How does the intellect know the apple-tree-ness?
By seeing an apple tree and understanding what makes it an apple tree.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm speaking strictly in the physical realm so can you show me that the physical world is bounded? I can argue that its not.
Experience. I thought I already said that. I see a logical order of cause and effect, and when I fail to see the cause initially or predict the effect, I always find or reason to a reason why it didn't.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So, like Plato said it? World of ideas?
Plato was a platonic realist (hence the name), so he believed that an immaterial copy of apple tree exists off in some immaterial realm. What I'm proposing is called moderate realism, which means that the essence of apple tree co-exists in and through the actual apple tree, and it is that which we know and that by virtue of which we can call a specific entity an apple tree.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Ahh, hope you're having fun, Hyper. Not here to argue with you though.
Quantum Theory starts with an assumption that nothing is deterministic, and no one's proved it wrong yet.
There is a fairly reasonable theoretical explanation relating to underlying variables that no one has proved wrong either. To use your example:
Like a coin flip, you cannot determine whether a coin flip will be heads or tails, all you can say is there is a 50% chance. If you flip the coin 10 times, you probably won't observe a perfect 50/50 split in the results (maybe you'll get 3/7 or maybe 4/6). But if you flip the coin 10^23 times, you will see a perfect 50/50 split in the results, at least within the accuracy of any common measuring device. So when we're looking at 10^23 events, it's pretty easy to predict the behavior. When we're looking at 2 or 3 events, it's impossible.
The problem is, with a coin flip, we can predict whether a given result will be heads or tails, providing that we capture all the knowledge about the conditions under which it is being flipped. To the lay person, it's random, because they don't have that knowledge. But it still falls within a causally deterministic framework.
Likewise with Quantum Theory, to me, everyone out there claiming that it's random just seems silly, when it makes much more universally consistent sense for there to be an underlying basis for such "random" movements, in the same way as there is an underlying basis for a "random" coin toss or die roll. Why would this one single aspect of the universe be random when the rest of it is causally deterministic?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Ahh, hope you're having fun, Hyper.
It's hard arguing against 5 people who are coming from 5 different angles :P
Not here to argue with you though.
I think our difference lies with the existence of a non-material, free soul that has a hold in the material world. Glad I don't have to go and defend that too :P
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
It's hard arguing against 5 people who are coming from 5 different angles :P
I know, I've been grinning as I've been catching up through this thread, trying to imagine the frustration you're feeling :P
I think our difference lies with the existence of a non-material, free soul that has a hold in the material world. Glad I don't have to go and defend that too :P
Indeed, which is why I'm not going to interject in your arguments. We've already sorted out our differences ;)
Post by
Monday
Wait, you aren't going to argue? You mean I popped all that popcorn for nothing?
Post by
Heckler
What you say is fine Heckler but it says nothing against determinism. The fact that
you
can't determine when tails will fall does not mean that there isn't a cause determining it.
The coin flip was an analogy, in reality, the force of the flip, the air resistance, and a number of other factors could be used the instant the coin was launched to determine the outcome.
Quantum theory doesn't require motivating forces like that. I'm going to quote at length
from Ch 1 of the textbook I linked earlier
, because I feel silly trying to explain something that confuses me (to quote Niels Bohr, "if you are not confused by quantum physics then you haven't really understood it"):
. . . even if you know everything has to tell you about a particle (to wit: its wave function), still you cannot predict with certainty the outcome of a simple experiment to measure its position -- all quantum mechanics has to offer is
statistical
information about the
possible
results. This indeterminacy has been profoundly disturbing to physicists and philosopher's alike, and it is natural to wonder whether it is a fact of nature, or a defect in the theory.
Say I
do
measure the position of the particle, and I find it to be at Point C.
Question:
Where was this particle just
before
I made the measurement? There are three plausible answers to this question, and they serve to characterize the main schools of thought regarding quantum indeterminacy:
The
realist
position:
The particle was at C
. As
d'Espagnat
put it "the position of the particle was never indeterminate, but was merely unknown to the experimenter." This implies that quantum theory is
incomplete
.
The
orthodox
position:
The particle wasn't anywhere.
The act of measurement forced the particle to "take a stand" (though how and why it decided on the point C we dare not ask).
Jordan
said it most starkly: "Observations not only
disturb
what is to be measured, they
produce
it . . .We
compel
(the particle) to assume a definite position." Note, however, that if this is correct, there is something very peculiar about the act of measurement -- something that over half a century of debate has done precious little to illuminate.
The
agnostic
position:
Refuse to answer
.
It is metaphysics (in the pejorative sense of the word) to worry about something that cannot, by its nature, be tested.
Pauli
said: "One should no more rack one's brain about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists all the same, than about the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle."
The author then goes on to state that since 1964 (due to
Bell's theorem
), the
orthodox
position has been "decisively confirmed" -- although he says that statement is 'a little too strong.' He concludes the book (spoiler alert?) with the following statement about the orthodox position:
There are other possible interpretations -- nonlocal hidden variable theories, the "many worlds" picture, "consistent histories," ensemble models, and others -- but I believe this one is conceptually the
simplest
and certainly it is the one shared by most physicists today. It has stood the test of time, and emerged unscathed from every experimental challenge. But I cannot believe this is the end of the story; at the very least, we have much to learn about the nature of measurement and the mechanism of collapse. And it is entirely possible that future generations will look back, from the vantage point of a more sophisticated theory, and wonder how we could have been so gullible.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Fine I understand. But all you described is a deterministic system. I will correct your order based on what you said.
Object -> senses -> decision <-intellect <- will <- the apparent good.
That's determinism.
The decision comes out of the will, so I'm not sure what you did with the chart.
Determinism involves cause and effect, not informing.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Will is caused by good. Determinism.
I'm not really sure what that means. The apparent good is the end of the will. We are free to strive for that end however we want.
Post by
Squishalot
@ Heckler - even the wiki page you linked suggests that Bell's Theorem hasn't been settled. How can any theory based on it be 'decisively' settled? (even if it is too strong a word)
Wait, you aren't going to argue? You mean I popped all that popcorn for nothing?
I'll have it if you don't want it =D
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I'll have it if you don't want it =D
*
gives
*
Post by
Heckler
I didn't write the book Squish =) If you don't like his word choice, send him an
e-mail
. I don't feel I'm really in a place to argue with (nor speak for) the author. Quantum Theory isn't
based
on Bell's Theorem though... Bell's Theorem simply set out to disprove the local hidden variable theory advocated by Einstein and friends in their attempt to
disprove
Quantum Theory.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.