Yikes, the quote tag formatting here is dangerous; one misplacement and it throws everything off.

 

 

Which is why I believe that people who do really believe in it either haven't thought about it (perfectly excusable- ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of if one is willing to correct it), or if they have thought about it, are delusional beyond remedy. 

Maybe my writing them off like that is a bit harsh- maybe I should even give the latter class more benefit of the doubt- but of all the people I have talked to about it, they have always either quickly understood that freewill is nonsense (an admirable admission- and I have even known theists who did not believe in free will), or have been completely stubborn and irrational on the matter, producing the same arguments over and over (as I'm sure all of us here have witnessed).

 

 

Thanks, I did see that, but I haven't seen an online copy- it is still available to read off the net?

I could check at the foreign bookstore down-town for it if not; I do have a nearly 20 hour commute coming up on Friday (to San Francisco); something like that would be great to read on the plane.

I do love the rabbit pun.

Lucky.

I'll try to remember to ask my assistant on Monday to check some local book sellers, or online, for anybody who has it in stock locally and could deliver it before Friday.

And that's *totally* not a misuse of company resources because... well, it's a business trip, so my entertainment on a 20 hour commute should be accounted for. Right? 

Sorry, I genuinely think I understand what he is getting at there, although I wouldn't necessarily put it quite that way.

That is the essential 'problem' with QM, its formula do manifestly work when applied to predict what will be measured, but it is finding a more 'qualitative' picture of what it 'means' that has been the source of the ongoing debates between the various 'interpretations'.

I find these statements interesting, and in the light of what I have read about entanglement and the 'spooky action at a distance' some see in it, I am honestly not quite prepared to simply rubbish them - I have read statements from scientists that are very much of a similar nature.

Not saying I simply accept them as fully coherent or fully justifiable claims, but in this context I genuinely don't feel like commenting one way or the other until I have the opportunity to do much more of my own research.

I do find so much of what he says resonating with what I do currently feel I grasp of QM. Sorry.

I think I actually explicitly disagree with you here - his claim is not that they indeterminate as such, but he makes the distinction between 'caused' and being more directly and logically consequential on the immediately prior state of things, which again, resonates with my personal and independent ideas, which involve deconstructing the rigid distinction between determinism and indeterminism, and ultimately discarding the concepts as outmoded. I am seeing a more useful way to think of what is conventionally described by those terms.

This is not necessarily fully consistent with Blake's ideas, but many of his statements, such as those in this particular context, do suggest to me useful adjustments to my ideas, which I stress does not mean simple adoption of what he seems to think.

Now this is where I have more sympathy with you, as I have already hinted.

But it is a separate issue from his ideas on QM, of course.

These somewhat cryptic comments I honestly do not really get, but they were made in the slightly peculiar context of that ten-word limit. So I am not surprised that attempts to express QM ideas within that limit lead to some strange statements, so I reserved my serious attempts at commenting on his ideas for a less artificial context, such as this.

I also suspect there was an element of game play there, stretching things to a degree for effect.

 

You might like Orion's Arm- as hypothetical hard science fiction goes (testing out different ways things might work without violating known science), it's a great community of people thinking outside the box.


http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48545a0f6352a


Scroll down to "Failure modes" and see #3


There's also a link to a wormhole FAQ, which I didn't fully read:

http://www.orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oa-faq&topic=Wormholes


And this:

http://www.orionsarm.com/page/322


It was very interesting when I read it a few years ago.  I didn't understand it well at the time, but I later came to understand it in a different context.

I haven't looked into it carefully enough to *make sure* that Orion's arm, in particular, all works out, but it seems to.  I've also devised my own hypothetical system in which something similar is permissible.


I'll emphasize further:  I don't insist that this is certainly doable or possible, but it strikes me as plausible (though maybe not probable), as it is lacking in discernible contradictions.




I can't see anything to disagree with here; you've represented my argument well.

I think it's unfortunate that, in our language and thinking, we've come to associate determinism with cause so rigidly.  I've often made the mistake of saying many worlds "causes" quantum fluctuations as a manner of speaking- much like biologists saying a feature of evolution was "designed"; it tends to come back and bite us when somebody misunderstands.


I think it could perhaps be said that Many Worlds is "deterministic", in a way- insofar as pi is deterministic- but it would be stretching the terms a bit, and could lead to confusion.  It only can't be said that it is causal (at least, it can't be said without leading to confusion for people who don't understand it).





I don't think I ever suggested that *I* was particularly polite at all times- I'll fully admit that I can be a bit of an ass; although at any time, I was usually joking in my sardonic way.

I just meant that if she would be more polite, I would be more likely to do the same- and even humor her arguments if she showed a real desire to learn.


I admit that I was being a bit presumptuous in assuming that she would not learn even if I engaged her arguments, but I hope it's clear how her assertions led me to believe, more and more, that this was likely the case.

If you can vouch for her having changed her mind instead of rationalizing on any major point of philosophy in favor of a more rational interpretation in spite of her emotional preferences (the thing that I believe holds most theists back), I will trust you on that and readily admit that I was wrong to make that assumption.


I feel like I've already done my best at extending an olive branch; though I will readily do it again if the evidence is in favour of my having been in error with regards to my assessment of her rationality, I just don't want to bend over backwards if it's to no avail.






I thought it was poetry; I enjoyed it.

Largely, I wrote an explanation and then tried to delete words.  Perhaps not always to coherent effect.  I'll admit that even I had to look at the context to figure out exactly what I was talking about.






!XYZTetc.=DNE.  Not X Y Z T etc. = Does Not Exist.

Something that is outside the universe is something that doesn't exist.  Outside of the dimensions of time and space, and whatever other dimensions we may hold (etc.- this is important), is outside of reality itself.

The information we see is seen because we perceive it from a relativistic frame of reference.  That information doesn't objectively exist, but can only be yielded from the system by inputting the probability "coordinate" variables that got us to any particular state of the universe.

That is, in order to get out the information contained within our perceivable universe, you'd have to "look" at it from an objective viewpoint (hypothetical objective viewpoint, something that wouldn't really exist), and use as the coordinates of our location the result of every single quantum event that has occurred in history.  That would mean putting in the same amount of information you'd be getting back out.

That is, the information in our relativistic reference frame is objectively yielded from coordinate variable input only.




The poster misrepresented time, displaying a distinctly human concept of time and causality which isn't necessarily an objective one.

Information totality- matter, energy, everything- when we speak of reality, we're speaking of something that can ultimately be boiled down to information.

Objective genesis is impossible, but a genesis of information from a relativistic reference point (concerning the quantum effects perceived in that situation) makes the genesis of that information absolutely natural and unstoppable.  This information is "created" only relative to our reference frame, and is inherent only in that state.






Former: Quantum effects have no cause, not just no known cause; thus inaccuracy.  Maybe "not precise" would have been a better word choice... technically true that they lack a known cause (while lacking cause entirely).

I was wrong there in word choice, unless I was talking about "Needs to be proved", which I don't think I was (I don't know what that was in reference to).


Later: "God causes quantum fluctuations" is false.


The "cause" (used abstractly and non-chronologically, or lack thereof), and the reason for it is implicitly understood through many-worlds, from a relativistic reference frame that we experience the fluctuations from.

In retrospect, that was probably very poor wording in general. 
But alas, ten words.

Eloise, you're kind of digging yourself a hole here by ranting.  You've already committed not to reply to me anymore, and now you're doing it by proxy.

This isn't going to look good in the morning, when or if you come to your senses.

 

 

 

Actually, that was what I was saying, if I'm understanding Bob correctly.

 

It's not that people couldn't possibly gain understanding from the mathematics, but that they probably wouldn't unless they were extremely intelligent (which applies to precious few people alive, if any).  It's not that it the understanding couldn't be gained- it's that it's extremely unlikely to be gained.  I know that I didn't understand it simply from the equations- even just the uncertainty principle- it needed to be explained in other terms.

The math is just too far abstracted and complex to be terribly helpful to our minds- which deal more conceptually with the world.

Metaphor, and formal logical deduction, is simply more useful than equations in this case (the case of understanding, not of application).

The mathematical description does depict fact- but it does it in a way that is inaccessible.  Conceptual descriptions can depict the facts of the matter just as well- but also remain far more accessible to human understanding.

 

Where concepts fail us is in applying the knowledge to useful situations- that's where the whole joke about engineers being physicists as intelligence approaches zero comes from (no offense to the engineers here, it's just a joke). 

The point is that one can have all of the math and equations at one's fingertips, and be able to manipulate it in any way, without having the slightest understanding of what it really means.

 

Case in point, some boring anecdotes:

 

In calculus class, some of those students who were the best at solving the problems when spoon-fed to them in form were absolutely incapable of translating a word problem into useful form- because they didn't really understand any of it. 

I, on the other hand, could read the word problem, and write it out in a few seconds, but then didn't bother to solve it because I didn't memorize the integration tables.  As such, I tended to end up in the situation of telling other people how to solve it (because they didn't know where to start), and then not actually getting the practice solving it at all.  It was kind of a symbiosis, but in retrospect, I should have just memorized them, as lacking the practice didn't really help anybody.  I just didn't find them interesting- I liked the concept of it all; the puzzle it posed, and wasn't remotely interested in the trivial practice of finishing off the equations after I'd already figured out *how* to solve it. 

To this day, I can say "Oh, yeah, you need the second derivative of this", only to say "no idea" when asked *what* that second derivative would be.

 

 

 

Mathematics are useful for practical applications- and as long as I have a few tables to reference, I can do the math- it's just not really useful for understanding in the way thought experiments and analogies are.  If it were, the larger part of calculus wouldn't be reliant on word problems to drill that understanding in.

 

 

I mean no insult to mathematicians- they're definitely useful when they stay in their fields (seriously, I love you guys)- but they go way out of bounds when they assume to understand anything beyond that by mere virtue of being able to do the math behind it.  This has been shown time and again not to be the case.  I can say the same for quite a few fields.

 

 

 

This is a new one!  You're projecting projection!

 

The irony is very amusing.  I wasn't really particularly offended before, more mildly annoyed, but I have to say, I'm starting to somewhat enjoy your posts now- I do likes me some irony.

Unfortunately, at some point I will have to remember that you are a real person suffering from delusions, and then it just kind of becomes sad... so much for amusement.

 

EDIT:

 

It definitely doesn't pander to anything metaphysical, and it certainly doesn't make metaphors easy.  The fallacy of equivocation is not made in converting, roughly, to metaphor (so long as it is understood to be approximation), but by those who misunderstand those metaphors and make fallacious arguments based on them.

This doesn't mean that an attempt should not be made, though, if it is done with caution and precision.  I have seen many good metaphors that could be mistaken, but which taken as a whole, form a very accurate perception through their mutual consistencies.

You really think that you ever did?

 

 

 

These results can also be expressed in more grounded logical terms which lean less heavily on complex mathematics (although I wouldn't say mathematics are purely removed from logic- formal logic does resemble math superficially (and perhaps more so), because they are different ways of saying the same things).

 

 

I presume so.  The math isn't terribly difficult; just tedious and unnecessary.  There's no reason a professor wouldn't understand it, though.  The really good ones know better than to lean on it too heavily for explanation.

I've generally only seen a class confused, with very rare exception, when something is derived before them without explanation- it is when that explanation is offered that the understanding dawns.

Obviously, though- and it should go without saying- explanations taken without the math may be understood, but are taken far more on faith, as the math itself is the proof of the pudding.  At least having followed the derivations is very useful for trusting the conclusions (such as uncertainty as solved for various terms- *very* basic algebra).

 

 

I bother with it more than you imagine, and I've even used certain points of well understood math as examples- even in this thread- it is where the complexity of that math becomes greater that it becomes confusing to people who don't understand the concepts behind it, and stops being very useful at all in explaining those concepts.

 

More useful than the math you speak of, I have found information technology- particularly digital electronics- in explaining the concepts involved.  If I didn't understand this, I suspect that I wouldn't have understood many-worlds.

This does require an explanation of binary, or another number system (since most people don't really understand the theory behind decimal), but it's far easier to do this in explaining information genesis than it is to teach wave mechanics using probability vectors; people are well enough aware of probability in an intuitive sense, and mapping it out for them can be done with ease without making use of vector math (which would only serve to confuse them).

Metaphor, and formal logical deduction, is simply more useful than equations in this case (the case of understanding, not of application).

 

 

If you don't understand how these things can be mentioned or explained without drawing on numerous equations, you're more lost than even I suspected.

 

 

Evidently, make wild esoteric claims about the nature of reality when they believe they understand the implications of a couple equations but do not. No no, that's just you- and people like William Dembski. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski)

You are a perfect example of a mathematician going outside of those bounds.

Your math may or may not be sound, but your understanding of the implications certainly is not.

 

Your appeal to your own authority by virtue of academia is unconvincing, and illogical.

Anybody who understands the subject is more than qualified to correct you.  Obviously when you disregard any argument that doesn't agree with you as "unqualified", you won't accept any contention at all. (Case in point: you're even attacking Bob now).

 

If that isn't the case, then will you explain the "qualifications" required to accept admonishment, and assert that you will accept said admonishment- and change your stance- if offered by somebody with the "qualifications" to do it?

Don't be stingy now.

 

 

I don't lie at all.  Why do you gloss over everything that disagrees with your assumptions?  No, wait, I know the answer to that one- willful ignorance.

 

 

I didn't imitate you, you silly-head, I accepted that as a premise (anybody *else* reading it is likely to see that)- and have for years- as it is implicit in any understanding of relativity.

I was attempting (probably foolishly though, as it obviously can not be done on account of your well demonstrated dogmatism) to explain to you why your assumptions were in error, and that reverse time travel (relative to a reference frame) is not in conflict with logic insofar as it is not "circular" in a way that allows the creation of a "time machine".

An error you seem to be making is the assumption that an objective time-frame is a real thing for the universe, when in fact it doesn't exist.  Time is relative to the reference frame in question.  Local reverse time travel is what is impossible; so long as the information in question is traveling back in time outside of the sphere of causality (for that piece of information, so it can't cause itself), the practice seems perfectly in keeping with what we know to be consistent with logic.

A verbal description is likely inadequate for you; I would probably need to create a flash animation, or animated gif to actually explain it well.  This is not something I'm interested in doing for you, however, as you would choose not to understand it regardless.

 

 

At no point was I parroting you, but you can go ahead and think that if it helps make you more comfortable.

 

 

Was it guesswork or wasn't it?  You can't even make up your mind when you're insulting me.

 

No, it wasn't guesswork; it was an incredibly simple problem.  The only thing that was remotely difficult (although I'd hardly say it really qualified any difficulty) was the notation, but I can still recognize a vector when I see one.

 

And no, a little bit of introductory optics doesn't a quantum physicist make- my knowledge of the subject spans a bit beyond that.

The optics themselves could be explained more traditionally by wave propagation through the ether (I look forward to you accusing me of subscribing to Ether theory), and needn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics at all (that is, optics themselves are older than QM).

Wave-particle duality is much more applicable to QM than are simple optics.

 

Completely false.  Anybody who has read my posts can point out my use of mathematical analogies in attempt to explain the uncaused, yet inherent traits of quantum mechanics.  I have also made a brief argument against a paper another poster cited which was a criticism of Bell's. 

Poor reading comprehension much?

 

 

You're seeing what you want to see.  Congratulations.  You can has delusion.

 

 

 

 

Why?

I'm not doing you any favors; you've demonstrated yourself unwilling to think critically or learn.

 

I've said time and again that if anybody else was interested, or had questions, I would explain for their sake.  I'm not wasting my time.

 

 

I did not.  I do not assume that you don't understand computer science.  You're still perfectly capable of rationalizing it away.

 

 

I never thought it would, nor do I think you can be "scared away"; you actually think you're right, so you see no reason to be weary of anything I say.  You're like a faithful medieval Christian marching into a lion's den.

Frankly, you're just too intellectually scrawny to bother making a meal of.  If your ideas were actually threatening, I'd gladly put you in your place.

 

 

You are perfectly capable of reading my posts.  I'm not going fishing for you.  You're liable to rationalize anything I link to anyway, so there's really no point.

 

How many times do I have to explain it to you?  You can't be educated.  There's no point in trying.

 

 

See Theist badge.  See signature.  I'm not really interested in going fishing; you'll only try to back up your position, and I'm not interested in arguing against self-evident absurdity.

 

 

Except that they are identical in that you are both wrong.  I'm not impressed by your academic qualifications where they have obviously failed to impart a measure of common sense and critical thinking.

You're both seeing what you want to see, and distorting the facts to fit your perceptions.

 

You are clearly sensitive to this; give a thought as to why.

 

 

 

Yes, I keep making it as an explanation for why I'm not going to dignify your absurd arguments with responses.  I'm not arguing that nobody else should- they're perfectly entitled to come to their own conclusions about your stances.  My own authority is enough for me to make a decision on the matter for myself.

 

You have demonstrated no misunderstanding on my part.  And if you're arguing against my 'authority to speak on QM', you've completely failed to do so effectively.  A poodle has authority to speak on QM if said poodle understands the concepts behind it.  Appeal to academia is beyond silly.

The word of Bohr wouldn't be good enough for you; you believe what you believe because you want to believe it.  That's why I won't argue with you about it.

 

 

 

1. Make a point that even resembles validity, and I'd be willing to dispute it for the sake of an audience.

2. Demonstrate yourself open minded (and be a bit more polite), and I'll explain it for your sake.

3. Make a genuinely valid point, and I'll concede it.

 

 

Those are the rules.  When you finish your tirades against me, if you want to participate like a grown-up, feel free to do any of the above if you actually want to test my knowledge of Quantum Mechanics. 

Otherwise, you will find any responses I give merely amused and condescending to you; I'm not about to respect arguments that don't deserve it, and I'm not about to "prove" to you that I know what I'm talking about just to free you of your delusions (even if I had a list of references a mile long, I doubt it would help you).

Wrong. You were not talking to me:

 

 

Have you noticed that when I say you're wrong I show some evidence that proves it. Why can't you do this? You no longer have the excuse of a ten word limit.

 

 

Who cares. You're so ignorant of what you're saying no amount of time I give you to correct yourself is enough.

I have given you three full days grace to demonstrate that you understand the basis of relativity is the postulate 'nothing can exceed the velocity of light' and you continue to trot out this lame logical paradox nonsense instead. 

Superluminal velocity violates relativity, Blake. If you were a scientist you would know this. You would also know that all observations of superluminal phenomenon so far have been shown technically to not be in violation of relativity.

Quantum phenomenon notwithstanding - that quantum effects are superluminal is speculation. Again, if you were a scientist, you would know this, and wouldn't be raving incoherently about the possibility of logical paradoxes if two way communication happens faster than light.

 

Well, you've missed the mark by a dozen miles there haven't you. 

How about you take some of your own advice, stop being so closed-minded and be open to the possibility that You are the one who is wrong.

 

 

 

You can claim that if you like, but as more and more it becomes apparent that you can't make a valid statement about physics until someone else posts it first you'll have nowhere left to go.

 

It was both but mostly guesswork. You guessed that the polarisation was linear at 45 degrees. If your guess had been wrong because you didn't understand the notation your answer would have been wrong too. Plus you applied cos^2 which if the angle had not been 45 degrees would have also given you the wrong answer. The Polaroid blocks cos^2 and lets through sin^2.

You were lucky.

Edit: Oops my bad, I have been corrected, it is sin^2 that's absorbed if it goes along x... Sorry. 

 

 

Wrong. Quantum Theory is the theory of Quanta. Wave particle duality is a general subject in the physics of light. the proper form for light in Quantum theory is the photon and Photonics is the applicable model of light for quantum.

Wave -particle Duality is reconciled best in QED. If you were a scientist, you would know the difference.

 

A brief argument??? 

Oh come on.  You did nothing of the sort. All you did was copy/pasted a section of the article and made a neutral comment.  

 

See.

 

 

Lie much?

 

 

We both know its because you haven't got any evidence that you have mentioned quantum logic or statistical inference in any of your attempt at discussing the logical implications of QM.

If you don't have the evidence don't make the assertion, it's irrational.

 

Eloise, I'm going to start saying your name more, Eloise, as this apparently makes an argument more convincing and condescending to you.

 

 

Eloise, that makes *much* more sense, thank you for clarifying (it would have been nice if you had posted the context in the first place). 

The argument you referenced, Eloise, was made in opposition to the same kind of argument you, Eloise, were making; I was wondering why I would have been foolish enough to try to explain anything like that to you Eloise.

 

Thanks for putting my mind at ease, Eloise.

I suspect, as butterbattle has not asked for clarification, he or she understood my point.

 

 

I've explained this.  Eloise, why are you incapable of understanding it?

I don't believe that you, Eloise, are capable of learning or being corrected on this matter.  Eloise, I don't wish to waste my time fishing through posts.  The minute it takes to reply to you at all is more than enough wasted time for the evening, Eloise.

Eloise, as I've repeatedly stated, I'm happy to do so for others because they-unlike you, Eloise- are capable of learning things that conflict with their assumptions, and aren't guided by dogma in the way that you, Eloise, are.

 

 

Eloise, this is exactly my point; you, Eloise, don't even bother to understand an argument you disagree with.

Eloise, It's funny that you think that you're 'giving me time to correct myself'.

 

You see, Eloise, (or more likely don't see) I made the assumption pretty quickly that you were incapable of learning or correction regarding a matter of your dogma- which I have honorably become part of.  At least I can admit this.  Eloise, you're fooling yourself if you think you've been giving me the benefit of the doubt; you, Eloise, decided long ago not to listen to anything I say, but rather just to comb through my posts looking for things to focus on for attack.

Eloise, combing through your posts is something I don't have to do- the "target" is just too big to miss.

 

 

Oh noes!  My sacred three days are up!  Woe is me!

Eloise, please, in your great generosity, grant me an extension!

 

Eloise, this is hilarious.  Thank you.

 

 

 

Eloise, you're becoming more incomprehensible.

The statements I've made have been valid, but in disagreement with the ideas you hold, Eloise, which is why you consider them invalid.

Insofar as you're setting the rules for yourself, Eloise, of course you won't- can't- believe anything I've said has been legitimate. 

If I didn't paraphrase it from Bob, I probably paraphrased it from a text-book or a professor from five years ago- boy, I just can't stop "parroting".  I also keep using these words called English, and everybody is using them- I'm obviously entirely derivative.

 

 

Eloise, I appreciate that you seem to be admitting that you can't understand vector math without being fully familiar with the exact notation being used.  For the rest of us, Eloise, I would like to inform you that this is not the case.

And Eloise, I believe that even *you*, if you tried, could recognize and solve a vector problem with an unknown form of vector notation.  I at least trust in you to not be that dense.

 

 

How embarrassing.  One would think, Eloise, that this would increase one's humility slightly... this seems not to be the case here.

 

Lucky for you, Eloise, you still have rationalization to prove to you that I have no idea what I'm doing.  That *could* have been a close call if you were sane. *Phwew!*

 

 

Not at all, Eloise.  How about you?

 

I'll answer it for you, Eloise:  Probably not, because delusional people (Eloise, this means you) actually believe what they're saying is true.  This is why I won't argue with you, Eloise.

Top 1%? I'd definitely qualify if you tallied up everyone that's ever posted, but probably not if you only count the frequent posters. 

I have a pretty good understanding of how evolution works just from discussing and debating it online. Other than that, I know very little about geology, biology or chemistry. I am planning on taking a biology/chemistry course or two in the future though. 

We only discussed light polarization for a day or two, so you probably wouldn't remember that if your class covered it, but we've been using bra-ket vectors the entire quarter, and they're standard notation in quantum physics, so I expected you to at least recognize it.

Lol. Seriously?

I can't imagine ever forgetting what an integral looks like. That tall, slender, f shape is ingrained into my brain. 

Right.

The measurement collapses the state. A photon either goes through the Polaroid sheet or it doesn't; there are no half photons. So, if, hypothetically, you only had a single photon, and you sent it at a sheet, then you know virtually nothing about the state of the photon before the Polaroid sheet.

Yeah, actually, we spent a lot more time on double slit experiments (diffraction, reflection, interference) and Spectroscopy too. I don't even remember using Polaroid sheets in lab. We probably didn't.

I only brought up the light polarization question because it was used at the beginning of my modern physics course as an introduction to some of the basic math and ideas used in quantum physics. After that, we discussed Stern Gerlach experiments, which were a lot more relevant, but more complex, conceptually and mathematically.    

Ah, interesting. I think my professor might have mentioned that in passing. If he did, I probably forgot it because of the long name. 

 

 

 

 

f?  I've always thought of them as S's, but that's probably because cursive f's always denoted a function...  Time for my favorite equation:  Se^x=f(u_n)  lol

 

As for the science freak badge, when I asked, I wasn't sure what standard was used, i.e. whether knowledge in science relative to to the general public, any site posters, or frequent posters.  Since I couldn't figure it out, I asked, assuming that if Brian and the mods didn't think I'd deserve it, then I wouldn't have gotten it.  I think by the standards of me getting one, you, nigel, AE, and others should have them too.  From your view, I shouldn't, and agree, the only field I can claim expertise of some sort is mechanical systems, which are entirely useless in theistic debate.  However, I have strong interest in psychology and physics, so I like to learn about them as much as possible.  I was hoping the badge might distinguish me as someone mathematically and scientifically inclined so if I asked questions about a particular science I'd get more detailed responses. 

 

 

Actually I think it does, unless you can define what alternative we have to something on the spectrum between fully determined by preceding events within the current context, on the one hand, and pure stochastic processes described by probability functions on the other.

You are correct, to an extent. The terms 'materialism' and 'immaterialism', especially in the way you insist on applying them, and to a significant extent, 'determinism' and 'indeterminism', have been rendered virtually obsolete by more current concepts, influenced strongly by insights from chaos and complexity theory, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and Neuroscience

But it is unpredictable, so it has attributes of both classical determinism and indeterminism, which is why those terms can no longer be taken as mutually incompatible categories, but two ends of a continuum. It is not really an 'interpretation', except as a likely explanation for processes in nature which are understood to be basically 'deterministic', yet seem be fundamentally unpredictable. We can explicitly model chaotic processes to any desired degree of approximation, so it is more than just an interpretation.

There is no justification for the 'MMI' interpretation. MWI does not necessarily imply infinities, and QM does imply conscious 'observers'.

Amounts to the same thing, it you want to be technically correct. The distinction you make is really a matter of ordinary, non-technical, usage.

I see nothing meaningful about a conscious process which can be precisely modelled by the equivalent of a series of coin-flips. IOW it is the non-random decisions and judgements based on pre-existing information which make something worth calling a thinking mind. An element of randomness is important as the source of new information, creativity, as with the evolutionary algorithm. That element of chaotic/random process, filtered thru the constraints of the emotional and reasoning aspects of our mind, stops us behaving like the archetypical 'robot'. 

I see no need for any other from of 'indeterminism'. Feel free to try and define one.

If you mean the 'classic' form of reductionist materialism, then of course, these ideas, are incompatible with that. What I have been trying to explain to you, with little apparent success, is my current understanding of what you could call, more accurately, 'physicalism', or 'scientific naturalism'.

All that is required of a coherent new theory is that it provides a better model of the observations than what it is replacing or revising, makes good testable predictions, etc.

It redefines, updates, our 'present understanding' of reality. 

When the progress of thought leads to ideas which no longer fit into some existing label or paradigm, then that label should no longer used. 

Nonlocality, acausality are now part of our current understanding, at least a mathematical sense, even if we may have not come up with a generally agreed physical interpretation.

Ideas and understanding continue to advance, Paisley. I have never tried to argue for your straw-man version of 'materialism'. I have told you this many times. That does not automatically mean there is only the alternative of your even less relevant concept of some form of dualism. I have consistently argued against your misconceived ideas, and for a new synthesis incorporating the results of Quantum Theory.

I've come to view it as not a letter at all but as a conceptual symbol. It reminds me of a flourish underline turned on it's side and in my mind I see it as loosely drawn representation of an underline (suggestive of 'Under the line' which the integral volume is) , it's an analogy that flows really well when it comes to adding the limits of a definite integral (ones you have to define for yourself from a problem) since you can "see' the 'long s' as though it were the section of curve/function you're integrating and your limits just fall out naturally as the end points of the picture in your head.  

 

∫ <--- html is &int;

 

Of course. I was referring to indeterminism itself.

I may have slightly misunderstood what you were expressing there. I was assuming you were referring to some other form of 'indeterminism' than purely random processes.

Actually, the modern ideas of matter and energy, especially as in Relativity, had already rendered the 'materialism/immaterialism' distinction problematic, since in the old paradigm, 'energy' was clearly NOT material, whereas now we see 'energy' as fundamentally an aspect of matter.

Chaos and Quantum a-causality undermine the view that 'materialism' implied that only purely 'mechanical' interactions could occur, and therefore everything in that view had to be purely deterministic. Chaos theory demolished that idea - 'mechanistic ', 'mechanical' systems could display total unpredictability, which is counter-intuitive. QM further entangled pure randomness into the behaviour of material objects.

I mention neuroscience to point out that even what was regarded as the absolute opposite of the world of matter, the mind and consciousness, were being shown as intimately tied to material processes. Studies of the matter and material processes in the brain have been showing the 'mechanisms' giving rise to at least some lower-level aspects of mind.

You have it backwards. My argument is precisely that those two forms or 'definitions' of 'indeterminate' are indeed fundamentally of the same origin.

'Indeterminate' does not mean "fundamentally without physical causation" - that is an interpretation in itself. It means that the cause, if any, is unknown, unknowable, and it is not restricted explicitly to 'physical' causation. It may be used when meant to imply 'uncaused', as an opposite to 'determined', I guess, but you are bending the formal definitions of the words already.

Specific classes of chaotic processes involving non-linear feedback can display modes of behaviour that are unpredictable in the strict sense, ie infinitely sensitive to initial conditions, or alternative expressed as requiring infinite precision to calculate the outcome. This is a mathematically certain fact.

I think that ultimately it is an artificial distinction to try and maintain between 'uncaused' and 'chaotically indeterminate'. You find the idea that material/physical processes can encompass essentailly uncaused events unacceptable.

The quote you just referred to was about the general topic of indeterminate physical processes and chaos.

It is only relevant to any discussions and interpretations about QM in that is demonstrates that non-determistic processes don't even require Quantum Phenomena - they can be come from processes comprised of purely 'deterministic' elements. It is the nature of the interactions, ie non-linear feed-back, which can give rise to such effects.

I assume you are back to the MWI, but what you quote already contains my answer about MWI.

Such interpretations require no justification beyond their ability to help us make intuitive sense of what they describe. If they actually helps us formulate new theories, that is one of the hoped-for results of thinking about them.

That was a typo - QM does NOT imply conscious observers.

I presume you meant 'never be able to observe [even in] theory". Maybe not 'observe', but we can detect the effects of their existence, ie Quantum phenomena. That is the point of the interpretation.

Some interpretations of MW do not really imply many totally independent universes -  they are intertwined, only separate to the degree that they represent different timelines.

I will continue with this response in a separate post, it is getting a bit long.

Back in a bit. 

I only really know a few of these, but I can probably guess most of them just from my understanding of evolution. 

Well, I have two guesses for this one. One is that the repository of resources in the seed could help the new plant grow.

Perhaps, it could also encourage animals to eat the seeds? The benefits of the animals helping spread the seeds around would probably outweigh the cost of the animals eating them.

Well, fruits have seeds in them, so that might be it. 

Of course, a lot of the fruits we're familiar with are artificially selected by humans.

No idea.

These terms are a bit misleading. The blood of warm blooded animals aren't necessarily warmer, and vice versa. I believe warm blooded animals have the ability to regulate their body temperature internally. Cold blooded animals do not, so they must constantly make sure that they do not get too hot or too cold by changing their location, etc.   

The benefits of communication seem pretty obvious. 

Intra-species communication would help with mating, territory marking, etc. It's especially important for social animals. Dolphins communicate via echolocation to hunt large schools of fish effectively. These large schools of fish (and birds, etc.), in turn, create swarm behavior by communicating with local movements. Ants and bees communicate to eat other with movements, smells, etc. about enemies, food, hive activity, etc. Etc. etc. etc.

Inter-species communication has countless uses as well. Prey-prey communication of predators. Again, predator-predator communication of territory. Even predator-prey communication. The tongue of the snapping turtle and the light on the angler fish; aren't these, arguably, forms of communication? Communication between hostile social species. Communication between species with unique, mutually beneficial relationships; there are small fish that act like dentists and clean the mouths of large predator fish. There are even birds that clean the fleas and ticks off of large mammals. Etc. etc. etc.  

I could be wrong here, but to me, all punctuated equilibrium says is that sometimes, evolution happens faster. Sometimes, it happens slower.  

If you understand the principles of evolution, this is pretty obvious.

More sunlight >> better to have darker skin pigmentation.

Less sunlight >> better to have lighter skin.

There's more to it than that, but......lighter skin is better at absorbing nutrients? Something about melanin? 

Hair color, I'm not sure.

Once again, I don't remember the details, but certainly, any mutation that gave any organism any ability that it didn't used to possess to acquire even a tiny amount of information about its environment would probably confer an advantage. Even something as minimal as being able to roughly distinguish between light and darkness would almost undoubtedly be beneficial, and the rest would be history.

Echolocation is a great example. Intelligence. The ability to fly. 

Eh....well, with a lot of beneficial traits, even a small step in the right direction will help. Once that first step is taken, the trait can just perpetuate and develop itself. 

I don't know.

Four is....fast? Six is....stable? 

Nope, different seeds have different vitamins and minerals in them- and in much larger amounts, and often ones the plant doesn't really need.

Good guess, but the plant doesn't "want" the animals to eat the seeds, because that kills them- it's the fruit around the seed that the plant wants eaten (with some rare exceptions).  The plant wants the animals to eat the fruits, and dump the seeds.

This is why seeds have thick fibery and often nearly impermeable shells.  Many seeds also contain poisons, like cyanide, to kill whatever digests them (like apple seeds).  So, if you're eating the apple, and the seeds pass through to spread the plant, you're good.  If you're digesting the seeds, you'll get sick.

The problem with poisons is that we can easily evolve resistances to them.  This includes things like tannins, which many animals have enzymes to break down (many seeds and plants are chocked full of tannins, which precipitate proteins and vitamins and make them non-nutritious- FYI cultivated plants are "good" because they've been bread to have fewer tannins)

Vitamins and minerals, on the other hand, we need to live, and will absorb at certain ratios from what we eat.  So, these seeds have mega-doses of them to overdose any animal that is preying on them with a lethal amount.

Of course, if you mix and match, and don't eat them exclusively, they make excellent multivitamins!

This is also why many plants produce mock-estrogen, which reduces the fertility of animals that eat them.

 

Yes, to spread seeds.

 

Somewhat.

Actually, cold-blooded animals are quite tolerant of temperature changes- the reason for warm blood is to produce sustained accelerated metabolism and muscle function.  A cold blooded animal is typically only capable of short bursts of activity, and is incapable of activity at all on cold days- this makes them vulnerable to predation.  Cold blood is also much more efficient, though, with sparse resources or inconsistent feeding- particularly in a generally warm environment.

 

 

 

 

Oh, I didn't mean the benefits, but a more detailed description of the initial process of its evolution.  This is one of those supposedly irreducibly "complex things".  But the process of low level communication is probably pretty evident.

 

 

 

Vitamin D production occurs in the skin, and requires a certain amount of high energy light.  Dark skin blocks light with melanin (actually, the melanin absorbs it), which protects cells from damage from UV light and reduces risk of cancer.  However, in low-light conditions (far from the equator) the sunlight is more sparse, and vitamin D deficiencies develop.  The majority of African Americans, for example, are slightly vitamin D deficient, whereas this is virtually never found among White Americans.

Random mutation; particularly damage to MC1R and other genes that encode the formation of melanin in the hair.  This results in less melanin being formed, or Pheomelanin not being turned into Eumelanin (red/orange changing into black/brown).  The genes are largely correlated to skin pigment and eye pigment as well- similar factors to skin pigment.  Hair colour, however, was also substantially sexually selected for in some parts of Europe.

 

 

It has much to do with the structure of the body, and how those legs are used in locomotion- in both cases speed and stability are needed. 

With four legs, the spine contributes to movement speed by bending the body to offset two contact points (front and back); six legs would be unneeded, and cumbersome in this process.  These legs can be thick and powerful, because the legs themselves don't have to move as quickly.  However, with a rigid body, the speed of movement depends entirely on leg speed, which requires smaller, lighter, faster legs to increase leg speed, and thus more legs to support the weight of the body can be beneficial (and in this case, additional legs are not disadvantageous because the contact points can be distributed anywhere along a plane- this is also one of the important limits on the size of six-legged animals (in addition to respiration)).

 

But it is still, by definition, indeterminate. And we do not have the knowledge, even theoretically, to calculate the initial conditions to infinite precision. We are trying to calculate the equivalent of the square root of a number which is approximately 2.

'Causal' is also a problem. In the case of QM, the 'cause', if anything, is the state of the Universe, or perhaps only that within the event horizon relative to that event.

What we know about these events strongly suggests that they are either purely acausal, or 'caused' by an all pervading 'qauntum foam' which is the 'cause' of Heisenbergs's Uncertainty Principle, and is unaffected by any local energy or matter states.

The bottom line is that whatever 'causes' such events it has the attribute of pure randomness.

A proposition I am suggesting is that the 'cause' is whatever defines the laws of the Universe. This applies equally to every purely 'random' event of the same class, anywhere, such as the decay of an atom of a particular type. This is the sort of thing which is consistent with the observed random timing of such events. I means that that such events are not 'caused' by any clearly identifiable event. That would be inconsistent with the observations. This is what all experiments and observation have shown - the specific timing is unaffected by anything we are able to change, or have observed changing, it cannot be any single object affecting all such atoms, because they all decay at unrelated times. So if the decay was 'caused' by another class of event, physical or non-physical (whatever that would mean here), that would not remove the problem, because that would require another separate random event for each atom. The more parsimonious conclusion is that the cause itself is simply intrinsically random. 

The probability of decay within a specified interval of time is precisely determined by the composition of the nucleus.