| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike
is a stale Arsecrumpet™
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 179
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Lester Square wrote: | | (As it happens, and if you care, I more-or-less completely subscribe to determinism as a principle. If you really care, I can describe my reasons but I strongly suspect that you don't.) |
I second a vote for some elaboration!
_________________
~Mike
Chaff City returns! http://bit.ly/Chaff  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dPaladin
is rapidly attaining fiery deathytude
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 1706
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, let's hear it. It might make me love you forever.
_________________
dude look at this signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester Square
is your father (NOOOOO)
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Dr Fruitcake's trousers
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It won't make you love me forever. But for what it's worth, I love you. 
Ah, well, it's a mode-of-operation thing.
Sure, I'm familiar with what I'll call the Izzhov Hypothesis (which goes vaguely along the lines of: "events are not predetermined because quantum-physics") and I appreciate it. I'm also sorry for not having recognised Izzhov's doctorate in molecular physics. 
But it's, I suppose, like anything else: a case of what assumptions you make about the world in order to operate. I assume a world bound by causality in everything I do. It could in all possibility be demonstrated that randomness can occur. Particularly at the quantum level. 'Cause that stuff's crazy-weird if the entire sum of my quantum-mechanics knowledge is anything to go by (my entire knowledge of quantum-mechanics, by the way, comes from popular non-scientist Bill Bryson). At the human level I can only account for the model of the world constructed in my mind (based, I also assume, on a small selection of external stimuli) by means of causal assumptions.
Am I wrong for doing this? Possibly.
Is there a better selection of non-causality-based assumptions one can make about the world which allow me to operate in the same way? I am not aware of one.
Why do I want to "operate" in the first place? Because quantum-physics.
I'm probably being ridiculously unclear, but that's because it's 1AM and I haven't been drinking.
_________________
~Lester Square |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Izzhov
is not something that you just dump something on
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 5543
Location: Meaningless Island
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lester Square wrote: | | Sure, I'm familiar with what I'll call the Izzhov Hypothesis (which goes vaguely along the lines of: "events are not predetermined because quantum-physics") and I appreciate it. I'm also sorry for not having recognised Izzhov's doctorate in molecular physics. |
Hey, man, just gimme 8 years and I'll have one. 
| Lester Square wrote: | uot;]But it's, I suppose, like anything else: a case of what assumptions you make about the world in order to operate. I assume a world bound by causality in everything I do. It could in all possibility be demonstrated that randomness can occur. Particularly at the quantum level. 'Cause that stuff's crazy-weird if the entire sum of my quantum-mechanics knowledge is anything to go by (my entire knowledge of quantum-mechanics, by the way, comes from popular non-scientist Bill Bryson). At the human level I can only account for the model of the world constructed in my mind (based, I also assume, on a small selection of external stimuli) by means of causal assumptions.
Am I wrong for doing this? Possibly.
Is there a better selection of non-causality-based assumptions one can make about the world which allow me to operate in the same way? I am not aware of one.
Why do I want to "operate" in the first place? Because quantum-physics.
I'm probably being ridiculously unclear, but that's because it's 1AM and I haven't been drinking. |
Listen, this doesn't make me love you forever; this makes me love you one year less than forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheese Monkey
Your Slacker-Fu is weak, son.
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: Blasting random bystanders at FCmidi... DOT NET!
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sadly, I'm a little out of my element in this discussion.  I know slightly less than your average cardboard box about quantum physics, other than "itz randum lol."
So the topic here is, "if quantum physics isn't responsible for randomness and choice, nothing is." Do I have that right? And where would there be a page that explains quantum physics in relation to all this?
_________________
This post has been brought to you by
Cheese Monkey - The Funky Cheddar Monkey
(This post made no sense! Tell the people!)
PSO crap (Bestows +1 geekiness)!
[quote="Xenofan"]You wouldn't be here without sex, the internet wouldn't be here without sex, and heck, the Gamecube wouldn't be here without sex.[/quote][quote="Yoshgunn"]At first, don't overthink things. It's OK to become a small African village and injure yourself.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Izzhov
is not something that you just dump something on
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 5543
Location: Meaningless Island
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Read this entire page and you'll see where I'm coming from.
OK, if it's tl and you dr you can just read this:
| Website wrote: | | At the same time, we have to stress again, there is a fundamental difference between the randomness of a die and the randomness of a photon. The throw of a die isn't "really" random. If you knew everything possible about the angle it was thrown at, and its weight distribution, and the table it was landing on, and so on, you could in principle predict its flight perfectly and tell what number will come up on top. But in the case of the photon, it doesn't matter how much you know up front: because even when all the starting conditions are the same, it may do different things. (Of course the die is really made up of tiny particles obeying quantum mechanics and displaying true randomness, but there are so many of them that the overall behavior of the die can in principle be predicted with near certainty.) |
In response to the part in parentheses: but not total certainty. There's always the probability it'll come up differently from the prediction. See below.
Basically, it's impossible to predict exactly what's going to happen, not just because the motion of subatomic particles is random in the most literal sense of the word, but also because the exact position and path of a particle cannot even be observed. This kinda sucks, which is why Einstein spent half his life trying to disprove it (and failed). This is why I object to the usage of the phrase "set in stone" used in determinism; nothing can ever be predetermined with total accuracy according to quantum mechanics, and the inherent randomness of particle motion means anything can happen. For example, every time you set a foot on the ground, there is an extremely tiny chance that the particles in your feet and in that part of the ground will line up perfectly and cause your foot to actually sink into the ground, intertwining it at the molecular level. Unsettling, isn't it? There is also a small probability that your computer will spontaneously rise into the air and ram into your face, and that your eyes will transform into candy, if all the subatomic particles' motion occurs just right. Don't worry, the probability of each of those things occurring is less than 1 in the number of atoms in the universe. But there is no way to predict whether or not these things will actually happen; it can only be modeled by chance.
Anyways, my point is, free will may or may not exist, but to state that the entire path of the universe was laid out from the beginning is absurd.
EDIT: This has nothing to do with health insurance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doctor Phileas Fragg
is your father (NOOOOO)
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 383
Location: Duded up, gussied out, getting down, and where it's at.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our topics are derailed in the most fascinating ways.
_________________
[quote="Izzhov"]But you can probably drop me and tell Lester to do my panel instead, since he's already gay and frankly I really don't care about my sexual orientation. [/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eirik
is a wrong git
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I was gonna say that's one of the most extreme topic-shifts I think I've seen and yet another reason to love this place!
_________________
Eiríksmál is a skaldic poem composed sometime in 954 in honour of slain consort Erik Bloodaxe.
What's being said, what's in your head, what's in the words that we believe?
Bop to the sound, drop what you've got -- 'cause it's a song inside of me.
I can see your face, I can feel the sea, I see that it's a part of me.
Let's break the trance, let's make 'em dance and see what we are meant to be!
Might be the end, might be the start, could be the air that lies between.
Could be this song, could be the beat, could be the words that set you free.
You say believe, I don't believe, I can't believe in what you say.
I'd rather be a part of me, a part that you? You'll never see.
What To Believe - Daiki Kasho, composed for the Gran Turismo 4 Soundtrack (2004) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
