Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  To posit something is to assume something as fact....to put forward as the basis of argument. Quantum mechanics does not posit irreducible randomness. When you say "it seems to" you are making a conclusion that irreducible randomness exists. It is not one bit different than me making a conclusion that a non-local-causal agent exists.

"So what?" you ask? I was ready to drop this thread until you opened your trap and claimed you explained many times what ZoraPrime was trying to explain....which was " quantum mechanics posits events are truly random.". ZoraPrime's post had lots and lots of good information in it.....but it did not show what he set out to show. It does not show that "quantum mechanics posits events are truly random". You're explanations don't show it either. These are just conclusions or interpretations you and others have made. Quantum Mechanics does not posit irreducible randomness and when push comes to shove you will begrudgingly admit that.

I just don't buy irreducible randomness any more than I would buy irreducible gravity to explain "dark matter" gravity. Gravity is an effect and effects always have causes. Effects always having causes is an axiom by which I make sense of reality......I do not cherry pick when that axiom applies and when it doesn't. Concluding irreducible randomness is engaging in an error of "What you see is all there is" simply because you do not want to entertain the notion of the existence of a non-local causal agent.

The modern interpretation has always been quantum mechanics is random xor there's a global deterministic variable. Because relativity is a thing, we generally disregard the latter as a possibility except in the most extreme circumstances. The many-worlds interpretation is the only interpretation I'm aware of that takes a non-stochastic route and is generally taken seriously* by scientists. Essentially, the choice is either accept quantum mechanics is stochastic or introduce a global deterministic variable.

Provisionally, the former approach is better, since introducing global determinism provides more problems than it solves. Most global hidden variables will violate relativity, and as of right now, we have no reason to doubt relativity. The few that survive by being local (i.e. not violating relativity) and deterministic tend to introduce new postulates--in the case of many-worlds, we have to toss out counterfactual definiteness. To negate counterfactual definiteness basically means objects attain properties only as we measure them, which seems like an odd recourse to rescue determinism. Put it this way, do you like the statement: "If I throw the ball in the air it will come back to the earth?" YOU DO? great, you like counterfactual definiteness. So either you're going to violate relativity or you're going to accept QM is stochastic. Provisionally, we accept the latter since it's a good enough model that adequately describes (i.e. allows us to make prediction) the universe we see.


*"taken seriously" is a slippery phrase. I do not mean it's accepted as provisionally true as scientists; but rather scientists will publish papers of how we might observe many-worlds interpretations or how a phenomenon can be explained by it (which, in conjunction with another paper, may imply an observation that can be made).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ZoraPrime's post
11-09-2015, 08:34 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 08:04 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  To posit something is to assume something as fact....to put forward as the basis of argument. Quantum mechanics does not posit irreducible randomness. When you say "it seems to" you are making a conclusion that irreducible randomness exists. It is not one bit different than me making a conclusion that a non-local-causal agent exists.

"So what?" you ask? I was ready to drop this thread until you opened your trap and claimed you explained many times what ZoraPrime was trying to explain....which was " quantum mechanics posits events are truly random.". ZoraPrime's post had lots and lots of good information in it.....but it did not show what he set out to show. It does not show that "quantum mechanics posits events are truly random". You're explanations don't show it either. These are just conclusions or interpretations you and others have made. Quantum Mechanics does not posit irreducible randomness and when push comes to shove you will begrudgingly admit that.

I just don't buy irreducible randomness any more than I would buy irreducible gravity to explain "dark matter" gravity. Gravity is an effect and effects always have causes. Effects always having causes is an axiom by which I make sense of reality......I do not cherry pick when that axiom applies and when it doesn't. Concluding irreducible randomness is engaging in an error of "What you see is all there is" simply because you do not want to entertain the notion of the existence of a non-local causal agent.

The modern interpretation has always been quantum mechanics is random xor there's a global deterministic variable. Because relativity is a thing, we generally disregard the latter as a possibility except in the most extreme circumstances. The many-worlds interpretation is the only interpretation I'm aware of that takes a non-stochastic route and is generally taken seriously* by scientists. Essentially, the choice is either accept quantum mechanics is stochastic or introduce a global deterministic variable.

Provisionally, the former approach is better, since introducing global determinism provides more problems than it solves. Most global hidden variables will violate relativity, and as of right now, we have no reason to doubt relativity. The few that survive by being local (i.e. not violating relativity) and deterministic tend to introduce new postulates--in the case of many-worlds, we have to toss out counterfactual definiteness. To negate counterfactual definiteness basically means objects attain properties only as we measure them, which seems like an odd recourse to rescue determinism. Put it this way, do you like the statement: "If I throw the ball in the air it will come back to the earth?" YOU DO? great, you like counterfactual definiteness. So either you're going to violate relativity or you're going to accept QM is stochastic. Provisionally, we accept the latter since it's a good enough model that adequately describes (i.e. allows us to make prediction) the universe we see.


*"taken seriously" is a slippery phrase. I do not mean it's accepted as provisionally true as scientists; but rather scientists will publish papers of how we might observe many-worlds interpretations or how a phenomenon can be explained by it (which, in conjunction with another paper, may imply an observation that can be made).

Goddam, I don't know if you are a man or a woman but it don't matter because my dick is hard.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
11-09-2015, 08:41 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 08:52 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 08:04 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  The modern interpretation has always been quantum mechanics is random xor ... there's a global deterministic variable

Why exclusive or? Why must it be one or the other but not both? HouseOfCantor is currently negotiating with the Gwynnies on this very point. Big Grin

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:42 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 08:04 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  The modern interpretation has always been quantum mechanics is random xor there's a global deterministic variable. Because relativity is a thing, we generally disregard the latter as a possibility except in the most extreme circumstances. The many-worlds interpretation is the only interpretation I'm aware of that takes a non-stochastic route and is generally taken seriously* by scientists. Essentially, the choice is either accept quantum mechanics is stochastic or introduce a global deterministic variable.

Provisionally, the former approach is better, since introducing global determinism provides more problems than it solves. Most global hidden variables will violate relativity, and as of right now, we have no reason to doubt relativity. The few that survive by being local (i.e. not violating relativity) and deterministic tend to introduce new postulates--in the case of many-worlds, we have to toss out counterfactual definiteness. To negate counterfactual definiteness basically means objects attain properties only as we measure them, which seems like an odd recourse to rescue determinism. Put it this way, do you like the statement: "If I throw the ball in the air it will come back to the earth?" YOU DO? great, you like counterfactual definiteness. So either you're going to violate relativity or you're going to accept QM is stochastic. Provisionally, we accept the latter since it's a good enough model that adequately describes (i.e. allows us to make prediction) the universe we see.


*"taken seriously" is a slippery phrase. I do not mean it's accepted as provisionally true as scientists; but rather scientists will publish papers of how we might observe many-worlds interpretations or how a phenomenon can be explained by it (which, in conjunction with another paper, may imply an observation that can be made).

Zoraprime,

I understand quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory. Any theory based on incomplete information is going to be probabilistic. But just because the theory is probabilistic doesn't mean reality is. It doesn't even suggest it. Stochasticity is an artifact of the model....not reality.

Suppose you awake and find yourself trapped in a room with no entrances and exits. One one wall is button. You push it and out pops a food puck. However, every once in a while you get an electric shocked.

After many times of pushing the button you develop a probabilistic theory about the reality youf find yourself in. The theory concludes that you will get shocked 1 in 6 times. Now does that mean the button is irreducibly random? No, it means there is a dick on the otherside of the wall who shocks you after taking a die and rolling a 6(or what ever number the dick chooses to be the shock number).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:49 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 08:42 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Any theory based on incomplete information is going to be probabilistic. But just because the theory is probabilistic doesn't mean reality is.

What a dolt. It's not probabilistic because it's based on incomplete information. Obviously you understand neither Probability nor QM.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:51 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 08:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Goddam, I don't know if you are a man or a woman but it don't matter because my dick is hard.

Didn't we have a discussion about you talking about your dick? Oh my freaking Gwynnies. Laugh out load

I thought she was a girl, FWIW. Undecided

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
11-09-2015, 08:52 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 08:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:42 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Any theory based on incomplete information is going to be probabilistic. But just because the theory is probabilistic doesn't mean reality is.

What a dolt. It's not probabilistic because it's based on incomplete information. Obviously you understand neither Probability nor QM.

He doesn't even understand English. But he's good for riling up the locals. Lest we get all complacent and self-congratulatory and shit. Big Grin

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:58 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 08:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:42 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Any theory based on incomplete information is going to be probabilistic. But just because the theory is probabilistic doesn't mean reality is.

What a dolt. It's not probabilistic because it's based on incomplete information. Obviously you understand neither Probability nor QM.

I understand it better than you...and I forgive you for calling me a dolt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 08:51 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Goddam, I don't know if you are a man or a woman but it don't matter because my dick is hard.

Didn't we have a discussion about you talking about your dick? Oh my freaking Gwynnies. Laugh out load

I thought she was a girl, FWIW. Undecided

Yes we did. My bad. And my rock hard cock also thinks she is a girl.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
11-09-2015, 09:07 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(11-09-2015 09:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:51 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Didn't we have a discussion about you talking about your dick? Oh my freaking Gwynnies. Laugh out load

I thought she was a girl, FWIW. Undecided

Yes we did. My bad. And my rock hard cock also thinks she is a girl.

Wow. Laugh out load

Well I sure fucking hope you don't scare her away.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: