Who or what throws the dice for atheists?



13112013, 05:59 AM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 05:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(13112013 05:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: I said probability estimated by observation. Suckyballsack, you quoted what I said and then you said I said something different. You can't hide your stupidity here. 

13112013, 06:04 AM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 05:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:(13112013 05:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote: False dilemma. You are assuming that a 'who' will be the answer, and that the only other answer is your god. Intellectually honest people (as in, not yourself) know that 'I don't know' is an perfectly acceptable answer to questions for which we lack enough evidence or understanding. You have no clue what you're talking about. Bell's Theorem was proven incorrect, using photons, not electrons, (which Bell used), by Clauser and Freedman in 1972, and Aspect in 1981 who showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics are correct. Insufferable knowitall.
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich  we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries"  Sarah Palin 

13112013, 06:11 AM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 06:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(13112013 05:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The problem with "I don't know" in this situation is that it is wrong. We do know. We do know that there are no physical hidden variables. Bell's theorem tells us this. Go reread that Wikipedia article again. Bell's theorem was not proven incorrect by Clauser and Freedmen. And if you don't believe me....ask Cljr. 

13112013, 07:15 AM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 06:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:(13112013 06:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about. Bell's Theorem was proven incorrect, using photons, not electrons, (which Bell used), by Clauser and Freedman in 1972, and Aspect in 1981 who showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics are correct. If I understand it correctly, Bell proved that: IF local variables explain Quantum Physics, THEN a certain inequality must be satisfied. This theorem was never disproved. However, it was shown in experiments that the inequality is NOT satisfied, and that therefore, local variables cannot explain Quantum Physics. But that, of course, does not disprove the "IF ... THEN..." statement. So: Bell said "if A then B." Clauser and Freedmen said "not B". We conclude "not A". Where A: local variables explain QM B: Bell inequality at least, that is how I understand it. 

13112013, 10:58 AM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 04:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Physics does not tell us that a random generator is not needed at the quantum level. It only tells us that the random generator does not exist in the physical sense. So I ask you Chas, who throws the dice for you atheists? Eh? That's... not what physics says. You're still just reasserting the same "but there needs to be a dice thrower" as if that meant something. You're just claiming that. Apparently based on... personal conviction? I can't really tell. You just keep saying "but there needs to be". Take my electron spin example. Any axis may be used as an orthonormal basis in Hilbert function space to describe said probability density functions. Z is traditionally preferred. And so  a twodimensional state has two basis functions (dimensionality being a count of the number of linearly independent members required to span the space). It has up to two eigenvalues for a given operator (this follows from linear algebra); the operator diagonalized in said orthonormal basis has those basis states as eigenfunctions. So we measure on the z axis. We get zup. That is, after measurement the system exists in a precisely known state, which is completely composed of a single basis function. To express this is another basis requires a change of basis, another wellknown linear algebra process. The same state can be expressed as a linear combination in any basis for the space. So, how do we express zup in terms of the x basis states? It is necessarily a linear combination of them. Turns out it's an equalamplitude combination. Recalling that the probabilities (the amplitudes as opposed to the densities) must sum to 1 (aka of all possible outcomes one of them must happen!), in this case they need to have equal amplitudes. Divide 1 into two equal parts. 1/2 and 1/2. Which is to say the densities are 1/sqrt(2) with appropriate phase (the various combinations of +/ 1 and +/ i required to maintain orthogonality within the {x,y,z}aligned basis). So anyway, if the electron exists in precisely the zup state (which it will, since we just measured it to be there  and with no perturbation it's stable in time) then it exists (it has to exist) in an equal combination of xup and xdown. Therefore measuring z, getting zup, and then measuring x will admit of two equal probabilities (xup and xdown), and this is due to the nature of the interaction of the physical properties of the system itself. Now, linear algebra and probability theory are of course human mathematical constructs, but whether apparentlyaccurate models bear any relation to reality (and whether there is such a thing as reality and if so whether we can know anything about it) are different questions. But that's not important right now ('cause if you're interested in ever getting any shit done you better start from the position that shit is real and you can in fact do it). tl;dr  if our best current physical models are correct (this being the most reasonable assumption, until some other revision/theory with better explicative and predictive abilities comes along) then randomness at a quantum level is very much a wellunderstood consequence of the presumed physical nature of reality. But never fear; there are still many points at which we must say "we don't know how/why/if suchandsuch happens". So you can shove the ol' God of the Gaps back in yet! (ie CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS) ... this is my signature! 

2 users Like cjlr's post 
13112013, 11:42 AM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 05:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The problem with "I don't know" in this situation is that it is wrong. We do know. We do know that there are no physical hidden variables. Bell's theorem tells us this. You selectively dropped an important word out of that statement that complete changes the claim,you should get a job at a tabloid. try "We do know that there are no known physical hidden variables. Bell's theorem tells us this." Your "Jesus Qark our lord" hypothesis only makes sense if QM was within our ability to test accurately. and the fact that the act of observing the test changes the result means we do not understand QM comprehensively . Your Ontological arguments are silly, you must realise, or are sticking with this belief. Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I". 

13112013, 01:24 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 11:42 AM)sporehux Wrote:(13112013 05:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The problem with "I don't know" in this situation is that it is wrong. We do know. We do know that there are no physical hidden variables. Bell's theorem tells us this. No, you are wrong. See Black Squirrels last post. 

13112013, 01:35 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 10:58 AM)cjlr Wrote: Therefore measuring z, getting zup, and then measuring x will admit of two equal probabilities (xup and xdown), and this is due to the nature of the interaction of the physical properties of the system itself. Now, linear algebra and probability theory are of course human mathematical constructs, but whether apparentlyaccurate models bear any relation to reality (and whether there is such a thing as reality and if so whether we can know anything about it) are different questions. But that's not important right now ('cause if you're interested in ever getting any shit done you better start from the position that shit is real and you can in fact do it). This is due to the uncertainty principle and not some interaction. 

13112013, 01:40 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 05:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:(13112013 05:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: That's not what you originally said, Blowjob. You edited your post, and the time stamp proves that. I am twisting nothing, you dishonest, fake, who needs to LIE to attempt to make his idiot theist position appear rational. Those who don't know the difference between a probability and an occurrence, then try to cover the evidence by attempting to change their original post, should not be using the word "stupidity". Insufferable knowitall.
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich  we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries"  Sarah Palin 

13112013, 02:25 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 01:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: This is due to the uncertainty principle and not some interaction. Yeah. Sure. Except no. The uncertainty principle is a consequence of the nature of the interactions. I literally just explained how that works. Several times in this thread. ... this is my signature! 

2 users Like cjlr's post 
« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)