Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2013, 11:45 AM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 11:37 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I respectfully disagree. Outcomes happen for precise reasons that determine them. And if those exact precise reasons all happened in exactly the same way again, we would get exactly the same outcome every time. Not being able to accurately predict them in advance (at least currently), doesn't make them random. It may perhaps cause us to perceive them as random.

That's not disagreeing, that's redefining 'random'. Big Grin

It's not merely a matter of unpredictability. To our best knowledge there is no such thing as a hidden variable, which leaves us within the confines of a strictly quantum universe.

Outcomes are probabilistic. They can only ever be probabilistic. (but of course on a macroscopic aggregate scale, plenty of interactions are more or less certain).

If you trap a particle and measure its momentum then it no longer has a well-defined position. This is a consequence (affirmed by unimaginable amounts of experiment) of our best understanding of its real, actual physical nature. If you then measure its position...

There is, simply, no possible way to know which of the possible outcomes will result from an interaction (er, for certain systems... Tongue ). 'Random' seems to me as good a word as any to characterise this.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 11:45 AM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 11:37 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 11:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Er, but to clear up something else, randomness absolutely exists, insofar as knowing everything it is possible to know about a physical system still limits one's knowledge to (however thoroughly) knowledge of the relative odds of all possible outcomes.

Randomness has physical causes, and in the idealized sense refers to the fact that while outcomes and their probabilities can be exactly known there remains the contrary fact that on one interaction the specific outcome cannot be known in advance - other than in terms of the probabilities, of course!
(in real life we're lucky to ever get close to knowing that much, mind...)

I respectfully disagree. Outcomes happen for precise reasons that determine them. And if those exact precise reasons all happened in exactly the same way again, we would get exactly the same outcome every time. Not being able to accurately predict them in advance (at least currently), doesn't make them random. It may perhaps cause us to perceive them as random.

So, then are you saying that actually there is no such thing as random?

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 03:58 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 03:41 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Bell's theorem proves it is not caused by some constant or variable that we have yet to discover...

I said that about 10 times in this thread already.....pay attention man.

Does it? I thought bells theory PROMOTED the fact that there are hidden variables or constants and was really focussed on denying the assumptions made by QM, those of locality and realism, and did not Alain Aspect prove that QM does not have all the answers, supporting Bells theory.

To use the denial of a theory as proof of randomness is a false dilemma, just because QM cant explain it, does not mean that there is no other explanation for it.

Bell gave an inequality that should be satisfied, if QM could be explained in a classical framework. Experiments have shown that the inequality is NOT
satisfied. Thus showing that the more exotic theory of Quantum Mechanics
is needed to describe certain things in nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like black_squirrel's post
11-11-2013, 11:56 AM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 05:26 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 05:14 AM)sporehux Wrote:  I'm happy to admit my ignorance of bells theory. All seems like emperors new clothes to me.
But if it cant be explained in layman's terms then its pseudo science. Or I need to study it.
What ever it is. its no more god evidence than gaps in the fossil record.

Bells Theorem in true laymans is..
From wiki
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."
This statement is in my opinion too strong. One can imagine
that by adding some bell's and whistle's to the old theories one
might still be able to find the same predictions. But Quantum Mechanics
probably is the most elegant and simple model.
Quote:To laymans
"Quantum mechanics does not correctly predict reality regardless of hidden factors"
You're layman's translation seems to say something completely different.
Where did you cite this from??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 11:57 AM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 11:45 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not disagreeing, that's redefining 'random'. Big Grin

That's exactly the problem. No one defined their terms. Polis conflates (and invents) more than one definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
"Randomness means different things in various fields. Commonly, it means lack of pattern or predictability in events."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 05:41 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 05:25 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Do you understand what the term theory means in science? I think you need to read this.

I think you need to reread it too.. "but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations" they are approximations, the best explanation as we have at the minute.

SR, GR and QM have been proven to not explain the ultimates of a wider set of phenomena, and all fall foul of disruptions 'to the force'.. such as not applying in black holes and the such.

Whereas Laws such as thermodynamics apply regardless of situation and generate these 'best guess' explanations that seem to hook the interest of the shallow minded as fact and gospel. When there is proof something does not apply, a better explanation must be sought, this is the lifeblood of scientific progress.

It is ironic that you link the support for your argument to a page with childrens drawings on it Wink
What did you mean by "remains a theory" then? How could it ever become
anything more than a theory? Do you have examples of theories that did
not remain theories and what did they become when they were no longer theories?

I am not sure, but I think Chippy was trying to address you at the right level.
(Sorry, I could not resist the jab.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
11-11-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 09:56 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 02:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  This is a thread about randomness and I think Dr Polis does a good job in this video about explaining what randomness is.

Dr Polis talks about randomness

The randomness that we observe in nature, where does it come from? What is generating it? As a theist, I can say God is throwing the dice, but what can atheists point too?

What randomness? There are scientific reasons for everything regardless of whether we understand them.

Can you prove this assertion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 12:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 09:56 AM)Impulse Wrote:  What randomness? There are scientific reasons for everything regardless of whether we understand them.

Can you prove this assertion?

It hides the assumption that if we have complete information, the outcome is deterministic.

That assumption is not accepted by everyone.

Others have already stated this. Non-determinacy may be intrinsic at some level.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
11-11-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
I'm seeing a pattern.

(11-11-2013 08:39 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I haven't gone through all 6 pages ...
(11-11-2013 11:08 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ...
(I posted this without reading other responses, and I'm sure others have already said most of what I've said.)

In this instance, I will write Chippy's 'just a theory' response off as a misreading rather than a not reading.

The pattern relates to a correlation between not reading other people's replies and a low count of 'likes given'.

Stands to reason, really.

Also it shows a lack of respect for other posters.




That was just a random thought regarding patterns.

Carry on.

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
11-11-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 01:20 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Also it shows a lack of respect for other posters.

There is a 0.83786542187952413 probability that you are correct,
and that proves Jebus is guiding your actions, even though you may not realize it.
Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: