Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 10:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not "completely random". The decay rates of Uranium can be calculated, and the factors that influence the rate are known, and can be calculated. That's how atom bombs work, and how nuclear power works.

Polis contradicts himself about 5 times in the video. There is no such thing as "randomness" (for macro events) in this universe, (even Polis said that).
The provability of macro events isn't in ANY WAY determined by the state of the observer's knowledge, (as Polis claims)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Order, in this universe arises SPONTANEOUSLY, and requires no gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

If you don't like having all your stuff dismissed as "god of the gaps", then stop making god of the gaps arguments.

It is yet another god of the gaps pile of rubbish. He says "atheists like to do thus and so" .. irrelevant assertion.
The events which lead to mutations in Evolution are not "random", and atheists DO NOT make the argument he claims.
They also do not any longer make the argument, or need to make the argument, using QM to debunk "free will".

You are conflating rates of decay with an instance of decay....amoung your other errors. I don't have a lot of time today so this will likely be my only post in the thread today.


"God of the Gaps" as you atheists typically use it in this forum is this:

There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world
Therefore God done it.

I am not making a "God of the Gaps"..."fallacy".... because there is no gap in our understanding of the physical world in this respect. We know that the physical world is quantum mechanical and that there are no classical hidden variables generating the randomness. This understood aspect of nature isn't a problem for theists...actually its something that should be expected by theist. The world needs a dice thrower. Its a problem for atheists because we know there isn't dice thrower in the physical sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 01:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 10:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not "completely random". The decay rates of Uranium can be calculated, and the factors that influence the rate are known, and can be calculated. That's how atom bombs work, and how nuclear power works.

Polis contradicts himself about 5 times in the video. There is no such thing as "randomness" (for macro events) in this universe, (even Polis said that).
The provability of macro events isn't in ANY WAY determined by the state of the observer's knowledge, (as Polis claims)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Order, in this universe arises SPONTANEOUSLY, and requires no gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

If you don't like having all your stuff dismissed as "god of the gaps", then stop making god of the gaps arguments.

It is yet another god of the gaps pile of rubbish. He says "atheists like to do thus and so" .. irrelevant assertion.
The events which lead to mutations in Evolution are not "random", and atheists DO NOT make the argument he claims.
They also do not any longer make the argument, or need to make the argument, using QM to debunk "free will".

You are conflating rates of decay with an instance of decay....amoung your other errors. I don't have a lot of time today so this will likely be my only post in the thread today.


"God of the Gaps" as you atheists typically use it in this forum is this:

There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world
Therefore God done it.

I am not making a "God of the Gaps"..."fallacy".... because there is no gap in our understanding of the physical world in this respect. We know that the physical world is quantum mechanical and that there are no classical hidden variables generating the randomness. This understood aspect of nature isn't a problem for theists...actually its something that should be expected by theist. The world needs a dice thrower. Its a problem for atheists because we know there isn't dice thrower in the physical sense.

You have not demonstrated a need for a 'dice thrower'. The phrase 'generating randomness' remains ill-defined, even inchoate.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-11-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 01:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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

Good point, well made.

And there I was thinking that my guiding spirit was the sake I had at lunch and the champagne I had with dinner.

WTF am I talking about? Moet is holy spirit!

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 02:00 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 01:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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

Good point, well made.

And there I was thinking that my guiding spirit was the sake I had at lunch and the champagne I had with dinner.

WTF am I talking about? Moet is holy spirit!

Thumbsup

Sake....me wants Drooling

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
11-11-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 01:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I am not making a "God of the Gaps"..."fallacy".... because there is no gap in our understanding of the physical world in this respect.

Sure. Except... you are.

(11-11-2013 01:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  We know that the physical world is quantum mechanical and that there are no classical hidden variables generating the randomness.

True.

This bears no relation whatsoever to the non/existence of any supernatural entity.

(11-11-2013 01:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  This understood aspect of nature isn't a problem for theists...actually its something that should be expected by theist. The world needs a dice thrower. Its a problem for atheists because we know there isn't dice thrower in the physical sense.

It isn't a "problem" for anyone. "The world needs a dice thrower" is a thing you've just made up.

And it's really not a particularly interesting claim. Dice-thrower is a loaded term which implies agency. There is no observational evidence whatsoever to suggest any such thing - what we know is that the universe appears strictly probabilistic and is uniformly so. A dice-thrower presupposes those probabilities are not self-resolving - there must be something "else" or "outside" to resolve them. But this never happens in unpredictable or inconsistent ways, so either we do not need a dice-thrower or, if there is one, it only ever acts consistently in knowable ways - at which point the observational difference between a self-contained probabilistic nature and a "dice-thrower's" probabilistic nature amounts to none at all. Positing some unknown interaction or entity to account for observation is reasonable, although it's not science until you can investigate it. Supposing it to be supernatural is not reasonable; supposing to call it 'God' even more ridiculous.

What you're saying amounts to,
"Why is the universe the way it is?"

To which the atheist answer is "don't know", and the theist answer is "God".

That's... not exactly anything new.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-11-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 12:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 12:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  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.
Yes, the part I bolded is my assumption and exactly what I was saying in my other discussion with cjlr. Maybe I'm in over my head on this one, but I think it naturally follows from there being no god. Without some kind of supreme being running the universe (which I of course certainly don't believe in), then everything is based on natural principles and laws. And I think it logically follows that any event, given identical circumstances in every possible respect, will have the same outcome every time. Therefore, if you had complete knowledge and complete information about the event, you would be able to predict the outcome.

Black_squirrel,
No it's not something I can prove, but could anyone? Trying to prove randomness doesn't exist is like trying to prove that god doesn't exist. You would have to examine every last situation. It would be easier to show any believe randomness is not random at all.

(11-11-2013 11:45 AM)Dom Wrote:  So, then are you saying that actually there is no such thing as random?
I hadn't really thought about it that way, but maybe so. I'll have to think about that some more.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
11-11-2013, 04:17 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 07:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Smile RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 01:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You are conflating rates of decay with an instance of decay....among your other errors. I don't have a lot of time today so this will likely be my only post in the thread today.

You are a dishonest to say "among your other errors", and not have the balls to say what they are. I am not "conflating" anything, (funny, as Chippy says, how people NEVER use a word, and all of a sudden it appears in a post in rebuttal. You are VERY suggestible, maybe that's why you are a belieber ?
The rate of decay is nothing more than instances, summed over time. What do you think the rate actually measures anyway ? If the decay of a group of Uranium or Plutonium atoms was "completely random, there would be no radioactivity (predictably) no Radiation Therapy, no nuclear bombs, and no nuclear power.

You ARE committing the god of the gaps fallacy. YOU seem to NEED to, (as evidenced by your OP) have an explanation why order is seen in the universe, RIGHT NOW TODAY, OR ELSE. That's what two-year olds do. There is no satisfactory explanation for that at this point. That does not justify cooking up a deity. That IS the "god of the gaps" fallacy. It's the very premise of the OP. The "experience" is not the issue, and is irrelevant. It's the same mistake Polis makes, (well one of them). Whether you think you understand it, (by positing ultimately a god as your final explanation), is irrelevant to OTHERS, and worthless in the argument.

The "world" does NOT *NEED* a "dice thrower". Most scientists do not "need" a dice thrower. YOU need a dice thrower.
Therefore you cook up a god, to fill your needs. It's not about Math, Science or even Theology, or Philosophy.
You have demonstrated what I have always known. It's about PSYCHOLOGY, (and your *needs*).
(Some people are less "needy" than others.)

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, 05:07 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 03:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:  ... And I think it logically follows that any event, given identical circumstances in every possible respect, will have the same outcome every time. Therefore, if you had complete knowledge and complete information about the event, you would be able to predict the outcome.

Fair enough, as a philosophical point of view. But that is, indeed, not what modern science indicates!

Find a particle with some two-state quantum aspect (eg spin), in more than one separable dimension (spin is 3-dimensional). Such as, say, the electron in a hydrogen atom.

Measure its spin along a spatial axis (convention says the experimenter's primary axis be designated 'z'). Spin is a form of quantized angular momentum; the half-integer spin of an electron admits of two outcomes - up or down (to be a little crude). Before measuring, you don't know what its z-spin is. After, measuring, you know exactly what its z-spin is (either up, or down). Let's say it's z-up.

But suppose you measure its z-spin and then its x-spin. What is its x-spin before the second measurement? What is its x-spin after the second measurement? What is its z-spin after the second measurement?

The answers are, respectively, a simultaneous superposition of x-up and x-down, an exact value of either x-up or x-down, and a simultaneous superposition of z-up and z-down. After we've measured z (and gotten z-up) the probability of measuring either x-up or x-down (being the square of the probability density) is one half. Fifty-fifty. One or the other, equal odds.

According to our current understanding, there is no possible way for these two exact values to coexist (the electron quite literally cannot have simultaneously well-defined spin in multiple axes). Which is to say, non-commuting operators imply an uncertainty relation. This is The Famous Uncertainty Principle (and it often gets Heisenberg's name attached to it).


tl;dr - quantum mechanics is probabilistic.

And then comes hidden variables (evidence suggests: not a thing). Mostly that's a matter of saying, "but I don't want the universe to be quantum! Maybe underneath the quantum it's classical again?"

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
11-11-2013, 05:19 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(11-11-2013 05:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 03:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:  ... And I think it logically follows that any event, given identical circumstances in every possible respect, will have the same outcome every time. Therefore, if you had complete knowledge and complete information about the event, you would be able to predict the outcome.

Fair enough, as a philosophical point of view. But that is, indeed, not what modern science indicates!

Find a particle with some two-state quantum aspect (eg spin), in more than one separable dimension (spin is 3-dimensional). Such as, say, the electron in a hydrogen atom.

Measure its spin along a spatial axis (convention says the experimenter's primary axis be designated 'z'). Spin is a form of quantized angular momentum; the half-integer spin of an electron admits of two outcomes - up or down (to be a little crude). Before measuring, you don't know what its z-spin is. After, measuring, you know exactly what its z-spin is (either up, or down). Let's say it's z-up.

But suppose you measure its z-spin and then its x-spin. What is its x-spin before the second measurement? What is its x-spin after the second measurement? What is its z-spin after the second measurement?

The answers are, respectively, a simultaneous superposition of x-up and x-down, an exact value of either x-up or x-down, and a simultaneous superposition of z-up and z-down. After we've measured z (and gotten z-up) the probability of measuring either x-up or x-down (being the square of the probability density) is one half. Fifty-fifty. One or the other, equal odds.

According to our current understanding, there is no possible way for these two exact values to coexist (the electron quite literally cannot have simultaneously well-defined spin in multiple axes). Which is to say, non-commuting operators imply an uncertainty relation. This is The Famous Uncertainty Principle (and it often gets Heisenberg's name attached to it).


tl;dr - quantum mechanics is probabilistic.

And then comes hidden variables (evidence suggests: not a thing). Mostly that's a matter of saying, "but I don't want the universe to be quantum! Maybe underneath the quantum it's classical again?"

I love it when physicists talk dirty to me. Big Grin

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-11-2013, 05:24 PM
RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
He's a quantum physicist! Burn the witch!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: