Originally posted by twhitehead If it was the uncertainty principle by itself, you might have an argument. But you mentioned 'quantum reality'. In quantum physics, it is not that you don't know the exact position of a particle, but that it doesn't have one. A deterministic model is therefore impossible.
What do you mean it has no exact position? You can know its exact position but you will affect its movement. The best description so far is a wave function but whether it really is a wavefunction or not we don't really know.
You seem to be describing what science says as if science was monolithic. Science is often more blurry than that. Do you know of the Copenhagen interpretation?
Originally posted by twhitehead Quantum physics and the uncertainty principle say otherwise, and without those, we would not have refraction and my glasses wouldn't work.
Light refraction is not a quantum phenomenon and can be explained very well by classical physics.
Originally posted by twhitehead I mean there is absolutely [b]no reason why the die I threw showed a 'six' and not a 'one'. It had nothing to do with anything that happened or existed in the universe (or elsewhere) prior to my throwing the die.
.... the regularity in their random behaviour. Thats really funny once you get it.
The outcome of an event would be unpred ...[text shortened]... t only cant predict the outcome, but you admit that it is impossible to predict the outcome.
A contradictio in terminis? I tried to discriminate between random behaviour and erratic or hazardous behaviour.
I don't claim to be able to predict the exact outcome. I claim regularity. The outcome is not hazardous or erratic . Could you imagine an universe in which subatomic particles would act erratic?
Science, in general, is not concerned with causation. Causation is, in a logical sense, a very treacherous concept that is more suited for intuition than for scientific analysis. Science attempts to model and predict, regardless of knowing the "true" cause to something (if it exists at all).
As for probability in quantum physics, this too is a rather treacherous area for the layman. The Heisenberg uncertainty relation does not tell you that "randomness" is intrinsic to nature - it just tells you a relationship between some variables that is a result of the wave formalism of quantum physics. If you write down a simple system like a particle in an infinite well, I can tell you with 100% certainty how the system will evolve in time, given the initial condition of the particle. Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle still hold? Damn right it does!
A "measurement", in a quantum physical sense, describes a system in which you don't know the entire Hamiltonian, as opposed to e.g. the infinite well case. This is when "random" elements come into play. Do the random elements disappear if you know the entire Hamiltonian of the (complex, many-particle) system? Is it even possible to find such a Hamiltonian? I can't tell you that, and I'm pretty sure no physicist can.
Originally posted by Palynka You seem to be describing what science says as if science was monolithic.
My understanding was that all scientist accept the basics of quantum dynamics. Am I wrong?
Science is often more blurry than that. Do you know of the Copenhagen interpretation? I have looked it up on Wikipedia. I don't think it supports you. I do not think a deterministic particle model is compatible with quantum dynamics.
Originally posted by Palynka Light refraction is not a quantum phenomenon and can be explained very well by classical physics.
It is entirely dependent on the 'wave nature' of light which is entirely a result of quantum dynamics. No quantum dynamics, no light 'waves', no refraction, no glasses.
Originally posted by souverein I don't claim to be able to predict the exact outcome. I claim regularity. The outcome is not hazardous or erratic . Could you imagine an universe in which subatomic particles would act erratic?
What you just don't seem to get, is that the regularity you are pointing too is pure randomness, whereas the 'hazardous' or 'erratic' behavior you are pointing to as an alternative is 'less than random' ie a pattern. It is the pattern ('hazardous' or 'erratic' behavior) that would imply a cause and not what we actually observe which is purely random behavior.
Originally posted by twhitehead It is entirely dependent on the 'wave nature' of light which is entirely a result of quantum dynamics. No quantum dynamics, no light 'waves', no refraction, no glasses.
It's an axiom of quantum dynamics, not really a result...
Originally posted by twhitehead My understanding was that all scientist accept the basics of quantum dynamics. Am I wrong?
[b]Science is often more blurry than that. Do you know of the Copenhagen interpretation? I have looked it up on Wikipedia. I don't think it supports you. I do not think a deterministic particle model is compatible with quantum dynamics.[/b]
The CI is exactly what I'm saying. Science discovered that the behaviour of particles is well described by incorporating randomness, but whether that means that nature features randomness or that this is an issue of measurement is up for grabs.
From wiki:
The insight that quantum mechanics does not yield an objective description of microscopic reality but that measurement plays an ineradicable role is probably the most telling characteristic of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Originally posted by twhitehead It is entirely dependent on the 'wave nature' of light which is entirely a result of quantum dynamics. No quantum dynamics, no light 'waves', no refraction, no glasses.
Wave theories of light exist since the XVIIth century. You are confusing wave theory of light (a macroscopic phenomena) with the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. A beam of light would be a wave even if all photons behaved as particles at quantum level, much like water waves behave as waves.
Originally posted by twhitehead What you just don't seem to get, is that the regularity you are pointing too is pure randomness, whereas the 'hazardous' or 'erratic' behavior you are pointing to as an alternative is 'less than random' ie a pattern. It is the pattern ('hazardous' or 'erratic' behavior) that would imply a cause and not what we actually observe which is purely random behavior.
I think I understand but disagree. I give it another try.
How would you describe a totally unpredictable event. Like a roulette that turns capriciously 300 times to 27, never to 26 etc.? I know we cannot predict one turn. But the sum of turns we can predict rather precisely. There is clearly a mechanism that prevents the roulette to behave capricious.
If you agree with this I wonder why you exclude the possibility of a mechanism that forces subatomic particles as a group or unit to react in a predictable way and not to act capriciously.
One particle behaves A, next particle behaves B. If it behaves A, the next one will behave B etc. etc.. The particles got a lot of freedom, but not all the freedom. What mechanism or input is here at work that we can predict the outcome?
Originally posted by twhitehead I am not sure if this should be here or in Science, but it is about things usually discussed here.
This claim comes up over and over in this forums:
[b]"Everybody knows that everything in the universe is caused" or its cleverly posed in another form:
"Show me something that is known not to have a cause"
It is my claim that the vast major ...[text shortened]... iming he is eternal - and thus avoiding the problem of having a time prior to his existence.[/b]
====================================
It is my claim that the vast majority of events in the universe are uncaused and although this cannot be trivially proven it is my claim that modern science and the concept of randomness rely on the fact that many events are either uncaused or indistinguishable from being caused.
=======================================
Why didn't you first take it over to the Science Forum? Get a concensus of what scientific people think of your theory.
At first glance it seems like a rather anti-science attitude. Go tell those primarily interested in discussing science that the vast majority of events in the universe are uncaused.
Then if it works out over there you can then come back and use it as a weapon against Christian Spirituality.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]====================================
It is my claim that the vast majority of events in the universe are uncaused and although this cannot be trivially proven it is my claim that modern science and the concept of randomness rely on the fact that many events are either uncaused or indistinguishable from being caused.
============================= ...[text shortened]... out over there you can then come back and use it as a weapon against Christian Spirituality.[/b]
Originally posted by Palynka Wave theories of light exist since the XVIIth century.
I am aware of that.
You are confusing wave theory of light (a macroscopic phenomena) with the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. No, I am not confusing the two. I am claiming that if quantum effects didn't exist, light would not behave as waves.
A beam of light would be a wave even if all photons behaved as particles at quantum level, much like water waves behave as waves. No it wouldn't. The wave nature of light is entirely a result of quantum effects. The wave effect is only ever seen when there is more than one photon and they interact with each other. The wave itself is evidence that the resulting interaction follows a statistically random pattern. If there was any deviation from randomness, the pattern would be seen in the wave.
Causation and randomness
14 Feb '11 11:56
Back to Top