22 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadit is clear that you have comprehension issues.
I don't believe you did make any such provisions. You specifically mentioned quantum mechanics and claimed that it too must be deterministic. I also wonder how you can 'make provisions' for quantum mechanics when making sweeping claims about the universe. Quantum mechanics [b]is how the universe works.[/b]
these are the claims that i've made. they are backed up by current knowledge of quantum mechanics.
1. in a closed system, there can be no true randomness. statistical randomness is the appearance of being random due to unknown laws or missing information, thus creating subjective unpredictability.
2. there is much unknown about quantum mechanics. physicists who describe quantum mechanics talk in terms of parallel and multiple universes; this is an indication of an open system, ergo the potential of true randomness exists pending the discovery of a unified wave mechanics theory.
i'll have to end it here since you can't seem to bring up any argument against these and can keep repeating the same objections.
22 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI think I just disagree with your claims. I don't think it is because I have failed to comprehend your claims.
it is clear that you have comprehension issues.
these are the claims that i've made.
And I dispute them.
they are backed up by current knowledge of quantum mechanics.
And I dispute that.
i'll have to end it here since you can't seem to bring up any argument against these and can keep repeating the same objections.
I don't feel the need to provide an argument because I feel you are the one making the extraordinary claims. It is for you to provide argument.
You could for example point us to some references, or find another poster with knowledge of quantum mechanics who agrees with you.
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadi think you're just being argumentative now.
I think I just disagree with your claims. I don't think it is because I have failed to comprehend your claims.
[b]these are the claims that i've made.
And I dispute them.
they are backed up by current knowledge of quantum mechanics.
And I dispute that.
i'll have to end it here since you can't seem to bring up any argument agains ...[text shortened]... references, or find another poster with knowledge of quantum mechanics who agrees with you.
i've said:
1. randomness can't exist in a close system
2. the potential for true randomness can only exist in an open system.
3. the quantum level may be a gateway to outside of the universe.
true randomness only exists at the quantum level:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100912_random.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7291/edsumm/e100415-06.html
quantum physics and parallel/multiple universes:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268/a-physicist-explains-why-parallel-universes-may-exist
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hugh-everett-biography
and as we have no way of observing what phenomenon occurs outside of the universe, we can't determine that this is true randomness. those physicists who believe in true randomness concede that it is subjective from the viewpoint of our universe and that is good enough for them.
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNo, I genuinely believe you are wrong and am genuinely disputing your claims. And I genuinely believe that you need to substantiate your claims and that it is not up to me to prove you wrong.
i think you're just being argumentative now.
i've said:
1. randomness can't exist in a close system
And you are yet to give any valid reasoning as to why that should be the case. Instead you keep repeating it as unsubstantiated fact.
2. the potential for true randomness can only exist in an open system.
The problem I see with this claim is that any open system is presumably a subset of a larger closed system, so your 2. contradicts your 1.
true randomness only exists at the quantum level:
This is not in dispute, and if anything contradicts your 1.
and as we have no way of observing what phenomenon occurs outside of the universe, we can't determine that this is true randomness. those physicists who believe in true randomness concede that it is subjective from the viewpoint of our universe and that is good enough for them.
I already conceded that we cannot ever prove that something is truly random. But this is not a good enough reason to claim that a cause necessarily exists. I also dispute that the cause, if it exists is necessarily outside the universe. In fact I see no reason whatsoever for invoking extra universes for this purpose.
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadas you have not presented any valid disputes to anything i've said, there is no point to continue.
No, I genuinely believe you are wrong and am genuinely disputing your claims. And I genuinely believe that you need to substantiate your claims and that it is not up to me to prove you wrong.
[b]i've said:
1. randomness can't exist in a close system
And you are yet to give any valid reasoning as to why that should be the case. Instead you keep re ...[text shortened]... e universe. In fact I see no reason whatsoever for invoking extra universes for this purpose.[/b]
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou say no true randomness in a closed system. In the case of the planet Earth vs the entire universe, I assume you are saying the universe as a whole is a closed system therefore there can be no true randomness.
as you have not presented any valid disputes to anything i've said, there is no point to continue.
But in a case on Earth and the search for true randomness, are you talking about Earth being a closed system as a whole or the universe as a closed system?
I think the answer is still out on whether the universe as a whole is open or closed. But anyway, the system of Earth compared to the system of the universe would seem to me to indicate if the universe was a closed system, then the system that is Earth would be such an insignificant % of the total as to make the difference between true randomness and what we can achieve on Earth as to be unmeasurable IMO. If indeed that is what you are talking about.
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI do not need to present any 'valid disputes', I only need to point out that your claim is extraordinary and you need to substantiate it (or it is just a random guess on your part - whether statistically random or genuinely random is up to you 🙂 ).
as you have not presented any valid disputes to anything i've said, there is no point to continue.
The fact is, that you are making a claim that is not part of mainstream science and you have not found anyone else who agrees with you nor do you have not found any references to back it up. Instead you just keep repeating it like that will make it true, or pretending that other people are just not understanding you. You don't even have a logical argument to present on your own.
You have made the claim that all closed systems are deterministic. I say that that needs to be proved before it can be taken as fact or be used to make any other conclusions. I also say that there is no evidence even suggesting that it is true and that quantum mechanics so far suggests the contrary. If that is not a valid dispute then what is?
23 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheada couple of points here:
I do not need to present any 'valid disputes', I only need to point out that your claim is extraordinary and you need to substantiate it (or it is just a random guess on your part - whether statistically random or genuinely random is up to you 🙂 ).
The fact is, that you are making a claim that is not part of mainstream science and you have not found any quantum mechanics so far suggests the contrary. If that is not a valid dispute then what is?
-from the very beginning, i've stated this is purely speculative.
-not that i need to, i gave you several references that support each of the central points of my claims.
so in effect, it is you who is regurgitating the same old arguments hoping that it will make it true. you have offered nothing that invalidates any of the claims i've made.
24 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNo, you did not. You stated as fact that closed systems must be deterministic. At no point did you suggest that that was speculation.
a couple of points here:
-from the very beginning, i've stated this is purely speculative.
-not that i need to, i gave you several references that support each of the central points of my claims.
No you did not. None of your references support that claim.
so in effect, it is you who is regurgitating the same old arguments hoping that it will make it true. you have offered nothing that invalidates any of the claims i've made.
Your claim cannot be invalidated any more than one can prove that no god exists, or that there are no teapots orbiting Saturn. But that doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritGood, now it is established that what you have said is purely speculative. 😏
a couple of points here:
-from the very beginning, i've stated this is purely speculative.
-not that i need to, i gave you several references that support each of the central points of my claims.
so in effect, it is you who is regurgitating the same old arguments hoping that it will make it true. you have offered nothing that invalidates any of the claims i've made.
That is, no facts.
24 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat part isn't speculation. a closed system is deterministic according to the laws of physics.
No, you did not. You stated as fact that closed systems must be deterministic. At no point did you suggest that that was speculation.
No you did not. None of your references support that claim.
your inability to understand has no effect on my claims.
Your claim cannot be invalidated any more than one can prove that no god exists, or that there are no teapots orbiting Saturn. But that doesn't make it true.
go back and read the first point of the post to which you are replying.