Originally posted by VoidSpirit that part isn't speculation. a closed system is deterministic according to the laws of physics.
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 ...[text shortened]... ke it true.
go back and read the first point of the post to which you are replying.
Apparently some people want a hiding place for "something" and some call that god yet there is no hiding spot. Newtonian mechanics, Quantum physics and Chaos theory are all deterministic. Some other people are confusing an ability to predict outcomes with determinism, some others are doing the same thing intentionally. BTW, your "distinction" between statistical randomness and true randomness is doing nothing but causing confusion to everyone except yourself.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit that part isn't speculation. a closed system is deterministic according to the laws of physics.
As I thought. So why did you even bother bringing up the fact that you'd claimed to be speculating about something else? Do you not even know what is being disputed?
your inability to understand has no effect on my claims. Here we go again with your 'nobody understands me' argument. I am sorry but it just doesn't cut it.
go back and read the first point of the post to which you are replying. At least give me a hint as to which page its on. Do you mean your second post in the thread (on page 3)?
And after I have read it, what then?
Originally posted by Phil Hill Apparently some people want a hiding place for "something" and some call that god yet there is no hiding spot. Newtonian mechanics, Quantum physics and Chaos theory are all deterministic. Some other people are confusing an ability to predict outcomes with determinism, some others are doing the same thing intentionally. BTW, your "distinction" between stati ...[text shortened]... ness and true randomness is doing nothing but causing confusion to everyone except yourself.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Quantum physics isn't deterministic. 😞
Define deterministic and distinguish it from fatalism. Everyone here that is making the same claim as you is confusing the two terms, doesn't understand Quantum mechanics or is just plain ignorant of what Quantum mechanics actually says.
Originally posted by Phil Hill Define deterministic and distinguish it from fatalism. Everyone here that is making the same claim as you is confusing the two terms, doesn't understand Quantum mechanics or is just plain ignorant of what Quantum mechanics actually says.
Usually the person who is using the non-standard definition gets to provide it. So, the floor's yours.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Usually the person who is using the non-standard definition gets to provide it. So, the floor's yours.
I am not using a non-standard definition. If you are so sure I am, post it and then post the difference between determinism and fatalism. Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on claiming I am wrong. Tell you what, go ask a professor of Quantum mechanics at you local university if it's deterministic. I advise you if you do, be prepared to have your worldview shattered.
edit - even Stephen Hawking says Quantum Mechanics is deterministic.
Originally posted by Phil Hill Define deterministic and distinguish it from fatalism. Everyone here that is making the same claim as you is confusing the two terms, doesn't understand Quantum mechanics or is just plain ignorant of what Quantum mechanics actually says.
Calling everyone else ignorant doesn't get the point across. Explain what you mean by deterministic and what you mean by fatalism, then provide at least one reference to back up your claim.
As a reference to counter your claim I present Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
....modern quantum mechanics, casts reasonable doubt on this main thesis of determinism.
Originally posted by Phil Hill edit - even Stephen Hawking says Quantum Mechanics is deterministic.
A quote from Stephen Hawking on that subject:
"Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty."
So even he recognises it as 'a new form of determinism'.
Originally posted by twhitehead Calling everyone else ignorant doesn't get the point across. Explain what you mean by deterministic and what you mean by fatalism, then provide at least one reference to back up your claim.
As a reference to counter your claim I present Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
....modern quantum mechanics, casts reasonable doubt on this main thesis of determinism.
Casts doubt on the main thesis of determinism? From what I remember, wikipedia lists no less than 5-6 different types of determinism. Being that you obviously went there, I can only conclude that you are being dishonest and cherrypicking to fit your worldview. Tell me, are Hawking, Penrose et al all wrong or are there more types of determinism than fatalism? Besides, why don't you tell us what the wiki page says about predictions and determinism?
Originally posted by Phil Hill Casts doubt on the main thesis of determinism? From what I remember, wikipedia lists no less than 5-6 different types of determinism. Being that you obviously went there, I can only conclude that you are being dishonest and cherrypicking to fit your worldview. Tell me, are Hawking, Penrose et al all wrong or are there more types of determinism than fatalism? Besides, why don't you tell us what the wiki page says about predictions and determinism?
I was not 'cherry picking'. I was merely pointing out that one version of determinism (as defined on the page I referenced) is not supported by quantum mechanics. I also pointed out that Hawking was forced to redefine determinism to make it compatible with quantum mechanics. I am not denying that other definitions exist (as Hawkins demonstrates), but that you need to at a minimum give your definition before making claims.
I also don't know what you think my 'world view' is. Its probably not much different from yours in this instance. If you do not dispute Hawkins then I would say we are in agreement that the universe follows the form of determinism that he suggests. This is however not traditional determinism.
The first line of that Wikipedia page:
Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.
Originally posted by twhitehead I was not 'cherry picking'. I was merely pointing out that one version of determinism (as defined on the page I referenced) is not supported by quantum mechanics. I also pointed out that Hawking was forced to redefine determinism to make it compatible with quantum mechanics. I am not denying that other definitions exist (as Hawkins demonstrates), but that ...[text shortened]... that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.[/quote]
You pointed out that fatalism is "questionable" according to Quantum mechanics. Hawking did not redefine determinism. Read what he said more carefully.
Originally posted by Phil Hill You pointed out that fatalism is "questionable" according to Quantum mechanics. Hawking did not redefine determinism. Read what he said more carefully.
I have read what he said 'more carefully' and it is still quite clear that he had to redefine 'determinism' to fit quantum mechanics. There is absolutely nothing wrong with new definitions, so long as it is clear what someone means. I notice that you are yet to define what you mean by 'fatalism' or 'determinism'.
Originally posted by twhitehead I have read what he said 'more carefully' and it is still quite clear that he had to redefine 'determinism' to fit quantum mechanics. There is absolutely nothing wrong with new definitions, so long as it is clear what someone means. I notice that you are yet to define what you mean by 'fatalism' or 'determinism'.
Look, it isn't a new definition as adequate determinism (not about Quantum mechanics) goes back to at least the 2nd century BCE. I am sure you know Hawking is a physicist and therefore an authority on physics. that does not make him an authority on philosophy or the history of philosophical theories. If you think it does, you are either wrong or as deluded as a fundamentalist Christian.
Originally posted by twhitehead As I thought. So why did you even bother bringing up the fact that you'd claimed to be speculating about something else? Do you not even know what is being disputed?
[b]your inability to understand has no effect on my claims. Here we go again with your 'nobody understands me' argument. I am sorry but it just doesn't cut it.
go back and read ...[text shortened]... o you mean your second post in the thread (on page 3)?
And after I have read it, what then?
what then? then get the proper background education on the topic.
Originally posted by Phil Hill Look, it isn't a new definition as adequate determinism (not about Quantum mechanics) goes back to at least the 2nd century BCE.
Hawking called it new. If you realised that Hawking was mistaken, then why did you use him as a reference and suggest that if I was correct then he must be wrong?
If you think it does, you are either wrong or as deluded as a fundamentalist Christian. What makes you think I think it does? Its you that brought him up in the first place, and I merely showed that he agreed with me. I think you just cant admit when you have made a mistake.
I am not disputing various meanings for the term 'determinism' nor even how old those meanings are. I am merely saying you need to be specific when you use them and if necessary state your definitions. You can't simply pick one at random then tell everyone else they are ignorant and wrong.
free will
25 Aug '12 04:16
Back to Top