|
why why why????? (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dark_Archonis
Magnetonium ... again, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I believe there are parallel universes with each one having their own lifespan ... so if our universe was very close to dying (imploding) then hypothetically speaking, if we had such technology, we could literally rip space apart, and then rebuild our race in another universe, preferably a young one.
Now, what you are saying can't be proved ... it's probably based on some current theories out there, unless you thought of this yourself. Same as I cannot prove what I am saying. To further explain what I am talking about, go read up on Dr. Michio Kaku. He's a theoretical physicist and one of the smartest people in the world. Also check out this Interview with Dr. Michio Kaku which goes more in depth about what I was talking about.
DigiNut, you seem totally convinced that the concept of randomness, and these probability functions are correct. As Epicurus stated, in essence, many different theories can essentially prove the same outcome. Just because the concept of randomness makes sense, doesn't mean it's correct (go back and read my "the earth is flat" argument). There could be dozens of other theories that prove the concept of randomness, and they could be totally different than the probability functions.
I wonder if you are aware of string field theory, which is a theory (co-founded by Dr. Michio Kaku) which is essentially a "theory for everything". Einstein tried to create such a theory, but could not. Now, string field theory continues Einstein's quest. Roughly speaking, string theory presents the argument that there is a reason for everything, and that everything can be explained.
Oh, and for the illuminati theories, I can't give you any physical evidence. There is enough evidence out there to make you believe, but I can't do that for you. The fact that you're at least open to the idea is good enough.
Just to make myself seem clear, the reason I am so seemingly open and general in my posts is on purpose. I try my best not to get attached to one theory, or one perspective. I try not to base my posts on any theories at all. I try to be as objective as possible, by looking at the big picture, and keeping things simple, ideologically speaking. |
Yes, I see what you are saying, you dont believe in the concept of a close universe, but its alright. For me it just doesnt make sense that after infinite number of births and deaths of our universe enough matter not escaped to make this universe more of a ... solar system? If you see my analogy. If atoms can escape the universe's pull, then the universe is destined to its death, and no rebirth. Just like if someone in your family line thousands of years ago never died, you will not exist today. If matter does not recycle back into the system, then the link would be broken and the system will be prone to collapse. Stars, planets, everything in this universe has a beginning and an end, and its end is neccessary for another beginning. The universe is like a clock, and the time goes around in a circle, because if it wasnt a circle then the cycle is broken, isnt it? It makes common sense to me. There are parallel universes out there that are "close" in terms of comparing them to other universes, yet they are maybe infinitely or very far for us to ever reach them. The gap between the universes is no smaller than the maximum gravitational pull that will trap you in your universe forever - in simpler words, its impossible to travel to another parallel universe. If you will be able to travel to another universe, then that universe should technically be prone to get sucked in together with another universe. Whatever the technology an advanced being in our universe might invent, should not be able to travel to another universe - its like travelling back into time - its impossible. Who knows, maybe universes spin around other universes in orbits like the galaxies? Maybe they are related?
Diginut - what do you think with regards to this matter? |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Yes, I see what you are saying, you dont believe in the concept of a close universe, but its alright. For me it just doesnt make sense that after infinite number of births and deaths of our universe enough matter not escaped to make this universe more of a ... solar system? If you see my analogy. If atoms can escape the universe's pull, then the universe is destined to its death, and no rebirth. Just like if someone in your family line thousands of years ago never died, you will not exist today. If matter does not recycle back into the system, then the link would be broken and the system will be prone to collapse. Stars, planets, everything in this universe has a beginning and an end, and its end is neccessary for another beginning. The universe is like a clock, and the time goes around in a circle, because if it wasnt a circle then the cycle is broken, isnt it? It makes common sense to me. There are parallel universes out there that are "close" in terms of comparing them to other universes, yet they are maybe infinitely or very far for us to ever reach them. The gap between the universes is no smaller than the maximum gravitational pull that will trap you in your universe forever - in simpler words, its impossible to travel to another parallel universe. If you will be able to travel to another universe, then that universe should technically be prone to get sucked in together with another universe. Whatever the technology an advanced being in our universe might invent, should not be able to travel to another universe - its like travelling back into time - its impossible. Who knows, maybe universes spin around other universes in orbits like the galaxies? Maybe they are related?
Diginut - what do you think with regards to this matter? |
Again, I see what you are saying. I understand it, and it makes sense, but I just don't know if it's true or not. Again, I am a very open person, and open to many possibilities, which is why the idea of time travel or travelling between universes I believe is totally possible. And, if you look at the links I gave, Dr. Michio Kaku does believe that it is possible to travel between parallel universes. For 2 parallel universes for example, he gives the analogy of holding a piece of paper over another piece of paper. Everything on the top piece of paper cannot, under normal circumstances, somehow jump down to the bottom paper. But what if you were to make a hole in the paper, then you could jump from one paper to the other. Similarly, a hole would allow in theory for something from the bottom paper to travel into the top paper.
There is much we do not know about how specifically universes work, which is why I cannot say I totally fully agree with you, because I am certain much of our knowledge about the universe (and everything really) is flawed.
If you think about it, learning never ends, and a race can essentially continue learning new things for an infinite amount of time, until of course other circumstances come into play, such as a race becoming extinct. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| Yes, I also looked for information on him elsewhere on the web, sounds very intriguing. I do not rule out the posibillity of travelling to a different universe just yet. I was quite harsh, it is possible, its not impossible. I am just worried this Mr. Kaku is using vague examples to back his ideas, thats all. Will look into it sometime. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
That, I will have to disagree with you on. We don't implicitly prove randomness by being able to do that. The reason is simple: other models, that don't have ontological randomness as part of them, that are in fact deterministic in the strongest of senses, predict equally well the distribution of potential outcomes. See Bohmian Mechanics
In fact, using that argument in general is fallacious, since you can never be sure that a different model will not fit the data in the exact same way. This is the classical horror story for science, when it comes to claims of describing reality, since dramatically different models, with consequences when it comes to reality, can predict the same outcomes.
However, and like I previously wrote in this thread, Bohmian mechanic adherents are in the minority, and thus, my objections to a deterministic type of universe stem from a majority of experts type of argument, not to mention that Bohmian mechanics can't take into account many phenomena in quantum field theory (so it is poorer in this sense and needs to be further developed). |
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that necessarily makes what I said fallacious. Whether or not there is another model that might fit the data in exactly the same way, the fact is our model still fits the data, and that's what matters. (And besides, AFAIK Bohmian mechanics still use the wave function, which is the probability function in question here).
It's like quantum mechanics vs. classical mechanics. It's not like quantum mechanics blew classical mechanics out of the water and made it useless; classical mechanics are still *true* even if they don't apply on a subatomic scale. When we come up with new theories they usually tend to do more in the realm of highlighting exceptions to established rules, rather than tearing down the laws themselves.
So the point being, if we have a probablistic model for life, then for all intents and purposes, life is probablistic (random). Maybe in 500 years, someone will come up with a deterministic model that works, and we'll find out that life is random AND deterministic, much like light is both a wave and a particle. But that's of little consequence to us right now because our random model WORKS, and there is presently no deterministic model that can claim to do the same. All variations of determinism that I've seen so far are essentially pseudoscientific. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dark_Archonis
DigiNut, you seem totally convinced that the concept of randomness, and these probability functions are correct. As Epicurus stated, in essence, many different theories can essentially prove the same outcome. Just because the concept of randomness makes sense, doesn't mean it's correct (go back and read my "the earth is flat" argument). There could be dozens of other theories that prove the concept of randomness, and they could be totally different than the probability functions. |
There may be numerous undiscovered theories that work, but as long as they're undiscovered, it is unscientific and irrational to believe that an established theory which has yet to be disproven is wrong. Objective and rational people base their conclusions on evidence, not excessive skepticism and idle speculation.
In fact, the belief that the Earth is flat is much more akin to what you propose than what I propose. Ancient cultures knew and had ample evidence that the Earth was round, but for some reason in the Middle Ages, people chose to believe, flying in the face of boundless contrary evidence, that it was flat. That's a perfect corollary to the approach you're taking: looking at a well-established, well-tested theory and going "meh, I don't believe it, there's probably another theory that we just haven't discovered yet." If you think a theory is wrong then by all means, go ahead and look for ways to disprove it because that's what science is all about - but don't just speculate!
| quote: | | I wonder if you are aware of string field theory, which is a theory (co-founded by Dr. Michio Kaku) which is essentially a "theory for everything". Einstein tried to create such a theory, but could not. Now, string field theory continues Einstein's quest. Roughly speaking, string theory presents the argument that there is a reason for everything, and that everything can be explained. |
The UFT is NOT AT ALL trying to say that everything is deterministic, and to take it as such would be a gross misinterpretation. It simply postulates that all the various disjoint forces we use in physics might all be related. Those forces are still governed by probablistic functions!
| quote: | | Oh, and for the illuminati theories, I can't give you any physical evidence. There is enough evidence out there to make you believe, but I can't do that for you. The fact that you're at least open to the idea is good enough. |
I'm open to no such thing. I said there was a possibility, just as there is a possibility of there being a God. However, all the evidence points to NO, and from many perspectives a "yes" would indicate some sort of logical paradox. Being "open" implies that there's some mail slot in my mind that people can just shove their junk through - my mind is a doorway, but it's locked and only evidence can open it. I hate the "open mind" ideal, it's nothing but postmodern PC gibberish. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that necessarily makes what I said fallacious. Whether or not there is another model that might fit the data in exactly the same way, the fact is our model still fits the data, and that's what matters. (And besides, AFAIK Bohmian mechanics still use the wave function, which is the probability function in question here).
It's like quantum mechanics vs. classical mechanics. It's not like quantum mechanics blew classical mechanics out of the water and made it useless; classical mechanics are still *true* even if they don't apply on a subatomic scale. When we come up with new theories they usually tend to do more in the realm of highlighting exceptions to established rules, rather than tearing down the laws themselves.
So the point being, if we have a probablistic model for life, then for all intents and purposes, life is probablistic (random). Maybe in 500 years, someone will come up with a deterministic model that works, and we'll find out that life is random AND deterministic, much like light is both a wave and a particle. But that's of little consequence to us right now because our random model WORKS, and there is presently no deterministic model that can claim to do the same. All variations of determinism that I've seen so far are essentially pseudoscientific. |
Digi...you're obviously missing my point. Bohmian Mechanics IS the deterministic equivalent of QM :p
| quote: | Courtesy of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
[...](This is J.S. Bell speaking) - But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated. ... |
Furthermore, with regards to the wave function, yes, Bohmian Mechanics uses it, but it does not provide an a complete description of a QM system:
| quote: | Courtesy of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
In Bohmian mechanics the wave function, obeying Schrödinger's equation, does not provide a complete description or representation of a quantum system. Rather, it governs the motion of the fundamental variables, the positions of the particles: In the Bohmian mechanical version of nonrelativistic quantum theory, quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the behavior of particles; the particles are described by their positions, and Bohmian mechanics prescribes how these change with time. In this sense, for Bohmian mechanics the particles, described by their positions, are primary, or primitive, while the wave function is secondary, or derivative. |
I thought I was rather clear in my previous post. The consequences are huge. We have two models that work EQUALLY well from an empirical perspective, but that imply different consequences with regards to the true nature of reality. QM implies ontological randomness at a sub-atomic level, while Bohmian Mechanics does not. How can you then claim that since we have an indeterministic model that works, that randomness must then exist, considering the fact that we have another model that works EQUALLY well, but says the contrary with regards to randomness.
The only way you can get out of this quagmire is to take the philosophical position that Bohm took. He believed that reality had different "levels", each describable with a different physics. Thus, at the macro-level, classical Newtonian physics was "correct", at the quantum level, QM was "correct", and at a deeper level of reality (whatever that means), Bohmian mechanics was "correct". Again, I don't know if I buy his interpretation or not since based on the equations, it seems like Bohmian mechanics describes the same "reality" as QM does, with radically different consequences about the reality being described. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I'll admit I haven't really had time to read all the information available on Bohmian mechanics (nor do I intend to), but to the best of my knowledge, he seems to have just fished the important parts out of quantum mechanics and tried to "re-interpret" them as being deterministic. He takes a probablistic function and just says to us, "well, I think there's a deterministic process behind this and the randomness just comes from stuff we don't know about". Obviously he doesn't do it in so few words or on such a trite level, but from skimming over the material, that was the basic impression I got. To me, that is pseudoscience, not science. There's no real evidence to support the assertion that random processes are driven by some "lower-level" deterministic process.
I think "hidden variables" bears a striking resemblance to the Creation/Religion "scientists" who say that it's really God who is moving all these particles on a subatomic level. Hidden variables are a catchall explanation... they're not testable or falsifiable. Ergo, I can't accept that theory at face value.
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the theory, I'll have another look at it on one of the many days where I have too much time to kill. :p |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'll admit I haven't really had time to read all the information available on Bohmian mechanics (nor do I intend to), but to the best of my knowledge, he seems to have just fished the important parts out of quantum mechanics and tried to "re-interpret" them as being deterministic. He takes a probablistic function and just says to us, "well, I think there's a deterministic process behind this and the randomness just comes from stuff we don't know about". Obviously he doesn't do it in so few words or on such a trite level, but from skimming over the material, that was the basic impression I got. To me, that is pseudoscience, not science. There's no real evidence to support the assertion that random processes are driven by some "lower-level" deterministic process.
I think "hidden variables" bears a striking resemblance to the Creation/Religion "scientists" who say that it's really God who is moving all these particles on a subatomic level. Hidden variables are a catchall explanation... they're not testable or falsifiable. Ergo, I can't accept that theory at face value.
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the theory, I'll have another look at it on one of the many days where I have too much time to kill. :p |
Yes, you should definitely take a look at the theory again ;) You don't really want to be caught comparing hidden variable theories to creationism in physics' circles :p And believe me, these theories are testable and furthermore falsifiable. Anyway, this particular dilemma still stumps me, which is why I go with the safest type of argument available given the circumstances (majority of experts arguments). I realize it's not a strong argument, but it'll have to do for the time being. So now, where were we. Ahhh yes, Israel is indeed a terrorist state :toothless... I kid, I kid... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
Yes, you should definitely take a look at the theory again ;) You don't really want to be caught comparing hidden variable theories to creationism in physics' circles :p And believe me, these theories are testable and furthermore falsifiable. Anyway, this particular dilemma still stumps me, which is why I go with the safest type of argument available given the circumstances (majority of experts arguments). I realize it's not a strong argument, but it'll have to do for the time being. So now, where were we. Ahhh yes, Israel is indeed a terrorist state :toothless... I kid, I kid... |
No... the equations from BM are testable but they are just the same equations from QM. It's like taking all the philosophy out of QM and just leaving in the formulas. Which I'm sure is great for some people but it reminds me of my university courses where I just memorized the formulas and didn't learn anything about the theory.
BM is supposed to accept in principle that it can't provide any epistemological evidence to support its claims. Maybe it is taking it a little too far comparing it to Christian Scientists, but I think it's pretty widely accepted (and yes, this may be the "majority of experts" argument you speak of, which I happen to think is valid) that BM is more of a "shortcut through quantum" than a theory in and of itself, just a way of avoiding some of the more complex questions. But those questions still need answering, and if we went back 200 years and started people off on Bohmian mechanics instead of Quantum mechanics, I don't think it would have led to nearly so many discoveries... it becomes just another boring science with a lot of math as opposed to a philosophy that actually has direction.
Avoiding the complex questions by redefining them isn't the same as answering them. It's like answering "why" with "why not". Yes, BM "works", but it hasn't taken away randomness and replaced it with determinism, it's just redefined randomness as something that looks more like determinism. But when you look deeper into it, you still can't explain the deterministic process and all its "hidden variables", so what you're dealing with might as well just be called random. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
No... the equations from BM are testable but they are just the same equations from QM. It's like taking all the philosophy out of QM and just leaving in the formulas. Which I'm sure is great for some people but it reminds me of my university courses where I just memorized the formulas and didn't learn anything about the theory.
BM is supposed to accept in principle that it can't provide any epistemological evidence to support its claims. Maybe it is taking it a little too far comparing it to Christian Scientists, but I think it's pretty widely accepted (and yes, this may be the "majority of experts" argument you speak of, which I happen to think is valid) that BM is more of a "shortcut through quantum" than a theory in and of itself, just a way of avoiding some of the more complex questions. But those questions still need answering, and if we went back 200 years and started people off on Bohmian mechanics instead of Quantum mechanics, I don't think it would have led to nearly so many discoveries... it becomes just another boring science with a lot of math as opposed to a philosophy that actually has direction. |
Fair enough, and I agree with the fact that it wasn't meant as a full blown theory (even Bohm agreed to that). However, the point that Bohm was trying to show to begin with was that it was possible to re-interpret QM deterministically, which he succeeded at. The epistemological question that you bring up is a valid one in one sense, and completely besides the point in the other sense. You're right that there is no epistemological proof for it, but randomness in nature (or lack thereof) is an ontological question and not an epistemological one. Is it part or is it not part of reality? Thus, he was simply showing that it is possible to interpret QM in such a way that reality was devoid of randomness (read ontological -nature- of reality). And I think he makes this point quite well, and that's the point we're debating. Determinism versus Indeterminism is ontology.
| quote: | | Avoiding the complex questions by redefining them isn't the same as answering them. It's like answering "why" with "why not". Yes, BM "works", but it hasn't taken away randomness and replaced it with determinism, it's just redefined randomness as something that looks more like determinism. But when you look deeper into it, you still can't explain the deterministic process and all its "hidden variables", so what you're dealing with might as well just be called random. |
This I will have to disagree with you on. I don't think you understood the interpretation quite well if you believe hidden variable theories are pseudo-deterministic or "equivalent" to randomness. Anyway, a debate for another day :p |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| You're probably right Epicurus, to be honest I don't really know what the hell I'm talking about. Discussions about these wack theories are usually more fun in person because I like to point and shout "HE'S A WITCH!!" That's the way I feel about theories like Bohmian Mechanics, as well as a wide variety of cosmological theories and any philosophy that deals with the whole hornet's nest of ontology/epistemology. Philosophy was a lot more fun before it turned into that... stupid Descartes ruined it for everyone. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
Wow. I can't believe you guys revived this thread. I applied for (among other things) mathematical physics at U of W... maybe in 2 or 3 years I'll be able to debate this intelligently.
I've always believed in ontological determinism... I'm not quite sure why; I think it just makes more sense to me, coming from a very mathematical background and never formally studying QM. I just believe that anything that appears random can be studied until we figure out how it works. A dice has a certain probability distribution determined by its physical characteristics, but the outcome of a given roll is based on the physics and mechanics of how it was thrown, and despite the fact that the outcomes satisfy a given probability distribution, they are not ontologically random. QM just screws things over because the HUP takes away our ability to study the deterministic forces beyond a certain level. I really think that this issue is impossible to resolve. It's like the existance of God - nobody will ever really prove it true or not, and citing expert sources is useless because they all base their guess on opinion.
And Israel... terrorists? Sure, why not. Them and the Americans ;) (prepares to be flamed heavily) |
|
|
|
|
