|
why why why????? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
Like I said, what I write in my previous post was what my friend said, and I didnt read the book yet (cant say which one yet). So what I said may sound crazy, maybe I didnt really understand what I was told, I need to copy the exact text from the book for all of you to comprehend. I cant really understand was he said to me anyway, its beyond understanding.
All I can say is that this book, comes in a series, and it's a best seller in Chapters, translated in over 30 languages around the world, and it has no religious connections ... because it criticizes religion |
|
|
| arek |
i exist because my parents were horny enough to fux - i am a fluke and i enjoy it.
 |
|
|
| Epicurus |
Philosophy mixed in with science...couldn't resist, despite the fact it's in the Toronto forum...anyway, lots of interesting questions, very few answers as usual...to start off, I think EVERYONE should ask themselves these questions, for the very simple reason that it's a humbling experience to know that ultimately, you don't know anything at all in all certainty...there is nothing new here, as skepticism in its most caustic forms has been around since the Greeks...Having said that, we tend to believe in something, and that should be based on the best and most reliable evidence we have to this date. Furthermore, best and reliable are to a certain extent subjective, but science is undeniably better and more reliable than any existent theology will ever be at explaining the true nature of the universe since the methodology is clear, and proceeds based on empirical evidence. Spare me the Kuhn and Feyerabend discussions regarding this point, as I'm not in the mood to start trashing them. Give me Popper anyday.
To the person who said that science is the new religion, I beg to differ. Science, unlike religion, is not dogmatic by it's very nature. It refutes itself constantly. We come up with elaborate theories to explain what we see around us and predict future occurences using these theories. If empirical evidence contradicts theoretical predictions, then it's time to take a look at your theories and rework them. Several theories have gone down the drain because of that, and many will continue to disappear simply because there is a standard they are being compared to. What religion do you know of can actually claim that?
Having said all of that however, yes, science, or better yet, the scientific method, is of course based on certain metaphysical assumptions. The fact that the external world exists (and is not some fiction of our mind) for instance and that the phenomenal world we perceive indeed corresponds to reality are essential assumptions in science when it claims to discover the true nature of the universe. So perhaps, you might think that empiricism is to a certain extent dogmatic. You might even think that extrapolating empirical evidence to describe the true nature of the universe if going too far. But I'll take empiricism and the metaphysical assumptions that come along with it on "faith" anyday over some jibberish about some invisible being up in the sky who created us, loves us, is absolutely perfect in every way but is an attention whore that constantly needs to be pampered.
Before I get into the science, we first need to define some things clearly, as some people were all over the place, conflating randomness with uncertainty and chaos, causation with determinism, and epistemological issues with ontological ones. First off, deterministic randomness is indeed an oxymoron, and it is so ipso facto. The definition of determinism is as follows: given an initial state and a set of laws, there is exactly one state that my system will be at at some future time. Randomness, again by definition, is EXACTLY the negation of the previous definition. They are diametrically opposed. Given a certain state of my system at time t1 and a set of laws, my future state of my system at some future point in time is undetermined. As a side note, PLEASE note that determinism is an ontological doctrine, not an epistemological one. In other words, it is besides the point whether we can predict or know this future state. There are chaotic systems in nature that are deterministic (or so it is believed) despite the fact that we can't predict or know their final states. To the person who used "deterministically random", you might have been thinking of indeterministic causation, although I'm not entirely sure what exactly you were thinking.
Anyway, on to the science. Let me clearly state that I believe that the universe is random and non-causal at the micro level. I do realize that there are (many) dissenters regarding the classical Copenhagen interpretation of QM, and I haven't personally investigated causal Bohmian mechanics in great detail, so my belief is based on the fact that a large majority of physicists tend to stick to ontological indeterminsim (i.e. randomness is part of nature, and not "due" to the fact that we are ignorant of certain causes) despite the fact that some of my friends swear by hidden variable theories. Having said all of that, at a macro level, randomness is most probably drowned out and it doesn't seem likely that randomness plays a major role (if at all). That, for instance, is the reason why Newtonian mechanics serves us very well in everyday life at the macro level. So yes, it seems that as long as we stick to a non-micro level, everything has a cause. By that, I don't mean everything has a reason, in the anthropomorphized sense. It simply means that there is a set of events that is sufficient in bringing about any event (again at a macro level). People, mostly for psychological reasons such as fear, comfort and insecurity issues, not to mention plain ignorance, tend to invest meaning into these "innocuous" causes, thus giving rise to reasons. Stop.doing.this.
People need to grow up and/or grow a set of balls and come to grips with the fact that there is no one above watching over you, that you're "alone" in this universe and that you'll die and become worm food. There is no overarching purpose to this universe, we were not put here for any reason, and we have no purpose to fulfill. We create purpose in our lives, usually for experiential reasons, and we derive meaning from this created purpose. Furthermore, I find it disconcerting that some people are "looking" for the meaning or purpose of life. Looking where, for what? The implicit assumption when talking about God is that his purpose must be good and thus worth searching for. For suppose there was a God and he had a grand master plan. He created us humans and put us here on Earth because he purposefully wants to see humans kill each other. Alright, so that confers meaning and a purpose for him, but how does that confer meaning or purpose for YOU??! Does that mean that you should go around killing people simply because that's what God wants and you were put here to fulfill this purpose. Of course not. The absurdity of this example should lead people to think about the superfluousness of a higher purpose or God for that matter, since there are underlying human dispositions and irrational desires that mold it and him into things we'd like to believe are true. We created God, not the other way around. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
WTF!!?? WHAT IS THIS GARBAGE?
Ok, first of all:
1. This mysterious "fourth dimension" is known as "time" by all reputable scientists. There are in fact several more of these "dimensions" that are well-known and well-understood, but I don't remember the exact details there.
2. It sounds like you MIGHT be talking about a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which is used extensively in solid-state physics in diodes and other SS devices and has been used for many years. However, this has NOTHING to do with other dimensions or "zapping" particles or space-time curvature, it really is mostly to do with boring old wave functions.
3. They've been working on teleportation for a long time, but it is NOT the Star-Trek kind of teleportation you're thinking of. The current branch of "teleportation" exists in replicating all the quantum properties of an electron, which we are actually now able to do on a small scale because we can "read" and "write" quantum state with nanotechnology. And with the aid of nanotechnology we are also able to create atom nuclei from scratch, so yes, we can "teleport" a single atom with the current technology, but we're a long way from being able to teleport even a molecule and a VERY long way from being able to teleport organic matter.
Geez man, where do you come up with this !? These sound like they came from Scientologists and sci-fi writers, not actual scientists! |
I'm not thinking of Star Trek teleportation, and you don't have to insult my contribution by being picky about the technical aspects. I'm trying to explain it in a way that people will understand, without using equations and other BS.
Teleportation through quantum tunnelling is possible for electrons but next to impossible for anything larger because the probabilities involved are negligibly small (inversely proportional to the square root of the mass of the particles, or something like that).
The quantum teleportation I'm thinking of works something like this:
- 2 photons are emitted by a single source at the same time.
- 1 of these photons is moved or changed.
- INSTANTANEOUSLY, the change in the first photon is detected in the second photon.
It's because time doesn't exist for the photons (since they're travelling at the speed of light) so when one is moved, it's as if it is still touching the other photon, and it moves too. So the information and energy transmitted from one photon to the other cuts through the fourth dimension (time) to reach the other location, because the distance between the two photons in the fourth dimension is 0 (and distance becomes irrelevant since their time axis is infinitely stretched.)
Tons of experiments have demonstrated that this is possible... the guy said that it may be possible to turn this into a form of communication... no lag when communicating with people in space or probes on mars.
Search "quantum teleportation" on google and I'm sure you'll come upon better explanations than the one I gave.
~ Elyot
By The Way, DigiNut, please stop telling me that what I write is "" and "sci-fi". I really was hoping to have a civilized discussion about philosophy and physics, but your unnecessary mudslinging has really robbed this discussion of it's integrity. It would be nice if you'd keep those thoughts to yourself instead of ruining the thread. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
People need to grow up and/or grow a set of balls and come to grips with the fact that there is no one above watching over you, that you're "alone" in this universe and that you'll die and become worm food. There is no overarching purpose to this universe, we were not put here for any reason, and we have no purpose to fulfill. We create purpose in our lives, usually for experiential reasons, and we derive meaning from this created purpose. Furthermore, I find it disconcerting that some people are "looking" for the meaning or purpose of life. Looking where, for what? The implicit assumption when talking about God is that his purpose must be good and thus worth searching for. For suppose there was a God and he had a grand master plan. He created us humans and put us here on Earth because he purposefully wants to see humans kill each other. Alright, so that confers meaning and a purpose for him, but how does that confer meaning or purpose for YOU??! Does that mean that you should go around killing people simply because that's what God wants and you were put here to fulfill this purpose. Of course not. The absurdity of this example should lead people to think about the superfluousness of a higher purpose or God for that matter, since there are underlying human dispositions and irrational desires that mold it and him into things we'd like to believe are true. We created God, not the other way around. |
Marvelously written. I think that the fallacy of falsely believing in the existance of God is partially due to fear, but also due to the ideas embedded within children when they're young. Kids who are taught to believe in God have a harder time coming to grips with the fact that there is no God... it gets embedded in the brain. Some formerly religious people do switch over to atheism, but very few atheists become religious (I mean... why would they?) I think that religion has lasted so long because of societal pressures (500 years ago, if you didn't believe in God, you could be hung for heresy) but will gradually die as science takes over and people smarten up.
It's interesting to note that scientific philosophy barely existed 50 years ago. I think the rise in scientific philosophy runs parallel to the fall of religion.
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
Before I get into the science, we first need to define some things clearly, as some people were all over the place, conflating randomness with uncertainty and chaos, causation with determinism, and epistemological issues with ontological ones. First off, deterministic randomness is indeed an oxymoron, and it is so ipso facto. The definition of determinism is as follows: given an initial state and a set of laws, there is exactly one state that my system will be at at some future time. Randomness, again by definition, is EXACTLY the negation of the previous definition. They are diametrically opposed. Given a certain state of my system at time t1 and a set of laws, my future state of my system at some future point in time is undetermined. As a side note, PLEASE note that determinism is an ontological doctrine, not an epistemological one. In other words, it is besides the point whether we can predict or know this future state. There are chaotic systems in nature that are deterministic (or so it is believed) despite the fact that we can't predict or know their final states. To the person who used "deterministically random", you might have been thinking of indeterministic causation, although I'm not entirely sure what exactly you were thinking.
|
With respect to "deterministic randomness", I just meant that I believe it could be possible that the apparent randomness of an outcome could always be boiled down to a deterministic cause, even if it were impossible to determine what that cause was.
A case to illustrate... most people believe that there are 4 fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity). However, there could be a fifth (or possibly infinitely many) other forces that are so unbelievably small that we would never possibly be aware of their existance. Anything that we define as being "random" could more accurately be classed as "we don't know what the hell caused it to happen."
Ignore the obvious impracticality of the next example. Suppose we took the outcome of every "random" event and factored it all into a giant imaginary computer, which spat out a universal equation with 10^23847892374 fundamental forces. Would those events then still be considered random? Would the recursive application of this argument then not equate randomness with determinism?
My point is that if you define randomness as being "given a certain state of my system at time t1 and a set of laws, my future state of my system at some future point in time is undetermined", then I could simply state that your set of laws is incomplete. We may never find the "complete" set of laws, because as far as I know, that set of laws does not have to be finite in size. However, this does not disprove the possibility that a complete set of laws may exist, leaving the possibility that "randomness" indeed is determinism, which I believe would disprove the theory of randomness by reduction ad absurdum.
You claim that determinism is entirely an ontological doctrine (which I agree with), but could it not be true that randomness is entirely empistemological by the above argument?
Is there a flaw in what I've said? I'm not saying that it HAS to be true... I'm just saying that the possibility exists for it to be true. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | You claim that determinism is entirely an ontological doctrine (which I agree with), but could it not be true that randomness is entirely empistemological by the above argument?
Is there a flaw in what I've said? I'm not saying that it HAS to be true... I'm just saying that the possibility exists for it to be true. |
Again, like I said previously, we can and never will know anything in all certainty. We have to believe in the most reliable information available to us at any point in time, since that's the best we can do. A perfect analogy to the example you gave is one with flying unicorns. Most people believe that flying unicorns don't exist. However, a flying unicorn freak might claim that there might exist flying unicorns somewhere in the universe, and there wouldn't be a flaw in his statement. Why? Simply because we can't possibly search all four corners of the universe and be sure that there are no flying unicorns. But we still are extremely skeptical about the existence of flying unicorns. Why is that? Simply because we're basing our beliefs on the best and most reliable evidence we have to this point in time (i.e. we've never seen one, they would defy the laws of physics as they currently stand etc etc etc).
The reason I use this example is to simply illustrate that yes, there could be underlying causes to this randomness (thus making it not random) and I did allude to that when I mentioned Bohmian mechanics, which is a causal interpretation of QM. Bohm basically believed that QM was correct but that there were certain "levels" of reality beneath the level that QM described that were causal and deterministic. His mechanics was a hidden variable type of theory and actually works as well as QM though there is no ontological randomness in his theory. However, I also did say that he is very much in the minority when it comes to his interpretation of QM. He does have a few adherents, but the large majority of physicists believe in ontological randomness when it comes to QM. THAT is what I use as my criteria for most reliable evidence when I state that I beleive in micro-indeterminism. The fact that an overwhelming majority of the most brilliant physicists believe that to be so. I've taken QM and know quite a bit about phsyics in general, but I'll defer the randomness point to people who are more knowledgeable than me in this field.
To sum up my point, sure, there might be causes behind this apparent randomness, but what evidence are you basing this on? And if you believe in a Bohm-like physics, why is that? Your position has to be justified somehow in a rational manner, otherwise, it devolves into a unicorn like defense, which is of course rather weak and baseless. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
To sum up my point, sure, there might be causes behind this apparent randomness, but what evidence are you basing this on? And if you believe in a Bohm-like physics, why is that? Your position has to be justified somehow in a rational manner, otherwise, it devolves into a unicorn like defense, which is of course rather weak and baseless. |
Exactly, and this is the point I've been trying to explain to you Elyot, that absent any actual evidence for this "deterministic randomness", it is no different from any other religious belief.
Again I have to bring up Occam's Razor. Why needlessly complicate the issue by attributing hidden "causes" when our quantum mechanical model works perfectly fine without them? Your claim is that there might be causes so small that we just refer to them as "we don't know what caused it", but the random nature of quantum mechanics does not say "we don't know", it says "matter on the quantum level has a probablistic nature that is strictly defined and quantized".
There is a difference between the way you are defining random, which is "we don't know why this happens", and the way quantum mechanics defines random, which is "we know exactly why this happens but can only predict within a certain probability how or when or where it will happen". Essentially, you're putting up a straw-man argument to try and prove your point, and I'm getting annoyed in this thread because you are pursuing it so relentlessly.
Believe in whatever you want, but don't try to play it off as "science" unless you've got some actual evidence.
Epicurus: while you definitely do have a point, epistemology and ontology aren't so easily separated (wouldn't you say the nature of knowledge is part of the nature of being?). |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
I concede that I have no proof of the correctness of my theory... but you have no proof that it's wrong... although Epicurus' "Most physicists don't agree with you" makes sense. I'll have to read up some more on Bohmian mechanics because I have no idea how they work.
I think this thread started out as "what do you believe in"... not "justify everything you believe in with physical evidence"... and I defended my theory because you attacked it... not because I have a wealth of information backing it up... but then again, neither do you.
The pragmatic reason why I believe in my theory is that it seals the loophole and prevents any interference by god. I hate religious flunkies who say god makes things happen, so I argue determiniesm... when people then try to argue that the uncertainty principle is what lets god screw with the universe, this is my usual refutation. Most people aren't knowledgeable enough to challenge my argument to the degree that you did, but in the end, the only conclusion is that the answer is uncertain.
I suppose it is a unicorn argument in a sense, but consider this:
Horse --> something we see and observe
Unicorn --> a man-made idea
Determinism --> something we see and observe
Randomness --> a man-made concept, originally used to explain things we can't predict
For hundreds of years, people thought that a coin toss was random. Now that we understand Newton's physics, we know that the physics of how you throw it, air resistance, rotational momentum, etc determines how it will land. Therefore the original man-made concept of randomness was resolved to determinism (although it is still very difficult to predict.) Nonetheless, for the first time ever, there was a separation between randomness and unpredictability.
Now suddenly we realize that quantum mechanics is random... different things have different outcomes that obey probability distributions, much like the roll of a die or the toss of a coin. Why suddenly is it wrong to assume that the forces responsible for the outcome of a quantum state are no less deterministic than the tossing of a coin? Why do we suddenly claim that this is due to "randomness", which is in my opinion, a man-made excuse for a cause that we can't precisely define.
Maybe determinism is the horse, and randomness is the unicorn.
I formulated this idea long before I learned a lot about quantum... sometimes I wonder whether people believe things just because that's the way it was taught to them... I consider religion an example of this. Few people get up one day and just decide what they want to believe when there are so many options. Most people just get pulled one way or another without considering the fact that the correct answer may indeed be "none of the above". I think that's just part of the nature of the human mind.
| quote: | | There is a difference between the way you are defining random, which is "we don't know why this happens", and the way quantum mechanics defines random, which is "we know exactly why this happens but can only predict within a certain probability how or when or where it will happen". |
I think this is good, but you need to clarify WHY we can only predict within a certain probability... a coin toss may be hard/impossible to predict, but it most certainly is NOT random (well... if you want to get picky, what are the chances that quantum affects the outcome? Slim to none for something of that mass.) For something to be random, the reason why we can't pridict it beyond a certain probability distribution is that THERE IS NO REASON WHY ONE OUTCOME HAPPENS. Randomness is when we can't predict the future because no law for determining the future exists.
I think what epicurus meant about epistomology and ontology was that people were getting confused by "what actually causes what happens within the limits of uncertainty" and "what we know about what causes what happens within the limits of uncertainty." The second of the above is an empty set, whereas the first may be either randomness or determinism. I think in order to clarify this, we have to get rid of the link between randomness and unpredictability. Unpredictability is the epistemological equivalent of randomness. Unpredictability is to randomness as knowing is to being. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
Elyot,
Granted this thread started as a "what you believe in thread", but the underlying and implicit assumption that goes without saying when it comes to what you believe in is why you believe in that rather than this. In other words, you believe something because of x or y or z. It seems after all this that your reasoning behind why you believe in a deterministic kind of world is rather weak (and not really valid for that matter) since according to what you previously said, you espouse that view-point to reject claims made by some God believing individuals that use the uncertainty principal to justify their deity's existence and some vague notion about precedence regarding knowledge (we thought things were random before, but it turned out that there were causes, so why not the same for this), rather than some commonly accepted philosophical arguments (such as majority of experts arguments, Occam's razor arguments and so forth). By the way, Diginut, thanks for pointing out the Occam razor argument - perfectly applicable here, and how are you btw you right wing whore :p
Personally, I beleive you can't use either position to justify your beliefs, and furthermore, you don't have to stick to determinism to tell the science-and religion-are-compatible-idiots to shove it. How desperate are they becoming when they try and manipulate QM to insert God into there :haha: Even if we conceded their point, God would only "exist" at basic particle levels since we know that randomness gets drowned out at a macro-level. Their oh so powerful God has been reduced to a pathetic similee of his self if all he can do is cause electrons to shift orbits randomly :stongue: Anyway, my point is you don't need determinsm to make any point regarding God's non-existence, and your analogy argument is extremely weak since there is NO proof that previous analogies are germane to this particular case. In fact, I don't think they are at all.
Diginut,
Regarding epistemology and ontology, Elyot explained my point quite well. There are people who simply confuse both issues, making arguments based on one while they refer to the other. As for the nature of knowledge being part of the nature of being, sure, but I don't quite see the relevance of that regarding what I said. Maybe you can explain to me what I missed if indeed there is a contradiction in my position. |
|
|
| newr |
| quote: | Originally posted by d!abolic
LKD brought up an excellent point. This is something i've been fully conscious of for the last several years. That is to say, this is something i've been trying to consciously AVOID for the last several years. Hippies had the right idea but they went the wrong way while implementing it. Instead of living life to the fullest outside of society's boundaries they ended up being drugged-out bums. However, there ARE ways to have the best of both worlds. They require a lot of ambition and courage to even consider, and then years of hard work to carry out. But they're out there. It's possible. So no, we do NOT have to live our lives the way society wants us to. That's a recipe for disaster. A wise man once said that we should try to figure out what direction everyone is going in and then go the other way. I couldn't agree more. It's riskier, but you're just not gonna get anywhere in life if you do the same things everyone else is doing. There are simply too many people who are after pieces of that one big pie. It's better to have a larger piece of a smaller pie, than a tiny crumb from the larger pie. Anyway, it's good to see an intelligent discussion on this board! I'll check back here later to see what you guys make of all this. |
Thanks Man... Its good to hear a competent comment come from you... keep up the good work |
|
|
| newr |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kytracid
I've got some intelligent discussion for you, diabolical...do you spit or swallow ??? :D |
Don't put him down... encourage him to make intelligent conversation |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| I am typing a very long and interesting response. Please wait, it should open eyes to many of you. |
|
|
|
|
