Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-29-2009, 06:54 PM #43
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
It just doesn't seem to work that way though in real life. Even if the source of an object is unstable in every way under a microscope, (to me) doesn't prove as being unstable as the end product.

For example, you drop a rubber ball it bounces up. Or, you lay out frozen food it defrosts, regardless.

Of course it doesn't seem to "work that way" in real life. That's why relativity and Newtonian physics can make nearly exact calculations at our level of structural complexity.

I don't think it's any argument that our world (in terms of inanimate objects) is heavily deterministic. For instance if we know all the conditions when I drive off a cliff, we can calculate where I will land, meaning that given a certain set of conditions, I will land in a certain place. Thoughts and actions are a very different story of course.

However, if we're attempting to discover the true nature of reality as deterministic or not, the subatomic world must be unconditionally included. If the matter our world is composed of has a probabilistic existence at the basic level, we must assume that to be the basic nature of reality. What relativity and Newtonian physics give us are very close approximations that I suppose to result from an inverse relationship between structural complexity and probability, or structural complexity and stable existence.


This is not meant to be condescending, but can you please explain Laplace's demon to me just so I know you have it exactly right and we can continue our conversation? Because I'm still sensing some confusion.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 07-29-2009, 08:59 PM #44
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Of course it doesn't seem to "work that way" in real life. That's why relativity and Newtonian physics can make nearly exact calculations at our level of structural complexity.

I don't think it's any argument that our world (in terms of inanimate objects) is heavily deterministic. For instance if we know all the conditions when I drive off a cliff, we can calculate where I will land, meaning that given a certain set of conditions, I will land in a certain place. Thoughts and actions are a very different story of course.

However, if we're attempting to discover the true nature of reality as deterministic or not, the subatomic world must be unconditionally included. If the matter our world is composed of has a probabilistic existence at the basic level, we must assume that to be the basic nature of reality. What relativity and Newtonian physics give us are very close approximations that I suppose to result from an inverse relationship between structural complexity and probability, or structural complexity and stable existence.
I just wanna know what I'm missing right now, because it all seems pretty straight forth at the moment. Bottom line is, YES tiny matter is completely unstable. Large matter (in it's true form) is completely predictable. Now, why is small matter unpredictable, who knows? But, when small matter grows up to be big matter -- the problem is solved, or cancelled out as being really of no value as an end argument. I mean, I understand the very essence of matter being highly controversial, but ONLY at that state, and no where else. Or, is there an experiment out there that will suggest otherwise?

Hopefully you and I are understanding one another...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
This is not meant to be condescending, but can you please explain Laplace's demon to me just so I know you have it exactly right and we can continue our conversation? Because I'm still sensing some confusion.
A possible origin that determines our fate using the past and the present to create the future -- derailing the possibility of, "free-will."
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 02:46 AM #45
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
I just wanna know what I'm missing right now, because it all seems pretty straight forth at the moment. Bottom line is, YES tiny matter is completely unstable. Large matter (in it's true form) is completely predictable. Now, why is small matter unpredictable, who knows? But, when small matter grows up to be big matter -- the problem is solved, or cancelled out as being really of no value as an end argument. I mean, I understand the very essence of matter being highly controversial, but ONLY at that state, and no where else. Or, is there an experiment out there that will suggest otherwise?

Hopefully you and I are understanding one another...



A possible origin that determines our fate using the past and the present to create the future -- derailing the possibility of, "free-will."

The demon is not an "origin" of any sort and it does not "create" the future.

Many scientists believe the quantum way is the way the true world works. Relativity and Newtonian physics - again - are only very close approximations, they cannot be exact. True determinism requires absolute exactness. If not, then where do we draw the line for causation?
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 03:50 AM #46
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
The demon is not an "origin" of any sort and it does not "create" the future.
Create and predict is the same thing when under context. It's technically referred to as an, "intellect" (which is the same thing as an origin, thus why it was given the term later, "demon") using the past and present to determine (create, calculate, reveal, predict, etc. - take your pick) the future within a single given moment. This is all posted two pages back.

I'm pretty sure I get the concept...

Quote:
In the history of science, Laplace's demon is a hypothetical "demon" envisioned in 1814 by Pierre-Simon Laplace such that if it knew the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe then it could use Newton's laws to reveal the entire course of cosmic events, past and future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Many scientists believe the quantum way is the way the true world works. Relativity and Newtonian physics - again - are only very close approximations, they cannot be exact. True determinism requires absolute exactness. If not, then where do we draw the line for causation?
That's true, if the subatomic world isn't predictable then determinism is technically false. However, if the laws of relativity are still rock solid as the end product, and electrons/protons only exist as being unstable (unpredictable) under a microscope, then none of this truly applies. I mean, it's rather difficult to think that physics as we have always known it is flawed. There's just WAY to much that's predictable for it all to be purely random in essence.
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 07-30-2009 at 04:50 AM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 06:33 AM #47
T-Vizz the 2nd
Liberty Or Death
 
T-Vizz the 2nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Didn't Einstine prove some of newtons laws to not be completely true with the theory of relativity?

Though A counter point to my point, It dosn't matter since the new rules could still be just as determined.
__________________
American Politics & Incremental loss of freedom
Republicans: War on drugs, Forcing religion down our throats.
Democrats: War on guns, Forcing Obamacare down our throats.

"A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
T-Vizz the 2nd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 02:02 PM #48
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Create and predict is the same thing when under context. It's technically referred to as an, "intellect" (which is the same thing as an origin, thus why it was given the term later, "demon") using the past and present to determine (create, calculate, reveal, predict, etc. - take your pick) the future within a single given moment. This is all posted two pages back.

I'm pretty sure I get the concept...





That's true, if the subatomic world isn't predictable then determinism is technically false. However, if the laws of relativity are still rock solid as the end product, and electrons/protons only exist as being unstable (unpredictable) under a microscope, then none of this truly applies. I mean, it's rather difficult to think that physics as we have always known it is flawed. There's just WAY to much that's predictable for it all to be purely random in essence.

Yeah you've got the concept, you just used a lot of poor wording back there. Sorry just my opinion.

To bolded: dude, "physics as we have always known it" (relativity) is only like ~90 years old, and some concepts weren't even accepted until very recently.

The ultimate goal is a unified field theory which I'm sure you know, a theory that would explain everything mathematically. Currently it is believed that quantum mechanics plays an absolutely vital role in that goal. String theory is the leading possibility right now.

It's strange that I've been playing devil's advocate this whole thread when I'm actually a determinist. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any exactness in our world. Perhaps it seems like being .000000000000000001 off in a calculation in meaningless, but what it shows is that we live in a 3d/4d world where there are no points or lines, meaning that mathematics cannot truly, accurate, and exactly explain causation.

However, I'll offer another issue that ties into the one we're discussing. Define causation for me. It sort of ceases to make sense the longer you think about it.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 10:01 PM #49
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
To bolded: dude, "physics as we have always known it" (relativity) is only like ~90 years old, and some concepts weren't even accepted until very recently.
Er, yeah, "we." I'm going w/ the assumption that no one in these forums is above 90 yrs of age, or close. Or hell, it's ALL I know, that's for certain. To me, quantum theory is (or would be) like finding out the English language is possibly false

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
The ultimate goal is a unified field theory which I'm sure you know, a theory that would explain everything mathematically. Currently it is believed that quantum mechanics plays an absolutely vital role in that goal. String theory is the leading possibility right now.

It's strange that I've been playing devil's advocate this whole thread when I'm actually a determinist. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any exactness in our world. Perhaps it seems like being .000000000000000001 off in a calculation in meaningless, but what it shows is that we live in a 3d/4d world where there are no points or lines, meaning that mathematics cannot truly, accurate, and exactly explain causation.
Well, what seems rather clear -- is that we have two separate laws taking place today. On one hand, a theory that (in short) is 100% random pertaining to small matter; and on the other hand, a theory that pertains to only large matter. So naturally, we then assume that because the small matter is in fact the bases to what forms the larger matter in-turn -- predictability in the end must indeed be inherently skewed to at least some measurable degree. Alright, I understand the argument, but until I can see the two actually interact w/ one another in any given experiment, (or situation) than I see little reason in jumping to conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
However, I'll offer another issue that ties into the one we're discussing. Define causation for me. It sort of ceases to make sense the longer you think about it.
Causation is simply cause and effect - An act or process that leads to another in sequence, creating an effect. For example: The cause of rain, creates the effect of mud; a law that states that life is merely subsequent in nature.

So yes, to me it still seems to hold as true since the subatomic world has yet to conflict in the every day world?
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 07-30-2009 at 10:03 PM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2009, 02:52 AM #50
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Er, yeah, "we." I'm going w/ the assumption that no one in these forums is above 90 yrs of age, or close. Or hell, it's ALL I know, that's for certain. To me, quantum theory is (or would be) like finding out the English language is possibly false
...The point of that is that ideas about physics have changed fairly recently, so "physics as we've always known it" has changed several times before and can certainly change again.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Causation is simply cause and effect - An act or process that leads to another in sequence, creating an effect. For example: The cause of rain, creates the effect of mud; a law that states that life is merely subsequent in nature.

So yes, to me it still seems to hold as true since the subatomic world has yet to conflict in the every day world?
Are you sure rain causes the mud and it's that simple?

Let's say a man is driving his car through a valley and a boulder falls on his head and kills him. What caused the man to die? Was it gravity, the loose dirt that once held the boulder in place, the rain the night before that loosened the dirt, the fact that he took an extra 3 seconds eating his cereal that morning, slept 5 seconds later, that he ran a stop sign a mile back, kissing his wife before he left his house...?
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2009, 03:42 AM #51
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
.Are you sure rain causes the mud and it's that simple?

Let's say a man is driving his car through a valley and a boulder falls on his head and kills him. What caused the man to die? Was it gravity, the loose dirt that once held the boulder in place, the rain the night before that loosened the dirt, the fact that he took an extra 3 seconds eating his cereal that morning, slept 5 seconds later, that he ran a stop sign a mile back, kissing his wife before he left his house...?
I'm reading the theory of Schrodinger’s Cat. Is this not the best example in which Quantum mechanics is tested on real life matter, even if it wasn't ever officially carried out?

But, yes, as of right now I don't believe microscopic particles effect reality. Is it that simple? No. But, the laws of relativity make the most sense in what is ultimately determined.

*edit*

And btw, I'm assuming LIGHT has been ruled out in which constitutes ones ability to, "observe" right?
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 07-31-2009 at 04:12 AM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2009, 01:55 PM #52
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
I'm reading the theory of Schrodinger’s Cat. Is this not the best example in which Quantum mechanics is tested on real life matter, even if it wasn't ever officially carried out?

But, yes, as of right now I don't believe microscopic particles effect reality. Is it that simple? No. But, the laws of relativity make the most sense in what is ultimately determined.

*edit*

And btw, I'm assuming LIGHT has been ruled out in which constitutes ones ability to, "observe" right?

From Wiki: "Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question, when does a quantum system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other? (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begins to have a unique classical description?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The purpose of the thought experiment is to illustrate this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states; yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?"

This seems to support the many worlds intepretation as I believe it shows a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation.

We're starting to get into stuff that I have a really hard time understanding.


edit: Ok I think I figured out how to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics on our macro-scale. Everything in our world is not actually solid as we believe it to be, but is, objectively, a mass of probability waves (elementary particles). It is only when matter is observed that it collapses into the structures we see.

Last edited by Flying_Dutchman : 07-31-2009 at 02:05 PM.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2009, 12:28 AM #53
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
From Wiki: "Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question, when does a quantum system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other? (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begins to have a unique classical description?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The purpose of the thought experiment is to illustrate this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states; yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?"
I wish there was a video on this, (a made up one) because my vocabulary isn't fully understanding what this concept is addressing at length. What initially caught my interest was how the cat would both br DEAD AND ALIVE simultaneously after having triggered the decay on the electron releasing the poisonous gas. Anyways, decay would have to be solid matter though right? So, if the decay did in fact trigger the electron my question on solid matter would be answered?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
edit: Ok I think I figured out how to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics on our macro-scale. Everything in our world is not actually solid as we believe it to be, but is, objectively, a mass of probability waves (elementary particles). It is only when matter is observed that it collapses into the structures we see.
So, (in theory) if we were to bounce a rubber ball -- it would then interfere w/ itself if done so w/ out observation?
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 08-01-2009 at 05:14 AM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump