Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does randomness exist?

Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 1:56:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.

I think random is a statement of ignorance, and knowledge of a "true" random is unattainable.

As an example, if you roll a die, it appears to be random. However, is that die not obeying the natural laws of the universe as it tumbles about? If you have a supercomputer that would perform all of the physics calculations based on how you were about to drop the die and gave you the result, is the roll still random? Knowledge is what dispels the notion of random.

If we call something random, we are essentially saying that the cause is unknown or undetermined. To call something truly random is to declare that there is no cause, which would require complete knowledge. After all, there could always be some underlying cause to something we perceive as random (such as quantum fluctuations) that we might discover later, or even never discover.
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 2:19:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Based on what we know atm, randomness occurs at the atomic level. For instance, you can never tell which atom of radioactive material is about to go pop. Whether quantum physics is the final explanation is unknown, but it's the best we have and works very well on small scales.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:13:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 1:56:34 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.

I think random is a statement of ignorance, and knowledge of a "true" random is unattainable.

As an example, if you roll a die, it appears to be random. However, is that die not obeying the natural laws of the universe as it tumbles about? If you have a supercomputer that would perform all of the physics calculations based on how you were about to drop the die and gave you the result, is the roll still random? Knowledge is what dispels the notion of random.

If we call something random, we are essentially saying that the cause is unknown or undetermined. To call something truly random is to declare that there is no cause, which would require complete knowledge. After all, there could always be some underlying cause to something we perceive as random (such as quantum fluctuations) that we might discover later, or even never discover.

All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:23:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:13:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:56:34 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.

I think random is a statement of ignorance, and knowledge of a "true" random is unattainable.

As an example, if you roll a die, it appears to be random. However, is that die not obeying the natural laws of the universe as it tumbles about? If you have a supercomputer that would perform all of the physics calculations based on how you were about to drop the die and gave you the result, is the roll still random? Knowledge is what dispels the notion of random.

If we call something random, we are essentially saying that the cause is unknown or undetermined. To call something truly random is to declare that there is no cause, which would require complete knowledge. After all, there could always be some underlying cause to something we perceive as random (such as quantum fluctuations) that we might discover later, or even never discover.

All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Granting that, isn't that limited to those particular interpretations? As I understand it, quantum mechanics rails against our intuitive inclinations regarding how the universe operates; is this off-base? So, how can we determine that there isn't *some* cause that we haven't considered or imagined, or perhaps even one that we cannot currently conceive of?
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:52:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 2:19:55 PM, Daedal wrote:
Based on what we know atm, randomness occurs at the atomic level. For instance, you can never tell which atom of radioactive material is about to go pop. Whether quantum physics is the final explanation is unknown, but it's the best we have and works very well on small scales.

That's not randomness, only uncertainty.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:53:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:13:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:56:34 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.

I think random is a statement of ignorance, and knowledge of a "true" random is unattainable.

As an example, if you roll a die, it appears to be random. However, is that die not obeying the natural laws of the universe as it tumbles about? If you have a supercomputer that would perform all of the physics calculations based on how you were about to drop the die and gave you the result, is the roll still random? Knowledge is what dispels the notion of random.

If we call something random, we are essentially saying that the cause is unknown or undetermined. To call something truly random is to declare that there is no cause, which would require complete knowledge. After all, there could always be some underlying cause to something we perceive as random (such as quantum fluctuations) that we might discover later, or even never discover.

All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:04:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?

What's the problem? Scared of finding out that God doesn't actually play dice with the universe? Einstein could actually be right after all.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:06:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:04:58 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?

What's the problem? Scared of finding out that God doesn't actually play dice with the universe? Einstein could actually be right after all.

Wtf is superdeterminism and what does QM have to do with free will?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:12:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:06:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:04:58 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?

What's the problem? Scared of finding out that God doesn't actually play dice with the universe? Einstein could actually be right after all.

Wtf is superdeterminism and what does QM have to do with free will?

Didn't we just have a whole thread about that?

Ok, then I'll explain it again. Bell's theorem, the theorem that rules out hidden variable theories of QM, assumes that free will exists. Superdeterminism is a hidden variable theory that does not assume free will, in order to avoid Bell's theorem. In it, an observer has no free will in even choosing how to perform an experiment, because the entire universe is predetermined from the initial conditions of the universe. There's no spooky action at a distance or infinite speed of gravity or anything like that, because everything in the universe already "knows" where everything else in the universe is.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:19:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:23:15 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:13:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:56:34 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.

I think random is a statement of ignorance, and knowledge of a "true" random is unattainable.

As an example, if you roll a die, it appears to be random. However, is that die not obeying the natural laws of the universe as it tumbles about? If you have a supercomputer that would perform all of the physics calculations based on how you were about to drop the die and gave you the result, is the roll still random? Knowledge is what dispels the notion of random.

If we call something random, we are essentially saying that the cause is unknown or undetermined. To call something truly random is to declare that there is no cause, which would require complete knowledge. After all, there could always be some underlying cause to something we perceive as random (such as quantum fluctuations) that we might discover later, or even never discover.

All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Granting that, isn't that limited to those particular interpretations? As I understand it, quantum mechanics rails against our intuitive inclinations regarding how the universe operates; is this off-base? So, how can we determine that there isn't *some* cause that we haven't considered or imagined, or perhaps even one that we cannot currently conceive of?

Your argument as I understand it is that QM is not a complete theory as there might be hidden variables (that would turn it into a deterministic theory).

John Bell demonstrated that no local and realistic theory can agree with QM.

What do these terms mean?
A theory is local if events only affect their immediate surroundings, that is, causality does not "travel" faster than the speed of light.
A theory is realistic if measurements only read of the object's preexisting properties and do not affect said properties themself, or in other words if the result of any imaginabe measurement is definite even in case we don't know it because we don't know about some hidden variables.

Since relativity is well established AND local, we have to say goodbye to realism and with it hidden variables.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:22:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:12:41 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:06:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:04:58 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?

What's the problem? Scared of finding out that God doesn't actually play dice with the universe? Einstein could actually be right after all.

Wtf is superdeterminism and what does QM have to do with free will?

Didn't we just have a whole thread about that?

Ok, then I'll explain it again. Bell's theorem, the theorem that rules out hidden variable theories of QM, assumes that free will exists.
Where did you get that from?

Superdeterminism is a hidden variable theory that does not assume free will, in order to avoid Bell's theorem. In it, an observer has no free will in even choosing how to perform an experiment, because the entire universe is predetermined from the initial conditions of the universe.
And what exactly does not being able to choose how to do something have to do with quantum mechanics?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:24:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:22:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:12:41 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:06:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:04:58 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?

What's the problem? Scared of finding out that God doesn't actually play dice with the universe? Einstein could actually be right after all.

Wtf is superdeterminism and what does QM have to do with free will?

Didn't we just have a whole thread about that?

Ok, then I'll explain it again. Bell's theorem, the theorem that rules out hidden variable theories of QM, assumes that free will exists.
Where did you get that from?

Superdeterminism is a hidden variable theory that does not assume free will, in order to avoid Bell's theorem. In it, an observer has no free will in even choosing how to perform an experiment, because the entire universe is predetermined from the initial conditions of the universe.
And what exactly does not being able to choose how to do something have to do with quantum mechanics?

It has everything to do with Bell's theorem.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:26:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Bell's theorem cannot "debunk" this hidden variable theory, because there is no assumption of free will.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:33:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:24:17 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:22:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:12:41 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:06:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:04:58 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?

What's the problem? Scared of finding out that God doesn't actually play dice with the universe? Einstein could actually be right after all.

Wtf is superdeterminism and what does QM have to do with free will?

Didn't we just have a whole thread about that?

Ok, then I'll explain it again. Bell's theorem, the theorem that rules out hidden variable theories of QM, assumes that free will exists.
Where did you get that from?

Superdeterminism is a hidden variable theory that does not assume free will, in order to avoid Bell's theorem. In it, an observer has no free will in even choosing how to perform an experiment, because the entire universe is predetermined from the initial conditions of the universe.
And what exactly does not being able to choose how to do something have to do with quantum mechanics?

It has everything to do with Bell's theorem.

Quality comedy.

Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:41:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:33:41 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:17 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:22:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:12:41 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:06:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:04:58 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?

What's the problem? Scared of finding out that God doesn't actually play dice with the universe? Einstein could actually be right after all.

Wtf is superdeterminism and what does QM have to do with free will?

Didn't we just have a whole thread about that?

Ok, then I'll explain it again. Bell's theorem, the theorem that rules out hidden variable theories of QM, assumes that free will exists.
Where did you get that from?

Superdeterminism is a hidden variable theory that does not assume free will, in order to avoid Bell's theorem. In it, an observer has no free will in even choosing how to perform an experiment, because the entire universe is predetermined from the initial conditions of the universe.
And what exactly does not being able to choose how to do something have to do with quantum mechanics?

It has everything to do with Bell's theorem.

Quality comedy.

Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:48:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.

You're 19? You're nothing. You don't know anything other than what other people told you. You don't know how to think for yourself.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:52:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:48:25 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.

You're 19? You're nothing. You don't know anything other than what other people told you. You don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm actually interested in following this exchange if you're willing to discuss it without dismissing Fkkize via Ad Hominem.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:58:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:52:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:48:25 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.

You're 19? You're nothing. You don't know anything other than what other people told you. You don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm actually interested in following this exchange if you're willing to discuss it without dismissing Fkkize via Ad Hominem.

That's the whole problem with science nowadays. These kids think they can just memorize an equation and become brilliant scientists that way. They don't know how to question the underlying assumptions.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:59:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:19:28 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:23:15 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:13:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:56:34 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.

I think random is a statement of ignorance, and knowledge of a "true" random is unattainable.

As an example, if you roll a die, it appears to be random. However, is that die not obeying the natural laws of the universe as it tumbles about? If you have a supercomputer that would perform all of the physics calculations based on how you were about to drop the die and gave you the result, is the roll still random? Knowledge is what dispels the notion of random.

If we call something random, we are essentially saying that the cause is unknown or undetermined. To call something truly random is to declare that there is no cause, which would require complete knowledge. After all, there could always be some underlying cause to something we perceive as random (such as quantum fluctuations) that we might discover later, or even never discover.

All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Granting that, isn't that limited to those particular interpretations? As I understand it, quantum mechanics rails against our intuitive inclinations regarding how the universe operates; is this off-base? So, how can we determine that there isn't *some* cause that we haven't considered or imagined, or perhaps even one that we cannot currently conceive of?

Your argument as I understand it is that QM is not a complete theory as there might be hidden variables (that would turn it into a deterministic theory).

John Bell demonstrated that no local and realistic theory can agree with QM.

What do these terms mean?
A theory is local if events only affect their immediate surroundings, that is, causality does not "travel" faster than the speed of light.
A theory is realistic if measurements only read of the object's preexisting properties and do not affect said properties themself, or in other words if the result of any imaginabe measurement is definite even in case we don't know it because we don't know about some hidden variables.

Since relativity is well established AND local, we have to say goodbye to realism and with it hidden variables.

Thanks for that. But I've read, "Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables)" (taken from Wiki). I don't have enough personal familiarity with this to hold a decent conversation, but I did note the mention of Superdeterminism in this thread.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:59:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:48:25 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.

You're 19? You're nothing. You don't know anything other than what other people told you. You don't know how to think for yourself.

LOL At least I know what the Schrodigner equation, the fundamental equation of quantum mechanics, is and recognize it when someone spells it out for me instead of lecturing people about stuff I know jack about.
You believe you can think for yourself and don't just rely on what others told you, but you make claims about a theory you don't understand in the slighest and rely solely on what others wrote to "support" your claims. Hilarious.
So if I'm nothing, what are you?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:04:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:58:06 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:52:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:48:25 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.

You're 19? You're nothing. You don't know anything other than what other people told you. You don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm actually interested in following this exchange if you're willing to discuss it without dismissing Fkkize via Ad Hominem.

That's the whole problem with science nowadays. These kids think they can just memorize an equation and become brilliant scientists that way. They don't know how to question the underlying assumptions.

That shows how little you know about studying physics. Memorizing gets you nowhere. You are allowed to bring a collection of whatever formulas you like to almost all exams, no memorizing required.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:04:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:59:04 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:19:28 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:23:15 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:13:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:56:34 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.

I think random is a statement of ignorance, and knowledge of a "true" random is unattainable.

As an example, if you roll a die, it appears to be random. However, is that die not obeying the natural laws of the universe as it tumbles about? If you have a supercomputer that would perform all of the physics calculations based on how you were about to drop the die and gave you the result, is the roll still random? Knowledge is what dispels the notion of random.

If we call something random, we are essentially saying that the cause is unknown or undetermined. To call something truly random is to declare that there is no cause, which would require complete knowledge. After all, there could always be some underlying cause to something we perceive as random (such as quantum fluctuations) that we might discover later, or even never discover.

All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Granting that, isn't that limited to those particular interpretations? As I understand it, quantum mechanics rails against our intuitive inclinations regarding how the universe operates; is this off-base? So, how can we determine that there isn't *some* cause that we haven't considered or imagined, or perhaps even one that we cannot currently conceive of?

Your argument as I understand it is that QM is not a complete theory as there might be hidden variables (that would turn it into a deterministic theory).

John Bell demonstrated that no local and realistic theory can agree with QM.

What do these terms mean?
A theory is local if events only affect their immediate surroundings, that is, causality does not "travel" faster than the speed of light.
A theory is realistic if measurements only read of the object's preexisting properties and do not affect said properties themself, or in other words if the result of any imaginabe measurement is definite even in case we don't know it because we don't know about some hidden variables.

Since relativity is well established AND local, we have to say goodbye to realism and with it hidden variables.

Thanks for that. But I've read, "Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables)" (taken from Wiki). I don't have enough personal familiarity with this to hold a decent conversation, but I did note the mention of Superdeterminism in this thread.

Well, I guess that means that hidden variable theories aren't actually debunked like Fkkize says. What? Fkkize is wrong? No way.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:05:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 5:04:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:58:06 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:52:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:48:25 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.

You're 19? You're nothing. You don't know anything other than what other people told you. You don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm actually interested in following this exchange if you're willing to discuss it without dismissing Fkkize via Ad Hominem.

That's the whole problem with science nowadays. These kids think they can just memorize an equation and become brilliant scientists that way. They don't know how to question the underlying assumptions.

That shows how little you know about studying physics. Memorizing gets you nowhere. You are allowed to bring a collection of whatever formulas you like to almost all exams, no memorizing required.

You think physics is about formulas. That's the problem. It's not. The formulas are only there as a "best fit" to empirical observations.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:11:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:06:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:04:58 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:55:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Except for superdeterminism, in which it is not assumed that free will exists. It bypasses Bell's theorem that way.

What the actual fvck?

What's the problem? Scared of finding out that God doesn't actually play dice with the universe? Einstein could actually be right after all.

Wtf is superdeterminism and what does QM have to do with free will?

"In the 1980s, John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

Although he acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible. Even if the measurements performed are chosen by deterministic random number generators, the choices can be assumed to be "effectively free for the purpose at hand," because the machine's choice is altered by a large number of very small effects. It is unlikely for the hidden variable to be sensitive to all of the same small influences that the random number generator was."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:15:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 5:05:44 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 5:04:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:58:06 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:52:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:48:25 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.

You're 19? You're nothing. You don't know anything other than what other people told you. You don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm actually interested in following this exchange if you're willing to discuss it without dismissing Fkkize via Ad Hominem.

That's the whole problem with science nowadays. These kids think they can just memorize an equation and become brilliant scientists that way. They don't know how to question the underlying assumptions.

That shows how little you know about studying physics. Memorizing gets you nowhere. You are allowed to bring a collection of whatever formulas you like to almost all exams, no memorizing required.

You think physics is about formulas. That's the problem. It's not. The formulas are only there as a "best fit" to empirical observations.

Well then I would ask you to, say, reformulate the Maxwell-Boltzman velocity distribution without any formulas and mathematics.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:16:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:19:28 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:23:15 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:13:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:56:34 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 1:27:56 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
Does it?

Is anything truly random or are there billions of factors and variables that are logical causing a logical outcome?

Also take into account subatomic particles.

I think random is a statement of ignorance, and knowledge of a "true" random is unattainable.

As an example, if you roll a die, it appears to be random. However, is that die not obeying the natural laws of the universe as it tumbles about? If you have a supercomputer that would perform all of the physics calculations based on how you were about to drop the die and gave you the result, is the roll still random? Knowledge is what dispels the notion of random.

If we call something random, we are essentially saying that the cause is unknown or undetermined. To call something truly random is to declare that there is no cause, which would require complete knowledge. After all, there could always be some underlying cause to something we perceive as random (such as quantum fluctuations) that we might discover later, or even never discover.

All hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much debunked.

Granting that, isn't that limited to those particular interpretations? As I understand it, quantum mechanics rails against our intuitive inclinations regarding how the universe operates; is this off-base? So, how can we determine that there isn't *some* cause that we haven't considered or imagined, or perhaps even one that we cannot currently conceive of?

Your argument as I understand it is that QM is not a complete theory as there might be hidden variables (that would turn it into a deterministic theory).

John Bell demonstrated that no local and realistic theory can agree with QM.

What do these terms mean?
A theory is local if events only affect their immediate surroundings, that is, causality does not "travel" faster than the speed of light.
A theory is realistic if measurements only read of the object's preexisting properties and do not affect said properties themself, or in other words if the result of any imaginabe measurement is definite even in case we don't know it because we don't know about some hidden variables.

Since relativity is well established AND local, we have to say goodbye to realism and with it hidden variables.

Relatively is a local theory, but who said it's a complete description? Isn't fast-than-light transmission of information widely accepted nowadays, owing to the findings having to do with quantum entanglement?
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:28:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 5:15:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 5:05:44 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 5:04:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:58:06 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:52:00 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:48:25 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:46:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Tell me, what does this mean:

-(h^2/4*Pi*m) * d^2/dx^2 * d^2/dy^2 * d^2/dz^2 * F(r,t) + V(r,t) * F(r,t) = ih/(2*Pi) * d/dt * F(r,t)

It means you should learn how to think, instead of memorizing a formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't understand the above equation, then you are not in a position to lecture anyone on quantum physics and how to interpret it.

You're 19? You're nothing. You don't know anything other than what other people told you. You don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm actually interested in following this exchange if you're willing to discuss it without dismissing Fkkize via Ad Hominem.

That's the whole problem with science nowadays. These kids think they can just memorize an equation and become brilliant scientists that way. They don't know how to question the underlying assumptions.

That shows how little you know about studying physics. Memorizing gets you nowhere. You are allowed to bring a collection of whatever formulas you like to almost all exams, no memorizing required.

You think physics is about formulas. That's the problem. It's not. The formulas are only there as a "best fit" to empirical observations.

Well then I would ask you to, say, reformulate the Maxwell-Boltzman velocity distribution without any formulas and mathematics.

If that can't be done, then it is worthless. Science is supposed to be repeatable. Mathematics itself is variable, because you can use whatever axioms you want as long as they don't contradict each other. And even better, it's impossible to even prove that the axioms don't contradict each other (if your system defined by your axioms is complex enough). Mathematics proves nothing, absolutely nothing, about the physical world. If you want an example, take Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry is a set of conclusions that are consistent with axioms called Euclid's postulates. By changing one of those postulates, one can derive hyperbolic geometry. Some statements true in Euclidean geometry are false in hyperbolic geometry and vice versa.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."